Jump to content


CCWB - Victory Points - June 24, 2015


  • Please log in to reply
140 replies to this topic

PostTraumatic #1 Posted 25 June 2015 - 03:30 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1536 battles
  • 987
  • [VULCN] VULCN
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Please check your points and if there is a discrepancy we will be glad to handle it.  

 

ACES             48   +   24   =   72

FACK             20   +   12   =   32

FALO             14   +     8   =   22

GWS              42   +   10   =   52

SF                  44   +   18   =   62

TFE                  4   +     4   =     4

VULCAN        38   +   44   =   82

WS                 46   +   18   =   64

WORD              4   +    8   =   12

 

                      Total Points = 402

 

200,000 / 402 = ~ 497.5 Gold per point

 

 


Edited by PostTraumatic, 26 June 2015 - 03:08 AM.


GiN_nTonic #2 Posted 25 June 2015 - 03:56 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 2474 battles
  • 3,952
  • [-WS-] -WS-
  • Member since:
    10-13-2013
WS has an issue with PT and Vulcan continuing to be the "leader" of this event.  We request that a neutral party be put back in charge for final decisions etc.

Edited by JlNN, 25 June 2015 - 04:06 AM.


pigeon_kicker #3 Posted 25 June 2015 - 04:12 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Open Beta Tester
  • 1600 battles
  • 1,520
  • [SF] SF
  • Member since:
    08-04-2013
Sounds like another meeting is in order.

If you want to make god laugh, tell him about your plans for survival..

Lead developer for the NACCW web site. Author of the Pigeon Pak Mod Installer

www.team-sf.com

 

 


floydsox #4 Posted 25 June 2015 - 04:18 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1 battle
  • 467
  • Member since:
    09-03-2012

View PostJlNN, on 24 June 2015 - 10:56 PM, said:

WS has an issue with PT and Vulcan continuing to be the "leader" of this event.  We request that a neutral party be put back in charge for final decisions etc.

 

^


PostTraumatic #5 Posted 25 June 2015 - 04:27 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1536 battles
  • 987
  • [VULCN] VULCN
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Hey ok I don't care who does it.  You want to do it JlNN?  

 

I have not done anything other than compile the information.

 

We recorded the points gained by all parties and updated the map.  That is all. 

 

 



GiN_nTonic #6 Posted 25 June 2015 - 04:47 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 2474 battles
  • 3,952
  • [-WS-] -WS-
  • Member since:
    10-13-2013

View PostPostTraumatic, on 25 June 2015 - 04:27 AM, said:

Hey ok I don't care who does it.  You want to do it JlNN?  

 

I have not done anything other than compile the information.

 

We recorded the points gained by all parties and updated the map.  That is all. 

 

 

 

We have no issue with you doing that work.  However, who determines a dispute or a rule function? 



pigeon_kicker #7 Posted 25 June 2015 - 04:49 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Open Beta Tester
  • 1600 battles
  • 1,520
  • [SF] SF
  • Member since:
    08-04-2013
If needed, a gaggle of the available commanders will do fine.

If you want to make god laugh, tell him about your plans for survival..

Lead developer for the NACCW web site. Author of the Pigeon Pak Mod Installer

www.team-sf.com

 

 


PostTraumatic #8 Posted 25 June 2015 - 04:57 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1536 battles
  • 987
  • [VULCN] VULCN
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Here is the results for the night on the compilation so you can all check and double check the results 

 

ALL UNDERSTAND, im not the LEADER of this event.  I am just the guy that was willing to do the work of compiling data in place of GW.  I REALLY do not WANT to have to be involved in disputes and I totally was cool with Crayola doing any mediation on disputed territories.  Or anyone else for that matter.  I wanted to be a participant and not do the clerical work.  We have done the clerical work efficiently and with painstaking care to make it all correct and fair.  None of the information we have posted has been skewed and all of it can be double/triple-checked for accuracy (and definitely should like I say at the top of the thread.)  I welcome anyone to take over what Dave and I are doing as far as filling in for GP so the competition can continue.  

 

There is only one more round.  This Saturday coming up.  If someone else would like to do the compilation of information then believe me I would welcome 1 less headache in life.  I am happy to do it for the last round just as we have done in the absence of GP. 

 

To this date we have not actually been involved in territory dispute mediation and I do not intend to

 

WINS - Points gained this week

 

ACES

8G       6

9C       8

10C     10

            24

 

FACK

8E      6

8F      6

          12

 

FALO

7H      4

7G      4

           8

 

GW_S

7D      4

8C      6

          10

 

SF

6k      2

6M     2

8D      6

9B      8

          18

 

VULCAN

7K      4

8B      6

8J      6

9D      8

10B    10

10A     10

            44

 

WS

9A      8

10D    10

          18

 

WORD

6L      2

6N      2

7i       4

           8

 

Please let me know if any of this is incorrect and if so which one.

 


Edited by PostTraumatic, 25 June 2015 - 07:06 AM.


Bitterfool #9 Posted 25 June 2015 - 05:06 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 28
  • Member since:
    02-22-2012

View PostJlNN, on 25 June 2015 - 04:47 AM, said:

 

We have no issue with you doing that work.  However, who determines a dispute or a rule function? 

 

If an issue arises that needs resolution why can't we just have a gathering of clan leaders/reps as we've done in the past to resolve it? I'm sure if anyone is seen as being out of line or trying to work something to their advantage we can all make a determination on it. I don't see the need to fix something that seems to be working, and it's just 1 more night/round of battles.

 

That said, if the above mentioned group wants to appoint an impartial party (by majority vote) , or GP gets back, I'll support that, too. 



PostTraumatic #10 Posted 25 June 2015 - 05:14 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1536 battles
  • 987
  • [VULCN] VULCN
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

I would think an outside party would be best in a dispute but i think if two clans have one then the remaining clan leads not in the dispute could settle it.

 

In this case we have 8 active clans participating.  if 2 have a dispute the other 6 could hear both sides and decide the fate of the territory.

 

With one week left and no current disputes this could be a moot point.



GiN_nTonic #11 Posted 25 June 2015 - 05:18 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 2474 battles
  • 3,952
  • [-WS-] -WS-
  • Member since:
    10-13-2013
Lets get it worked out through meeting with the group.  As long as PT/Vulcan isn't the final say I have no issue letting them do the admin the have been doing.

Edited by JlNN, 25 June 2015 - 05:19 AM.


Cosmic_Joke #12 Posted 25 June 2015 - 05:22 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Open Beta Tester
  • 24 battles
  • 127
  • [CHKAL] CHKAL
  • Member since:
    09-30-2013

View PostJlNN, on 25 June 2015 - 12:18 AM, said:

Lets get it worked out through meeting with the group.  As long as PT/Vulcan isn't the final say I have no issue letting them do the admin the have been doing.

I am sure each clan has checked his post for accuracy, and would speak up if there is a problem.. Then an impartial party, or the other clan leaders could step in.

View PostPostTraumatic, on 25 June 2015 - 12:14 AM, said:

I would think an outside party would be best in a dispute but i think if two clans have one then the remaining clan leads not in the dispute could settle it.

 

In this case we have 8 active clans participating.  if 2 have a dispute the other 6 could hear both sides and decide the fate of the territory.

 

With one week left and no current disputes this could be a moot point.

 

Wasn't this already stated as the viable option for disputes? All of a sudden someone has an issue with this? Ohhhhh, I get it;  tonight must have gone too smoothly for some....?

I'm always serious (with days off).

 


PostTraumatic #13 Posted 25 June 2015 - 06:23 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1536 battles
  • 987
  • [VULCN] VULCN
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

What would you like to dispute JlNN?  Or is this hypothetical?

 

I have never said I was the dispute person.

 

It's also something that has to be AGREED upon.  You do not get to dictate that we do it by group nor that we do it by outside party.  We all should have a vote on that and it should be agreed upon PRIOR to continuing further.

 

I, personally, think it needs to be an outside impartial source.  There are alliances which could affect peoples votes and bias.  Alliances the leaders and clan reps would be well aware and sensitive to.  I do not agree that the clan council is acceptable and I will not agree with it now that I consider this.  I feel it Has to be an outside, unbiased, party that KNOWS the rules.

 

I nominate WS to handle all the admin WORK behind all of this for Saturday.  You guys are obviously taking issue with my involvement so I am glad to pass it to you.  

 

So, JlNN, tomorrow You need to make the Thread for people to make the Battle declarations.  Caffan will gladly help you, right?  After the battle declarations are made, update a battle map for people to see the attacks and confirm it is all correct.  Compile the battle schedule and post it with the victory declarations thread and after its over compile the points, make the map for the final territories standing and post everything for everyone.

 

Ungrateful @#!$%^*

 

 I had never once indicated I would be any part of ruling on others disputes other than possibly as a committee which YOU would have been in as well JlNN.

 


Edited by PostTraumatic, 25 June 2015 - 06:49 AM.


Cosmic_Joke #14 Posted 25 June 2015 - 07:11 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Open Beta Tester
  • 24 battles
  • 127
  • [CHKAL] CHKAL
  • Member since:
    09-30-2013
Nice going.  PT took something that was a TOTAL mess, and made it work in an incredibly short amount of time. This put an end to the drama (even PK has been behaving himself :P ), and changed the mind of people who were about to walk away from said drama.  And now you have upset this balance, yet again.  And for what? Some hurt feelings from the battlefield?  I guess I will check this forum tomorrow and go from there.

I'm always serious (with days off).

 


GiN_nTonic #15 Posted 25 June 2015 - 07:27 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 2474 battles
  • 3,952
  • [-WS-] -WS-
  • Member since:
    10-13-2013

View PostPostTraumatic, on 25 June 2015 - 06:23 AM, said:

What would you like to dispute JlNN?  Or is this hypothetical?

 

JINN - Best to talk about this with the group.  No need to go back-n-forth on forums.

 

I have never said I was the dispute person.

 

It's also something that has to be AGREED upon.  You do not get to dictate that we do it by group nor that we do it by outside party.  We all should have a vote on that and it should be agreed upon PRIOR to continuing further.

 

JINN - Who are you arguing with here...I didnt say a word about dictating anything outside the group.

 

I, personally, think it needs to be an outside impartial source.  There are alliances which could affect peoples votes and bias.  Alliances the leaders and clan reps would be well aware and sensitive to.  I do not agree that the clan council is acceptable and I will not agree with it now that I consider this.  I feel it Has to be an outside, unbiased, party that KNOWS the rules.

 

JINN - I agree, this whole thing is fubar.

 

I nominate WS to handle all the admin WORK behind all of this for Saturday.  You guys are obviously taking issue with my involvement so I am glad to pass it to you.  

 

JINN - As you see in my previous posts, I dont have an issue with you handling the admin.  What I have a problem with is any other clan which may have an issue needing to bring it up with the very clan it could be against.  I see a conflict there.

 

So, JlNN, tomorrow You need to make the Thread for people to make the Battle declarations.  Caffan will gladly help you, right?  After the battle declarations are made, update a battle map for people to see the attacks and confirm it is all correct.  Compile the battle schedule and post it with the victory declarations thread and after its over compile the points, make the map for the final territories standing and post everything for everyone.

 

JINN - If you feel you dont want to do it, we can get it done if the other groups want this.  However, I do think its best to keep a neutral party in charge.

 

Ungrateful @#!$%^*

 

JINN - I've posted thanks to you and your people for the help - the issue isn't about what you are making it here.

 

 I had never once indicated I would be any part of ruling on others dispcutes other than possibly as a committee which YOU would have been in as well JlNN.

 

JINN - If this is clear to you, I can tell you its not clear with 2 other clans i've spoken to.  I dont understand your comment above with this one you are making - 

 

"You do not get to dictate that we do it by group nor that we do it by outside party"

 

 


Edited by JlNN, 25 June 2015 - 07:28 AM.


BullDevil #16 Posted 25 June 2015 - 07:30 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Open Beta Tester
  • 2582 battles
  • 156
  • [CHKAL] CHKAL
  • Member since:
    07-07-2013
Unless you have a valid dispute at this time or a serious allegation in regards to PT's integrity, I really don't see what is your concern? Please elaborate or lets move on and not create more drama please.:facepalm:

Return With Honor

 

 


BullDevil #17 Posted 25 June 2015 - 07:36 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Open Beta Tester
  • 2582 battles
  • 156
  • [CHKAL] CHKAL
  • Member since:
    07-07-2013
PostTraumatic Has clan FACK vote of confidence, He had demonstrated initiative and reliability in this endeavor of salvaging CCW. We are almost done, let finish this with no more Drama please 

Return With Honor

 

 


floydsox #18 Posted 25 June 2015 - 07:38 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1 battle
  • 467
  • Member since:
    09-03-2012

*****

[content moderated - non-constructive]

~Pleuracanthus



GiN_nTonic #19 Posted 25 June 2015 - 07:44 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 2474 battles
  • 3,952
  • [-WS-] -WS-
  • Member since:
    10-13-2013

View PostBullDevil, on 25 June 2015 - 07:36 AM, said:

PostTraumatic Has clan FACK vote of confidence, He had demonstrated initiative and reliability in this endeavor of salvaging CCW. We are almost done, let finish this with no more Drama please 

 

Perhaps you should take your own advice and see what i am saying is to meet in a TS as PK mentioned instead of having this debate over forums.  Your posts are drama-creators if anything.  

 

These clan wars are a mess due to the over-complication of the rules.  However, we have had to be "docked" points due to rules so its only fair everyone abide by at this point.  My issues have nothing to do with PT or Vulcan in their perfunctory administration CW.


Edited by JlNN, 25 June 2015 - 07:47 AM.


BullDevil #20 Posted 25 June 2015 - 07:56 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Open Beta Tester
  • 2582 battles
  • 156
  • [CHKAL] CHKAL
  • Member since:
    07-07-2013

View PostJlNN, on 24 June 2015 - 07:56 PM, said:

WS has an issue with PT and Vulcan continuing to be the "leader" of this event.  We request that a neutral party be put back in charge for final decisions etc.

 

Your issue is not with PT? wow really?   and this is not DRAMA:facepalm:

Return With Honor

 

 





6 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users