CCup4 - KORT Wins!!

[eddie2]

josko am i here complaining about it no i am not i am just showing 3 rule breaks. with reasons and results so if it happens to another clan they have this post.

points 1 and 3 are not rule breaking, point 2 only is. I already explained arguments why is that NOT abuse in our war thread, which you did not give counter arguments but rather ignored it and keep saying what we did is abuse.
You know that very well but however you just want to be in center of attention as usual.

i beg to differ point 1 is borderline.....

point 3 if you didnt ask for us to take a screen shot in chat it would of been abuse that is the only thing that saved you.....

but the thing i do not get is that fog rule was not in the war and even if it was the map choice was trench fog poland so in no way was a screen shot needed.. i think it was done more to the point of whoever is controling that game for kort was not online to tell extreme way what move to take and then was not coming back online after they had. and this is what the sitting rule was brought into force to stop....

other point about the sitting rule you say bruce has never done this before and i would proberly agree with you, but i posted it in our war pages and it was shot down 10 mins later. i thought the usual way of doing it was to get multi hunter to have a background check which obviously not done because the hunter for doing this was on holiday and only came back today and on me asking him if he had seen my warning in the thread said no so obviously has not checked to see if extreme was on at a later time. which would of made the case even more valid than what it was.

[josko.ri]

josko am i here complaining about it no i am not i am just showing 3 rule breaks. with reasons and results so if it happens to another clan they have this post.

points 1 and 3 are not rule breaking, point 2 only is. I already explained arguments why is that NOT abuse in our war thread, which you did not give counter arguments but rather ignored it and keep saying what we did is abuse.
You know that very well but however you just want to be in center of attention as usual.

i beg to differ point 1 is borderline.....

point 3 if you didnt ask for us to take a screen shot in chat it would of been abuse that is the only thing that saved you.....

but the thing i do not get is that fog rule was not in the war and even if it was the map choice was trench fog poland so in no way was a screen shot needed.. i think it was done more to the point of whoever is controling that game for kort was not online to tell extreme way what move to take and then was not coming back online after they had. and this is what the sitting rule was brought into force to stop....

other point about the sitting rule you say bruce has never done this before and i would proberly agree with you, but i posted it in our war pages and it was shot down 10 mins later. i thought the usual way of doing it was to get multi hunter to have a background check which obviously not done because the hunter for doing this was on holiday and only came back today and on me asking him if he had seen my warning in the thread said no so obviously has not checked to see if extreme was on at a later time. which would of made the case even more valid than what it was.

Point 1 isn't borderline, it is different interpretation of the same rule by new organizers. But since both AKA and KORT interpreted that rule different than organizers, that is more important.
In point 3 it is probably the only case ever that bruce is saving EW's turn, even maybe the only case ever that EW's turn is saved by anyone. Abuse is when there is pattern in doing so and there is no pattern in this case. That is not what I said, that is what hunters said. If they see pattern in that happening that is abuse, if it is isolated case then there is no abuse, it is emergency situation when someone was not able to log in on the time like previously planned.

[Dako]

Abuse is when there is pattern in doing so and there is no pattern in this case. … If they see pattern in that happening that is abuse, if it is isolated case then there is no abuse, it is emergency situation when someone was not able to log in on the time like previously planned.

Abuse doesn't need to have a pattern. Read a definition — http://www.google.ru/search?q=define:+abuse
Isolated case of abuse (for example sexual abuse as in raping) is still an abuse. But if this is an isolated incident it might not be an abuse.

[eddie2]

josko am i here complaining about it no i am not i am just showing 3 rule breaks. with reasons and results so if it happens to another clan they have this post.

points 1 and 3 are not rule breaking, point 2 only is. I already explained arguments why is that NOT abuse in our war thread, which you did not give counter arguments but rather ignored it and keep saying what we did is abuse.
You know that very well but however you just want to be in center of attention as usual.

i beg to differ point 1 is borderline.....

point 3 if you didnt ask for us to take a screen shot in chat it would of been abuse that is the only thing that saved you.....

but the thing i do not get is that fog rule was not in the war and even if it was the map choice was trench fog poland so in no way was a screen shot needed.. i think it was done more to the point of whoever is controling that game for kort was not online to tell extreme way what move to take and then was not coming back online after they had. and this is what the sitting rule was brought into force to stop....

other point about the sitting rule you say bruce has never done this before and i would proberly agree with you, but i posted it in our war pages and it was shot down 10 mins later. i thought the usual way of doing it was to get multi hunter to have a background check which obviously not done because the hunter for doing this was on holiday and only came back today and on me asking him if he had seen my warning in the thread said no so obviously has not checked to see if extreme was on at a later time. which would of made the case even more valid than what it was.

Point 1 isn't borderline, it is different interpretation of the same rule by new organizers. But since both AKA and KORT interpreted that rule different than organizers, that is more important.
In point 3 it is probably the only case ever that bruce is saving EW's turn, even maybe the only case ever that EW's turn is saved by anyone. Abuse is when there is pattern in doing so and there is no pattern in this case. That is not what I said, that is what hunters said. If they see pattern in that happening that is abuse, if it is isolated case then there is no abuse, it is emergency situation when someone was not able to log in on the time like previously planned.

is this how you read the rules.... me i read them as they are written in the forum.

The person in question must not have been online recently taking their own turns.

he had been online playing in a speed game

If you regularly cover turns in an unnecessary time frame, and the person subsequently comes online in that time frame, you will be guilty of account sharing

what you are saying about isolated incident does come under abuse in this instance and if he was regularly doing it then it would be account sharing... Dont get me wrong josko i dont think bruceswar was the person doing the abuse. it was extreme way for leaving his shot for a sitter to take the turn... but also remember this was done while you were in breach of not signing up to away games on time.

[chemefreak]

Rules are still written the same but interpretation from new CDs are different.

New CDs?

I think the rule is written this way so that when an exchange is made the games are already full. That way invites don't expire while the other clan us joining. In CL5 the rules say fully invited. So this one is clearly different and requires fully joined. Of course, this is just an interpretation by a lawyer that reads and writes english as his first language...

Now, don't make me lock this again and stop quoting every post above yours. It was a bitch to read on my iphone.

[eddie2]

Lol chem np. Why would you need to lock the thread i have not went against the result we are just talking about it calm and mature.

Ps i still think it is funny he is sayiny you are misreading the rules. Esp when bruce wrote them. And should be correcting him.

[Foxglove]

Most thankless CC volunteer job ever: Clan Director

[Chariot of Fire]

Most thankless CC volunteer job ever: Clan Director

I always thought it was volunteering to play Hive versus you lot, lol

[MudPuppy]

Rules are still written the same but interpretation from new CDs are different.

New CDs?

I think the rule is written this way so that when an exchange is made the games are already full. That way invites don't expire while the other clan us joining. In CL5 the rules say fully invited. So this one is clearly different and requires fully joined. Of course, this is just an interpretation by a lawyer that reads and writes english as his first language...

Now, don't make me lock this again and stop quoting every post above yours. It was a bitch to read on my iphone.

The rule is clear as written regardless of how prior CDs interpreted them. That said, requiring games to be fully invited vs. fully joined is a much better rule:

1. The requirement to join games effectively cuts a day off a clan's time to make the games since they should allow 24 hours for games to be joined while invitations can be made in a matter of minutes.
2. The join requirement doesn't result in games starting any quicker since the Away team will almost always join last anyway.
3. The join requirement opens up the possibility of gamesmanship where a clan may intentionally delay the creation of their games so they can get a first peak at their opponent's home games (without revealing theirs)... knowing that there is no penalty enforced for the delay this causes... as long as they have games joined within 24 hours after being contacted by CDs (or whatever the allowed leniency is determined to be). The current rules don't state a penalty for clans who repeatedly join games late.

The only benefit I see to the join requirement is to prevent the possibility of invites expiring which is not enough to offset the problems caused. As long as the requirement to join within' 5 days of the game exchange holds for both clans, it shouldn't be an issue at all.

So, the rule should be changed. It's probably a rule we can live with 'til CCup5 but I'd also welcome a mid-tourney rule change for CCup4 if that were a consideration and received enough clan support.

[IcePack]

I personally dont see the reason for it, I'm fine with it either way. Typically we create, invite and exchange all within a matter of hours in our wars.
It's never created a problem, there was once or twice maybe a game or two where one player missed an invite etc but was resolved amicably and in a timely fashion.
I guess it comes down to mutual respect of the clans or out to get them cutthroat attitude.

I would prefer to resolve them mutually, and see things like that as minor details unless its a widespread issue.

[eddie2]

i would agree with that. but i would also add..

clan a v clan b
exchange date 9th may..

set 1
clan a sends there home games on the 9th (invited players or joined players)
clan b sends there games on the 10th (if invited players) or 11th (if joined players)this giving 1 extra day in case players drop out to get another invite.

set 2
reverse of set 1 with clan b sending first and clan a having the 1 or 2 days extra.

i have said this a couple of times and it will stop clans from holding off on creating to see the oppositions games. i also dont understand the 5 days to sign up. in the kort war i signed up on the day i got the games to be told i should of waited a day or 2, so this in effect makes it that you only have 3 days to signup and get players into games. which in effect if given the games monday morning

mon not to sign up
tues not to sign up
weds night time send invites. 10 pm
thurs night time players dont sign up send invites again
fri games joined at 9pm.
sat 9 am deadline

this only gives you 1 day to make sure the players are in the game on time. and unlike what kort did...

games sent monday 10 am
tues nothing
weds nothing
thurs nothing
fri nothing
sat invites sent 5 am only 5 hours until deadline
sun invites expired new invites sent 10.30 am now 2 days overdue
so how do we avoid this happening in the future ??? (and to kort i am not using this to bringit up again but as a example)

because obviously the rule wont punish for this but it is in breach of the rule as it is written just now, and needs to be corrected to what clan mods will actually punish for.

[chemefreak]

The games will be fully joined. It does not "cut off" a day it just makes the delay less. Please pm me with any complaints about not receiving fully joined games and we will issue a warning.

Also, prior CDs? Who the hell are you people talking about? Prior TOs?

My games are always fully joined when exchanged. That way I don't have to worry about the other clan telling me that an invite expired, etc. It can be, and should be, embarrassing for a MoW.

With all the complaints about the speed of the matches, I was sure this was one that people would not complain about! Oh well.

[MudPuppy]

The games will be fully joined. It does not "cut off" a day it just makes the delay less.

You said yourself the join requirement cuts off a day:

Clan Leaders should actually be creating and inviting their players more than 24 hours before the deadline...

... an invite requirement means the war manager has 'til the deadline to create games... a join requirement means the war manager should create games "more than 24 hours before the deadline."

Fully joined doesn't lessen any delays... the rules state the games don't need to begin 'til 5 days after the games are created. Home games not joined by then are rarely an issue... and if it ever did happen, there are penalties in place to address it.

[chemefreak]

The games will be fully joined. It does not "cut off" a day it just makes the delay less.

You said yourself the join requirement cuts off a day:

Clan Leaders should actually be creating and inviting their players more than 24 hours before the deadline...

... an invite requirement means the war manager has 'til the deadline to create games... a join requirement means the war manager should create games "more than 24 hours before the deadline."

Fully joined doesn't lessen any delays... the rules state the games don't need to begin 'til 5 days after the games are created. Home games not joined by then are rarely an issue... and if it ever did happen, there are penalties in place to address it.

Fully joined does lessen delays. We have seen invites expire an the other clan not inform the providing clan. Then once all the games are fully joined (except for the expired invite) and someone notices it the delay could be an additional 24 Hours.

Plus, at this point, the CDs are construing the rules. We read this to mean the games are fully joined before you exchange them. So for CCup5 we can come up with a fully invited rule if you prefer, but for now, it is fully joined.

As for the "join requirement cuts off a day"...I have never read it that way. My games for every CCup have been fully joined before exchange. So I start my games on Friday and then send invites on Saturday. If any expire or are accidentally declined, then I have Sunday to sort that out. The other clan having extra time to scout my games argument is a bit silly. They have 5 days to join them anyways! What is an additional day or two? Plus, if everyone just abides by the rule, everyone will have to do it this in the future (kinda thought they already were).

Please let the CD Team know if an exchange is made without the games being fully joined. Thanks!

[jetsetwilly]

Can we poll clans to see if they are in favour of doing it this way? As per my earlier post it's not something I'm in favour of.

[chapcrap]

Can we poll clans to see if they are in favour of doing it this way? As per my earlier post it's not something I'm in favour of.

Agreed.

And, if games are supposed to be filled by joining, then they should also be filled within 5 days, not invites sent at the end of the fifth day. Let's get this thing moving. Per the rules, clans have 5 days to have games be filled. Let's cut it to 4 and make them actually be filled by then!!

[chemefreak]

No polling during the event. The CL5 rule is clearly different from this one. The games must be joined.

Honestly, I doubt I hear any complaints from anyone if they get invited but unjoined games. Everyone is just making a mountain out of a molehill.

Also, the "just give us four days" comment cracked me up. Just make sure your games are joined before you give them to the other side...we gave everyone 2 weeks between challenges and everyone seems to be agreeing to 2 weeks between exchanges. 13 days vs 14 days. Then the clan that gets the games has 5 days. Not a big deal.

[chapcrap]

No polling during the event. The CL5 rule is clearly different from this one. The games must be joined.

Honestly, I doubt I hear any complaints from anyone if they get invited but unjoined games. Everyone is just making a mountain out of a molehill.

Also, the "just give us four days" comment cracked me up. Just make sure your games are joined before you give them to the other side...we gave everyone 2 weeks between challenges and everyone seems to be agreeing to 2 weeks between exchanges. 13 days vs 14 days. Then the clan that gets the games has 5 days. Not a big deal.

So, are you going on enforce that the away team has to have the games filled within 5 days too? That's in the rules.

[chemefreak]

No polling during the event. The CL5 rule is clearly different from this one. The games must be joined.

Honestly, I doubt I hear any complaints from anyone if they get invited but unjoined games. Everyone is just making a mountain out of a molehill.

Also, the "just give us four days" comment cracked me up. Just make sure your games are joined before you give them to the other side...we gave everyone 2 weeks between challenges and everyone seems to be agreeing to 2 weeks between exchanges. 13 days vs 14 days. Then the clan that gets the games has 5 days. Not a big deal.

So, are you going on enforce that the away team has to have the games filled within 5 days too? That's in the rules.

Yes. Of course, if no one brings it to our attention or no one complains or the clans agree ahead of time that they just need to be fully invited (which is probably the case 99% of the time) it will be a no harm, no foul thing. All I know is at this point at least two clans signed up interpreting the rule this way. Mine and AKA (eddie2). Now, if eddie2 and I agree on something...

For instance, I see that IA has not yet made their RD 2 games in our challenge and is not likely to have them joined by our deadline tonight. Am I going to complain? Nope. Because we won't join them until we have discussed them for 2-3 days. Now, if 4 days go by and I go to send out my invites and they have empty spots...that is a different story.

[Bruceswar]

No polling during the event. The CL5 rule is clearly different from this one. The games must be joined.

Honestly, I doubt I hear any complaints from anyone if they get invited but unjoined games. Everyone is just making a mountain out of a molehill.

Also, the "just give us four days" comment cracked me up. Just make sure your games are joined before you give them to the other side...we gave everyone 2 weeks between challenges and everyone seems to be agreeing to 2 weeks between exchanges. 13 days vs 14 days. Then the clan that gets the games has 5 days. Not a big deal.

So, are you going on enforce that the away team has to have the games filled within 5 days too? That's in the rules.

Yes. Of course, if no one brings it to our attention or no one complains or the clans agree ahead of time that they just need to be fully invited (which is probably the case 99% of the time) it will be a no harm, no foul thing. All I know is at this point at least two clans signed up interpreting the rule this way. Mine and AKA (eddie2). Now, if eddie2 and I agree on something...

For instance, I see that IA has not yet made their RD 2 games in our challenge and is not likely to have them joined by our deadline tonight. Am I going to complain? Nope. Because we won't join them until we have discussed them for 2-3 days. Now, if 4 days go by and I go to send out my invites and they have empty spots...that is a different story.

So you are saying you are a reasonable person, but if someone wants to be an ass and push the rules they could?

[eddie2]

lol i might be a arse for pushing for it bruce.. but remember one thing you are the one who invented and implemented the rules that clans signed up for and joined the event understanding. but you are the only person to not follow the rules...


and chemefreak i agree with what you said one hundred percent if a clan contacts you to say sorryi am late, will have them done by a certain date. then it would be ok.. if they contact another member of the clan who is not organizing the games or running it for the clan and do not explain to him that they are late, then use the fact that that member said it was ok then i would have a problem with it.. because they are not showing the respect you are giving them. by signing up on time or contacting you. and are taking the piss out of the member they tricked into letting them be late.

[Doc_Brown]

My expectation, as with most of the other rules, is that two clans preparing for a war may agree to interpret the rule as fully invited rather than fully joined. Obviously, if either clan disagrees, fully joined is the requirement.

[Bruceswar]

My expectation, as with most of the other rules, is that two clans preparing for a war may agree to interpret the rule as fully invited rather than fully joined. Obviously, if either clan disagrees, fully joined is the requirement.

So you are saying any clan can play hard ball and use this rule? Since when has this ever been a problem?

[Doc_Brown]

My expectation, as with most of the other rules, is that two clans preparing for a war may agree to interpret the rule as fully invited rather than fully joined. Obviously, if either clan disagrees, fully joined is the requirement.

So you are saying any clan can play hard ball and use this rule? Since when has this ever been a problem?

That's what I'm saying. I don't see a problem. The default rule has been defined, and if two clans want to deviate from that in their war, I assume they have the right to do so. I prefer that games be invited on exchange rather than joined, but if a future opponent insists it be the other way, meh. So be it.

[IcePack]

That's kinda my feeling as well (docs)