Dropping Major Clan Events

[ljex]

josko what happened to this ?????

22:59:04 he's agreed not to post anything more vs cof/tofu in public
22:59:12 whether or not he follows it, idk
22:59:22 but I think if tofu doesnt either, he might not

they said nothing towards you so why start again

I do not see how your comment contributed to this discussion nor how is it related to topic.

I do not see how your comment contributed to this discussion nor how is it related to topic.

I put 2 comments in this topic, and both were on topic. One was correcting lie statement said by other person and that statement is related to topic of this thread (and I wrote in the reply that the only point of my post is to correct lie statement), and another one was also very related to topic of this discussion, about (not) allowing clans to participate at the same time in competitions with higher game load than competition they withdrew from.

This went so far over your head it is almost unbelievable.

The post I quoted of you saying a post added nothin also added nothing itself...

[greenoaks]

josko what happened to this ?????

22:59:04 he's agreed not to post anything more vs cof/tofu in public
22:59:12 whether or not he follows it, idk
22:59:22 but I think if tofu doesnt either, he might not

they said nothing towards you so why start again

I do not see how your comment contributed to this discussion nor how is it related to topic.

I do not see how your comment contributed to this discussion nor how is it related to topic.

I put 2 comments in this topic, and both were on topic. One was correcting lie statement said by other person and that statement is related to topic of this thread (and I wrote in the reply that the only point of my post is to correct lie statement), and another one was also very related to topic of this discussion, about (not) allowing clans to participate at the same time in competitions with higher game load than competition they withdrew from.

This went so far over your head it is almost unbelievable.

The post I quoted of you saying a post added nothin also added nothing itself...

i thought it was clever.

I think that All clans Events are Separate Tournaments, so if some drop Happen in CC4, then any potential punishment need to be related on CC5.

Simple all events are separate and not same
Conquer Cup bracket series could only compare with same event(CC1-CC2-CC3-CC4 and future event from Same series CC5 and etc)
Clan League series could only compare with same event(CL1-CL2-CL3-CL4-CL5 and future even from same series CL6 and etc)
NC bracket could only compare with same event.

They have different rules, different clan player eligibility propositions, so any possible punishment could only have effect for same event where punishment are declared.

telling a clan they can't compete next year in these yearly events loses a lot of oomph. treat all official events the same ie. if they drop from todays event they cant join the next 1 or 2 (if that is the decision), then the consequences are immediate.

you don't smack a child a week later for being naughty. it is immediate or not at all.

[chapcrap]

telling a clan they can't compete next year in these yearly events loses a lot of oomph. treat all official events the same ie. if they drop from todays event they cant join the next 1 or 2 (if that is the decision), then the consequences are immediate.

you don't smack a child a week later for being naughty. it is immediate or not at all.

That's basically where I am at with this. I think you either tell them they can't compete in the next clan event (or two events or whatever) or make it a certain time period that they can not compete. I think that 2-4 months would be fine. So, if they drop, they can not get privs for anything for 2 months and all other privs are removed as well. If they are in an event or war, any unmade games are forfeited for purposes of F400.

[Doc_Brown]

Which of the following do you think is a more preferable situation?
1) More clans participating in events, with an occasional clan dropping out before or in between wars.
2) Fewer clans participating with minimal (or zero) dropouts.

To put this another way, would CC4 be a better event if only 20-25 clans signed up but you knew all were going to stay in until they were eliminated? Cheme already noted that they have the authority to issue appropriate penalties once privileges are issued, so we're talking about clans dropping out between or before wars. Because if you impose severe penalties (and a big hit to rankings or a ban from a future major event is severe), clans are going to avoid joining if they think there is even the chance they might have to drop out. Clans hovering in the 10-20 member range are going to be far less likely to join events. New events like Lx's cup probably end up with 3-4 participating clans. Is that a better outcome for the clan world? I really don't see how. The only proposal I've seen that doesn't result in significant harm to clan life as a whole is Foxy's: If a clan has to drop out due to inability (or anticipated inability) to fill the game slots, it is required to recruit new members prior to joining a new event.

[chapcrap]

Which of the following do you think is a more preferable situation?
1) More clans participating in events, with an occasional clan dropping out before or in between wars.
2) Fewer clans participating with minimal (or zero) dropouts.

To put this another way, would CC4 be a better event if only 20-25 clans signed up but you knew all were going to stay in until they were eliminated? Cheme already noted that they have the authority to issue appropriate penalties once privileges are issued, so we're talking about clans dropping out between or before wars. Because if you impose severe penalties (and a big hit to rankings or a ban from a future major event is severe), clans are going to avoid joining if they think there is even the chance they might have to drop out. Clans hovering in the 10-20 member range are going to be far less likely to join events. New events like Lx's cup probably end up with 3-4 participating clans. Is that a better outcome for the clan world? I really don't see how. The only proposal I've seen that doesn't result in significant harm to clan life as a whole is Foxy's: If a clan has to drop out due to inability (or anticipated inability) to fill the game slots, it is required to recruit new members prior to joining a new event.

I choose penalizing for dropouts so that we get less.

[Doc_Brown]

Which of the following do you think is a more preferable situation?
1) More clans participating in events, with an occasional clan dropping out before or in between wars.
2) Fewer clans participating with minimal (or zero) dropouts.

To put this another way, would CC4 be a better event if only 20-25 clans signed up but you knew all were going to stay in until they were eliminated? Cheme already noted that they have the authority to issue appropriate penalties once privileges are issued, so we're talking about clans dropping out between or before wars. Because if you impose severe penalties (and a big hit to rankings or a ban from a future major event is severe), clans are going to avoid joining if they think there is even the chance they might have to drop out. Clans hovering in the 10-20 member range are going to be far less likely to join events. New events like Lx's cup probably end up with 3-4 participating clans. Is that a better outcome for the clan world? I really don't see how. The only proposal I've seen that doesn't result in significant harm to clan life as a whole is Foxy's: If a clan has to drop out due to inability (or anticipated inability) to fill the game slots, it is required to recruit new members prior to joining a new event.

I choose penalizing for dropouts so that we get less.

By that, I take it you mean fewer clan dropouts, less clan participation, fewer clans overall, and a less active clan system (and a less fair one at that if you're punishing the innocent parties left high and dry after multiple members leave their clan or quit participating, and add to that fewer clans since the severely punished ones will likely cease to exist altogether). I feel like I'm starting to sound like a broken record. I just haven't heard anyone explain why making clan life less fun for everyone is a good exchange for eliminating the rare case of one or more clans being awarded a surprise bye in one round or another of some event. In my mind, less participation has a far more negative impact on everyone than the current situation.

[ljex]

Which of the following do you think is a more preferable situation?
1) More clans participating in events, with an occasional clan dropping out before or in between wars.
2) Fewer clans participating with minimal (or zero) dropouts.

To put this another way, would CC4 be a better event if only 20-25 clans signed up but you knew all were going to stay in until they were eliminated? Cheme already noted that they have the authority to issue appropriate penalties once privileges are issued, so we're talking about clans dropping out between or before wars. Because if you impose severe penalties (and a big hit to rankings or a ban from a future major event is severe), clans are going to avoid joining if they think there is even the chance they might have to drop out. Clans hovering in the 10-20 member range are going to be far less likely to join events. New events like Lx's cup probably end up with 3-4 participating clans. Is that a better outcome for the clan world? I really don't see how. The only proposal I've seen that doesn't result in significant harm to clan life as a whole is Foxy's: If a clan has to drop out due to inability (or anticipated inability) to fill the game slots, it is required to recruit new members prior to joining a new event.

I choose penalizing for dropouts so that we get less.

By that, I take it you mean fewer clan dropouts, less clan participation, fewer clans overall, and a less active clan system (and a less fair one at that if you're punishing the innocent parties left high and dry after multiple members leave their clan or quit participating, and add to that fewer clans since the severely punished ones will likely cease to exist altogether). I feel like I'm starting to sound like a broken record. I just haven't heard anyone explain why making clan life less fun for everyone is a good exchange for eliminating the rare case of one or more clans being awarded a surprise bye in one round or another of some event. In my mind, less participation has a far more negative impact on everyone than the current situation.

I doubt that the average clan will worry about this but the top 5 or so will for sure which will make the level of competition worse

[IcePack]

Which of the following do you think is a more preferable situation?
1) More clans participating in events, with an occasional clan dropping out before or in between wars.
2) Fewer clans participating with minimal (or zero) dropouts.

To put this another way, would CC4 be a better event if only 20-25 clans signed up but you knew all were going to stay in until they were eliminated? Cheme already noted that they have the authority to issue appropriate penalties once privileges are issued, so we're talking about clans dropping out between or before wars. Because if you impose severe penalties (and a big hit to rankings or a ban from a future major event is severe), clans are going to avoid joining if they think there is even the chance they might have to drop out. Clans hovering in the 10-20 member range are going to be far less likely to join events. New events like Lx's cup probably end up with 3-4 participating clans. Is that a better outcome for the clan world? I really don't see how. The only proposal I've seen that doesn't result in significant harm to clan life as a whole is Foxy's: If a clan has to drop out due to inability (or anticipated inability) to fill the game slots, it is required to recruit new members prior to joining a new event.

I choose penalizing for dropouts so that we get less.

By that, I take it you mean fewer clan dropouts, less clan participation, fewer clans overall, and a less active clan system (and a less fair one at that if you're punishing the innocent parties left high and dry after multiple members leave their clan or quit participating, and add to that fewer clans since the severely punished ones will likely cease to exist altogether). I feel like I'm starting to sound like a broken record. I just haven't heard anyone explain why making clan life less fun for everyone is a good exchange for eliminating the rare case of one or more clans being awarded a surprise bye in one round or another of some event. In my mind, less participation has a far more negative impact on everyone than the current situation.

I'm not sure that ensuring clans actually finish what they start translates into "clan life less fun". I would in fact argue the opposite. We spend a lot of time researching and getting ready for competition, so TOFU dropping out may have been "at the right timing" but all the work we put into preparing for TOFU is wasted, and we wont get to face one top clan. That, if anything, translates into frustration and less fun. If the other 10 clans besides tofu and fall did the same, thats 10 clans leadership all wasting their time because tofu overcomitted / weren't able to recruit.

I get your situation, im not trying to belittle tofu. im giving an example of how it makes the competition as a whole less fun when somebody drops out. your suggestion of "occassionally someone dropping out" "punishes" people who aren't even in the same clan by wasting research time and others who just participating in the event in general. the suggestion of punishing clans who can't / dont follow thru, while might have a few "innocent" parties, at least is restricted to the clan thats originally causing the issues.

IcePack

[eddie2]

well i think this would be another thing to bend and twist.. and really this was all started because of tofu dropping out...

i think they done it at the correct time of the event it did not affect anybody but themselves but one or 2 members seem to be going guns down to get tofu punished for this...

these same people were all for allowing aoc empire to take part. when they decided to merge in the middle of play in stages this affected several clans why could they not wait till the end of the stage.


time did drop out of a event at a time but i was told to finish the games for time (even though i left the clan) and because i used aka players who were formally time players because time had dropped down to 10 players and 2 or 3 of them would not play together the final games were forfeited. i was then issued with a priv ban and not allowed to be a organizer for any wars for a time period.... this also left me uniterested in putting time and effort into wars.

so since this was times punishment then and did not cause anybody to say to harsh a punishment or to weak. i think this is the best way to do it...

if you drop out the 2 organizers named for the event cannot run wars for a set amount of time and are not allowed to be the contact for the next event.but only if it is done when it will affect the running of the event mid way through a war.. if the organizers have left the clan and the clans leaders do not finish the wars then they face the punishment
what ever games have still have to be completed (meaning games not created yet or joined by the clan) will go to the other clan and used in the f400...

[chemefreak]

I thought we agreed like 20 posts ago that we would discuss adding a penalty to the next big event so that it is in the rules?

[chapcrap]

I thought we agreed like 20 posts ago that we would discuss adding a penalty to the next big event so that it is in the rules?

No, that was never agreed on.

I think this should be discussed and decided ahead of time, because it should be an overarching rule for all events, not just a single event. In addition, you don't want to slow down an event by waiting to get the rules hashed out.

[chemefreak]

I thought we agreed like 20 posts ago that we would discuss adding a penalty to the next big event so that it is in the rules?

No, that was never agreed on.

I think this should be discussed and decided ahead of time, because it should be an overarching rule for all events, not just a single event. In addition, you don't want to slow down an event by waiting to get the rules hashed out.

We have 6 months at least until the next major event starts.

So what we need is someone to track the various ideas. My recommendation is to update the OP with all the ideas so far. Then we can start weeding them out.

Actually, the first thing we should do is vote in CDF as to whether anyone wants a punishment/penalty.

***Edit - added a "straw poll" in CDF to get a general idea. Not binding, just curious at this point.

[chapcrap]

Sounds good. I'll update the OP.

[Doc_Brown]

Sounds good. I'll update the OP.

chap,
Please add Foxy's suggestion to the OP: Ban a clan from participating in the next major event unless they have recruited enough new members to be able to fill game slots.

[chapcrap]

Sounds good. I'll update the OP.

chap,
Please add Foxy's suggestion to the OP: Ban a clan from participating in the next major event unless they have recruited enough new members to be able to fill game slots.

Done. I'm not going into great detail with the descriptions in the OP though. Just an outline.

[chemefreak]

Just to update everyone, I took a straw poll in CDF and it appears that a slim majority are in favor of some type of penalty/punishment for dropping a major clan event for any reason.

I have started another straw poll to see if CDF feels any such penalty/punishment should follow the Clan or the Clan AND its players.

I will let everyone know how that turns out too.

[chapcrap]

Thanks for the update.

[Vid_FISO]

Just to update everyone, I took a straw poll in CDF and it appears that a slim majority are in favor of some type of penalty/punishment for dropping a major clan event for any reason.

I have started another straw poll to see if CDF feels any such penalty/punishment should follow the Clan or the Clan AND its players.

I will let everyone know how that turns out too.

Nothing about individual responsibility?
If a clan member signs a clan up to an event without first consulting with the membership then surely only that individual should face any sanction?

If consultation has occurred and clan members have agreed to take part in a comp and have their names put forward to play for that clan in that comp and subsequently a number of them decide to leave the clan for another then the disruption is their responsibility and they should be sanctioned.

Clan members who leave CC or drop to fremium leaving a clan short of numbers for a myriad of reasons (often real life reasons) probably won't know or bother about sanctions and certainly anything heavy is unlikely to see them return to play/ premium any time soon, so a simple exclusion from any players list for several months should suffice.

Some clans have a lot of players signed up to them, is it not possible to loan a couple out for the duration of a competition to help any clan that is one or two players short of the required minimum due to whatever circumstances?

[catnipdreams]

Some clans have a lot of players signed up to them, is it not possible to loan a couple out for the duration of a competition to help any clan that is one or two players short of the required minimum due to whatever circumstances?

This is a VERY interesting idea! Something that helps us (the clan world) to play challenging games, in quantities that are ideal for each individual player, should be considered.

[chapcrap]

Some clans have a lot of players signed up to them, is it not possible to loan a couple out for the duration of a competition to help any clan that is one or two players short of the required minimum due to whatever circumstances?

This is a VERY interesting idea! Something that helps us (the clan world) to play challenging games, in quantities that are ideal for each individual player, should be considered.

Agreed. It's a good discussion for another thread. But, I do not mind the idea of a clan trade system. It could be fun. But, I don't want to derail this thread with my thoughts about that.

[Nicky15]

Some clans have a lot of players signed up to them, is it not possible to loan a couple out for the duration of a competition to help any clan that is one or two players short of the required minimum due to whatever circumstances?

This is a VERY interesting idea! Something that helps us (the clan world) to play challenging games, in quantities that are ideal for each individual player, should be considered.

It's interesting but unfortunately It would not be possible without breaking the one clan rule. A player must not play for two clans at once. So if they had any active clan games going they could not be loaned out until all the games for the original clan were completed. So in most cases this just would not be practical.

[Vid_FISO]

Some clans have a lot of players signed up to them, is it not possible to loan a couple out for the duration of a competition to help any clan that is one or two players short of the required minimum due to whatever circumstances?

This is a VERY interesting idea! Something that helps us (the clan world) to play challenging games, in quantities that are ideal for each individual player, should be considered.

It's interesting but unfortunately It would not be possible without breaking the one clan rule. A player must not play for two clans at once. So if they had any active clan games going they could not be loaned out until all the games for the original clan were completed. So in most cases this just would not be practical.

Rules can be altered or amended, just needs a little willing to compromise.

[Nicky15]

Some clans have a lot of players signed up to them, is it not possible to loan a couple out for the duration of a competition to help any clan that is one or two players short of the required minimum due to whatever circumstances?

This is a VERY interesting idea! Something that helps us (the clan world) to play challenging games, in quantities that are ideal for each individual player, should be considered.

It's interesting but unfortunately It would not be possible without breaking the one clan rule. A player must not play for two clans at once. So if they had any active clan games going they could not be loaned out until all the games for the original clan were completed. So in most cases this just would not be practical.

Rules can be altered or amended, just needs a little willing to compromise.

No not the one clan rule unfortunately. That's a fundamental rule in the clan world. If there is a little notice, steps can be taken to finish up games quickly, there are ways around things. But like I said this wouldn't be practical in a lot of cases.

[eddie2]

lol are tofu players in any active games can i borrow one or 2 of them for our set via kort

[catnipdreams]

I don't want to take away from this thread and be off-topic, but I don't know where else to put this post... I don't think I am the right person to campaign for a major change in the clan world, but I would love to have a continuing discussion on ways to make the clan world more interesting. I understand that there are issues with having certain highly skilled players popping in and out of different games in different wars between different clans. However, that doesn't mean that we can't mix it up in some constructive ways. For instance, I am a solid player, but I am not a superstar. I could easily see players at my level of competence being part of a pool, that could be used by any clan to fill games if there was a temporary glitch going on with a particular clan. Pool members would still have a "home" clan, that they played for, but if they had room for extra games, they could list their pool availability. Maybe have something where both clans involved in a war agreed to which players from the pool could be used, or how many, or something like that. I was thinking the pool would be comprised of solid team players, but, we could also have superstars in it as well, just that both sides perhaps got one superstar each? Anyway, some thoughts, and let's please continue this discussion elsewhere; we are here on this site for fun, and imo, this "mixing it up" could be really fun!!