replying here, as in original topic my reply would be offtopic: viewtopic.php?f=441&t=161519&start=195#p3748071
ahunda wrote:Whilst I agree with josko in most questions, that he has raised here, I disagree with him being civil or well-mannered about it.
I just reply on the same manner like WPBRJ replied to me. for example, I had realized that 8 games (2 of them with peanutsdad and gunn, members of CLA board) are in violation of playing unlimited fort in doubles. then i was thining - "do I understand rules wrong, or 16 players who used it like home game understand the rules wrong?" considering that top level of CLA organization was among rule breakers, I supposed maybe i understand the rule wrong, so that is why I ASKED it to be clarified - and I got a ton of rude responses, with large fornts and BIG LETTERS, for thing that was not my mistake but was organizer's mistake. CoF also pointed that (in better English) here:viewtopic.php?f=441&t=161519&start=165#p3709549
for pointing out that double-sense ruling statement (and being right that it has double sense) I was flamed by WPBRJ on very rude way in other topics aswell which has nothing to do with CL4. here: viewtopic.php?f=438&t=168605#p3682433
ahunda wrote:A couple of weeks ago he was border-line stalking one of the TOs, posting in several league threads, even of divisions he was not even part of, stirring up hostility towards that particular TO. He called at least one TO unqualified and the League in general poorly run.
truth is that he was followed me in other threads that has nothing to do with CL4, trying to screw me on every possible way. not only that flaming post above, but also this for example: viewtopic.php?f=443&t=162287&start=120#p3661011
WPBRJ: "if unlimited forts are allowed in anything other than conquest maps i wont play nor will my clan"
so he practically make pressure to organiers to limit what I like just to screw me. his opinion in NOT that his clan will not play if unlimited are allowed, because on the same time of writing that post, his clan was normally signed up for CC3, where those settings are allowed at all. if that is really his opinions, then logically he would not play in CC3 aswell. proved statement: his ONLY wish was to screw josko.
conclusion: WPBRJ is the one who followed me in other topics not even related with CL4, and tried all his best to flame me and screw me in an possible way. if he is doing it in topics when he does not have any power, then logical question is, what he will do in CL4 where he has power like organizer? logical answer is, limit what I like (and what he tried to limit even in ICL), just to lower my fun of playing in CL4.
ahunda wrote:And the whole debate about Unlimited forts was simply uncalled for. It was obvious, that josko had been involved in that debate already before the start of the League, and that he was unsatisfied with the final decision & rules. As I said, I even agree with him in this question, but raising that argument again, when the League was running already for several months, was simply uncalled for.
before the start of the league, when I was included in the debate, it was not known that sets will be 12 in phase 2, 18 in phase 3 and 41 in phase 4. on that time it was actual that sets will always be the same number of games, and points earned will be transferred through phases. so, if sets remained the same, then limit of 2 games per set would be logical to be fixed. but later, after I left CLA, sets for phases 3 and 4 has been increased, and, guess what, limit of games for unlimited forts stayed at 2. I later realized it in this thread and asked what is reason for that non-proportional limitation, while every other maximal games limitation in every competition in history of CC grows proportionally as total number of games increase. for unlimited forts, for some weird reason, that does not increase. I was asked WHY (maybe they have some logical explanation, who knows) and again got rude responses.
in addition to unlimited discussion, here are some arguments after all games for phase 1 are sent:
number of unlimited games: Total 59 (even with limit of 2 per set)
D1: 20 (used like home map by 7 different clans)
D2: 18 (used like home map by 6 different clans)
number of adjacent games: Total 32
so, is unpopularity of unlimited settings real reason for limiting them? or there is some other reason? why then do not limit adjacent aswell when it is obvious that adjacent fort games are played double less times, without any restriction on them?
for future organizers, why limit something that people like to play? if 13 of 16 clans from Division 1&2 used some unlimited game for their home map, isnt it enough to prove you that top notch players like those settings in general because it is enjoyable playing ground. so why steal to them what they like and enjoy to play on?
ahunda wrote:He then started to get involved in the question of the tie between LEG & LHDD and even in the debate surrounding eddie2. So, whilst I agree with him on certain points in those discussions, I can certainly understand the TOs, if they feel harassed by him.
Yes, me (just like every person that commented in LEG&LHDD tie, except organizers), said that the decision was not correct. seeing that organizers changed the rule, maybe they admit they were not correct? am I so bad person to point out what everyone saw was done bad and even organizers changed that bad rule? in addition, I was not only complained about the rule, (like many did), I also SUGGESTED how to solve it (like not a lot of players did). so am I really wrong in that convo or someone who make terrible rule, and then change it in midway of CL4 without notifying anyone of the change is wrong?
ahunda wrote:So much work put into this, and then being called "unqualified" and stuff like this. It´s pretty disrespectful and out of place, if you ask me. And for me as an impartial bystander, it certainly appeared, as if josko had an axe to grind on a personal level here, based on some past dispute about the set-up of the whole thing.
When i say that WPBRJ has never organized any tournament on CC, I say truth. whoever says some truth about me which can easy be checked, I will not be offended, I do not hide behind something that I am not.
And about personal level, whatever I did on personal level, that I had received on the same personal level before, I just reply on the same manner like others treat me.