[CC2] - LoW (24-17) OSA (of 41) - Final

[reptile]

Think we can continue on now. GL to both sides. Boy this got out of hand (i got to admit it did for me with 1 specific post... but am willing to put it behind me )

[benga]

Once again I am apologizing on my behalf and behalf of OSA for any misstreatment of LoW and it's members.

There was no intention of faul play and we don't endorse such play.

Cheers!

[Namor]

[stahrgazer]

reptile, may want to add this to post 1:

As originally agreed, the skirmishes will continue with the 12-hour don't-play fog of war rule; the only difference is the modification by Chuuuuck to exclude conquer-type maps where it doesn't matter anyway.

As originally directed by Chuuuuck, LoW will send its Round 2 quads, beginning with World2.1, one by one, as soon as the LoW members playing those games have cleared slots. (Purpose: to get all skirmish quads started, and hopefully ended, without delaying the tournament).

As originally agreed, LoW understands that OSA may have a delay in filling the games (their members, especially their freemium members, playing those games may be involved in other games.)

No other agreements made prior to the start of the games applied to round 2.

All games will be exchanged by the Round 2 deadline established by Chuuuuck for the overall tournament.

****

Good luck, OSA.

Let's win it, LoW!

[benga]

Please list all conquer-style maps so we avoid any confusion!

Also our 2nd set is coming as Chuck said, following his schedule.

Good luck LoW!

[stahrgazer]

Please list all conquer-style maps so we avoid any confusion!

Reasonable.
Agreed as follows: As we send maps for Round 2, LoW will indicate whether LoW believes the 12-hour rule should apply to the games that call for fog of war. If LoW fails to indicate a game, OSA is not obligated to adhere to 12-hour play delay on that game.(reptile, please add this to post 1)

Also our 2nd set is coming as Chuck said, following his schedule.

Agreed. OSA never was directed to send its Round 2 games early, Chuuuuck had only directed LoW to do that, "W2.1 and any remaining quads first, as players free up"

Meanwhile,
LoW is not requesting a remake of Game 8665737.

Let the games continue

[Qwert]

i dont understand what smart A**** create 12 hour fog rule. What its purpose of that?
Every new tournamen ,and more and more rules.
Simple rules-much better tournament. Newcomer cup,its free of all kind of these nonsence.

[Dako]

Fog is a rule of courtesy, nothing more. You are showing that you can beat them in fog even when you both see the initial disposition.

[jpcloet]

The 12 hour rule is to allow both sides and fair initial view of the board. It is not a CCup2 rule but a rule these 2 clans agreed to.

[stahrgazer]

i dont understand what smart A**** create 12 hour fog rule.

Personally agree, qwert,

but as jp said, it's a side-rule the clans agreed to, with purpose to give both teams fair visibility of the drop before any successful assaults conceal some of that initial information.

[Qwert]

well,then these is big mistake from benga,because i doubt that he ask for these rule,but he accept these rule.
Any good clan,can play without seen board in fog games,and these is only more chalenging for play.
Benga next time refuse these rule,and try to be simple, and you will not have these ridiculos troubles. Plain and simple,and let people decide who are going to win.
Im all ready announce in WG forum,that these rule,need to be banned from our normal list of rules.

[jpcloet]

He actually asked for the rule. Clans are split on the rule, with slightly more not agreeing to it. Easiest solution would be a site solution, then we'd have no arguments.

[benga]

He actually asked for the rule. Clans are split on the rule, with slightly more not agreeing to it. Easiest solution would be a site solution, then we'd have no arguments.

No I just agreed to the rule.

[stahrgazer]

He actually asked for the rule. Clans are split on the rule, with slightly more not agreeing to it. Easiest solution would be a site solution, then we'd have no arguments.

No. My clan asked me to ask.

I said, "Do you want to agree that on fog, each player will wait 12 hours after game start before playing?" and I explained the benefits.

So, no, benga didn't ask for that rule; he did ask for other concessions, and in all the conflagration, jp, that's probably how it confused ya .

[jpcloet]

I'm confused as I have examples where he asked for the rule and some where he wanted part of the rule and others where the actions infer the rule. I've asked the CLA to better clarify the common understanding of the rule. That will help everyone.

[stahrgazer]

well,then these is big mistake from benga,because i doubt that he ask for these rule,but he accept these rule.
Any good clan,can play without seen board in fog games,and these is only more chalenging for play.
Benga next time refuse these rule,and try to be simple, and you will not have these ridiculos troubles. Plain and simple,and let people decide who are going to win.
Im all ready announce in WG forum,that these rule,need to be banned from our normal list of rules.

Missing on a fog game wasn't the big issue here; the nastiness when it was mentioned mildly combined with one by one, missing every side agreement, was the big issue. I knew of no precedent for any clan, new or old, having failed to meet every one of their negotiated agreements, and with the nastiness, LoW no longer felt that OSA was going to listen to us even when we were being reasonable.

My claws came out, I stopped wanting to be reasonable. It's that simple.

It's also over.

[stahrgazer]

I'm confused as I have examples where he asked for the rule and some where he wanted part of the rule and others where the actions infer the rule. I've asked the CLA to better clarify the common understanding of the rule. That will help everyone.

Well, jp, this confusion you speak of is exactly why I stated it as "Don't start a fog game for 12 hours."

While you can argue that it won't matter on Feudal or other games, the simple fact is, if the rule is, no fog game starts play for 12 hours after game initialization, that's a very simple thing to look at, there's no argument as to whether this is or isn't the type of game it matters on.

Initially, stating it that way saved ME hassle. Now, with benga's request for a list of which games it does and doesn't apply to, that's where it can get confusing. But, okay, given all the flack that flew (I did some of the throwing, I admit it) - I deem it quite reasonable for benga to ask LoW which games it will and won't matter on.

I still maintain that if the rule were applied, "NO FOG GAME START" - (where the 'rule' is being applied) then there'd be no confusion.

Edit: added. The "example where he asked for the rule," is actually an example where he was reassuring LoW that he'd told his clan (in response to reptile's initial mild mention that a player messed it up on one fog game), does that help?

[Frederik Hendrik]

With no agreed upon punishment in advance, then for this instance I will allow LoW to decide whether or not they want to remake the games where the fog rule was violated.

That sounds like a punishment to me.

This is very unusual judgement. I know of no legal system where punishment can be decided upon after the fact. If LoW wanted punishment for violating this rule, they should have agreed upon beforehand. I know the penalty of disregarding the 12-hours rule in our challenge with AoC, was part of the decision to accept it.

In this case it doen't matter anymore, but it worries me a little to see this judgement from chuck, although I don't envy him in these kinds of situations.

[jpcloet]

My challenge back to you is that the average player won't know as to which games the rule applies to or does not. For the time being when you create the game you might consider putting 12H in the gaming label. Eg "LOW Home games set 2, 12H applies"

[jpcloet]

With no agreed upon punishment in advance, then for this instance I will allow LoW to decide whether or not they want to remake the games where the fog rule was violated.

That sounds like a punishment to me.

This is very unusual judgment. I know of no legal system where punishment can be decided upon after the fact. If LoW wanted punishment for violating this rule, they should have agreed upon beforehand. I know the penalty of disregarding the 12-hours rule in our challenge with AoC, was part of the decision to accept it.

In this case it doesn't matter anymore, but it worries me a little to see this judgment from chuck, although I don't envy him in these kinds of situations.

I would rather see a defined process as to raising issues to the organizer. What concerns me a little is the lack of a deadline for a decision, although moot since LOW already posted it won't be remade.

[stahrgazer]

With no agreed upon punishment in advance, then for this instance I will allow LoW to decide whether or not they want to remake the games where the fog rule was violated.

That sounds like a punishment to me.

This is very unusual judgement. I know of no legal system where punishment can be decided upon after the fact. If LoW wanted punishment for violating this rule, they should have agreed upon beforehand. I know the penalty of disregarding the 12-hours rule in our challenge with AoC, was part of the decision to accept it.

In this case it doen't matter anymore, but it worries me a little to see this judgement from chuck, although I don't envy him in these kinds of situations.

chee-rist, now I really do have to get a lawyer before negotiating agreements!

Gimme a break, Federik, the dude violated every agreement. Okay, LoW didn't say how many wet-noodle-lashes we felt was fair to hand out if they did that, but that means to you the entire thing should've been totally ignored?

I didn't think so.

I thought it required a real stern threat, especially given the insults we were getting for making even mild mention.

ALL clans should do their BEST to adhere to what they agree to, whether a "punishment" is decided on beforehand or not.

My personal piss at the insults that flew aside, Chuuuuck's decisions were reasonable... whether I had triple-initialed legal contracts about the agreements or not!

[stahrgazer]

I would rather see a defined process as to raising issues to the organizer. What concerns me a little is the lack of a deadline for a decision, although moot since LOW already posted it won't be remade.

Read again: Chuuuuck followed up with a 24-hour deadline.

[stahrgazer]

My challenge back to you is that the average player won't know as to which games the rule applies to or does not. For the time being when you create the game you might consider putting 12H in the gaming label. Eg "LOW Home games set 2, 12H applies"

Again, if the agreement is, as I'd stated it, "Any fog game" - then there's no question, no need to change game labels.

I stated it simply the way I did for precisely this reason.

But.

fog/no fog/12 hours, zero hours, 367 hours, wasn't the issue here.

The issue was, LoW felt OSA wasn't "hearing us" properly about agreements and violations thereof; when it got to every agreement, plus the insults, I reacted. You've seen me do it before. Maybe calling for them to be totally disqualified over it was "too much" but- it got them to listen.

It also drew attention to the fact that, some of these "rules" aren't defined well enough to figure out what to do when they're violated. Does "no penalty was defined" really mean no penalty should incur? I'd hope not. Then we really WILL need lawyers to negotiate skirmishes.

[Chuuuuck]

With no agreed upon punishment in advance, then for this instance I will allow LoW to decide whether or not they want to remake the games where the fog rule was violated.

That sounds like a punishment to me.

This is very unusual judgment. I know of no legal system where punishment can be decided upon after the fact. If LoW wanted punishment for violating this rule, they should have agreed upon beforehand. I know the penalty of disregarding the 12-hours rule in our challenge with AoC, was part of the decision to accept it.

In this case it doesn't matter anymore, but it worries me a little to see this judgment from chuck, although I don't envy him in these kinds of situations.

I would rather see a defined process as to raising issues to the organizer. What concerns me a little is the lack of a deadline for a decision, although moot since LOW already posted it won't be remade.

I realized this soon after and followed up with one. I apologize for not thinking about every possible situation that can arise before this ever started. I am just trying to handle everything as fair as possible for everyone involved and hopefully prevent similar issues from arising in the future.

[stahrgazer]

I apologize for not thinking about every possible situation that can arise before this ever started. I am just trying to handle everything as fair as possible for everyone involved and hopefully prevent similar issues from arising in the future.

No one can think of everything - not EVEN lawyers

"hopefully prevent similar issues from arising in the future" is also why I made such a gigantic stinkum about the stuff.