Moderator: Clan Directors


i don't mind rolling a lot of defensive 1s while you guys roll attacking 1s all war longhyposquasher wrote:Congrats and good luck to all of those in the Semifinals! (except TOFU. You guys should consider rolling lots of 1's)

I see what you did there.betiko wrote:i don't mind rolling a lot of defensive 1s while you guys roll attacking 1s all war longhyposquasher wrote:Congrats and good luck to all of those in the Semifinals! (except TOFU. You guys should consider rolling lots of 1's)

Wow! I'm shocked that the CDs have overridden the agreement by the two clans involved re: Dualta. I think this is the first time that's happened in all four years of the Conqueror's Cup.Leehar wrote: Unfortunately at the same time, the CD's have not so graciously disallowed dualta from competing in the war, despite Ace agreeing to the waiver of the player eligibility criterion.
As always, slight rule adjustments are subject to CD approval, and in this instance it was felt by the CD team that the Player eligibility rule was outside the bounds of the adjustable settings regulations (which relate more to the likes of changing the tiebreaker map, decreasing/increasing the trench limitation etc)
I'm fairly certain none of the 4 remaining competitors qualify as smaller clans. So I guess the CDs were protecting the interests of clans who have already been eliminated in this particular competition, even though this rule is subject to potential change for the next cup?Leehar wrote:It was felt that the Player Eligibility rule provides a crucial protection to smaller clans against the common ailment of 'sailing for greener pastures'.

angola wrote:I'm more appalled that TOFU needs another 2 days to get ready for ACE. Their war with ATL was decided more than two weeks ago, yet they need another 48 hours?
Are they run by a bunch of newbs? What is going on over there? No time to do research?
Is Peyton Manning running TOFU?
Denise wrote:I agree with Foxy, too. Always in the past it was left up to the two clans involved to hash out if the rule should be enforced and never was the privilege of a clan to control this aspect of their war taken away.
I understand the need for consistency and if this has been the answer to all clans wishing to use an ineligible player, then I wouldn't want it changed this late in the competition. However, I strongly believe this is an example of the CD's taking too much control and think they should leave these types of things to the clans involved, unless for some reason the clans can't reach an amicable decision. I hope that we can change this rule for the next CCup, or do away with it completely.
A little off topic but why should the CD's take it upon themselves to try to prevent a player from changing clans if they want to? This rule has never made any sense to me.
You didn't know but we outsource most parts of war organizing to eddie and his team. They are doing great but our shipment of Dr. Pepper and sweets got delayed on the border (heavy snow storms etc) so we were forced to ask for another 48h. But it was him who was so eloquent and got us this extension by talking to cheme in his own personal way. So please understand us.angola wrote:I'm more appalled that TOFU needs another 2 days to get ready for ACE. Their war with ATL was decided more than two weeks ago, yet they need another 48 hours?
Are they run by a bunch of newbs? What is going on over there? No time to do research?
Is Peyton Manning running TOFU?




considering it ACE being best part of EMPIRE/AOC,IcePack wrote:I'm going to predict an upset by ACE and TSM

Denise,Denise wrote: I understand the need for consistency and if this has been the answer to all clans wishing to use an ineligible player, then I wouldn't want it changed this late in the competition. However, I strongly believe this is an example of the CD's taking too much control and think they should leave these types of things to the clans involved, unless for some reason the clans can't reach an amicable decision. I hope that we can change this rule for the next CCup, or do away with it completely.


I like what the CDs have done! They are enforcing the rule in place, and explaining that the rule needs to be reconsidered, not the enforcement of it. I do regret that this rule has prevented some players eligibility in CCup (and there has been a few) and I hope the rule is changed for CCup5 along with some others. But bashing the CDs for rules that exist makes no sense, or at least doesn't make sense to me. Course I'm pretty easily confused and rather moronic at the best of times...Denise wrote:I agree with Foxy, too. Always in the past it was left up to the two clans involved to hash out if the rule should be enforced and never was the privilege of a clan to control this aspect of their war taken away.
I understand the need for consistency and if this has been the answer to all clans wishing to use an ineligible player, then I wouldn't want it changed this late in the competition. However, I strongly believe this is an example of the CD's taking too much control and think they should leave these types of things to the clans involved, unless for some reason the clans can't reach an amicable decision. I hope that we can change this rule for the next CCup, or do away with it completely.
A little off topic but why should the CD's take it upon themselves to try to prevent a player from changing clans if they want to? This rule has never made any sense to me.

why do we need a fashion/trend to protect smaller clans really ?betiko wrote:I do understand that it s the rule and you guys are enforcing it.
The only questionable thing here, is that his former clan with which he participated in the event disbanned. Therefore, he necessairly wouldn t be in the same stop-existing clan 6 month later, it has nothing to do with protecting smaller clans.
My rule has always been if I don't remember posting it, it didn't happen. And I certainly don't remember posting last night.hyposquasher wrote:You all will have to forgive angola. While we were a bit surprised at the request for an extension, angola is a big Seahawks fan. So he had been on a steady diet of beer and adrenaline all day. By the time he came here to post, the Super Bowl was over. He had shed his clothes and ran 4 laps around his house. So the combination of cold and black-out level inebriation may have made him a little punchy
I like the Cup Tied Rule...without exceptions. It protects the integrity of the clan system. When it was a private tournament, it was not the private tournament organizer's prerogative to protect all clans. So the idea that the rule could be waived by agreement made sense. However, now that the Cup is run by the CD Team, it is important that distinctions and exceptions are not carved out to weaken the rule. A player that is Cup Tied is certainly allowed to play in other clan wars and clan events. Just not this one. The fact that a clan may only play in the CCup (and not other wars) is something a player joining that clan should inquire about.HardAttack wrote:why do we need a fashion/trend to protect smaller clans really ?betiko wrote:I do understand that it s the rule and you guys are enforcing it.
The only questionable thing here, is that his former clan with which he participated in the event disbanned. Therefore, he necessairly wouldn t be in the same stop-existing clan 6 month later, it has nothing to do with protecting smaller clans.
where do these SMART/BRIGHT !!! ideas come from all the times ?![]()
f*ck em, the smaller clans i mean...
well isnt it what always happens since cc1 now ?
i havent seen any small clan in top 4 ever...

I was initially surprised by the decision from the CDs, but it's fair and it does make sense.chemefreak wrote: I like the Cup Tied Rule...without exceptions. It protects the integrity of the clan system. When it was a private tournament, it was not the private tournament organizer's prerogative to protect all clans. So the idea that the rule could be waived by agreement made sense. However, now that the Cup is run by the CD Team, it is important that distinctions and exceptions are not carved out to weaken the rule.
haha - very true! I'm not sure about other clans, but I know that KORT has not participated in a non-event war (cup or league) since 2010.chemefreak wrote: A player that is Cup Tied is certainly allowed to play in other clan wars and clan events. Just not this one. The fact that a clan may only play in the CCup (and not other wars) is something a player joining that clan should inquire about.
The rule as originally written in the earlier versions of the CCup wasn't designed to benefit smaller clans whatsoever. It was created to prevent the top clans from bringing in great players in the later rounds to bolster the strength of their roster when they played against tougher opponents. This new kinder and gentler interpretation of its meaning is a decent one though.chemefreak wrote:The argument that a player's clan no longer exists is a facile argument. Elite clans would just need to poach enough players from any one particular clan to ensure that the smaller clan would fold. Or, in the inverse, enough players from a lower ranked clan could leave so that their clan would fold making them "free agents." This kind of temptation should not exist. Thus, the rule is written and enforced the way it was here, and (probably) in the foreseeable future.

Not true.Chariot of Fire wrote:
I'm not so sure the rule should be reviewed for the next edition though, as if it is then it could seem unfair right now not to consider a case-by-case basis (and with the semis about to start it would probably be the only case). It could result in previous and subsequent cases being allowed (CCup1-3 & 5 onwards) leaving one isolated incident, that of Dualta, standing on the record books. Somehow that seems rather unfair, though it's something we would accept without further ado.
