[CC2] 2nd Annual Conqueror's Cup!!

by **chemefreak** on Wed Jun 15, 2011 6:32 pm

Chuuuuck wrote:You are better off saying nothing than saying, "we are talking about it, changes are coming soon."

Chuuuuck wrote:Anything going on behind closed doors is a no-no.

I absolutely love the circular nature of the logic here. The sad part is it is true. Oh well.

by **Chuuuuck** on Wed Jun 15, 2011 6:51 pm

Haha yes, sad but true.

But what I meant by the first part, "you are better of saying nothing than something is coming," is you would be better off not having people even know a change is coming and there is nothing going on behind closed doors. Then just spring on them something new later.

But, you would ultimately be best off just putting it all out there for everyone to see. Otherwise everyone assumes the worst. I have faith you all will do the right thing, but I don't see why it has to take so long to get there.

by **jpcloet** on Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:38 pm

stahrgazer wrote:These cd's have known for months that they had made this decision, and apparently very few others did.

All of the CLA was aware of it April 24th
viewtopic.php?f=295&t=133225&start=180#p3132362

by **stahrgazer** on Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:03 pm

Chuuuuck wrote:Haha yes, sad but true.

But what I meant by the first part, "you are better of saying nothing than something is coming," is you would be better off not having people even know a change is coming and there is nothing going on behind closed doors. Then just spring on them something new later.

But, you would ultimately be best off just putting it all out there for everyone to see. Otherwise everyone assumes the worst. I have faith you all will do the right thing, but I don't see why it has to take so long to get there.

You're right, Chuuuuck.

But add, we have reason to doubt, to assume the worst. That reason is: the existing conflicting policy, where one series has no delay, the other does.

and cheme? your conduct in that thread is what was ridiculous.

A final ridiculous thing is that, with each answer I got, the story changed. When holes were punched in the supposed logic, the story would change again.

Continually changing/conflicting information is hardly "calming" material.

by **The Voice** on Wed Jun 15, 2011 11:47 pm

chemefreak wrote: The danger of farming in the play-in round was just one aspect of an overall decision to wait on medals for this particular event. There was never a determination that all challenges were farming.

I've been following this thread, and I do apologize if I missed something already stated, but may I ask what other aspects contributed to the current decision?

by **SirSebstar** on Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:24 am

you mean like the fact that previous editions of this particular event also did not recieve medals for non finals games>?

by **Incandenza** on Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:39 am

SirSebstar wrote:you mean like the fact that previous editions of this particular event also did not recieve medals for non finals games>?

That isn't actually true. Every winner starting in the round of 16 in CC1 received medals. I don't believe the play-in rounds from CC1 qualified for medals, but those were much shorter, 21-game affairs rather than the larger 41-game challenges in this year's first round.

by **Eyestone** on Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:55 am

SirSebstar wrote:you mean like the fact that previous editions of this particular event also did not recieve medals for non finals games>?

Like Inca points out, you are entirely wrong here. Everyone got a medal from the 1st round of the cup last year, so I really don't understand how anyone can say that the final 8 isn't automatically qualified to get a medal this year. It should be the same thing... Final 16 should even be good enough.

by **sonicsteve** on Thu Jun 16, 2011 4:04 am

Incandenza wrote:
SirSebstar wrote:you mean like the fact that previous editions of this particular event also did not recieve medals for non finals games>?

That isn't actually true. Every winner starting in the round of 16 in CC1 received medals. I don't believe the play-in rounds from CC1 qualified for medals, but those were much shorter, 21-game affairs rather than the larger 41-game challenges in this year's first round.

Quite so. THOTA, the 1st seed beat Left4Dead, who were seeded 16th.

As is expected for a 40 game challenge between clans, THOTA received medals for the win.

Surely the decision has to be to award medals to all clan battles of 40+ games, regardless of the arena. Clans don't farm.

by **josko.ri** on Thu Jun 16, 2011 4:32 am

cmon guys, do you play for fun or for medals?

by **SirSebstar** on Thu Jun 16, 2011 4:40 am

are you asking a medalhunter or just everybody in particular? ;-)

by **stahrgazer** on Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:29 am

FYI, in a pm yesterday, JP indicated medals would be awarded; he did not specify, but since the issue was about all rounds, I'm guessing he meant ALL rounds.

Legends play for fun, I'm not a medals-hunter and don't think any LoW is; but if CC offers a medal I deserve, then I want it. It's that simple. Those who feel otherwise can probably make a request that CC remove all little medal pictures from your wall and profile.

The extended amount of conversation you see here, challenge threads, and Clan Medals thread is because I was receiving conflicting and illogical answers to the original problem. I chose to squawk VERY loudly about it because NOT everyone was aware there was a problem in the first place.

by **jpcloet** on Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:59 am

Eyestone wrote:
SirSebstar wrote:you mean like the fact that previous editions of this particular event also did not recieve medals for non finals games>?

Like Inca points out, you are entirely wrong here. Everyone got a medal from the 1st round of the cup last year, so I really don't understand how anyone can say that the final 8 isn't automatically qualified to get a medal this year. It should be the same thing... Final 16 should even be good enough.

When going back to issue historical medals anything that looked like a clan war and quacked like a clan war got one, primarily based on size.

by **Chuuuuck** on Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:38 am

jpcloet wrote:
Eyestone wrote:
SirSebstar wrote:you mean like the fact that previous editions of this particular event also did not recieve medals for non finals games>?

Like Inca points out, you are entirely wrong here. Everyone got a medal from the 1st round of the cup last year, so I really don't understand how anyone can say that the final 8 isn't automatically qualified to get a medal this year. It should be the same thing... Final 16 should even be good enough.

When going back to issue historical medals anything that looked like a clan war and quacked like a clan war got one, primarily based on size.

This statement made me laugh...

by **Commander9** on Thu Jun 16, 2011 12:23 pm

Chuuuuck wrote:
jpcloet wrote:When going back to issue historical medals anything that looked like a clan war and quacked like a clan war got one, primarily based on size.

This statement made me laugh...

It's not that unusual that accomplishments are measured by the size. In fact, humanity is so focused on size and shape that even bullets and rockets have a specific size and shape - it's also usually said that the bigger, the better.

by **MichelSableheart** on Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:09 am

jpcloet wrote:All of the CLA was aware of it April 24th

Our clanchallenge against AoC was created March 4th, and finished April 22nd. All I as a normal member officially heard from the CD's during this period was "no medals issued" when it was moved to completed, without any explanation whatsoever. I know SirSebstar was better aware of the discussions (I believe in his role as clanleader), but you can't expect a clanleader to explain and defend a CD's decission.

Your communication has been lacking here.

by **jrh_cardinal** on Mon Jun 20, 2011 12:53 pm

MichelSableheart wrote:
jpcloet wrote:All of the CLA was aware of it April 24th
Our clanchallenge against AoC was created March 4th, and finished April 22nd. All I as a normal member officially heard from the CD's during this period was "no medals issued" when it was moved to completed, without any explanation whatsoever. I know SirSebstar was better aware of the discussions (I believe in his role as clanleader), but you can't expect a clanleader to explain and defend a CD's decission.

Your communication has been lacking here.

The CD's don't have time to defend their position to every clan player on the site, look at what happened when a major tournament decision's discussion went public before it was finalized. The CLA is a good idea for the CD's to get clans opinions on changes without getting overwhelmed by everyone. Then it's just up to the CD's whether they listen to the clan leaders opinions or not, same as if it went totally public.

by **Rodion** on Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:49 pm

Whether you like it or not, the Lack/Andy/JP hold the cards and I see no reason to keep pressing them when they already showed they're willing to change the policies and award the medals soon(ish). I mean, the difference between getting a clan war medal now or 5 months in the future will not make or break my CC life.

I think it's pointless to complain until the policies are published. Unless they take more than, say, 2 months from now to be effective.

by **Rodion** on Thu Jun 23, 2011 2:57 pm

I want to know about the deadline for creation of batch 2 games!

by **Chuuuuck** on Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:06 pm

Rodion wrote:I want to know about the deadline for creation of batch 2 games!

Sorry Rodion, I missed this before.

The entire schedule will be pushed back a full week after this round got started late. I will hopefully have the schedule updated on the OP tonight.

by **Lubawski** on Thu Jun 23, 2011 6:54 pm

Perhaps the bracket as well?

by **stahrgazer** on Sat Jun 25, 2011 9:20 am

Rodion wrote:Whether you like it or not, the Lack/Andy/JP hold the cards and I see no reason to keep pressing them when they already showed they're willing to change the policies and award the medals soon(ish). I mean, the difference between getting a clan war medal now or 5 months in the future will not make or break my CC life.

I think it's pointless to complain until the policies are published. Unless they take more than, say, 2 months from now to be effective.

So, you're saying it's okay to implement unpublished policies that negatively affect players, retro-actively, prior to policies being published; but not okay for the community to wish for retroactive implementation of unpublished policies that positively affect players, prior to policies being published.

That's so logically unfriendly, you should be a cc mod! :lol:

by **Rodion** on Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:25 pm

I said it's not okay to keep arguing over a medal that the mods already told them they are probably going to give you later on. Just wait. If they don't give it, then you complain.

by **stahrgazer** on Sat Jun 25, 2011 7:48 pm

Rodion wrote:I said it's not okay to keep arguing over a medal that the mods already told them they are probably going to give you later on. Just wait. If they don't give it, then you complain.

Yes, yes, the reason they're not giving it now is they haven't written the policies.

Makes lots of sense that they refused to give it based on policies they hadn't written, too. :lol:

I drafted something for him just over a week ago.. haven't heard a word.

by **reptile** on Sun Jun 26, 2011 4:58 am

Rodion wrote:I said it's not okay to keep arguing over a medal that the mods already told them they are probably going to give you later on. Just wait. If they don't give it, then you complain.

I dont think anyone cares as much about the medal (if at all), so much as the excuses we get when it is brought up.