CCup4 - KORT Wins!!

[betiko]

well let's hope we'll get the priviledge to face you guys! those aquamen are giving us a hard time..

[hyposquasher]

Congrats and good luck to all of those in the Semifinals! (except TOFU. You guys should consider rolling lots of 1's)

[betiko]

Congrats and good luck to all of those in the Semifinals! (except TOFU. You guys should consider rolling lots of 1's)

i don't mind rolling a lot of defensive 1s while you guys roll attacking 1s all war long

[hyposquasher]

Congrats and good luck to all of those in the Semifinals! (except TOFU. You guys should consider rolling lots of 1's)

i don't mind rolling a lot of defensive 1s while you guys roll attacking 1s all war long

I see what you did there.

[Leehar]

Some general announcements.

The CD's have graciously allowed the 2 day extension requested by Tofu & the Ace-Tofu war will have games exchanged on the 4th of Feb.


Unfortunately at the same time, the CD's have not so graciously disallowed dualta from competing in the war, despite Ace agreeing to the waiver of the player eligibility criterion.
As always, slight rule adjustments are subject to CD approval, and in this instance it was felt by the CD team that the Player eligibility rule was outside the bounds of the adjustable settings regulations (which relate more to the likes of changing the tiebreaker map, decreasing/increasing the trench limitation etc)
It was felt that the Player Eligibility rule provides a crucial protection to smaller clans against the common ailment of 'sailing for greener pastures'. While I sympathise with dualta in my personal capacity on the disbandment of his clan, the player eligibility criterion as it is currently written has been used & previously conveyed throughout this current competition as a hidebound rule meant to dissuade more mercenary actions, and it was felt necessary to enforce it as written.

With that said, this criterion will be raised during the deliberation of the next CCup as a topic for deliberation & possible amendment (It has been previously raised whether cup-tied should only last for 1 round etc)

[Foxglove]

Unfortunately at the same time, the CD's have not so graciously disallowed dualta from competing in the war, despite Ace agreeing to the waiver of the player eligibility criterion.
As always, slight rule adjustments are subject to CD approval, and in this instance it was felt by the CD team that the Player eligibility rule was outside the bounds of the adjustable settings regulations (which relate more to the likes of changing the tiebreaker map, decreasing/increasing the trench limitation etc)

Wow! I'm shocked that the CDs have overridden the agreement by the two clans involved re: Dualta. I think this is the first time that's happened in all four years of the Conqueror's Cup.

It was felt that the Player Eligibility rule provides a crucial protection to smaller clans against the common ailment of 'sailing for greener pastures'.

I'm fairly certain none of the 4 remaining competitors qualify as smaller clans. So I guess the CDs were protecting the interests of clans who have already been eliminated in this particular competition, even though this rule is subject to potential change for the next cup?

[Dako]

I agree with Foxy here. I don't think this rule ever did any good to CCup (ie prevented someone sailing for greener pastures) but did more harm and grief in the end (good players unable to play, discussing and flame on the forums).

I am strongly againt this rule (I think I even excluded it from my CCup rule set) and I would like to change it in the next season.

[angola]

I'm more appalled that TOFU needs another 2 days to get ready for ACE. Their war with ATL was decided more than two weeks ago, yet they need another 48 hours?

Are they run by a bunch of newbs? What is going on over there? No time to do research?

Is Peyton Manning running TOFU?

[Denise]

I agree with Foxy, too. Always in the past it was left up to the two clans involved to hash out if the rule should be enforced and never was the privilege of a clan to control this aspect of their war taken away.

I understand the need for consistency and if this has been the answer to all clans wishing to use an ineligible player, then I wouldn't want it changed this late in the competition. However, I strongly believe this is an example of the CD's taking too much control and think they should leave these types of things to the clans involved, unless for some reason the clans can't reach an amicable decision. I hope that we can change this rule for the next CCup, or do away with it completely.

A little off topic but why should the CD's take it upon themselves to try to prevent a player from changing clans if they want to? This rule has never made any sense to me.

[Denise]

I'm more appalled that TOFU needs another 2 days to get ready for ACE. Their war with ATL was decided more than two weeks ago, yet they need another 48 hours?

Are they run by a bunch of newbs? What is going on over there? No time to do research?

Is Peyton Manning running TOFU?

Yes, you guessed it, Angola. We brought Peyton Manning in to strengthen our offense. I just hope we can get past ACE's defense.

[Dako]

I'm more appalled that TOFU needs another 2 days to get ready for ACE. Their war with ATL was decided more than two weeks ago, yet they need another 48 hours?

Are they run by a bunch of newbs? What is going on over there? No time to do research?

Is Peyton Manning running TOFU?

You didn't know but we outsource most parts of war organizing to eddie and his team. They are doing great but our shipment of Dr. Pepper and sweets got delayed on the border (heavy snow storms etc) so we were forced to ask for another 48h. But it was him who was so eloquent and got us this extension by talking to cheme in his own personal way. So please understand us.

[Chariot of Fire]

If it was a request from eddie then cheme would need more than 48 hours just to decipher it!

[IcePack]

I'm going to predict an upset by ACE and TSM

[Keefie]

I understand the need for consistency and if this has been the answer to all clans wishing to use an ineligible player, then I wouldn't want it changed this late in the competition. However, I strongly believe this is an example of the CD's taking too much control and think they should leave these types of things to the clans involved, unless for some reason the clans can't reach an amicable decision. I hope that we can change this rule for the next CCup, or do away with it completely.

Denise,

The CD's are taking no more control than the rules of the competition allow. This is the rule that all clans agreed to by signing up.

"If the old clan of a player loses the round in which the player has played, that player is considered "eliminated" with their old clan and cannot play for another clan for the rest of the tournament"

All we are doing is ensuring that the competition rules are being adhered too.

[hyposquasher]

You all will have to forgive angola. While we were a bit surprised at the request for an extension, angola is a big Seahawks fan. So he had been on a steady diet of beer and adrenaline all day. By the time he came here to post, the Super Bowl was over. He had shed his clothes and ran 4 laps around his house. So the combination of cold and black-out level inebriation may have made him a little punchy

[friendly1]

I agree with Foxy, too. Always in the past it was left up to the two clans involved to hash out if the rule should be enforced and never was the privilege of a clan to control this aspect of their war taken away.

I understand the need for consistency and if this has been the answer to all clans wishing to use an ineligible player, then I wouldn't want it changed this late in the competition. However, I strongly believe this is an example of the CD's taking too much control and think they should leave these types of things to the clans involved, unless for some reason the clans can't reach an amicable decision. I hope that we can change this rule for the next CCup, or do away with it completely.

A little off topic but why should the CD's take it upon themselves to try to prevent a player from changing clans if they want to? This rule has never made any sense to me.

I like what the CDs have done! They are enforcing the rule in place, and explaining that the rule needs to be reconsidered, not the enforcement of it. I do regret that this rule has prevented some players eligibility in CCup (and there has been a few) and I hope the rule is changed for CCup5 along with some others. But bashing the CDs for rules that exist makes no sense, or at least doesn't make sense to me. Course I'm pretty easily confused and rather moronic at the best of times...

[betiko]

I do understand that it s the rule and you guys are enforcing it.
The only questionable thing here, is that his former clan with which he participated in the event disbanned. Therefore, he necessairly wouldn t be in the same stop-existing clan 6 month later, it has nothing to do with protecting smaller clans.

[HardAttack]

I do understand that it s the rule and you guys are enforcing it.
The only questionable thing here, is that his former clan with which he participated in the event disbanned. Therefore, he necessairly wouldn t be in the same stop-existing clan 6 month later, it has nothing to do with protecting smaller clans.

why do we need a fashion/trend to protect smaller clans really ?
where do these SMART/BRIGHT !!! ideas come from all the times ?
f*ck em, the smaller clans i mean...
well isnt it what always happens since cc1 now ?
i havent seen any small clan in top 4 ever...

[angola]

You all will have to forgive angola. While we were a bit surprised at the request for an extension, angola is a big Seahawks fan. So he had been on a steady diet of beer and adrenaline all day. By the time he came here to post, the Super Bowl was over. He had shed his clothes and ran 4 laps around his house. So the combination of cold and black-out level inebriation may have made him a little punchy

My rule has always been if I don't remember posting it, it didn't happen. And I certainly don't remember posting last night.

[chemefreak]

I do understand that it s the rule and you guys are enforcing it.
The only questionable thing here, is that his former clan with which he participated in the event disbanned. Therefore, he necessairly wouldn t be in the same stop-existing clan 6 month later, it has nothing to do with protecting smaller clans.

why do we need a fashion/trend to protect smaller clans really ?
where do these SMART/BRIGHT !!! ideas come from all the times ?
f*ck em, the smaller clans i mean...
well isnt it what always happens since cc1 now ?
i havent seen any small clan in top 4 ever...

I like the Cup Tied Rule...without exceptions. It protects the integrity of the clan system. When it was a private tournament, it was not the private tournament organizer's prerogative to protect all clans. So the idea that the rule could be waived by agreement made sense. However, now that the Cup is run by the CD Team, it is important that distinctions and exceptions are not carved out to weaken the rule. A player that is Cup Tied is certainly allowed to play in other clan wars and clan events. Just not this one. The fact that a clan may only play in the CCup (and not other wars) is something a player joining that clan should inquire about.

The argument that a player's clan no longer exists is a facile argument. Elite clans would just need to poach enough players from any one particular clan to ensure that the smaller clan would fold. Or, in the inverse, enough players from a lower ranked clan could leave so that their clan would fold making them "free agents." This kind of temptation should not exist. Thus, the rule is written and enforced the way it was here, and (probably) in the foreseeable future.

[Foxglove]

I like the Cup Tied Rule...without exceptions. It protects the integrity of the clan system. When it was a private tournament, it was not the private tournament organizer's prerogative to protect all clans. So the idea that the rule could be waived by agreement made sense. However, now that the Cup is run by the CD Team, it is important that distinctions and exceptions are not carved out to weaken the rule.

I was initially surprised by the decision from the CDs, but it's fair and it does make sense.

A player that is Cup Tied is certainly allowed to play in other clan wars and clan events. Just not this one. The fact that a clan may only play in the CCup (and not other wars) is something a player joining that clan should inquire about.

haha - very true! I'm not sure about other clans, but I know that KORT has not participated in a non-event war (cup or league) since 2010.

The argument that a player's clan no longer exists is a facile argument. Elite clans would just need to poach enough players from any one particular clan to ensure that the smaller clan would fold. Or, in the inverse, enough players from a lower ranked clan could leave so that their clan would fold making them "free agents." This kind of temptation should not exist. Thus, the rule is written and enforced the way it was here, and (probably) in the foreseeable future.

The rule as originally written in the earlier versions of the CCup wasn't designed to benefit smaller clans whatsoever. It was created to prevent the top clans from bringing in great players in the later rounds to bolster the strength of their roster when they played against tougher opponents. This new kinder and gentler interpretation of its meaning is a decent one though.

[Chariot of Fire]

As much as I like Dualta and would love to see him play in CCup4 I do respect the CD's decision and actually support it. Heck I think it was my idea to introduce the cup-tied rule in the first place. It does seem fair that once you've had a bite at the cherry and failed you shouldn't receive a second chance.

I'm not so sure the rule should be reviewed for the next edition though, as if it is then it could seem unfair right now not to consider a case-by-case basis (and with the semis about to start it would probably be the only case). It could result in previous and subsequent cases being allowed (CCup1-3 & 5 onwards) leaving one isolated incident, that of Dualta, standing on the record books. Somehow that seems rather unfair, though it's something we would accept without further ado.

[josko.ri]

I'm not so sure the rule should be reviewed for the next edition though, as if it is then it could seem unfair right now not to consider a case-by-case basis (and with the semis about to start it would probably be the only case). It could result in previous and subsequent cases being allowed (CCup1-3 & 5 onwards) leaving one isolated incident, that of Dualta, standing on the record books. Somehow that seems rather unfair, though it's something we would accept without further ado.

Not true.
The same rule as this was in CCup1 and therefore thebest712, who was conqueror at that time, did not play in semis and in finals because he had previosuly played for VDLL in play-in round of CC1.

However, we knew rule was written like that so we respected the rule and did not bash the CD in threads for enforcing it but we rather accepted the decision as gentlemen so that is maybe the reason why most people will remember Dualta's case while nobody remembers thebest712's case.