Moderator: Clan Directors
Doc_Brown wrote:3 Questions (for now):
1) What is the projected start date? Will CC4 delay the start until the CC3 finals are completed?
2) What flexibility do the clans have to negotiate changes to the existing rules, and which rules can be negotiated? e.g. Can the clans negotiate a different timing out rule?
3) Dako had included a rule accounting for site issues interfering with games: The game would be recreated if both clans agreed, otherwise the game would continue as-is. Can this rule, or some variation of it, be included?

crispybits wrote:Yep - so no exceptions to entry requirements for CDF or competitions that require CDF
I'm sure you guys and Atlantis could organise a speed game war if you wanted in the next couple of days - meet the same conditions as everyone else has to and you don't get any comments aimed your way

friendly1 wrote:The clans were all held hostage to play in CCup4 and forced to join the CDF based on a unilateral decision by the CD's. (even though they changed it to be eligible to join the CDF at a later time)
There is going to be some very pissed off people if this is not upheld, and I will be one of them. When you impose requirements, you had damn well better stand behind them if you expect any credibility whatsoever.
Personally, I expect some form of an exception to be introduced so the clans can play (and I'd actually prefer that, all clans should have access to the CCup) but in doing so the CDF becomes that which the CD's have so vocally protested it is not.

chemefreak wrote:Doc_Brown wrote:3 Questions (for now):
1) What is the projected start date? Will CC4 delay the start until the CC3 finals are completed?
2) What flexibility do the clans have to negotiate changes to the existing rules, and which rules can be negotiated? e.g. Can the clans negotiate a different timing out rule?
3) Dako had included a rule accounting for site issues interfering with games: The game would be recreated if both clans agreed, otherwise the game would continue as-is. Can this rule, or some variation of it, be included?

chemefreak wrote:crispybits wrote:Yep - so no exceptions to entry requirements for CDF or competitions that require CDF
I'm sure you guys and Atlantis could organise a speed game war if you wanted in the next couple of days - meet the same conditions as everyone else has to and you don't get any comments aimed your way

chemefreak wrote:friendly1 wrote:The clans were all held hostage to play in CCup4 and forced to join the CDF based on a unilateral decision by the CD's. (even though they changed it to be eligible to join the CDF at a later time)
There is going to be some very pissed off people if this is not upheld, and I will be one of them. When you impose requirements, you had damn well better stand behind them if you expect any credibility whatsoever.
Personally, I expect some form of an exception to be introduced so the clans can play (and I'd actually prefer that, all clans should have access to the CCup) but in doing so the CDF becomes that which the CD's have so vocally protested it is not.

Thanks for the response. On point 2, I don't know TOFU's stance on it and was asking more as a theoretical question given some objections that had been raised in earlier CC4 discussions. On point 3: Thanks, and I agree. From what I've seen in the past, games whose outcome was clearly changed by a site bug have been happily recreated by both clans(i.e. when very even games were clearly decided by the bug), and I'm optimistic that that will continue to be the case.Bruceswar wrote:chemefreak wrote:Doc_Brown wrote:3 Questions (for now):
1) What is the projected start date? Will CC4 delay the start until the CC3 finals are completed?
2) What flexibility do the clans have to negotiate changes to the existing rules, and which rules can be negotiated? e.g. Can the clans negotiate a different timing out rule?
3) Dako had included a rule accounting for site issues interfering with games: The game would be recreated if both clans agreed, otherwise the game would continue as-is. Can this rule, or some variation of it, be included?
1. Projected start date is 2 weeks from now. We will likely not delay to let the finals finish. We expect more than 32 clans to sign up, so you should have some time before your first match starts should you join.
2. Most rules are pretty set, but clans always have some room to wiggle a bit if both clans agree. The timing out rule could be negotiated, but I am not sure you will find many willing to do so.
3. That rule will be added in. It was a pure oversight by me. I hope clans would be reasonable and agree to play a remake if needed.

no there should not because a precedent has been set in previous events bg...BGtheBrain wrote:The rule was being waived for VVV and Atlantis pre-empire/aoc merger
I think "experienced" new clans should be allowed access to the event

For once I think you uttered a not-so-unreasonable thought.eddie2 wrote:i really think when it comes to employing volunteers for this section in future they make a rule that they must not be a member of any clan.


Just going to point out that when KOA started (with some in clan having past clan experience) we missed CC2 start and had to wait until CC3....BGtheBrain wrote:The rule was being waived for VVV and Atlantis pre-empire/aoc merger
I think "experienced" new clans should be allowed access to the event

yep i am going to correct my statement before the pack and aka were in this same event not ccup3IcePack wrote:Just going to point out that when KOA started (with some in clan having past clan experience) we missed CC2 start and had to wait until CC3....BGtheBrain wrote:The rule was being waived for VVV and Atlantis pre-empire/aoc merger
I think "experienced" new clans should be allowed access to the event
Fact of life, it's not what you know, it's who you knowcrispybits wrote:So in summary this is another example of a small group making up the rules to suit a minority of people as we go along rather than sticking to what the rules actually say - noted.
would i be an acceptable choice for running tournaments ?niMic wrote:Having people who aren't in clans running the clan side of CC would not be a very good idea. Some, few, might be capable of it, but most wouldn't have the first idea what the clans need or want
I would say that if Vid_FISO were running a new clan I would probably vote to allow it since he has experience running wars. I think the spirit of the rule is to keep 10 random CCers who have never even been in a clan war, starting a clan, joining the Cup and going through the growing pains as the rest of us are waiting for them to catch up! I wish everyone weren't so damn jaded in this section.Vid_FISO wrote:Fact of life, it's not what you know, it's who you knowcrispybits wrote:So in summary this is another example of a small group making up the rules to suit a minority of people as we go along rather than sticking to what the rules actually say - noted.


3 clans (all with various clan experience) were kept out of CC2 for the exact same things. We literally had to wait a year because of that.chemefreak wrote:I would say that if Vid_FISO were running a new clan I would probably vote to allow it since he has experience running wars. I think the spirit of the rule is to keep 10 random CCers who have never even been in a clan war, starting a clan, joining the Cup and going through the growing pains as the rest of us are waiting for them to catch up! I wish everyone weren't so damn jaded in this section.Vid_FISO wrote:Fact of life, it's not what you know, it's who you knowcrispybits wrote:So in summary this is another example of a small group making up the rules to suit a minority of people as we go along rather than sticking to what the rules actually say - noted.


Actually, since we are on the subject. AKA, KOA, PACK, and Wild Geese were all denied entry into CC2. And now the CD's seem to be keen to let them all in without experience. Here is a quote from our very own Bruceswar on the subject, in the CC2 thread:IcePack wrote:3 clans (all with various clan experience) were kept out of CC2 for the exact same things. We literally had to wait a year because of that.chemefreak wrote:I would say that if Vid_FISO were running a new clan I would probably vote to allow it since he has experience running wars. I think the spirit of the rule is to keep 10 random CCers who have never even been in a clan war, starting a clan, joining the Cup and going through the growing pains as the rest of us are waiting for them to catch up! I wish everyone weren't so damn jaded in this section.Vid_FISO wrote:Fact of life, it's not what you know, it's who you knowcrispybits wrote:So in summary this is another example of a small group making up the rules to suit a minority of people as we go along rather than sticking to what the rules actually say - noted.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 0#p3013369Bruceswar wrote:maasman wrote:I completely understand the consistency issues, but new clans also are definitely not in the same position as wild geese. To me that trumps the consistency of the old rule and sets up consistency for a new one.
KORT, TOFU, Wild Geese(to a lesser extent) We all had past clan members, and such. We all had to wait. They can also.



I think its ironic now that its getting "fixed" when a clan that has a vested interest in getting it "fixed" has two CD's amongst it.chemefreak wrote:Are you criticizing us for getting it right this time around Icepack?

Actually, I think the point you are proving is that you will never be happy with anything anyone does. So we should all just hope you disappear again. At the very least, everyone should definitely stop paying attention to you.IcePack wrote:I think its ironic now that its getting "fixed" when a clan that has a vested interest in getting it "fixed" has two CD's amongst it.chemefreak wrote:Are you criticizing us for getting it right this time around Icepack?
