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

[stahrgazer]

Perhaps we can just trust JP and wait?

I mean, we can always complain later, if necessary.

And the decision was made as it was at the time.. why? WHY?

Let's add a How to it: How does this pair of existing, arbitrary, and inconsistent decisions engender "community trust and patience?"

Seriously.

Reminder: the "pair" of existing decisions is Newcomer's Cup getting medals for all rounds, Conqueror's Cup not, while both are similarly formatted including pitting the top seed against the bottom seed in round 1.

So, really, why does some big policy change have to be made to make both similarly-formatted events get treated THE SAME.

[Dako]

No one will give you a league medal so forget about it.

[The Voice]

All your medals are belong to JP

[reptile]

All your medals are belong to JP

lol. not sure how many people will understand that, but that is some funny shit

[Incandenza]

Okay, I think this medal discussion is a bit premature. However, there is something I'd like to bring up, and that's the fact that I've read the rules repeatedly, and I can find no mention of cup-locked players. None whatsoever. Nor is there any mention in the first 20 pages of the thread, which is about as far as I think anyone should be expected to read to find rule issues.

And before everyone says, "well, there were cup-locked players in the first cup", the OP in this thread specifically states "There has been a handful of slight rule changes from last year, please read through all rules carefully." One can only assume that said rule was one of the ones that didn't make the cut.

Also, assumptions that the rule is in place, which is what I've been getting when I inquired privately, to me hold pretty much zero weight given the extent to which the rest of the rules were stated. And while I personally wouldn't be in favor of players from eliminated clans jumping ship to play with a still-in-it clan, I see no reason why a player from a clan that's still very much in this should have to forfeit nearly a year of cup play if they wish to join another clan.

[stahrgazer]

Okay, I think this medal discussion is a bit premature.

No, it's not. The medals that we're incensed about not receiving are medals for having won a clan-v-clan challenge that meets the requirements of a clan war medal.

Right now, there is an EXISTING ruling that at least some of the rounds of the Conqueror's Cup will not receive medals because the top seed opposes the bottom seed so could look like "farming" yet right now, medals HAVE been awarded for first rounds in another cup series of challenges where the top seed opposes the bottom seed.

Since some of the rounds in question are completed, and an existing arbitrary ruling is in place that indicates these rounds won't classify as a war for the wars medals, this is not a "premature discussion." Especially when some of these rounds finished well over a month ago, WOULD qualify, and should already have received medals - except for someone's arbitrary decision that they won't.

If no one is willing to discuss this in the open to challenge the decision, will it change?

[Chuuuuck]

Okay, I think this medal discussion is a bit premature. However, there is something I'd like to bring up, and that's the fact that I've read the rules repeatedly, and I can find no mention of cup-locked players. None whatsoever. Nor is there any mention in the first 20 pages of the thread, which is about as far as I think anyone should be expected to read to find rule issues.

And before everyone says, "well, there were cup-locked players in the first cup", the OP in this thread specifically states "There has been a handful of slight rule changes from last year, please read through all rules carefully." One can only assume that said rule was one of the ones that didn't make the cut.

Also, assumptions that the rule is in place, which is what I've been getting when I inquired privately, to me hold pretty much zero weight given the extent to which the rest of the rules were stated. And while I personally wouldn't be in favor of players from eliminated clans jumping ship to play with a still-in-it clan, I see no reason why a player from a clan that's still very much in this should have to forfeit nearly a year of cup play if they wish to join another clan.

All played are cup tied once they play with any clan in the Cup. They can play with a new clan the following year if they choose to. I will edit the OP, thanks for pointing out this omission.

[Incandenza]

Okay, I think this medal discussion is a bit premature. However, there is something I'd like to bring up, and that's the fact that I've read the rules repeatedly, and I can find no mention of cup-locked players. None whatsoever. Nor is there any mention in the first 20 pages of the thread, which is about as far as I think anyone should be expected to read to find rule issues.

And before everyone says, "well, there were cup-locked players in the first cup", the OP in this thread specifically states "There has been a handful of slight rule changes from last year, please read through all rules carefully." One can only assume that said rule was one of the ones that didn't make the cut.

Also, assumptions that the rule is in place, which is what I've been getting when I inquired privately, to me hold pretty much zero weight given the extent to which the rest of the rules were stated. And while I personally wouldn't be in favor of players from eliminated clans jumping ship to play with a still-in-it clan, I see no reason why a player from a clan that's still very much in this should have to forfeit nearly a year of cup play if they wish to join another clan.

All played are cup tied once they play with any clan in the Cup. They can play with a new clan the following year if they choose to. I will edit the OP, thanks for pointing out this omission.

Um, changing the rules by fiat once the cup is well underway isn't exactly something I'd classify as desirable.

[Chuuuuck]

I am not changing them. Just a simple mistake and omission on my part. All rules from the first cup were carried over except rules that were directly discussed in the public forums or the CLA because people felt there was a problem. That rule is unchanged because before now, no one has complained about that rule and nearly everyone agreed last year it was a good rule to have.

[Incandenza]

I am not changing them. Just a simple mistake and omission on my part. All rules from the first cup were carried over except rules that were directly discussed in the public forums or the CLA because people felt there was a problem. That rule is unchanged because before now, no one has complained about that rule and nearly everyone agreed last year it was a good rule to have.

Funny thing, the cup-tied rule doesn't appear to be in the official rules for the first cup, either.

Just so we're clear, you do understand that you're changing the official rules in the middle of the cup, right? That doesn't bother you?

[Chuuuuck]

In the first cup it was agreed upon through discussion within the thread. Has been a rule ever since. Everyone that it has pertained to has known it was a rule before it ever affected them, including you and the horsemen as shown by your PMs sent to me acknowledging the rule and asking for an exception. I understand your frustration and sympathize, but I am not going to start making case by case exceptions because that opens up a much bigger bag of worms. The rule stands. Please drop it.

[jackal31]

Chuuuuck,

just for a minute, lets drop the clan statuses from the people talking about this situation. Just looking at this, this is what I read:

I am not changing them. Just a simple mistake and omission on my part. All rules from the first cup were carried over except rules that were directly discussed in the public forums or the CLA because people felt there was a problem. That rule is unchanged because before now, no one has complained about that rule and nearly everyone agreed last year it was a good rule to have.

In the first cup it was agreed upon through discussion within the thread

Now, I understand this to say during the first CCup, there were proposals and discussions for future cup rulings. And in your first statement, you admit to "carrying over" the previous established rules, and also added "other" rules. But in all honesty, if you forgot to add a rule, why should a clan be penalized for that? Its essentially an unwritten rule now....which is why a ruling was being asked of it.

[Incandenza]

In the first cup it was agreed upon through discussion within the thread. Has been a rule ever since. Everyone that it has pertained to has known it was a rule before it ever affected them, including you and the horsemen as shown by your PMs sent to me acknowledging the rule and asking for an exception. I understand your frustration and sympathize, but I am not going to start making case by case exceptions because that opens up a much bigger bag of worms. The rule stands. Please drop it.

I approached you privately with concerns that you simply did not address. It was not my desire to have this discussion in public, because I like and respect you. But I simply don't agree with your reasoning here, and I'm not going to just drop it because you don't want to talk about it.

And yeah, I knew that the rule had been discussed, but you know who wouldn't? Anyone who didn't play in the first cup (be that a new clan or a player in an existing clan who was away last year), and anyone who didn't read through the first cup's thread (and seriously, if I were the leader of a clan that hadn't played in the first season, would your response be "well, you should've read through the first 10 pages of the first clan cup thread"?). Regardless of the motives of the rule, you can't just leave it in the ether as "common knowledge" when it's not listed in the very comprehensive first post of the thread and then expect everyone to just somehow know it.

Aren't we supposed to be making clan events more transparent? More to the point, as last season made manifestly clear, rules are rules. And if it's not in the rules when play starts, well, it's not a rule.

[laughingcavalier]

In the first cup it was agreed upon through discussion within the thread. Has been a rule ever since. Everyone that it has pertained to has known it was a rule before it ever affected them, including you and the horsemen as shown by your PMs sent to me acknowledging the rule and asking for an exception. I understand your frustration and sympathize, but I am not going to start making case by case exceptions because that opens up a much bigger bag of worms. The rule stands. Please drop it.

I approached you privately with concerns that you simply did not address. It was not my desire to have this discussion in public, because I like and respect you. But I simply don't agree with your reasoning here, and I'm not going to just drop it because you don't want to talk about it.

And yeah, I knew that the rule had been discussed, but you know who wouldn't? Anyone who didn't play in the first cup (be that a new clan or a player in an existing clan who was away last year), and anyone who didn't read through the first cup's thread (and seriously, if I were the leader of a clan that hadn't played in the first season, would your response be "well, you should've read through the first 10 pages of the first clan cup thread"?). Regardless of the motives of the rule, you can't just leave it in the ether as "common knowledge" when it's not listed in the very comprehensive first post of the thread and then expect everyone to just somehow know it.

Aren't we supposed to be making clan events more transparent? More to the point, as last season made manifestly clear, rules are rules. And if it's not in the rules when play starts, well, it's not a rule.

It does seem rather arbitrary to impose a new rule at this stage. We were just gearing up for recruitment at the start of the season and I read the first post to see if this rule was in it – and I may well have questioned it if it had been there then.
I do think the rule is too fierce, just like the 21 game forfeit rule from last year. I can see where it is coming from, but we’re an online game for fun not a professional sports league and I think it limits people too much. Effectively it stops players who want to be active from joining any clan except those that are big and active enough to do challenges on top of the Cup for as long as a clan is active in the Cup. You could prevent the unlikely possibility of a clan packing its ranks with ringers with a less fierce rule. A better rule might say something like:
If you have already played in the Cup and join a different clan you cannot take part in any active Cup challenge or the next round of the Cup.
(Or you could put on a limit eg any clan can only play 3 recruits who have played for other clans in the Cup, and the clan they join must declare those recruits in the Cup thread when they come on board).

[SirSebstar]

Can someone refesh my memory. what are cup-locked players?
and where can i find the rules about them?

[Dako]

Can someone refesh my memory. what are cup-locked players?
and where can i find the rules about them?

If you leave a clan that already lost in some match you cannot play for your new clan in the current CCup season.

[SirSebstar]

Can someone refesh my memory. what are cup-locked players?
and where can i find the rules about them?

If you leave a clan that already lost in some match you cannot play for your new clan in the current CCup season.

ah, that would be me then..
Been searching for the CLA, but I am already dropped from it. I have to say that is.. rather.. unexpected. Its one thing not to have one player playing both sides of the same clanwar. Its quite another to simply keep a player our of competition for a whole year..
After all, you cannot continue on the clan you left and you are not allowed to help out on the clan you go too. Seems... a bit.. wierd don't you.
Still if its a rule and anybody else has ever been effected by it, i'll not fight it. But i have to say, its a damm shame.

[stahrgazer]

Chuuuuck,

just for a minute, lets drop the clan statuses from the people talking about this situation. Just looking at this, this is what I read:

I am not changing them. Just a simple mistake and omission on my part. All rules from the first cup were carried over except rules that were directly discussed in the public forums or the CLA because people felt there was a problem. That rule is unchanged because before now, no one has complained about that rule and nearly everyone agreed last year it was a good rule to have.

In the first cup it was agreed upon through discussion within the thread

Now, I understand this to say during the first CCup, there were proposals and discussions for future cup rulings. And in your first statement, you admit to "carrying over" the previous established rules, and also added "other" rules. But in all honesty, if you forgot to add a rule, why should a clan be penalized for that? Its essentially an unwritten rule now....which is why a ruling was being asked of it.

Umm. I agree with jackal, Incandenza, and laughing cavalier: If it wasn't a rule in the first post of rules before anyone joined this season; and it wasn't modified before the first games started; then it wasn't a rule for this season's Cup.

[Chuuuuck]

To be honest, I really don't care if we have the rule or not. I don't care if clans grab ringers or not. I am just trying to stick to an arbitrary ruling that keeps it fair for everyone and keeps this from being abused.

But I do understand this is a website that makes up a small part of our lives for entertainment only, and I do appreciate the longevity of an event like this. I am fine with adjusting the rule, but can we please discuss now what kind of limitations you all think are best. Do you think we should allow it for 1 player per clan, 2? Do you think they should have to sit out any active challenge and the next one after they join? That would prevent a clan from picking up a guy from the elite 8 and using them in the final 4. Or do you think no restrictions what so ever?

Like I said, not trying to be hard here for any reason other than I don't want to see someone like Empire just go pick up the best players TOFU, BotFM and IA for the final 4 after they beat us. (Those Empire players are cheating, lying rotten bastards).

[SirSebstar]

Just FYI, In the CLA i have been told that "fishing" is not something that happens. So I guess thats not a problem then. The one clan rule however is something. You cannot be a member in both clans in one clanwar. other then that it did not appear to be a problem.

[Chuuuuck]

I could see it becoming a slight problem in the semi finals or finals. If one of the top clans had some players going on vacation or leaving the site and this tournament taking forever, then they go approach HardAttack, josko, CoF, or any other great player if their clan is out and say "want to come play the finals with us."

Not accusing anyone here, just saying it as a discussion point and would like something in place to prevent this from happening. Or is everyone okay with it happening if it does? I don't think a valid argument is "I don't think anyone will do that" because I agree with that argument, but then what happens when someone does.

[jpcloet]

It has not been a major problem in the CCups or the leagues, but we have had a few switch clans mid-way. Over 3 Seasons of the league, I think we've had about 5 in total.

For clan wars and the league I like the "free-and-clear" rule whereby you must have no active clan games with your prior clan.
For Tournaments, I like the "FULL-TOURNAMENT" rule whereby you are not allowed to switch clans or become an "in-eligible" player.

These are my current thoughts and was weaving them into the new policies. Does this sound fair?

[SirSebstar]

It has not been a major problem in the CCups or the leagues, but we have had a few switch clans mid-way. Over 3 Seasons of the league, I think we've had about 5 in total.

For clan wars and the league I like the "free-and-clear" rule whereby you must have no active clan games with your prior clan.
For Tournaments, I like the "FULL-TOURNAMENT" rule whereby you are not allowed to switch clans or become an "in-eligible" player.

These are my current thoughts and was weaving them into the new policies. Does this sound fair?

Considering this FULL-TOURMANENT rule. Can the player that left the clan still play for his old clan? Or is he simply shafted.

I think they are clear views. I supposed the no active clan games is an addition. I suppose and propose the Full-T also has a similar provision, like, he can participate in the FULL-t as long as the clan he left also has acces to the tournament (to prevent people switching to a clan that can still take home something). Would still affect me, but that's one i should be able to live with. Ofcourse there are other suggestions possible. e.g. you can only switch in the full tournament if you have no active clangames. similar as the other rule. That would work too.

I'd also like to propose a catchall rule. After all you should still be able to decide whether something is fair or not, in your view.

[Chuuuuck]

It has not been a major problem in the CCups or the leagues, but we have had a few switch clans mid-way. Over 3 Seasons of the league, I think we've had about 5 in total.

For clan wars and the league I like the "free-and-clear" rule whereby you must have no active clan games with your prior clan.
For Tournaments, I like the "FULL-TOURNAMENT" rule whereby you are not allowed to switch clans or become an "in-eligible" player.

These are my current thoughts and was weaving them into the new policies. Does this sound fair?

It sounds fair to me either way, but that is what everyone is arguing against. That they don't think they should have to sit out the entire CCup tournament because it lasts so long for the top clans who make it far. It virtually limits their recruitment periods to a small time frame.

[jpcloet]

It does not limit the time, it will limit who they can recruit. Loyalty is a huge thing in our clan community. It will mean players that are on the fence should not sit so long I guess.