CCup4 - KORT Wins!!

[chemefreak]

Weren't we locking this thread? I can't take any more of these awful posts!

Geezus give it a rest!

I locked it for like 20 hours. I think people write stupid shit in a word document and then cut and paste it right when a thread gets unlocked. Just a theory I have.

[jj3044]

Weren't we locking this thread? I can't take any more of these awful posts!

Geezus give it a rest!

I locked it for like 20 hours. I think people write stupid shit in a word document and then cut and paste it right when a thread gets unlocked. Just a theory I have.

lol fair enough.

[Chariot of Fire]

Weren't we locking this thread? I can't take any more of these awful posts!

Geezus give it a rest!

I locked it for like 20 hours. I think people write stupid shit in a word document and then cut and paste it right when a thread gets unlocked. Just a theory I have.

- I love the image this conjures up.

[DJPatrick]

Kort V AKA...after waiting don't know how many days for Kort guys to turn up for a quads game, their invitation has now time expired,,,mods: forfeit this game from them...if you allow further time for them to get their shiyte in a pile, I will also withdraw and you guys will be at fault...as it is they're using high clan ranking to manipulate this and have been allowed to run rampant so far...do you really have a defined role here> If so, use it and penalize these arrogant bums.

[DJPatrick]

Soz for the re-post:...don't forfeit THIS ONE...let the penalty fit the crime...it's AKA's Clan organizers who get to choose which game is forfeited so let them...let this one stand...I only entered coz I wanted a game anyway and still wana kick some Kort butt

[Cheesydave]

viewtopic.php?t=189687

AQOH - HH currently standing at 20 apiece, I'll be honest it's getting pretty tense over here

How's that CCup3 Final coming along?

[benga]

Is the title a joke or what?

[IcePack]

Is the title a joke or what?

No that's the way they wrote the new rules

[benga]

Is the title a joke or what?

No that's the way they wrote the new rules

It's always been like this, well apart from KORT, but they have their own set of rules.

[josko.ri]

Is the title a joke or what?

No that's the way they wrote the new rules

The rules were always written like that and always interpreted that invites need to be sent on the time of game exchange. Rules are still written the same but interpretation from new CDs are different.

[jetsetwilly]

My take on this was always that you send the games at the agreed time and that you should have sent all the invites by then. I don't think we have ever waited for everyone to join before sending the games. To do so would give the opposition advance sight of your games and an opportunity to modify their own choices.

[eddie2]

Is the title a joke or what?

No that's the way they wrote the new rules

The rules were always written like that and always interpreted that invites need to be sent on the time of game exchange. Rules are still written the same but interpretation from new CDs are different.

what rules why are we going on about rules i have seen 3 issues so far all written in the rules.

1)sending games and players not joining to get a snap shot.
which i was told games were sunny or feudal type games where snap shots were not needed.(and ps were not included in the war terms.)

Re: CCup4 Main Thread - Ongoing

Postby chemefreak on Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:56 am
Eddie, your argument is stupid. Please shut up. The games you are railing about were SUNNY...read a log for god's sake. Also, if you want strategy...wait a day or two to invite your players...

Are you kidding me?


THIS IS NOT A COMPLAINT THREAD.

Dear lord.

warning to sign up correctly and on time.
2)signing up late which went into the 2nd day overdue...
no back up on the previous warning.
3) sitting abuse.
was told they were waiting for aka to confirm a snap shot taken..(this was in a war with no fog rule. on a map which does not qualify for the use of the fog rule.)

and what happens nothing does to the clan who broke the rules and i get a warning to stop highlighting breaks of the rules in the war thread.....

so just drop all the rules because i am sure if it was a clan not on the organizers suck up list then the same will happen to them, also think if this happened to other clans they might say stuff that and pull out of the event... are you saying that the clan must then be punished because they pull out because of loss of confidence in the organizers and bad organization of the event ?????

[josko.ri]

Is the title a joke or what?

No that's the way they wrote the new rules

The rules were always written like that and always interpreted that invites need to be sent on the time of game exchange. Rules are still written the same but interpretation from new CDs are different.

what rules why are we going on about rules i have seen 3 issues so far all written in the rules.

1)sending games and players not joining to get a snap shot.
which i was told games were sunny or feudal type games where snap shots were not needed.(and ps were not included in the war terms.)

Re: CCup4 Main Thread - Ongoing

Postby chemefreak on Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:56 am
Eddie, your argument is stupid. Please shut up. The games you are railing about were SUNNY...read a log for god's sake. Also, if you want strategy...wait a day or two to invite your players...

Are you kidding me?


THIS IS NOT A COMPLAINT THREAD.

Dear lord.

warning to sign up correctly and on time.
2)signing up late which went into the 2nd day overdue...
no back up on the previous warning.
3) sitting abuse.
was told they were waiting for aka to confirm a snap shot taken..(this was in a war with no fog rule. on a map which does not qualify for the use of the fog rule.)

and what happens nothing does to the clan who broke the rules and i get a warning to stop highlighting breaks of the rules in the war thread.....

so just drop all the rules because i am sure if it was a clan not on the organizers suck up list then the same will happen to them, also think if this happened to other clans they might say stuff that and pull out of the event... are you saying that the clan must then be punished because they pull out because of loss of confidence in the organizers and bad organization of the event ?????

eddie organizers did their judging role very well. We did mistake in late joining. We were punished according to what rules says will happen to the ones who do deadline mistake. You can check it all here, it is very well worded and explained by organizer: viewtopic.php?f=441&t=190903&start=75#p4188237

It is your personal problem that you want to raise more drama than it is needed and that it occurred and present yourself like ultimate victim of the world and the universe, which is obviously role that you very enjoy to be in

[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.

[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.

[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.