Conquer Club

chemefreak wrote:

IcePack wrote:

chemefreak wrote:Are you criticizing us for getting it right this time around Icepack?

I think its ironic now that its getting "fixed" when a clan that has a vested interest in getting it "fixed" has two CD's amongst it.

Actually, I think the point you are proving is that you will never be happy with anything anyone does. So we should all just hope you disappear again. At the very least, everyone should definitely stop paying attention to you.

I wasn't aware I had disappeared? When did that happen? As far as the rest goes, feel free to ignore me. I usually do the same with you

IcePack wrote:As far as the rest goes, feel free to ignore me. I usually do the same with you

Will do.

Lindax wrote:

IcePack wrote:I think its ironic now that its getting "fixed" when a clan that has a vested interest in getting it "fixed" has two CD's amongst it.

I have no problem with either of the clans getting in, i just find it rather ironic its getting fixed now after half a dozen other clans (that i found, maybe more) have been rejected in the past.

Which brings us back to this issue:

eddie2 wrote:i really think when it comes to employing volunteers for this section in future they make a rule that they must not be a member of any clan.

"Employing volunteers"

Definition of OXYMORON
: a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel kindness); broadly : something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements

Lindax - would you want a TD that had never organized a tournament or even played in one? I think that would be a bit difficult to swallow.

chemefreak wrote:Lindax - would you want a TD that had never organized a tournament or even played in one? I think that would be a bit difficult to swallow.

I never said that.

I do think there is some merit in the fact that it could be perceived as somewhat delicate that the volunteers facilitating clan wars and tournaments are actually members of clans. This could easily raise the question about objectivity, etc. Especially if there are more than 1 CDs involved that belong to the same clan, as well as having a Head Clan Director who is a member of the number 1 ranked clan.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing anybody of wrongdoing, corruption, favoritism or anything of the kind. In fact, I'm pretty confident that doesn't play a role. However, the pure fact of clan members taking up certain positions could cause people to suspect that kind of thing going on.

For that reason alone, it would be nice if those situations could be avoided. The fact that this issue has been raised in some topics and posts speaks for itself.

I have no easy solution. But there are plenty of people with clan, clan war and tournament experience who are not currently in a clan. I, for example, was going to propose to run an Official Clan Tournament/Event to Bruce the same day the CCup4 suddenly became an official clan department tournament. And we can all witness how that turned out so far.

Well penned as always Lin.

Although I think the idea of a completely impartial person would be awesome, I think you would be hard pressed to find one that had never had any affiliation with clans or any relationship with someone in a clan. For instance, let's say Admin tapped you to be the new Head CD, and you made a decision that benefited the Legion, do you think the "usual posters" wouldn't jump all over you for it? Or, let's say the new Head CD was someone that had never been in a clan, but had played a few games with TheCrown. The first time a ruling goes the way of TNC, the "usual posters" would surely jump all over that too.

The only real possibility is someone that never plays CC (chat only) and never plays team games. But since clans are all about team games, I think it is just about an impossible situation to find considering the amount of time it takes to be a CD. However, I like the idea...I just don't think it would ever please the "usual posters"...unless of course you find that unicorn...then please send him/her/it my way.

I miss our talks

chemefreak wrote:Well penned as always Lin.

Although I think the idea of a completely impartial person would be awesome, I think you would be hard pressed to find one that had never had any affiliation with clans or any relationship with someone in a clan. For instance, let's say Admin tapped you to be the new Head CD, and you made a decision that benefited the Legion, do you think the "usual posters" wouldn't jump all over you for it? Or, let's say the new Head CD was someone that had never been in a clan, but had played a few games with TheCrown. The first time a ruling goes the way of TNC, the "usual posters" would surely jump all over that too.

The only real possibility is someone that never plays CC (chat only) and never plays team games. But since clans are all about team games, I think it is just about an impossible situation to find considering the amount of time it takes to be a CD. However, I like the idea...I just don't think it would ever please the "usual posters"...unless of course you find that unicorn...then please send him/her/it my way.

I miss our talks

Well, I think it would be "far-sought" to think that people would even know I was in ++The Legion++

Anyway, I wasn't thinking of applying for the position of Head Clan Director. I guess, reading back, I didn't make it clear that I was mainly speaking about official clan events. If you want to draw the TD comparison: A TD can organize a tournament and even play in it himself, but the official tournaments run by some departments are run by a TO who does not himself/herself participate in the tournament.

Of course the clan department can (and probably should) be run by people who are in a clan themselves, or at least by people who know the clan world inside out.

Off topic: We can always have a talk, even though I know our last exchange of PMs was anything but pleasant. I suppose you know I had a few RL things to deal with at the time (and I'm still dealing with them). Maybe we should have a trips game on the British Isles map or something.

Lindax wrote:Well, I think it would be "far-sought" to think that people would even know I was in ++The Legion++

Anyway, I wasn't thinking of applying for the position of Head Clan Director. I guess, reading back, I didn't make it clear that I was mainly speaking about official clan events. If you want to draw the TD comparison: A TD can organize a tournament and even play in it himself, but the official tournaments run by some departments are run by a TO who does not himself/herself participate in the tournament.

Of course the clan department can (and probably should) be run by people who are in a clan themselves, or at least by people who know the clan world inside out.

Off topic: We can always have a talk, even though I know our last exchange of PMs was anything but pleasant. I suppose you know I had a few RL things to deal with at the time (and I'm still dealing with them). Maybe we should have a trips game on the British isles map or something.

A ++The Legion++ burn? That hurts!

I see, so have clan events run by an impartial person (like an experienced tournament organizer that is not in a clan) not the CDs themselves. That makes more sense.

Off topic: I'm pretty sure it was the C&A complaint that tipped me off that we had a problem! That trips game is a nightmare...I don't even want to talk about it. Cheers.

Just because rules were in place for a previous tournament doesn't mean they cannot be changed for the next one. This is very different from laws and precedents (i.e. if I break the law I know what my punishment will be due to previous cases and the fact the law is still in force at the time). Old tourneys, old rules. I was never in favour of exclusion in the past and always felt clans should all be welcome if they comprised members who were experienced.

I'll make a suggestion if it helps. To determine eligibility simply add up the number of challenge medals a clan has. If the number falls below 20 then they are obviously too inexperienced to be entering a long-haul tournament that requires commitment and awareness.

I recall the first Clan League where TOFU - a relative newcomer to the clan scene but comprising very experienced players - had to play in the lower division. We let Nemesis take our place in the premier division rather than argue about it (coz I'm a super nice guy really) and then recorded something like a 78-6 result in our division, which kinda sucked for all those other clans in there with us.

Common sense has to prevail whenever possible. As custodians of the clan scene it behooves the CDs to apply it at all times.

IcePack wrote:

chemefreak wrote:Are you criticizing us for getting it right this time around Icepack?

I think its ironic now that its getting "fixed" when a clan that has a vested interest in getting it "fixed" has two CD's amongst it.

I have no problem with either of the clans getting in, i just find it rather ironic its getting fixed now after half a dozen other clans (that i found, maybe more) have been rejected in the past.

no not criticizing you for getting it correct chemefreak. criticizing because you made it clear clans must of competed in one war as a clan been a active for 1 month to join cdf. made it that clans must join cdf to take part. then bent the rules you put in place as soon as the empire aoc merger (that has not even happened yet) happened.

if you want something like this to happen you should not of posted them as requirements for joining this event, but you did there was no mention of allowing atlantis or vvv into this until it was decided to allow the aoc empire merger in

sorry for the double post...

But i seen there was a perfect example as to why these clans should not join.... someone mentioned "wild geese" the former nemisis clan who kept nemisis as a user group and started of a new... well how long did they last.... not even 12 months and this i do not like to say puts your theory out as well cof i am sorry to have to say... because all there members medals added up to a lot more than 20 together and they were a experienced clan.

A city has an elevated highway through it, and the speed limit has been set at a ridiculous 20mph. Some people get pulled over for speeding by the cops and get tickets. They argue that the speed limit is far too low, but still they have to pay their tickets because thats whats in the rules and the council say the rules have to be followed. Then one day one of the councillors gets pulled over for speeding on that highway. He rushes back to the council with his ticket, and says that they should change the speed limit on that highway. He then doesn't have to face any punishment for breaking that speed limit at all. Do you think that councillor might be the subject of angry protests from the people who had taken the same punishment he dodged by being in a position to change the rules for his own personal benefit, even if they agree with the fact the speed limit has been raised?

If you think a rule is wrong, then why didn't you think the rule was wrong when it applied to many others too? The rule was perfectly reasonable then. If you think the rule should be changed then that's fine, but to change it only when it clearly benefits people in the inner circle, having ignored the reasons given for change before that, stinks. Or are you only capable of seeing how rules can be unfair when they work against your own personal interests? And if that's true, what the hell are you doing as CDs?

Chariot of Fire wrote:J
I recall the first Clan League where TOFU - a relative newcomer to the clan scene but comprising very experienced players - had to play in the lower division. We let Nemesis take our place in the premier division rather than argue about it (coz I'm a super nice guy really) and then recorded something like a 78-6 result in our division, which kinda sucked for all those other clans in there with us.

I think it was actually Nemesis that offered you a spot and it wasn't taken up
(Though you did make the right point with sometimes discretion being the better part of valour)

eddie2 wrote:
But i seen there was a perfect example as to why these clans should not join.... someone mentioned "wild geese" the former nemisis clan who kept nemisis as a user group and started of a new... well how long did they last.... not even 12 months

eddie2 wrote:if you want something like this to happen you should not of posted them as requirements for joining this event, but you did there was no mention of allowing atlantis or vvv into this until it was decided to allow the aoc empire merger in

Eddie, this is my main problem with you. You rarely get your facts straight, and then use your opinions to present infallible truths. You sometimes do raise decent points, but you make our lives infinitely harder if you leak falsehoods into them every now & then...

The only person from Nemesis in Wild Geese was Pmchugh, alongside Nagerous from BPB, and the rest mostly from L4D.
Nemesis disbanded considerably later.

Secondly, as you said, Emp/AoC haven't even merged yet, while Atlantis & VVV were entered into CD&F considerably earlier when one of the other CD's raised the point that there was no need for an archaic approach, when the spirit of the ruling was always to ensure that clans had continuity

crispybits wrote:If you think a rule is wrong, then why didn't you think the rule was wrong when it applied to many others too? The rule was perfectly reasonable then. If you think the rule should be changed then that's fine, but to change it only when it clearly benefits people in the inner circle, having ignored the reasons given for change before that, stinks. Or are you only capable of seeing how rules can be unfair when they work against your own personal interests? And if that's true, what the hell are you doing as CDs?

Crispy, I've had very high regard for your opinions, & I can understand that you may be unhappy with the CD's, but I hope you won't use it as a sign to accuse us of anything & everything. I'm sure people will always be unhappy with any decisions we take, & that comes with the territory, but I hope the ammunition isn't with CD&F.
With regards to the Inner Circle, since that seems to be the most crucial point, I will reiterate that after we had disclosed the salient features of our merge, we had no more bearing on any decisions the other CD's took thereafter. We weren't particularly enchanted with the outcome since it led to our exclusion from the Clan League etc, but at the least that mitigates the advantage from any personal interest we may have gained.
(So far, the only tangible objection seems to be the participation in CD&F, but as I said earlier, that was enacted considerably earlier with Atlantis & VVV's inclusion)

However, since our independence seems to be such a contentious issue, I'm sure we'll take into account what possible safeguards we can institute after the merge. The thought of resignation does have it's appeal with so many voices baying for blood

I have some questions:

1. Sign-ups are now being taken for CC4. When do you expect the tournament to begin? Has any concession/consideration been made for the clans still competing in CC3 who are about to embark on a 60-game final or are they expected to start CC4 at the same time as other clans?

2. In the Rules, under 'Seedings' it is written that 'the seedings will be determined by the latest F400 rankings' and then it contradicts itself by saying the 1st April rankings will be used. If the F400 is updated after 1st April and before the draw is made, which version will be used?

3. For the 41st game and 61st game in the challenges prior to the semis & final there is no definition of what that game should be (may I suggest Classic trips, esc, chained, sunny?)

4. For the semis & final, one of the 7 tie-breaker games must be "trips on random". This is too vague. It should establish the settings as well, i.e. spoils, forts & fog/sun. Again I'd suggest you opt for the very straightforward Classic trips ECS as the 7th game otherwise 'random' could end up being Luxembourg (too quick and unfair) or Hive (too long and causes delay)

5. "When games are sent, they must already be created and fully joined by the home team" - and then you give 5 days to the other clan to join? That's almost a week! Why not adopt the system we used to use in the Clan League, i.e. game details are exchanged by a deadline. With the method you're using all I have to do is check the games created by the oppo to see what maps & settings they are going to give us (really easy for a guy sitting in Hong Kong at lunchtime as the midnight deadline in Montreal approaches). Seems really daft.

Those are my questions/suggestions. Thanks

Leehar, I'm not accusing any individual of anything, but where it seems crystal clear to me that rules are being changed, always for the benefit of the same group of people, and always "as we go along", then I will speak up against that. If rules are set up, either for the voting format or the CDF entry requirements, then that's what they are. The accusations come because these rules are constantly being shifted around, and it's always the same people (from my impression of things) who benefit, where others have previously not been given the same dispensation. Yes by all means change things that aren't right, but we are told on one hand that things are decided when they suit some people for things to be decided, and then we are told there is leeway to change when they suit the same people for that leeway to be given. If it sometimes benefitted some, and other times benefitted others, then that's one thing, but for it to always be done to benefit members of one group of people looks corrupt. Surely you can see that?

This within a system where the law makers are nearly all members of the top clans, where they all have vested interests. Why is a decision "no" when it doesn't affect them, and suddenly "yes" when it does? Why was an option declared as "middle ground" when it didn't make material change and paid only useless lip service to the objections to the original system? Why aren't we getting all clans treated the same, instead of "one rule for most, another rule if you're friends with the right people". All I ask is that the community is dealt with even-handedly, and if you truly believe the CD actions are giving any impression of even-handedness then I truly do wonder....

There has to be a framework in place that ensures that Clans dont go straight from one years final, into the first round of the next cup without a break. It is not acceptable to state , as Bruce did , that there will PROBABLY be more than 32 Clans entered so the problem will sort itself out.
Either the cup format must impose rigid time constraints , so it is done and dusted in a maximum of 11 months , or else it is made bi-annual.
As a start a pre qualifying tournament should be put in place , to ensure 32 Clans are ready to go in good time , followed by strict penalties for failing to ensure games are set up and joined in a timely fashion .

crispybits wrote:A city has an elevated highway through it, and the speed limit has been set at a ridiculous 20mph. Some people get pulled over for speeding by the cops and get tickets. They argue that the speed limit is far too low, but still they have to pay their tickets because thats whats in the rules and the council say the rules have to be followed. Then one day one of the councillors gets pulled over for speeding on that highway. He rushes back to the council with his ticket, and says that they should change the speed limit on that highway. He then doesn't have to face any punishment for breaking that speed limit at all. Do you think that councillor might be the subject of angry protests from the people who had taken the same punishment he dodged by being in a position to change the rules for his own personal benefit, even if they agree with the fact the speed limit has been raised?

If you think a rule is wrong, then why didn't you think the rule was wrong when it applied to many others too? The rule was perfectly reasonable then. If you think the rule should be changed then that's fine, but to change it only when it clearly benefits people in the inner circle, having ignored the reasons given for change before that, stinks. Or are you only capable of seeing how rules can be unfair when they work against your own personal interests? And if that's true, what the hell are you doing as CDs?

I get the analogy, and I see where you're coming from, but I think you might be a little bit too caught up in assigning blame for everything and anything. If you think the rule was stupid, then you can simultaneously be happy that the rule is changed and be perplexed at why it wasn't changed earlier. But if you're trying to look for conspiracies in it I think you won't ever be happy.

If it was an isolated incident then I wouldn't say a thing, but now 2 decisions in quick succession have both been taken unilaterally, and both have had results which have benefitted the same group of people as the members of the group that is making the decision.

I'm not objecting to the rule change as such, I'm objecting to the fact we seem to have a CD group that only seem to see unfairness when it's unfair on them, and not when it's unfair on anyone else.

I am not sure you're correct in that it solely benefited those clans. For one thing, the original vote was only going to be preliminary. Yes, Option 2 won quite convincingly, but it still had less than Options 1 and 3 put together. I can't be sure, but I think it's very likely that all or almost all of the clans that voted for Option 3 (which was knocked out) would change their votes to Option 1. That way half the clans would be very happy (the "elitist" clans, as you put it), while the other half would be very unhappy.

They didn't make it the cleanest or most convincing process, but considering the circumstances you have to admit that they did try to come to some compromise. If they had let it run its course we might very well have a complete split in the tournament, one way or the other.

While I know it's hard for us to convince people, I can promise you our number 1 goal was find a tournament that could meet most people's desires. We mistakenly assumed that using a vote to do that was the right way to go about it. All that did was make it far more obvious that there was a huge divide in the two camps and that going full random or with the existing format was likely to be a hugely frustrating outcome for the losing side.

We underestimated the divide and made a mistake in choosing to put a vote up in the way that we did. After a huge amount of deliberation we decided the right thing to do was to try to draw a line under things, admit that this vote in this format was a mistake and try to move forward with a format that we believed could be a reasonable compromise while knowing it would still hugely dissatisfying for many. We whole heartedly apologise for creating a situation that allowed such a huge divide to form but we felt the most important thing was to protect the cup, a cup for all clans. We didn't want to see a split into two different tournaments. Could there be demand for that one day ? Who knows but rushing into it in a way that divides the clans would not be the right thing to do.

And so the question remains jet - how does a competition that satisfies one half of the divide, and does nothing to meet the criticisms of the other side of the divide, make for any sort of compromise?

And nimic - it didn't have to benefit all the same people in both cases. But the fact is that the top clans get the seeding they wanted (with lip service paid to random in that we get a randomly shit draw) and they also get to choose to ignore the rule about new clans not being eligible that's existed for the last 3 competitions, which there was no controversy over, and which nobody was suggesting was worthy of discussion, so that two of them can disband, create a new clan, and still enter?

That was a lovely post JSW. Right up until that last sentence.

niMic wrote:I am not sure you're correct in that it solely benefited those clans. For one thing, the original vote was only going to be preliminary. Yes, Option 2 won quite convincingly, but it still had less than Options 1 and 3 put together. I can't be sure, but I think it's very likely that all or almost all of the clans that voted for Option 3 (which was knocked out) would change their votes to Option 1. That way half the clans would be very happy (the "elitist" clans, as you put it), while the other half would be very unhappy.

They didn't make it the cleanest or most convincing process, but considering the circumstances you have to admit that they did try to come to some compromise. If they had let it run its course we might very well have a complete split in the tournament, one way or the other.

Just on a point of fact:

Vote 1
Option 1 - 12
Option 2 - 17
Option 3 - 8

Now just looking at the 8 clans that voted option 3, and assumming that everyone else votes the same way they did in round 1

Option 1 - 15
Option 2 - 19
3 still to vote (it was 3-2 to option 1 amongst the option 3 clans who had cast their vote again)

Option 1 couldn't possibly have won assuming nobody else changed their votes, neither could option 1b (the one we actually got forced into).

I think your math is wrong. 12+8 does not equal 15

Nope, but 12 + the 3 clans that had changed to option 1 does.

Just like 17 + the 2 that changed their vote to 2 comes to 19

and 15-19 with 3 votes to cast is still an impossible win for either version of option 1

crispybits wrote:And so the question remains jet - how does a competition that satisfies one half of the divide, and does nothing to meet the criticisms of the other side of the divide, make for any sort of compromise?

And nimic - it didn't have to benefit all the same people in both cases. But the fact is that the top clans get the seeding they wanted (with lip service paid to random in that we get a randomly shit draw) and they also get to choose to ignore the rule about new clans not being eligible that's existed for the last 3 competitions, which there was no controversy over, and which nobody was suggesting was worthy of discussion, so that two of them can disband, create a new clan, and still enter?

Crispy, you more than most have poured time and effort into this and I'm sorry that you will of course feel that much of that was wasted. This option was ultimately chosen because it was felt it was at least introducing a small element of random, I can only quote back Bruce's bit.

We will be proceeding with a random / seeded first round and a set bracket from then on out. The cup has a long proud tradition which we were in danger of losing sight of and we feel a jump to full random is too much right now. We feel that introducing random in this way gives the lowest rank clans a better chance to enjoy the cup for more than 1 round while letting us test the waters with random

Would 8 seeds have been better than 16, I don't know but we chose to make a decision.


@ COF did you mean we should rush into it