Conquer Club

ok... if you need a replacement player, Ill join.

grady12345 wrote:Can anyone tell we what happens if there is a tie for the win in the regional fundraising stage?

Also interested in knowing this, what is the answer to this?

Fuzzy316 wrote:ok... if you need a replacement player, Ill join.

I'll put you down as a reserve. Thanks!

WorldCup4James wrote:

grady12345 wrote:Can anyone tell we what happens if there is a tie for the win in the regional fundraising stage?

Also interested in knowing this, what is the answer to this?

The players with the most money in their region advance to the primary elections.

In case of ties, both players will continue on to the next round. There will likely be more than 6 players competing within each primary party.

PLEASE NOTE

In order to break up the monotony of Senate/City Mogul maps in the final round (General Election), I've changed some to candidate maps. These will be played on the two "Top Issues" maps the Presidential nominees chose during sign-up. I also moved Chicago to the final batch of maps to increase the possibility of a thrilling comeback.

UPDATED MAPS

show

changing the settings once the tournament has started?
not cool.

DiM wrote:changing the settings once the tournament has started?
not cool.

The final 4 (or 6) candidates would just play fewer times on US Senate & City Mogul and more times on the maps they chose at sign-up. I didn't think this would offend anyone since that stage of the tournament is still far off.

It is no big deal to me which way it goes, I just thought (in hindsight) that it would be more fun for the finalists.

If anyone does not agree with the change, I will revert it back to the original plan (3 times on US Senate, 3 times on City Mogul).

DiM wrote:changing the settings once the tournament has started?
not cool.

Sorry Dim, but I do like the change proposed and would support this revision to the finals.

To avoid any fuss over this, I'll just offer the option to the finalists to vote on.

THE BUCK STOPS HERE
The fundraising round has finished and after many back-room deals, empty promises, and compromises... we have our primary candidates! Congratulations to those that suckered and swindled their way to a financial edge.

The finish was very close in several regions - each of which were triple checked.

• In the Democrat races, Kkelly swept the Super PAC money to surge ahead in New England Dem race.
• Meanwhile, lawz21 did the same to tie with denominator and move forward in the Rockies.
• There was plenty of drama for the Republicans as well, when Serreski swept to pull ahead in the Great Lakes.
• After a close, hard fought battle (12 rounds), I was finally able to take a win over Jimmy V to tie for the West Coast nomination.
• Also sweeping in the Republican Southwest was scottp, who leads both parties with $9 million dollars. However....

...to put it to good use, he'll need to continue winning as members in each party will face each other on the TOP ISSUES facing Americans (and the world) today. Yes, it is now time to put your mouth where your money is and sweet talk your way to Presidential candidacy.



Look for your invite next week!

The first batch of games have been sent for the Republican & Democratic debates. However, I have a bit of a conundrum...

A lot more players made it through to this round than I anticipated. I knew there could be a tie, but did not expect 5 ties (2 in the GOP, 3 in the Dems). I also did not expect so many independents to make the cut.

The GOPs and Dems will just have to play a few more games each week, but having every one of the independents (21) play each other once on each of their 2 issues would take far too long.

To remediate this, I propose having each member of the Independent party play half of their opponents on one issue and the other half on the second issue. This remains fairly true to the original plan, but cuts the # of Independent games in half (from 40 per player to 20 per player).

I know that it is bad form to change rules mid-tournament, but there needs to be some modification to keep the tournament running and participants game loads at reasonable levels.

I welcome other suggestions and debate and will consider all options before continuing.

works for me, but i guess the independents' opinions should be weighed more heavily, since they're the ones affected. (I'm a Republican, thus unaffected by the proposal.)

We all knew (or at least, should have known had we all read the first post) that it was possible to have a heavy gameload at certain points of the tournament. I'd be happy to leave it as it was originally laid out.

denominator wrote:We all knew (or at least, should have known had we all read the first post) that it was possible to have a heavy gameload at certain points of the tournament. I'd be happy to leave it as it was originally laid out.

That's not true. While I didn't crunch the numbers myself, I trusted the figures given in Post 1, which say things like:

(3-4 games per week for 6 weeks)

I'm totally in favour of any change needed to keep the game load reasonable.

I have no problem with a large game load.

lostatlimbo wrote:...cuts the # of Independent games in half (from 40 per player to 20 per player).

Der, math is hard. Actually it works out to 40 games per player or 80 if every independent played each other once on each issue. We'll need 8-12 games per player for 4 weeks just to get to 40 and keep pace with the other parties.

I set expectations for game load and pace during sign up and even if all were willing to quadruple that, it is still too much for me to manage. I currently have four active tournaments and much less time for conquer club than I anticipated when I started them. I really planned this one poorly and I apologize for that, but my choices now are to modify it or abandon it.

3 of my opponents are running scared!
What's the score with people who decline/miss invites?

I'll have to be somewhat lenient since the game load is larger than originally advertised, but repeat missed invites - or a declined invite - without notice will be removed from the tournament. I will not be seeking reserves since the player pool is already too large.

Please PM me if you won't be able to join your games right away and I will hold them for a reasonable time.

Any updates?

I guess not...

this is a fun tourney. please don't abandon it, at least ask for help, first!

HOT BUTTONS
The temperature rose quickly in the first round of debates as candidates scolded each other for their positions on issues from falling bombs to failing schools.

In the Republican debates, morleyjoe is polling ahead with 9 delegates, advocating that small town values be restored in America.
Likewise in the Democratic race, PonyGal trotted ahead with 9 delegates and paraded the idea of sensible immigration laws.
Independent candidates are locked in the maddening clamor of too many voices and one will need to make a very loud statement in order to challenge the primary parties this fall.

As acting President, I have had my hands full lately and have done a poor job at keeping up this tournament. For this, I sincerely apologize and will do my best to get it back on track. You can help.

Starting this round, I will send a message requesting that you locate your own games for that round. To do this, go to the Game Finder and search the following:
Tournament: Conquer Club 2012 US Presidential Elections
Game Label: [enter your username]

The password for these games is "debate". For now, please only enter games that include your username in the title. Once you join these games, I will send out invitations to the opponents for that round. If you have any trouble finding or joining your games, please let me know.

Thank you to the many who joined their games for making this process more manageable.

Several have not joined yet and have been sent a 2nd notice. 5 days after the 2nd notice, unjoined games are forfeited for that round (unless you notify me of an absence).

Once all games are underway for this round I will begin creating the next batch, in an effort to get this tournament back on track.

blitzkrieg2 has asked to be removed from the tournament.

In order to keep things fair and even - so that every player in their respective primary gets to play the same number of opponents, I must invalidate previous wins against blitzkrieg2 for this round. Otherwise, those who have already played blitzkrieg2 would have an unfair advantage.

Sorry for the inconvenience.