[CCXV] R1: DBD (6) vs FALL (37) - FALL Wins - Final 4/5/25

[Razorvich]

____________________________________________ROUND 1

___________________________________________
_____________________DEATH by DICE ______________ the FALLEN

Contacts:
DBD: Razorvich

FALL: GoranZ
__.___rousseau72

**********************************************************
War Page Link
**********************************************************

SCORES

show: FALL, one of the best - LOTS

show: DBD, one the clan fodder - NOT MANY

**********************************************************

show: rules and settings

Other Player and Map rules as part of the tournament found HERE: viewtopic.php?f=441&t=241790#p5345174

show: Schedule and Round Breakdown

BATTLE GAMES

show: round 1

show: round 2

[Keefie]

Please make sure you highlight the schedule in blue, since it's not default. Thanks

[Razorvich]

Please make sure you highlight the schedule in blue, since it's not default. Thanks

Done OH Clan GOAT

[GoranZ]

FALL agrees to the terms

[Keefie]

Approved

show

[groovysmurf]

Please add the war link to the OP.

[GoranZ]

First blood - Tribal War - Florida has Fallen

[groovysmurf]

I posted a reminder in the main thread of CC15, but will also say here that all games were to be created by the 5 week deadline, which was February 16th. DBD has not created their set 2 games. One game will be forfeited for each day games are not created. Please do so asap to avoid a larger penalty.

[Razorvich]

Apologies everyone, I got my dates mixed up.. will fix now

I posted a reminder in the main thread of CC15, but will also say here that all games were to be created by the 5 week deadline, which was February 16th. DBD has not created their set 2 games. One game will be forfeited for each day games are not created. Please do so asap to avoid a larger penalty.

[Keefie]

Due to being one day late in making their set two games, DBD will receive a one game default. All the games will be played out as normal. At the conclusion of the war the CD's will remove one game that DBD win from the clan database and will adjust the final score accordingly.

[detlef]

Due to being one day late in making their set two games, DBD will receive a one game default. All the games will be played out as normal. At the conclusion of the war the CD's will remove one game that DBD win from the clan database and will adjust the final score accordingly.

Has the policy changed? Last CC in our war vs LHDD, they were also assessed a one-game forfeiture, but we had a very short deadline to pick which, among games that were ongoing, that we wanted them to forfeit. Needless to say, you want to pick a game that it looks like you're losing, but, as all games that we were able to choose from were still relatively new, it was a tough call. As such, we were faced with a situation where we might have chosen a game that we would ultimately win anyway.

Now it seems you're waiting until the games are decided and taking away one game that DBD won, which is a tougher enforcement of the rule.

Am I missing something?

[groovysmurf]

Due to being one day late in making their set two games, DBD will receive a one game default. All the games will be played out as normal. At the conclusion of the war the CD's will remove one game that DBD win from the clan database and will adjust the final score accordingly.

Has the policy changed? Last CC in our war vs LHDD, they were also assessed a one-game forfeiture, but we had a very short deadline to pick which, among games that were ongoing, that we wanted them to forfeit. Needless to say, you want to pick a game that it looks like you're losing, but, as all games that we were able to choose from were still relatively new, it was a tough call. As such, we were faced with a situation where we might have chosen a game that we would ultimately win anyway.

Now it seems you're waiting until the games are decided and taking away one game that DBD won, which is a tougher enforcement of the rule.

Am I missing something?

We are still discussing how to handle this now and going forward. The decision that was made last year was done so a bit more quickly than we would have liked and not everyone agreed on the way it was done. Then, with ACES winning that game vs LHDD, it was like no punishment happened at all and that hardly seems fair to me. If that war had been lost by 1 game, it could have caused quite a commotion. All I want is for rules and punishments to be handled as fairly as possible for all clans involved. We are stuck between two main options right now; the first is simply adjusting the score at the end to account for any penalties; the second, actually having the clan affected choose 1 game that will not count towards the war and will be removed (as we did last year). There are pros and cons to both approaches and we're just trying to come to the most fair consensus right now. I do apologize for the delay and as of now we just want to encourage both clans to focus on meeting the 6 week deadline of having all games started.

[Keefie]

My comment above stands.

[detlef]

Due to being one day late in making their set two games, DBD will receive a one game default. All the games will be played out as normal. At the conclusion of the war the CD's will remove one game that DBD win from the clan database and will adjust the final score accordingly.

Has the policy changed? Last CC in our war vs LHDD, they were also assessed a one-game forfeiture, but we had a very short deadline to pick which, among games that were ongoing, that we wanted them to forfeit. Needless to say, you want to pick a game that it looks like you're losing, but, as all games that we were able to choose from were still relatively new, it was a tough call. As such, we were faced with a situation where we might have chosen a game that we would ultimately win anyway.

Now it seems you're waiting until the games are decided and taking away one game that DBD won, which is a tougher enforcement of the rule.

Am I missing something?

We are still discussing how to handle this now and going forward. The decision that was made last year was done so a bit more quickly than we would have liked and not everyone agreed on the way it was done. Then, with ACES winning that game vs LHDD, it was like no punishment happened at all and that hardly seems fair to me. If that war had been lost by 1 game, it could have caused quite a commotion. All I want is for rules and punishments to be handled as fairly as possible for all clans involved. We are stuck between two main options right now; the first is simply adjusting the score at the end to account for any penalties; the second, actually having the clan affected choose 1 game that will not count towards the war and will be removed (as we did last year). There are pros and cons to both approaches and we're just trying to come to the most fair consensus right now. I do apologize for the delay and as of now we just want to encourage both clans to focus on meeting the 6 week deadline of having all games started.

For the record, I would be inclined to look past the fact that we didn't actually get the benefit of the penalty assessed on our opponent and recognize that I feel you're handling it better this time. If the penalty IS to be a forfeited game, it should be a won game taken away from that team. Ofc, you do need to figure it out and stick to one or the other. I would be quite annoyed if, having decided to handle it this way, this time, if we had another team do that against us and we again had to pick a game in progress. That would be a very hard pill to swallow.

[GoranZ]

We haven't started planning our DBD away games, so in the spirit of the game we prefer for no penalty for DBD.

From my perspective the rule was implemented because other clan deliberately delayed creation of their games(multiple times, not just once) just to gain unfair advantage and mess up my planning(which it did). I don't think that anyone can notice deliberate action in this case. There is no unfair advantage gained here.

I also understand CD's team position to have precise and unambiguous rules, but sometimes those rules can also leave us without a room for extenuating circumstances.

[Donelladan]

We are still discussing how to handle this now and going forward. The decision that was made last year was done so a bit more quickly than we would have liked and not everyone agreed on the way it was done. Then, with ACES winning that game vs LHDD, it was like no punishment happened at all and that hardly seems fair to me.

I do hope the "we" will include people outside of the CD.
And I am a quite distressed to see that after suddenly and unilaterally deciding to apply the rule in an harsher way than ever before, you're now deciding to apply the rule differently than it was before, without any announcement or discussion.

From my perspective the rule was implemented because other clan deliberately delayed creation of their games(multiple times, not just once) just to gain unfair advantage and mess up my planning(which it did).

A very interesting question is raised here, which I hope we can all consider before deciding how to apply punishment for this rule.

Why was this rule implemented ?

Keefie is talking about this new punishment being a fairer punishment in the other thread, and here you too groovy you're saying it seems more fair to you.
The new punishment is harsher than the previous one, clearly.
That would be "fairer" if DBD here or LHDD last time had wronged our opponents, if we had gained an unfair advantage that deserve such a harsh punishment.
But, unlike what GoranZ said, I don't think that's why this rule was implemented in the first place.

I believe the rule was implemented only to ensure that the CC follow a tight schedule and can be finished quickly.
Why do I think so ?
Well mainly because the rule only punish clans that are late behind 6 weeks. It does not punish clans who do not respect the agreed schedule between both clans.
Actually when LHDD was issued the punishment in the last event, I collected data on who was late ( don't have access to i as I am not at home, but will try to find them back later and share it here).
In the last event, clan game creation show that for almost every war, at least one clan was late and didn't respect the schedule posted in the clan thread. But they were not punished because they agreed to have the game filled after 5 weeks and not after 6 weeks.

So if Clans A and B agree to have games filled after 5 weeks, but one of them fill them after 5 weeks and half, no punishment.
But if Clans A and B agree to have game filled after 6 weeks,but one of them fill them after 6 weeks and 2 hours ( ) then there is a game punishment.
Which, imho, clearly shows it's not about being fair for both clans, but it is only about the CC schedule.

Therefore, since the only intent of the rule is to prevent a tight schedule, having one game chosen by the opponent clan that would automatically be a win no matter the result, is already a strong deterrent enough to prevent clans from delaying unnecessary the event.
There is really no need to have a "fairer" punishment.

Furthermore, I think you also need to consider the effect of you enforcing the rule in such a manner for the clan world.
Let's be honest, DBD already has few chances to beat FALL, now you're giving already a freebie to FALL,
Maybe some clans will wonder what's the point of joining the event with such conditions.

[groovysmurf]

The "we" was the CD team. The community does not need to be involved in every decision that is made. CAT exists so clans can bring up issues they have with events or how they are run; then a discussion can happen.

Rules are put in place to be followed. When those rules have a precise punishment attached and someone breaks the rule for whatever reason, whether on purpose or not, those punishments need to be handed down. If we do this on a case by case basis or if we "think" a clan did something on purpose, it becomes utter chaos. We will never be able to know the motivation behind someone doing something...so we have to take that out of the equation completely. That is the ONLY thing that is fair. Otherwise, whatever our personal opinions are of clans or the people running them will inevitably become a part of our decisions; we're human, we can't help that no matter how much we say our personal opinions don't matter.

Did LHDD or DBD miss the deadline on purpose, likely not, but that's not the point! We can't pick and choose who is punished based on perceived intent.

The rules were created to uphold the timeline and hopefully reduce overlap of Conquerors Cups. For instance, CC14 isn't even closed yet and we're already nearly done with Round 1 of CC15. That shouldn't be happening.

I have brought it up to the team to discuss the schedules clans come up with and finding a way to make sure those schedules are followed as it is NOT fair that clans will put everything off after they themselves agreed to a schedule, simply because there is no punishment involved. We plan to discuss amongst ourselves before CC16 and bring it up in the CAT forum before making a final decision. We also plan to bring up and discuss how forfeited games are handled in the future.

On a personal note, it is REALLY hard trying to run a team like this where you are constantly having to battle people's opinions and worrying that you're not being fair to all involved. When something like this happens and the CD team is actually bickering and fighting on how to go about upholding a ruling, it causes so much drama and stress that a lot of times we just want to say "screw it, this is too hard". We are volunteering our time here and it's not always easy. If people knew how much time I put into this site they'd be shocked. And I've been doing so for 9 years now. Why, because I love the site and desperately want to try and make it better, but sometimes it just feels like I'm forever trying to run up a down escalator.

If anyone wants to come onto the CD team and volunteer their time to try to make things better, they are more than welcome. I have no desire to be head CD and neither does Cayman. We do it because there is no one else willing and able.

[GoranZ]

The rules were created to uphold the timeline and hopefully reduce overlap of Conquerors Cups. For instance, CC14 isn't even closed yet and we're already nearly done with Round 1 of CC15. That shouldn't be happening.

This is how it has been for very long time...

Not the place here, but last year we proposed having flat 41 games for every round in CC. Overall that should be enough to shorten the event and prevent overlapping. But it got mixed opinions. Maybe we can revisit the proposal again?
I'm sure most of the clans would prefer room for taking a breath between wars than having strict schedule. We already have strict schedule with CL. After all this is more a game for fun than a competition.

[groovysmurf]

Not the place here, but last year we proposed having flat 41 games for every round in CC. Overall that should be enough to shorten the event and prevent overlapping. But it got mixed opinions. Maybe we can revisit the proposal again?
I'm sure most of the clans would prefer room for taking a breath between wars than having strict schedule. We already have strict schedule with CL. After all this is more a game for fun than a competition.

Agreed, on both points, and the way things have been lately, it feels more like a chore than a game for a lot of people. I really hope we can get to a point again when it's more fun than pressure. After all this site is supposed to help reduce stress, not add to it...at least in my opinion.

[Donelladan]

Did LHDD or DBD miss the deadline on purpose, likely not, but that's not the point! We can't pick and choose who is punished based on perceived intent.

That wasn't what I wanted to say at all. Wasn't talking about the intention of the clan.
What i meant is that the purpose of the 6 weeks deadline is not to ensure a fair match between both clans, but to ensure a tight schedule.
Therefore I completely fail to see how making the punishment harsher ( one game deduction on the total at the end instead of having the other clans pick a game at the beginning) is making things "more fair" as Keefie and you are saying.

There are rules, in the events, that are here to ensure a fair match.

For example, timing out to miss a card, that's something that if done intentionally, is done in order to gain an unfair advantage, kinda cheating if you'd ask me. Therefore this is forbidden, because we want a fair match.
Here is the quote from the CC :

If a player breaks this rule, the opposing clan must make a request to remake the game to the TOs within 24 hours. The TOs will then investigate and determine if the game should be remade.

Same goes for the rule for player usage

If you notice a player from the other clan has violated the number of games they are allowed to participate in, please bring it to the TOs attention immediately. If the clan/player is found in violation, the opposing clan will get to pick any game(s) that the offending player is/was in from the last batch played, equal to the number of games that went over the limit, to be re-made without that player participating. The selected games must still be in round 1 at the time they are requested to be remade.

Here we have two rules, whose purpose is to ensure a competitive and fair match between both clans.
And for those both rules, there is no game forfeit if you break them, there is only a game being remade. And to get the game to be re-made you need to be very quick to report it even.

While, the 6 weeks deadline is not here to ensure a competitive and fair game, it's only here to ensure a tight schedule of the event.
And it's an automatic game forfeit.

That's why I am asking you : How is the way you just decided to enforce the rule more fair ?

I think having the other clans choose one of the late game, and make this one an automatic loss, is already good enough.
That's a very strong punishment already, stronger than the other punishment in the event. So it does fulfill its purpose, no one will want to be late knowing the impact.

The only way I can understand that it's more "fair" to have a point deduction from the total, is if you think that the other clans deserves an extra point. But I don't get why they'd deserve that, since it's not like the clan being late cheated or gained smthg from being late.

At the end what we want, I hope, is competitive match where the best wins. Not smthg where clan A won because one player from clan B was 1 hour late to accept an invite.

[GoranZ]

instead of having the other clans pick a game at the beginning

What if the other clan doesn't want to pick a game

[SoN!c]

I think Don nails it here. Do you want good players enjoying the thrill of good fair games and be excited and thrilled about the games or do you prefer arbitrary mind kills? Im sure every winner wants to win on the battlefield, not on the Arbitration commitée that is a type of alternative dispute resolution who have to have a appeal possibilty that can order a re-trial if needed to be legit and that can overturn the case if needed. .

If so: lots of people will dissapear. Its about gaming here. Not about appeals

[Donelladan]

We've got a french saying.
"Qui ne dit mot consent"

Which I think translates to
"he who is silent consents".

Is that so?

Although I have no intention of being late, I am curious to know how the rule will be applied moving forward.

[Donelladan]

We've got a french saying.
"Qui ne dit mot consent"

Which I think translates to
"he who is silent consents".

Is that so?

Although I have no intention of being late, I am curious to know how the rule will be applied moving forward.