To quote jp, "I feel like I need to respond."
1) thanks for sending me a pm requesting I reduce the wording, jp
2) here's the "too much" I sent... addressing every concern I saw that came out of this discussion about medals in this or the medals thread, using jp's format of penalties but following the established CC rules and terminology about what's not proper on CC.
stahrgazer wrote:Okay, here's a draft (the blue part is the section I thought you requested) plus some thoughts for those other sections... based, as I indicated I would like to emphasize, right out of the CC rules.
In the blue section, you may notice I built in subjectivity... but with the reasoning I thought logical to use, and that "systemic" nature I believe is important for consistency with CC as a whole.
Also note, I mention a formal ladder process but do not define it here. That gives you a chance to make your laddering process separate, because while I have some ideas, and you have some ideas, that process really belongs to a larger community than two people.
With the systemic requirement, the details as to which ladder process is best are going to be "more" acceptable no matter how "un"acceptable to any individual.
I used roughly 3 as the number.. with a warning. Using "one" is too few, it potentially limits a higher clan's willingness to give newcoming clans a chance. Then they may want a rematch (that's two) or a fellow clan that had beaten them may want a shot... but after that? That's where the warning comes in.
Giving a warning after a couple games also minimizes problems with the gray areas in any ladder processes you develop. If they can't join in OBVIOUSLY healthy competition every few games, then it's easier to show a systemic problem.
Major difference here, though: higher ranked clan may not receive a medal for a win (you've warned them they won't now) while the lower ranked clan WOULD. (Why penalize the new clan because they agreed to take on a higher clan that's maybe trying to cherrypick?)
Other other major difference is the one that we just ... ahem... settled, which is that the really fun competition available in multi-clan wars (tournaments, if you will) shouldn't be discouraged in any form, so any pending forfeitures for individual competitions shouldn't apply to tournaments.
Most of these ideas came out of the recent threads, but I also took peeks at history - especially when offering you ideas for the section you'd already provided.
Part 1 - Forfeits and Penalties
Thrown Games or Deliberately Benefiting from Thrown Games
An individual who is perceived as having benefited from a thrown game or skirmish (for example, losing in one clan then joining the winning opponent) will not be entitled to any clan medal that might be awarded to the rest of the clan for wins directly after joining the opponent. The player name to be excluded from medals awards must be provided by the clan leader or war representative from one of the clans involved in the suspect lost game/skirmish along with the game number(s) that provide evidence of a player changing clans mid-war or mid-series.
A clan that is perceived as having benefitted from a thrown skirmish (for example, a player losing in one clan then joining the winning opponent might be suspected of throwing games/skirmish to the winning clan) may not be entitled to any clan medal that might be awarded to the rest of the clan for the questionable win(s) directly preceding and after the suspect games/skirmish.
One suspect game shall not be deemed sufficient evidence for an entire clan to forfeit the war medal (although that is sufficient evidence for the individual to forfeit a medal) for a skirmish. The number of games required will be based partly on percentage within the skirmish and partly on importance of the member in the game. Suspect doubles matches, for example, might be weighted more highly than a quadruples match, but position within the matches will count as well.
Accusation must come from the clan leader or war representative from one of the clans involved in the suspect lost games/skirmish, or may come from a Tournament Organizer if this skirmish is part of a clan Tournament. Accusation should be accompanied with notable games and discussion of reason for the accusation.
Clan wars should be taken seriously enough to make every attempt to complete an engagement that was fairly negotiated.
The numbers of players involved, and their personal schedules, may make timely completion of an engagement difficult or impossible. When that occurs, the warring clans should discuss the dilemma and the reason for postponement or cancellation of the remainder of the skirmish.
In these cases, no medals shall be awarded if the original games number agreement w
as not achieved, even if the number of games completed would have entitled these clans to a medal if that was the original agreement. For example, a clan war begins as 51 games, but after game 42, the clans cannot complete their war. This is an incomplete war that may be postponed for a period (no longer than 6 months) but will not be considered complete, and no medals will be awarded, until all 51 games are final.
If a clan is deemed to intentionally stall the series (deadbeat) for purposes of avoiding a loss against clan record, or to ensure the winning clan will not medal; evidence of this intentional delay should be provided. The clan deemed to deadbeat will lose all clan tournament privileges for a period of (3 months?), the engagement will be considered closed, and no medals will be awarded even if the minimum number of games completed would have entitled these clans to a medal if that was the original agreement. For example, if a 45-game war ends via deadbeat on game 43, the deadbeat clan loses clan war privileges and no medals will be awarded.
A clan that repeatedly stalls/deadbeats their engagements may lose all clan privileges for 6 months to one year.
Serial Clan Killing/Trading Wins
Clans that have completed a war may wish to re-engage, as one clan may want the chance for revenge; but clans that repeatedly war with each other might be seen to do so for purposes of gaining or trading medals. Any clan(s) deemed to be opposing each other “too much” will be warned that their next mutual engagement will not be awarded a war medal. Engagements that are part of a larger multiple-clan series are excluded from this forfeiture.
Noncompetitive Wars/Cherrypicking/Systematically "Farming" New Clans
Conquer Club understands that sometimes a newer, less established, unranked or lesser-ranked clan needs to engage more established competition to prove themselves; but also wishes to promote competitive engagements.
This raises the question of what is competitive, and what constitutes noncompetitive. Conquer Club has established rulings for individual and team games that define “farming” as, “the systematic targeting of new recruits.”
Few clans are comprised of ranks less than cadet, nor does merely indicating a timeframe for clan existence or number of battles made suffice to establish a competitive war.
Historically on Conquer Club, possibly due to the precedents set in sporting events, multi-team ladder events that help establish more formal clan ranking have no more than 16 teams which would imply that a division of 16 positions in a formal ranking is “fair.” That is for competitions, however, where the winner of a skirmish must be prepared to meet another winner, suggesting at least equal or higher rank. In individual competitions, therefore, the “16 positions between” must be more limited.
For individual competitions, clans should be prepared to meet those who fall within 6 to 8 ranking positions (roughly half of the divisions set for multiple-clan series) - once they are ranked.
Until the clans are formally ranked using the ranking process, there should still be some criteria.
As mentioned, merely indicating a time-frame for a newly named clan may not be sufficient to consider it "low" in ranking. For example, if a sufficient quantity of members from an established clan split off to form a new clan, that new clan is still more experienced despite the newness of its name, than a clan comprised primarily of members who have not participated in clans before; although at that point, not having won any engagements, both clans may technically be
For many of the multiple clan engagements in Conquer Club history, two games was considered enough to enable a newer clan to enter the multiple clan competition; in other words, two games provides sufficient information provide an initial ranking.
A new clan that has won one of two wars would have 50% wins, and a clan that has won five of ten wars has much more experience with the same win percentage; but if the newer clan won a competition against a much more established (higher ranked) clan, then which clan is ranked higher is slightly subjective and can lead to disagreements about formulas used.
Over time, however, clan directors can perceive patterns of engagements, thus, can establish sufficient evidence to indicate that a clan or clans is systemically engaging in noncompetitive wars. Engaging in two consecutive or two of three noncompetitive but nonconsecutive wars, for example, would be considered “systemic.”
Any clan(s) deemed to be systematically engaging in non-competitive wars will be warned that the clan will forfeit clan medals for future wins against unranked or lesser-ranked clans for a period of (1 year? Forever?).
To encourage all eligible clan ranks to enter healthy, tournament-style competition, engagements that are part of a larger multiple-clan series with clans from various levels (where competition may be greater or lesser) are excluded from this forfeiture.
The unranked or lesser-ranked clan that wins a war that is perceived to be noncompetitive will receive a clan war medal for engagements that meet criteria for medals, even if the opposing clan had been warned they would not receive a medal for similar competitions.
Any clan that appears to be cherrypicking newer/unranked clans and not engaging in more competitive wars may lose not just medals for the questioned engagements, but also clan tournament privileges for (6 months? 1 year?).
Part 2 - Player Maximums
Established precedent is that no single clan member should engage in more than 25% of smaller (41-game) skirmishes or 30% of larger (61-game) skirmishes.
This number may fluctuate slightly depending on the size of the clan and mutual negotiations, but the result should be close to these figures. For example, a clan whose members are unable to fill all games in a larger skirmish, resulting in one player needing to join 31% of the games will not forfeit a clan war medal (providing that this was agreed in negotiations.
Clans that attempt to fill more than (roughly) a third of their games with a select few members or teams may appear to be conducting a noncompetitive war so may forfeit any medal award even if both clans agreed – Conquer Club has individual and team tournaments for that sort of competition, clan wars are intended to involve as much of a clan as possible.
I'd say it's only "too much" because instead of just stating "rules" I actually put rationale behind the "rules" which is what a MANUAL should do.
Boiled down, a "list" of my input would be:
1) Players can change teams, but if they do, they will not be awarded war medals if opponents or organizers identify their games as potentially throwing the wars.
2) Clans who benefit from thrown wars may forfeit medals for those wars if more than one game is suspect; again, identified by opponents or organizers.
3) Incomplete challenges will not be awarded medals. A challenge is incomplete if the original number of agreed-upon games is not complete (even if 41 or more games are complete).
4) Clans will be penalized by loss of privileges if they repeatedly stall or deadbeat their skirmishes.
5) High-ranked clans that repeatedly target lower-ranked clans in individual skirmishes may forfeit medals for winning their skirmishes. "Repeatedly" is identified as more than two skirmishes against lower ranked clans, even if the clan participated in a skirmish against higher-ranked clans in between.
6) If a high-ranked clan is suspected of picking on lower-ranked clans, they will be warned; they will receive a medal for completed or ongoing wars, but will forfeit future skirmishes where the engagement appears "unfair."
7) Lower-ranked clan wins will get a medal for skirmish wins even if the higher-rank clan is subject to forfeit its medals.
8.) In addition to forfeiting medals for the skirmishes, clans that appear to be cherry-picking lower ranked clans but not engaging in "riskier" wars may lose their war privileges.
9) Organized tournament-like events where competition may be higher or lower will be awarded medals for skirmishes that meet the criteria for clan wars. Tournament-type challenges with mixed-rank participation will not count as higher ranked clans targeting lower-ranked clans.
10) A minimum of ten players for 41-game wars (roughly 25%) and close 30% (20 players for 61-game skirmishes) is required to be eligible for a medal.