[CC2] - LoW (24-17) OSA (of 41) - Final

[the.killing.44]

Sure, do it, you'll lose either way
And try calling me a cheater in my face, I'll gladly give you an option where we can meet.

You want to get personal VJ??? ill tell you right now give me a call if you can make it to the Lincoln Nebraska area and i will take care of making sure we can meet up. just give me a call... here is my # : 402-730-2762

hahaha, I fucking love you rep.

[Leehar]

Seriously stahr, you're not really the first person to have issues when organizing a clan war, but I doubt the way you've been seemingly arguing incessantly is helping your case much.
I don't even see why you're even airing your dirty laundry in public, if you have so much issue with how osa has approached this match-up then do so by pm, but to raise such a stink in the challenge thread really seems to be in bad taste, specially with this basically starting from a fairly harmless comment by vj (at least to my pov, you obviously didn't see it that way)

Finallly, I don't know why I'm mentioning this, but you really need to look at the spirit of how this is being played. Benga and the others made a good point of this being for fun, and most of the rules are there to make this a more enjoyable experience, this situation isn't really make it as such. You're being such a stickler for rules that aren't really even set in stone, the fog rule was obviously decided between you two, and even the quads/larger maps/tiebreaker game was all given under advisement by chuck - it wasn't a req. Osa have seemed to have adhered to the spirit of it for the most part -they are obv. new to the clan world and are just trying to get by (which is why perhaps they accepted the fog rule when it came from you as a more top-flight clan, perhaps next time they won't try as hard to be accommodating if they don't need to, the same could be said for wanting to bring the tiebreaker in later). You obviously have an issue with them either reneging on some agreements or similar, but how you brought in forfeits to the table is beyond me. The case you referred to had the penalty for breaking the 'rule' decided beforehand, and even then the application of it was looked down upon, I really doubt a similar scenario could occur here.

Also, coming back to that fog rule, did anyone read that topic lms made in GD? I suppose this is just more food for thought in that discussion - specially looking at it from the objective viewpoint Eyestone mentioned

[stahrgazer]

Seriously stahr, you're not really the first person to have issues when organizing a clan war, but I doubt the way you've been seemingly arguing incessantly is helping your case much.
I don't even see why you're even airing your dirty laundry in public, if you have so much issue with how osa has approached this match-up then do so by pm, but to raise such a stink in the challenge thread really seems to be in bad taste, specially with this basically starting from a fairly harmless comment by vj (at least to my pov, you obviously didn't see it that way)

Finallly, I don't know why I'm mentioning this, but you really need to look at the spirit of how this is being played. Benga and the others made a good point of this being for fun, and most of the rules are there to make this a more enjoyable experience, this situation isn't really make it as such. You're being such a stickler for rules that aren't really even set in stone, the fog rule was obviously decided between you two, and even the quads/larger maps/tiebreaker game was all given under advisement by chuck - it wasn't a req. Osa have seemed to have adhered to the spirit of it for the most part -they are obv. new to the clan world and are just trying to get by (which is why perhaps they accepted the fog rule when it came from you as a more top-flight clan, perhaps next time they won't try as hard to be accommodating if they don't need to, the same could be said for wanting to bring the tiebreaker in later). You obviously have an issue with them either reneging on some agreements or similar, but how you brought in forfeits to the table is beyond me. The case you referred to had the penalty for breaking the 'rule' decided beforehand, and even then the application of it was looked down upon, I really doubt a similar scenario could occur here.

Also, coming back to that fog rule, did anyone read that topic lms made in GD? I suppose this is just more food for thought in that discussion - specially looking at it from the objective viewpoint Eyestone mentioned

If rules and pre-agreements and repeated violations don't matter, Leehar, then why does Chuuuuck start with rules?

No, OSA did not comply with "the spirit" of things... not when at THEIR request, LoW re-arranged its lineup, prior to games starting.

Then, at their whim, OSA decided to re-rearrange the new lineup differently than what we'd agreed.

As for airing disputes about the challenge in the challenge thread.. um.. it was okay when I posted the agreed-upon things in the thread, but it's NOT okay to post when someone violated it?

If "breaking term of agreement" isn't grounds for disqualification, why did one clan get disqualified from a tourney simply because one member joined one extra game? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm????????

Besides, we didn't grouse over the first several violations. It's the repetitive uncaring nature of OSA's violations that are grounds for their dismissal.

In other words, Leehar, which rules is it okay for OSA to repetitively dismiss on their whim, and which rules is it NOT okay for them to repetitively dismiss on their whim?

Isn't that what "making agreements before game starts" is designed to uncover?

p.s. why is the 'dirty laundry' aired in public? vj requested information on OSA's other violations. I provided it.
p.p.s. My suggestion for 12-hour rule on fog was, "do you want a 12-hour fog of war rule?" They said yes. I did some real bad arm-twisting with the question, huh?

As for the games and such, it became rules of engagement when OSA REQUESTED LOW CHANGE ITS LINEUP and LoW did. For LoW to agree to OSA's request, then OSA to violate that, is a bit beyond the realm of normal.

But let me ask you again, Leehar.
Would it be okay for LoW to send a Manual game? Would it be okay for LoW to have the same 4 people join every trips and quad? Would it be okay for LoW to send two of the same quads games? No? Why? Because it was pre-designated rules, right?

So, again, Leehar, which rules do you, personally, think it's okay to violate and which rules do you, personally, think it's NOT okay to violate? How many repetitive violations of a rule do you, personally, think is okay?

I decided three violations of one rule and two violations of two other different rules, exceeded the limit of tolerance for any clan; and most, if not all, of the Legends of War, agree that OSA exceeded the limit of tolerance.

As for the vj comments? People have been given vacations for less bait/flaming, so it rather depends on which mod is looking, right? How far do you, personally, think is okay?

[Namor]

This is all getting way out of hand, please can both clans take a breather and think it through.

Regarding the 12 hr Fog rule; I don't know how it was worded, but I doubt it was agreed that any game that was violated should be forfeited (at least I should hope it wasn't).

We usually offer this, which ought to be adequate;

If the last team to join a FOGGY game also gets the first turn, then they shall wait a full 12 hours before starting the game. In order that the other team can get a snapshot. Should that team accidentally miss this agreement, then they will give all relevant information to their opponents in the game chat. e.g. territories taken during the first turn and the owners of any other territory throw into the fog as a result.

This need not apply in any game such as Poland, Feudal, AoR, Woodboro etc. that don’t have opposing teams on each others borders.

Once the second team have their snap, they will announce it in the chat, so that the game can commence.

If the rule wasn't made absolutely clear to OSA, then as a new clan, I can understand them making a mistake. But they are only gaining an advantage from that mistake, if they refuse to give LoW all of the relevant information.

[Leehar]

If rules and pre-agreements and repeated violations don't matter, Leehar, then why does Chuuuuck start with rules?

No, OSA did not comply with "the spirit" of things... not when at THEIR request, LoW re-arranged its lineup, prior to games starting.

Then, at their whim, OSA decided to re-rearrange the new lineup differently than what we'd agreed.

As for airing disputes about the challenge in the challenge thread.. um.. it was okay when I posted the agreed-upon things in the thread, but it's NOT okay to post when someone violated it?

If "breaking term of agreement" isn't grounds for disqualification, why did one clan get disqualified from a tourney simply because one member joined one extra game? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm????????

Besides, we didn't grouse over the first several violations. It's the repetitive uncaring nature of OSA's violations that are grounds for their dismissal.

In other words, Leehar, which rules is it okay for OSA to repetitively dismiss on their whim, and which rules is it NOT okay for them to repetitively dismiss on their whim?

Isn't that what "making agreements before game starts" is designed to uncover?

p.s. why is the 'dirty laundry' aired in public? vj requested information on OSA's other violations. I provided it.

I didn't say they didn't matter, but if you look at benga's comment earlier, 5 clans(including yours) entered the Cup after sign-ups were closed, does that mean they shouldn't have competed? I doubt it, because rules aren't always the be all and end all. Nobody's saying rules should be willfully disregarded, but I don't really see that happening to the extent you're trying to indicate? The initial fog offense was a simple mistake for people perhaps using it for the first time, the other instances where there wasn't a material difference are debatable I guess. The only other supposed violation I see with regards to lineups is the tiebreaker which I mentioned, if there are others I doubt I'm in a position to comment(specially since there are probably different nuances in your discussion) but I really don't see it as much of an issue as you indicate.
With regards to your comment about the disqualification, it was more of a 20 game forfeit (they weren't dq'd in the strictest sense) for breaking a rule with a set penalty already in place as regards the main tournament, and not something discussed between the clans at a later point. Again, I don't think thats something anybody wants repeated or as similar as you're indicating.
Again, this is probably just arguing over semantics, and I really don't see it serving any real purpose, I'm happy to leave it chucks hands I guess tho why it's come that far is beyond me..

[stahrgazer]

This is all getting way out of hand, please can both clans take a breather and think it through.

Regarding the 12 hr Fog rule; I don't know how it was worded, but I doubt it was agreed that any game that was violated should be forfeited (at least I should hope it wasn't).

We usually offer this, which ought to be adequate;

If the last team to join a FOGGY game also gets the first turn, then they shall wait a full 12 hours before starting the game. In order that the other team can get a snapshot. Should that team accidentally miss this agreement, then they will give all relevant information to their opponents in the game chat. e.g. territories taken during the first turn and the owners of any other territory throw into the fog as a result.

This need not apply in any game such as Poland, Feudal, AoR, Woodboro etc. that don’t have opposing teams on each others borders.

Once the second team have their snap, they will announce it in the chat, so that the game can commence.

If the rule wasn't made absolutely clear to OSA, then as a new clan, I can understand them making a mistake. But they are only gaining an advantage from that mistake, if they refuse to give LoW all of the relevant information.

I agree with you on the first instance, Namor. I even accept the second instance. But when their rep decided to violate it, too, rather than show leadership on how to do the 12-hour fog rule (which was very simply stated, "do not join fog of war until 12 hours after game initiation") in addition to the other violations of pre-agreements MADE AT THEIR REQUEST it looks like, "f* the rules, we'll do what we want, when we want, no matter what."

As for what the punishments were for violations, I left that to Chuuuuck.

But if repetitive violations of several agreements isn't grounds for dismissal from a tournament, what is?

[stahrgazer]

Again, this is probably just arguing over semantics, and I really don't see it serving any real purpose, I'm happy to leave it chucks hands I guess tho why it's come that far is beyond me..

Because OSA is repeatedly violating agreements they made (some of which THEY asked for.)

As for Chuuuuck changing things before the start? His information on that did say, anything could be changed prior to the start of any games.

Every violation I mentioned occurred AFTER the starts of the games.

I'll admit, the complaint about each individual violation can be seen as nitpicking. We didn't complain and make an issue of individual violations.

What we're making issue of is the repetitive series of violations of several agreements.

If you cannot rely on a clan to adhere to any parts of its agreements; if you never know which of their agreements they'll choose to violate on a given day; how can that clan be considered good enough to participate? This is the issue.

And, again, Leehar, if it's okay to violate several of their agreements, then which agreements are off-limits? When would YOU say it's too many violations? When would YOU decide the issue needed to be broached, seriously, by parties who control the tournament?

On behalf of the Legends of War, I decided that three separate violations plus one repeated violation, plus their nasty response because we mildly mentioned one violation, constituted, "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!" I have the backing of most, if not all, my clan, including at least one clan leader.

When would your clan decide enough was enough as far as another clan repetitively changing what was agreed to prior to the start of a war?

[Namor]

It doesn't look as though they are saying, "f* the rules, we'll do what we want, when we want, no matter what." Just that they have made the same mistake 3 times, I doubt it was deliberate and correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the 3rd occasion in a Feudal game (which shouldn't really matter). It's easy to make this mistake, if you have a large game count and are pushed for time OR if you're over enthusiastic and just keen to get the war under way.

I believe the role of LoW, as the senior clan, was to quietly put them right, demand that they divulge any information that you have been denied and advice them as to how they can improve.

@ Benga; for future challenges (and the 2nd batch of this one), it could be good practice, to have any member of your clan leave a reminder in the gamechat, as soon as they see a game has been initialised.

[stahrgazer]

It doesn't look as though they are saying, "f* the rules, we'll do what we want, when we want, no matter what."

It does, because they also violated two other, different, agreements they made - they REQUESTED - prior to the starts of the games.

Enough is enough.. LoW no longer knows what they will and won't decide to change on a whim.

Added:
Besides, putting it into perspective.

The two clans made the following side-agreements:

1) Exchange as many games as possible on the 9th (OSA violated)
2) LoW would rearrange it's first round lineup to OSA's preference (LoW complied)
3) 12-hour rule on fog (OSA violated)
3) World2.1 part of round 2 (OSA attempted to violate)

In other words, OSA violated or attempted to violate each and every agreement they made, while LoW adhered to the agreements.

[YUT]

"Don’t find fault. Find a remedy." – Henry Ford

[reptile]

NAMOR does make good points.

One thing is though that i did try to settle it quietly (away from anything public only using pm's to benga in the beginning). You can even ask him, we exchanged many pm's. Here is just one of them:

To avoid any further unfortunate situations we will join all the games 1st so your clan will be the last to join and take a snapshot.

We really don't want to be labeled as miss users of such rule, we just want to enjoy the fair fight.

No intention there, sorry for any inconvience.

oh, it is perfectly fine. I wouldnt say anything to anyone as i figured it must have been unintentional or forgot about the rule or just didnt see that it was for the ccup or something. It is just now a days clans get crucified for the stupidest things is all and i dont want that to happen to either of us. From the looks of it you guys have put together a great group of players. I want to defeat you guys and move on in the cup but at the same time i wish we werent playing you guys to see how you would do (or if you do beat us then i still can). I am excited for your clan and think you will make yourselves known very quickly. i just hope it doesnt start with us

Point being i have made multiple nice comments to benga about his clan and tried to keep things quiet. Though for me, when VJ complained that we mentioned that they had violated the rules was when it went straight south, after that things even got down to a personal level. Had they understood and accepted that we have already made multiple exceptions and appreciated it then it would be a 100% different story. I dont think organized tourneys and seasons such as the CCup and CLA accept clans that dont respect the rules to participate is all.

[the.killing.44]

"Don’t find fault. Find a remedy." – Henry Ford

"It's not wise to violate rules until you know how to observe them." –T. S. Eliot
"You have to learn the rules of the game." - Albert Einstein

I can play this game, too.

[jpcloet]

Can someone point to the public location of the agreement? Is it part of CC2 as a whole or just this challenge.

[stahrgazer]

Can someone point to the public location of the agreement? Is it part of CC2 as a whole or just this challenge.

This challenge, jpcloet. The public part is where Chuuuuck indicates any rules can be changed prior to the starts of games, upon mutual agreement and his approval.

Chuuuuck gave approval, and he and Masli were copied on the agreements.

and, to restate LoW's point:
Individually, the violations are nitpicky. (Which is why LoW made no real issue of the first violations).

However, one by one, OSA violated or tried to violate every one of their agreements, and that's beyond the line.

Edit: added
and, as reptile said, it doesn't help that they got snide and shitty when LoW finally decided enough WAS enough, and made their repetitive non-adherence to agreements, an issue for organizer to resolve.

[jpcloet]

That's nice and all, just wanted to see where it was publicly announced, looks like you posted on page 2. [Not sure why first post wasn't updated] And Benga indirectly posts later basically saying he agreed. We have talked about the fog rule in the CLA before, it is there again and I await the conversation.

[stahrgazer]

That's nice and all, just wanted to see where it was publicly announced, looks like you posted on page 2. [Not sure why first post wasn't updated] And Benga indirectly posts later basically saying he agreed. We have talked about the fog rule in the CLA before, it is there again and I await the conversation.

Not just fog, jp.

It's NOT just about the fog!

They missed sending games on the date they said they'd send. They said they'd send some (6) on 9th, and balance (4) to follow by Saturday. They sent none.

I sent a nicely worded reminder on the 10th, and got a few of the games.

At their request, LoW re-did our initial Round 1 send plan to eliminate World 2.1, insert an additional triples and a different quads instead, because OSA wanted W2.1 in round 2.

Chuuuuck approved W2.1 for round 2, and our send plan, with one caviat: Chuuuuck asked that, as soon as games were completed so the right players were freed up, we send round 2 in installments.

After LoW had re-arranged our gameplan and sent, OSA suddenly wanted another quads added, but because of our revised planning, LoW could not accomodate another quads (player loads were at their preference limits) so I said no, it is what it is. (If LoW had sent the dubs we'd planned to send initially, we COULD have accommodated another quads)

When they sent their games balance on Saturday, OSA suddenly included W2.1 again after, all, despite all the pre-agreements, and despite knowing I'd already declined an additional quads.

Again, are all these agreements nitpicky? No more nitpicky than every clan agreeing that no player will play more than 15 games in a round.. it's AGREEMENTS.

Individually, ohwell. Collectively?

A clan that violates EVERY agreement they made has no business being in these upper-level wars.

[jpcloet]

CC2 was open to every one, so you can leave the "upper-level" angle out of this please. I personally missed every round in my clan's recent FOED war so even the most organized can need an extra day or more here an there.

[stahrgazer]

CC2 was open to every one, so you can leave the "upper-level" angle out of this please. I personally missed every round in my clan's recent FOED war so even the most organized can need an extra day or more here an there.

True. But the send date was OSA's decision, and they even asked for our tolerance about the balance. We accepted. They violated by not sending even one game the day they said we should both send.

W2.1 to round 2 was OSA's decison. They violated - well, they tried. I refused the game.

The fog was LoW inquiry, OSA acceptance. They violated.

[Bruceswar]

The way I see it as long as they are in by the cutoff date chuuuuck set then all is OK.

[stahrgazer]

The way I see it as long as they are in by the cutoff date chuuuuck set then all is OK.

If you'd been hours and hours figuring out how to adhere to their requests, only to see THEM violate every one of THEIR requests, you might feel differently

[Bruceswar]

The way I see it as long as they are in by the cutoff date chuuuuck set then all is OK.

If you'd been hours and hours figuring out how to adhere to their requests, only to see THEM violate every one of THEIR requests, you might feel differently

No not at all. Slightly frustrated, but I am an easy going person. I let things go all the time.

[reptile]

I think most people here have not read the entire thread. most of this has nothing to do with the games being sent late, i dont care about that even a little bit!!! It is the complete disreguard for following an agreement they agreed on... multiple times. on top of that it is them complaining that we even mentioned it in the public forum.

Now as far as updating the first post: are you really going to sit there and try to use that as an excuse? that is DEFINITELY NOT MENTIONED in the rules of the tournament... yet what IS MENTIONED you try to avoid and defend? wow

[stahrgazer]

The way I see it as long as they are in by the cutoff date chuuuuck set then all is OK.

If you'd been hours and hours figuring out how to adhere to their requests, only to see THEM violate every one of THEIR requests, you might feel differently

No not at all. Slightly frustrated, but I am an easy going person. I let things go all the time.

Right, Bruce. Except when it's from someone you just don't care for.

However. We (LoW) let things go...and let them go.. and let them go..

but when it's the entire agreement?

What's a tournament or any sort of clan war if either side is allowed to violate any and every agreement?

What's the point of negotiations then?

If it's just supposed to be a free-for all, why bother having any rules, why bother having any sort of negotiation of rules within the rules?

If these things don't ever matter, what's the point?

And if they do matter, how much is too much?

I didn't think one violation mattered too much. I even overlooked the second. I overlooked some of the repeats.

But now it's every agreement, Bruce. Every agreement is TOO MUCH.

You really think a clan that thinks it's just fine to violate EVERY agreement they made in the negotiations deserves a shot at the Conqueror's Cup?

I don't.

I don't think Chuuuuck would think so, either.

That's why it's this "big issue" now.

The facts that 1) the agreements they violated mainly came from them and caused LoW some hassle to adhere to, and 2) they got nasty when this finally did become an issue - just don't help me want to feel more sorry for the new clan than the patience that ran out 2 violations ago.

[Bruceswar]

Reptile we all feel your frustration.. I am a long time LoW Supporter, but give OSA some slack. Sure they broke the 12 hour rule and or sent games late, but in the final tally it will matter not.

@ Stahr... I like all people the same

[stahrgazer]

Reptile we all feel your frustration.. I am a long time LoW Supporter, but give OSA some slack. Sure they broke the 12 hour rule and or sent games late, but in the final tally it will matter not.

@ Stahr... I like all people the same

They broke EVERY agreement they made.

If that doesn't matter, what does?