Nicky15 wrote:That was always the plan for the final thread, but the name will remain, it is the 4th edition of the Conqueror's Cup, but there is no reason why we can't put the official bit in now.
I would suggest that the previous 3 Conqueror's Cups were all directed by a single person without extensive input from the clan community. This cup continues in that tradition, but it is a new tournament in its structure and its control. That's why I think it should be the 1st Clan Cup. It's now directed by the clans for the benefit of the clans.
eddie2 wrote:did you hold a vote in cdf asking if all clans were ok with you dictating that clans who did not want in cdf must join to take part in these clan events now. me personally i dont see why they should have to if they read the sign up thread and are happy to take part then that should be enough. they should not be forced to join a group they do not want to and get involved in convos they do not want to just to make the figures of the group look good.
No. Our aim is to try and create a clan world where all clans get a say, and the CDs are not charged with making all the decisions. As much as possible we want clans to be able to decide, and they can't if they are not represented in the CDF. No one is forced to get involved in discussions, and if a clan does not have an opinion on a topic they can abstain their vote. While some may not have an opinion on the way CC4 is organised there may well be an issue that arises mid cup that they will want a say in. Also being a member of CDF means they are a clan with standing enough to make them less likely to pull out mid comp and disrupt the competition. This may well be an non issue as no one apart from yourself has refused to be a member of CDF. AKAs rep is doing his part in the votes we have.
wow what a load of bullshit nicky i did not refuse to be a member i was actually a member for about 3 weeks then felt it was 2 much like the cla so left and what was the reason for that... ow yes it was the fact that qwert opened up the sign up thread while rules were still being talked about and voted on... and what did you clan mods say to me...
He is the organizer of the event so we can guide him and ultimately he can do what he wants....
when i left i put razorvich in my place (which was me who done that) so is that me refusing aka to be members....
now aka are a member of cdf and me as a leader has asked if it has been voted on that you are demanding clans to join a group to take part in a clan event when if there are any clans not members by now and not wanting any part of voting and just want to play the game. (and if a issue comes up they feel about they might join up later out of there own choice.)... and if not why not since you say you are giving the clan world back to the clans to voice there opinion...
2 me after what i have seen over the last couple of days is that clan mods have turned into the new hitler of cc.
eddie2 wrote:did you hold a vote in cdf asking if all clans were ok with you dictating that clans who did not want in cdf must join to take part in these clan events now. me personally i dont see why they should have to if they read the sign up thread and are happy to take part then that should be enough. they should not be forced to join a group they do not want to and get involved in convos they do not want to just to make the figures of the group look good.
No. Our aim is to try and create a clan world where all clans get a say, and the CDs are not charged with making all the decisions. As much as possible we want clans to be able to decide, and they can't if they are not represented in the CDF. No one is forced to get involved in discussions, and if a clan does not have an opinion on a topic they can abstain their vote. While some may not have an opinion on the way CC4 is organised there may well be an issue that arises mid cup that they will want a say in. Also being a member of CDF means they are a clan with standing enough to make them less likely to pull out mid comp and disrupt the competition. This may well be an non issue as no one apart from yourself has refused to be a member of CDF. AKAs rep is doing his part in the votes we have.
wow what a load of bullshit nicky i did not refuse to be a member i was actually a member for about 3 weeks then felt it was 2 much like the cla so left and what was the reason for that... ow yes it was the fact that qwert opened up the sign up thread while rules were still being talked about and voted on... and what did you clan mods say to me...
He is the organizer of the event so we can guide him and ultimately he can do what he wants....
when i left i put razorvich in my place (which was me who done that) so is that me refusing aka to be members....
now aka are a member of cdf and me as a leader has asked if it has been voted on that you are demanding clans to join a group to take part in a clan event when if there are any clans not members by now and not wanting any part of voting and just want to play the game. (and if a issue comes up they feel about they might join up later out of there own choice.)... and if not why not since you say you are giving the clan world back to the clans to voice there opinion...
2 me after what i have seen over the last couple of days is that clan mods have turned into the new hitler of cc.
Eddie mate, I really don't wish to argue with you, but if you remember you did not want to be part of the CDF. After your experience with the CLA you were not keen on being a member of the new group but I spent time convincing you to give it try because this new CD team were keen to integrate you back positively in the Clan world after your bad experiences in the CLA and the CL. You did for 3 weeks then took yourself out that is true.
Eddie you are arguing an issue that currently does not exist if there is a clan out there that truly doesn't want to be involved in democracy then we will face that issue if it ever arises. We can't have clans jumping in and out on each issue. There have been things we have discussed in the CDF before they reach the public eye. How will a clan know whats being discussed and if they have an opinion on it if they are not there to see it.
jetsetwilly wrote:And more to the point, this thread is purely to discuss the cup format. Please keep unrelated posts off the thread.
wow where does it say that this is purely a format thread this is a thread for discussion or are you now saying we have no right to do that...
now your previous post actually raises a valid issue that can happen...
Eddie you are arguing an issue that currently does not exist if there is a clan out there that truly doesn't want to be involved in democracy then we will face that issue if it ever arises. We can't have clans jumping in and out on each issue. There have been things we have discussed in the CDF before they reach the public eye. How will a clan know whats being discussed and if they have an opinion on it if they are not there to see it.
now at present there are 52 clans and 55 members of cdf 5 of these are moderators and from what i understand qwert is there as a extra member for clan league....
so there are 3 clans who have opted not to sign up. so a couple of things can happen....
1) they all sign up and just follow majority vote for whatever is being voted for (making it unfair on people voting opposite way and really care about what happens.) or on a plus abstaining from the vote which wont affect it...... 2)only 2 clans sign up and one refuses to but wants to take part and after discussion you allow them to take part. that is going to piss off the other 2 clans who only joined to get entry to the event... 3)then you can say that since cdf membership is mandatory for this event if a clan leaves it during the event are you going to kick them out (there will be clans saying they should be kicked out)
now do you not think it would be better to have it say pass the needs to join cdf and friends and highlight the fact that if they want there say on clan issues they need to join the group. and i bet you they properly will join off there own back. and if not then that is there problem...
like me with aka when i left cla the clan left with me and refused further participation within that group. but with cdf i felt it was like cla and left wishing you all the best for the future and told you to remove me and put razorvich in my place. So i was not pulling away from it fully just sitting back and letting another member take my place and i hold no grudge against the group or the clan directors for this.
i do hope you can see that i am speaking sense about what could happen if you demand that someone joins your group and how what they do in that group can start to piss over members off. and if the group is not like cla it will end up like that...
anyway i wont post again on this matter because frankly while it is being run like a dictatorship i wont be taking part (i am not saying razorvich wont sign up and play but i will not.)
In this apparent dictatorship, the one thing in the entire format we insisted on were that clans were a member of a democratic group, that got to vote on issues that involved them. Us being a dictatorship kind of contradicts our want for democracy.
Now as i said before we will address this issue if it ever arises. There is currently one clan that has opted out of CDF that is true, and there are two very new clans that haven't quite yet met the requirements to be a member. If any of these three clans want to play, then we will of course consider it. More than likely we would ask for the opinion of the members of CDF.
Nicky15 wrote:In this apparent dictatorship, the one thing in the entire format we insisted on were that clans were a member of a democratic group, that got to vote on issues that involved them. Us being a dictatorship kind of contradicts our want for democracy.
Now as i said before we will address this issue if it ever arises. There is currently one clan that has opted out of CDF that is true, and there are two very new clans that haven't quite yet met the requirements to be a member. If any of these three clans want to play, then we will of course consider it. More than likely we would ask for the opinion of the members of CDF.
this one sentence just makes the whole rule a load of bullshit then don't it.. meaning you can pick and choose what clan you will allow and what clan you wont allow..
jetsetwilly wrote:Right getting back on track, do people want a vote on a limited trench inclusion?
It all needs to be voted on. And yes that will make it a longer and more difficult process, but it should make future events easier, and likely help the clan league out as well when it gets annexed as an official Conquer Club event.
Ive been wondering why polls have not been showing up in the CDF yet?
jetsetwilly wrote:Right getting back on track, do people want a vote on a limited trench inclusion?
But the cup name and dictatorship discussions were so productive.
I know that few will agree with me, but as long as you put a round limit on all trench games you don't need to be a game limit on trench. It's an auxiliary setting that only a few like to use so clans won't go apeshit and make every game trench.
jetsetwilly wrote:Right getting back on track, do people want a vote on a limited trench inclusion?
It all needs to be voted on. And yes that will make it a longer and more difficult process, but it should make future events easier, and likely help the clan league out as well when it gets annexed as an official Conquer Club event.
Ive been wondering why polls have not been showing up in the CDF yet?
So I don't mind it being listed as "must be a member of CDF". But beneath it, can you pretty please tell us what those requirements actually are? Thanks!
fac vitam incredibilem memento vivere Knowledge Weighs Nothing, Carry All You Can
IcePack wrote:So I don't mind it being listed as "must be a member of CDF". But beneath it, can you pretty please tell us what those requirements actually are? Thanks!
Pretty much all you have to do is be a clan. Then you can enter CDF. The Usual requirements for a clan apply.
"What do you need for becoming Official :
1. 9 members and 1 leader 2. A name for the clan/group 3. A description 4. Submit the above information Eticket with the group member's names on it. 5. It may take a few days to become offical after that."
Thanks, that is what i thought. Pretty much just have to exist as a clan to get in. But I had never seen the actual requirements for CDF entry or the new event, so I was hoping it would be listed somewhere.
Thanks
fac vitam incredibilem memento vivere Knowledge Weighs Nothing, Carry All You Can
IcePack wrote:This makes the vote more complicated, but if possible I would favor a vote where you dont just pick one option, but prioritize all of them. Such as: 1st Pick = 4 Pts 2nd Pick = 3 pts 3rd pick = 2 pts 4th pick = 1 pt
This way, you can total all clans 4 picks prioritization. That way I can say "i pick option 1, but if i had to choose something else it would be Y, and then X, and then Z."
It would really show the preferances of the clans, instead of limiting to your top option.
This is bad idea. For example if you favor just one option, and 2 options are above other 2 in voting, then you will put #1 for option you favorise, and #4 to its the most strongest opposition option, even if you think that the most strongest opposition option is second the best. This suggestion allows more manipulation with voting.
Keep it simple, one clan put one vote for option they like the most. If no option gets more than 50% votes in first voting round, then we can make new voting round with 2 the most strongest option, while other 2 being eliminated.
Given the importance of the decision here we will need to consider the best method of making sure it's a fair outcome. It's highly unlikely to be a straight single vote. If there are 4 options, and 3 involved some level of random then that vote could be split 3 ways. We'll get that sorted out as quickly as we can with a view to getting the vote going early this week.
At first, great job by CDs by deciding to give to clans democratic option and chance to both propose and choose wished format style.
In addition, I would like that players who put their proposals on voting get a chance to add description (if they wish, no obligatory) to their format before it goes on voting. In the description they can say all they wish, but main purpose is to say why they think their format is the best to choose, maybe compare it with other format and say in which points they think their proposal is better than other proposals so players who vote can get wider picture about reasons for voting for every solution.
jetsetwilly wrote:4. Alternative system
Clans 1-8 get a bye in Rounds 1 and 2 and join from Round 3 Clans 9-16 get a bye in Round 2 and join in Round 2
There are 2 similar alternatives within option 4 but for the purposes of the initial discussion we propose to keep them as a single option. If this option proves to be the winner then we could determine which of the 2 to go for.
Option 4a uses a random method of pairing the clans. 4b uses a bracket system.
4a:
R1: Clans ranked 17-24 are randomly paired with the clans ranked 25-32 R2: Clans ranked 9-16 are randomly paired with the winners from R1 R3 Clans ranked 1-8 clans are randomly paired with the winers from R2 QF: Remainng clans ranked 1-4 are randomly paired with those ranked 4-8 SF: Remaining clans ranked 1-2 are randomly paried with those ranked 3-4
4b:
R1: Clans ranked 17-24 are paired with the clans ranked 25-32 using the system 17v32; 18v31 ... 24v25 R2: Clans ranked 9-16 are paired with the 8 winners from R1. 9v(24v25); 10v(23v26) ... 16v(17v32) R3 Clans ranked 1-8 clans are paired with the winners from R2. 1-8. 1v[16v(17v32)]; 2v[15v(18v31)] ... 8v[9v(24v25)] QF: Remaining 8 clans - draw system tbc. SF: Remaining 4 clans - draw system tbc
This is bracket proposed by qwert (4a) and myself (4b). Bracket format is exactly the same so I agree it can be put as the same option in voting process, so I agree the presented jpg bracket format used by qwert is used also for 4b. There is just one difference in the proposals regarding to draw. My proposal is fixed seeding draw with nothing random, and his proposal is semi-random draw (I would not call it totally random because he still has half of clans seeds, and just lower half of clans are paired random).
Please make just a minor change in my format proposal 4b: QF: Remaining 8 clans - 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5 (or winners of their previous matches) SF: Remaining 4 clans - 1v4, 2v3 (or winners of their previous matches)
Also, one question for qwert for proposal 4a, as I am not sure if I understand his idea in total: Which is time of making draw for each round in your idea? Is it the whole draw for the whole tournament made at the beginning of the tournament (draw is made just once during the tournament), or draw for every round will be done before start of the round according to current rank at the date of every draw (draw is made before every round = 5 times during the tournament)?
EDIT: I would like to call option 4 "Progressive Format" instead of "Alternative Format". Progressive because clans are making progress from early rounds playing by lower clans, and every next round is giving them stronger opposition, so how they progress throughout the bracket, opponents become stronger.
Last edited by josko.ri on Sun Mar 24, 2013 5:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
jetsetwilly wrote:Given the importance of the decision here we will need to consider the best method of making sure it's a fair outcome. It's highly unlikely to be a straight single vote. If there are 4 options, and 3 involved some level of random then that vote could be split 3 ways. We'll get that sorted out as quickly as we can with a view to getting the vote going early this week.
If you make voting principle like IcePack is proposing, then he can make group of 5 players who support his idea, convince the group to make 5 additional different proposals, and then convince them to always put his the strongest opposition proposal at the bottom of the list. I am not saying he would do that,I just say he can do that. Only existing the chance for voting manipulation is enough reason to not accept voting system which allows any kind of voting manipulation. We have many voting principles used throughout the world in its democracy, and I cannot remember a single system where voters are leveling their choices by giving them different ranks.
Re voting choice, the ranking systems do exist but I'm not saying it's necessarily the best option here. We wiill look at the fairest system to use in this case.
I disagree with Josko, the options should be presented clearly and concisely but with absolutely nothing added to influence the voters. Just the options plain and simple.
IcePack wrote:This makes the vote more complicated, but if possible I would favor a vote where you dont just pick one option, but prioritize all of them. Such as: 1st Pick = 4 Pts 2nd Pick = 3 pts 3rd pick = 2 pts 4th pick = 1 pt
This way, you can total all clans 4 picks prioritization. That way I can say "i pick option 1, but if i had to choose something else it would be Y, and then X, and then Z."
It would really show the preferances of the clans, instead of limiting to your top option.
This is bad idea. For example if you favor just one option, and 2 options are above other 2 in voting, then you will put #1 for option you favorise, and #4 to its the most strongest opposition option, even if you think that the most strongest opposition option is second the best. This suggestion allows more manipulation with voting.
Keep it simple, one clan put one vote for option they like the most. If no option gets more than 50% votes in first voting round, then we can make new voting round with 2 the most strongest option, while other 2 being eliminated.
This accomplishes everything in 1 vote. You already said if your vote method doesn't produce a winner you'd need another vote. Mine is simpler
fac vitam incredibilem memento vivere Knowledge Weighs Nothing, Carry All You Can
IcePack wrote:This makes the vote more complicated, but if possible I would favor a vote where you dont just pick one option, but prioritize all of them. Such as: 1st Pick = 4 Pts 2nd Pick = 3 pts 3rd pick = 2 pts 4th pick = 1 pt
This way, you can total all clans 4 picks prioritization. That way I can say "i pick option 1, but if i had to choose something else it would be Y, and then X, and then Z."
It would really show the preferances of the clans, instead of limiting to your top option.
This is bad idea. For example if you favor just one option, and 2 options are above other 2 in voting, then you will put #1 for option you favorise, and #4 to its the most strongest opposition option, even if you think that the most strongest opposition option is second the best. This suggestion allows more manipulation with voting.
Keep it simple, one clan put one vote for option they like the most. If no option gets more than 50% votes in first voting round, then we can make new voting round with 2 the most strongest option, while other 2 being eliminated.
This accomplishes everything in 1 vote. You already said if your vote method doesn't produce a winner you'd need another vote. Mine is simpler
My system will for sure produce winner format which majority of is wants. Your system can at first hand allow more manipulation with votes, at second jand it is possible to produce a result that nobody likes (it is possible that solution which everyone put on second place at the end wins. At third, I know why you like this voting system, bbecause it is favorising your idea of no changing format. If someone likes one idea and no strong opinion about which idea dislikes, in majority cases that clan will put old system on second place, just because it has already worked while 3rd and 4th example never worked for real.
the only way your method would work is if votes are sent to clan mods first before posting then once they have all votes documented they post them all... i would also say that 2nd 3rd and 4th vote does not get taken into account unless there is a tie for first place then only the vote options that were tied get tallied up for total amount of points or else you could end up with a option no clan wanted.
