Question about sitters and account sabotage.

    Yesterday I had a sitter send my troops to an oasis, and they were killed 3 minutes later by a siege attack.


    My sitter recently left my alliance before this incident without me knowing. The report was read by the sitter (so it took me a few minutes to realise where my troops went) and they removed themselves as my sitter before I even had the chance to do so. The person who sieged and killed my troops is in the same alliance my sitter recently changed to.


    What is the punishment/compensation for intentional account sabotage?


    I will edit this post with facts regarding timings etc. When I am not on mobile.

    I'm sorry for what happened to you, this is the relevant game rule:

    Quote

    §2.1 Each account owner can assign one or more sitters, who can play their avatar during the account owner's absence. Sitters must play the assigned avatar according to that avatar's best interest. Misuse of this feature can be punished. Sitters of an avatar can log into the avatar using the login information of their own account.
    Travian Games is not liable for damage done by a sitter and no compensation will be given. The account owner is fully responsible for any actions taken by sitters. If a sitter acts in violation of Travian Games' general terms and conditions, both the account/avatar owner, as well as the sitter may be punished.


    Remove him as sitter and be more careful next time :/

    Railgunz,


    I'd still log a ticket with Support or the Multihunter. I'm sorry, but I'd suggest that the sitter leaving alliance, sending your troops to an oasis to be hit by a siege by a team member from his new alliance is a clear violation of 2.1


    While the rule clearly states that you won't get any compensation, I'd expect there to be some sort of formal retribution from TK towards your sitter - they're the ones breaching that rule, not you. And TK has to start taking a stand on this sort of behaviour to ensure that it isn't encouraged via a failure to act by those entrusted with enforcing the rules.

    This kind of behavior should indeed carry penalties. Unfortunately, I have known it to happen several times before. An alliance leader a few years back decided to sitter check those she wanted to boot for the sole purpose of suiciding their troops. She got away with it. It happens.


    I don't like having sitters, but when neither my dual nor I can be around I have to depend on a team mate to sit my account like everyone else. All I can advise is to report the sitter - the attacker was complicit but probably not in violation - then be sure anyone who sits your account in future is worthy of your trust, then ask your team to help you remove both the sitter and the attacker who worked with him from the map.

    Hello,
    Unfortunately we cannot compensate you for what your ex-sitter did, but if you could send me/submit a ticket with detailed information about the case including the battle report, I'll make sure he doesn't get away with it. Such behavior is unacceptable and sadly we can't prevent situations like this from happening, but we'll always react appropriately.


    Best regards
    Georgi

    Quote from Mayo

    Yeah, VVV got a point, even though you won't get compensation for this, you might get something against him. Although I would just show him to not mess with you in game, which would be much more honorable than what he did.


    Mayo,


    I don't disagree with you. But I've also heard of, and seen directly, too many occasions where this has happened where the sittee has no hope of retribution against the sitter. You know the style, self serving alliance "leaders" who insist on sitter checks, decide once they've looked at the account that it's not up to standard, send all the troops away to splat on their enemies then farm. And it's usually against a smaller player, from a smaller alliance. Whilst RailGunz may well have the means to extract his own retribution - and if so, I really think that should be a path he explores - I'm really glad to see the likes of Georgi also step in and make it clear that TK will take a stand on this, for all the little guys who need the game admins to step in when the heroes of internet war gaming get ahead of themselves...

    Edited once, last by VVV: Grammatical mistake ().

    I would have to agree about turning the sitter in. That kind of behavior will not change till they know that punitive action will be taken against them for violating the trust.


    As long as TG follows up and delivers punishment to a rogue sitter then in time it will become known that if you sit and trash someones account, you as the sitter will be held accountable.


    This can't happen unless you turn them in. There is no dishonor in doing it that way. The only one dishonorable is that sitter and only you have the power to change how players like that operate.

    Quote from VVV

    Mayo,


    I don't disagree with you. But I've also heard of, and seen directly, too many occasions where this has happened where the sittee has no hope of retribution against the sitter. You know the style, self serving alliance "leaders" who insist on sitter checks, decide once they've looked at the account that it's not up to standard, send all the troops away to splat on their enemies then farm. And it's usually against a smaller player, from a smaller alliance. Whilst RailGunz may well have the means to extract his own retribution - and if so, I really think that should be a path he explores - I'm really glad to see the likes of Georgi also step in and make it clear that TK will take a stand on this, for all the little guys who need the game admins to step in when the heroes of internet war gaming get ahead of themselves...


    I absolutely agree, this kind of behaviour should be punished and the consequences of such behaviour should be known publicly. Your point on sitter check from alliance leader is true but it became more or less mandatory on TK. Too easy to be a spy and to backstab alliances.. Although doing sitters check is barely relevant on this matter, it's still useful sometimes.
    What I meant basically was that I would find much more rewarding, at least for me, to show him that such cheap trick won't make him a good player in game. Obviously we should shelter people from the few people who do this and I'm sure the developper/admin team will find a punishement for this guy that everyone will remember.


    @50C: There is no dishonor to report him and to get him punished you are right, and you should do it in order to prevent other people from doing it but I feel like showing him who's the best player. To be honest it's even kind of sad for someone to do something like this (sieging a guy you sit in order to kill his troops).. I mean you must really be desperate to do it, there will be obviously consequences..

    The discussions have definitely been an interesting read, and I'll write up a detailed ticket today mentioning everything that happened - including reports, travel times, and the likes.


    Thanks for the support.


    The attacker claims to not have had any communication with my ex-sitter, and was using over 7k clubs, hero, and a ram to siege to clear out 50 praetorians he found in an earlier scout report of the oasis. But the timing is too good for me to believe him.


    My ex-sitter has not read my messages since the incident, and is either ignoring me or has not logged in since then. I haven't been checking up on the population.

    If anyone's interested, I've written up a summary of events that took place, with names redacted. I sent a full report to support, including names and more detailed information including coordinates, screenshots, launch times, travel times, land times, and whatnot.


    ---



    Summary of events (21/05/2016):



    19:15:17 - ==SITTER== sends my first wave of reinforcements (all pathfinders, TT, haeds, and rams) to the oasis, they will arrive at 19:59:00.
    19:16:51 - ==ATTACKER== scouts the oasis, possibly to see for any other troops that could damage his Club siege. 50 Praetorians, no problem.
    19:40:52 - ==ATTACKER== sends his siege to the oasis, they will land at 20:02:04.
    20:02:04 - The attack lands, killing all troops from the first reinforcement wave.
    20:02:05-20:06:32 - ==SITTER== reads the red shield report.
    20:06:33 - ==SITTER== sends the second wave of reinforcements (all swords, druids, cats) to the oasis, they will arrive at 21:04:51.
    20:34:xx - I am online and ask ==SITTER== why they are reinforcing an oasis I'm not even using.
    20:36:xx - I realise what's going on and lose my cool in chats with both ==SITTER== and ==ATTACKER==. This may have scared ==ATTACKER== into not attacking again, but I don't know if he attacked the oasis a second time since I removed all of my troops as soon as they landed. ==SITTER== has still not read my messages, nearly 3 days later. They had removed themselves as my sitter before I had the chance to remove them myself.
    21:04:51 - The second wave arrives at the oasis, and I withdraw it as quickly as possible.


    ---


    I wish I'd left a single Sword behind so I could have seen any further attacks intending to take out the whole second reinforcement wave. But I'm sure the admins will be able to see the full picture.


    Either way, I'm convinced both my ex-sitter and this attacker both had malicious intent to ruin my troop count. Splitting my army into easier to handle waves was their mistake, assuming I wouldn't come online to catch the second. They would have killed everything albeit at the cost of more clubs if they sent all my troops at once. Unfortunately the first wave still had the most troops in number and cost, so I'm still pretty pissed off with the whole thing.

    Yeah, that timing is dodgy as all hell... I don't really buy it. Out of interest, which server is this on? comx?


    Oh, and Mayo - don't get me wrong, I agree sitter checks are necessary. That's why this sort of behaviour has to be ended, both by players taking retribution, and the admins handing out hefty punishment. It makes life impossible for leaders if no-one can trust them for a sitter check. And makes it so much more difficult for new players to get into alliances if sitter checks are abused, or fall by the wayside because of this behaviour.

    Good news, the ex-sitter is now undergoing punishment. The attacker hasn't received punishment as far as I'm aware, but I don't think he was in violation of any rules as he had no access to my account.
    I don't know what the ex-sitter's punishmet is exactly aside from a ban, but I'm satisfied. Thanks for listening, TK team.


    I hope this serves as a warning to anyone who intends to do similar things in the future.