Jump to content


CCWB - Victory Points - June 24, 2015


  • Please log in to reply
140 replies to this topic

DeltaAlphaVictorEcho #81 Posted 25 June 2015 - 07:15 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 4 battles
  • 91
  • [VULCN] VULCN
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013
Good Idea.

Edited by DaveRu, 25 June 2015 - 07:15 PM.


Parisienne #82 Posted 25 June 2015 - 07:16 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 274 battles
  • 766
  • [-WS-] -WS-
  • Member since:
    11-18-2013

View PostPostTraumatic, on 25 June 2015 - 01:12 PM, said:

 

BIGNATS POPULATED THE MATCH WITH MY MEN I SENT IN THE LOBBY THERE!!!  THAT WAS UNDER HIS CONTROL!  YOU FAILED TO SEND ME A SIMPLE NUMBER!!!  I would have known how many to send in if you had done what we agreed you would do and that was that YOU were going to contact me with a NUMBER of players.  We were being Gracious trying to accommodate you on 10A by going in with the same amount.  YOU did not fulfill your part of the discussion by sending me a NUMBER or how many you were sending.  I did NOT have to do that BTW.  It was me being NICE by leveling the field.  However, When you failed to tell me how many you could bring I could not wait any longer.  I sent my men in the room.  YOUR men kept trickling in.  Your screenshot from BigNats  shows far less than you actually ended up battling us with there.  YOur guys kept coming in.  How were we supposed to know you were not possibly bringing 15??

 

We did also state the intent was to fight on equal numbers IF you could communicate what that number would be.  

 

SHOW ME ANY SCREENSHOT WHERE ANY WS MEMBER SENT ME A MESSAGE STATING HOW MANY THEY WERE BRINGING INTO THE ROOM.  

 

They failed to sent me a number they were bringing so I had all my men go in the lobby to be ready for anything.  They populated the match with all my men.  They populated their side as people came in up until the last second.  Then they hit battle.  We fought it and won how they set it up.

 

Its Over.

 

lmbo :facepalm:

 

 


PostTraumatic #83 Posted 25 June 2015 - 07:17 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

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

I would like to hear what the actual dispute IS first!

 

Be specific WS.  What is the Dispute you are forwarding??

 

Be specific now.

 

If its that we did not bring a specified number, tell me what number YOU communicated to me.  That part was on WS to communicate as they were the one with limited forces to bring to the battle.  Show me where you sent me a message of any kind stating how many to bring.  

 

You failed to name the number to bring to the room.  There was no number sent to me so I put all my men in the lobby.  

 

So JlNN You cant say what number you told us to bring because you did not COMMUNICATE how many to bring.  WS FAIL


Edited by PostTraumatic, 25 June 2015 - 07:19 PM.


GiN_nTonic #84 Posted 25 June 2015 - 07:18 PM

    Captain

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

View PostPostTraumatic, on 25 June 2015 - 07:12 PM, said:

 

BIGNATS POPULATED THE MATCH WITH MY MEN I SENT IN THE LOBBY THERE!!!  THAT WAS UNDER HIS CONTROL!  YOU FAILED TO SEND ME A SIMPLE NUMBER!!!  I would have known how many to send in if you had done what we agreed you would do and that was that YOU were going to contact me with a NUMBER of players.  We were being Gracious trying to accommodate you on 10A by going in with the same amount.  YOU did not fulfill your part of the discussion by sending me a NUMBER or how many you were sending.  I did NOT have to do that BTW.  It was me being NICE by leveling the field.  However, When you failed to tell me how many you could bring I could not wait any longer.  I sent my men in the room.  YOUR men kept trickling in.  Your screenshot from BigNats  shows far less than you actually ended up battling us with there.  YOur guys kept coming in.  How were we supposed to know you were not possibly bringing 15??

 

BigNats was following the rules of the CW.  He was obligated to fill with who you brought up to 15.  This is why he tried to make contact with both you and Dave (Dave was in the room).  It would not have been appropriate for Big to take people out on his own whim.

 

Big was talking to us in TS asking what he should do, and he communicated that Dave's response to taking out players was "no" - as shown by the screen shot. 

 

You are suggesting that ONLY I could communicate to you (who wasn't in the room) how many players we were bringing.  BigNats was our WS representative for that room talking to the highest ranking member of Vulcan he could (Dave).  Nothing of the sort was discussed about "me" specifically needing to PM you before the game.  Last thing said and agree was you would match our #s.



GiN_nTonic #85 Posted 25 June 2015 - 07:18 PM

    Captain

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

View Posts1r31ch, on 25 June 2015 - 07:14 PM, said:

since there is obviously a dispute about something. How about we have a meeting instead of talking here?

 

 

I 100% agree. 

 

Actually what we are talking about currently WS accepts.  We have no "legal" dispute over what happened at 10a.


Edited by JlNN, 25 June 2015 - 07:20 PM.


Pertinacious #86 Posted 25 June 2015 - 07:22 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 2284 battles
  • 718
  • Member since:
    02-24-2012

View PostPostTraumatic, on 25 June 2015 - 03:17 PM, said:

I would like to hear what the actual dispute IS first!

 

Be specific WS.  What is the Dispute you are forwarding??

 

Be specific now.

 

If its that we did not bring a specified number, tell me what number YOU communicated to me.  That part was on WS to communicate as they were the one with limited forces to bring to the battle.  Show me where you sent me a message of any kind stating how many to bring.  

 

You failed to name the number to bring to the room.  There was no number sent to me so I put all my men in the lobby.  

 

So JlNN You cant say what number you told us to bring because you did not COMMUNICATE how many to bring.  WS FAIL

 

It seems you are making an assumption on the very thing that is disputed. 

 

You assume WS was obligated to tell you how many WS is bringing. WS thinks differently. 

That by definition is a dispute. You think one thing and WS thinks another. 

 

Now the question is where to talk and resolve this dispute. 

No need to argue here further, because I or anyone else reading this forum do not have any authority to adjudicate. 

 


Edited by Pertinacious, 25 June 2015 - 07:23 PM.

 


PostTraumatic #87 Posted 25 June 2015 - 07:25 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

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

You were supposed to send me a number that you could bring.  We would have matched you had ANYONE done that.  Not even BigNats sent me a number.  Him talking to Dave was a misunderstanding conversation.  Dave was discussing the GW_S situation anyways and not 10A.  So you failed by not messaging ME.

 

As it was your men kept trickling in so we were confused and waiting to hear just how many to bring.  BigNats NEVER stated ok this is all we can bring.  People just kept coming in.  Show me any conversation where ANYONE from WS sends a NUMBER for us to bring in the room.  Noone from WS communicated a number to bring in.  Nor did they actually give Dave a number to bring in the room.  

 

Were we supposed to look into our crystal ball and SCRY how many you were bringing??



PostTraumatic #88 Posted 25 June 2015 - 07:27 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

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

View PostPertinacious, on 25 June 2015 - 07:22 PM, said:

 

It seems you are making an assumption on the very thing that is disputed. 

 

You assume WS was obligated to tell you how many WS is bringing. WS thinks differently. 

That by definition is a dispute. You think one thing and WS thinks another. 

 

Now the question is where to talk and resolve this dispute. 

No need to argue here further, because I or anyone else reading this forum do not have any authority to adjudicate. 

 

 

Well if WS anted to us to reduce our forces from 15 down to what you were bringing then YES WS would be obligated to tell us how many they were bringing.  Since they did not we brought ALL to the LOBBY.  BIGNATS placed us and hit battle.  Without informing us so we could level it, you failed to get a balanced match.  Were we supposed to just Guess??

 

 

What IS your dispute??  Are you saying you won the match?


Edited by PostTraumatic, 25 June 2015 - 07:28 PM.


Pertinacious #89 Posted 25 June 2015 - 07:32 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 2284 battles
  • 718
  • Member since:
    02-24-2012

View PostPostTraumatic, on 25 June 2015 - 03:27 PM, said:

 

Well if WS anted to us to reduce our forces from 15 down to what you were bringing then YES WS would be obligated to tell us how many they were bringing.  Since they did not we brought ALL to the LOBBY.  BIGNATS placed us and hit battle.  Without informing us so we could level it, you failed to get a balanced match.  Were we supposed to just Guess??

 

 

What IS your dispute??  Are you saying you won the match?

 

Again, no need for you to make the argument to me. I am no judge and have no authority. You guys need to figure out who has the power to oversee this and save your breadth till then. 

 

What WS could have done is irrelevant, because we are talking about obligations. 

Here's an example. Let's say I hit someone with my car. If I drove at 10 mph (like WS could have told you who's coming), I probably wouldn't have hit her. But that does not mean that I was obligated to drive at 10 mph. Maybe I was, maybe I wasn't. That's for the judge/jury to decide. Again, the issue of obligation is not solved by what I could have done to avoid.


Edited by Pertinacious, 25 June 2015 - 07:33 PM.

 


GiN_nTonic #90 Posted 25 June 2015 - 07:33 PM

    Captain

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

View PostPostTraumatic, on 25 June 2015 - 07:25 PM, said:

 

Were we supposed to look into our crystal ball and SCRY how many you were bringing??

 

How else would we have communicated with you except the same way BigNats did?  Your explanation doesn't make any sense.  Why in the world wouldn't I think the room leader from WS couldn't talk to you or Dave to get this handled.  It was a simple thing, as its common even in scims to match #s of players.

 

Your explanation is weak and self-serving.  However, this needs no further discussion as we accept what happened there.


Edited by JlNN, 25 June 2015 - 07:34 PM.


PostTraumatic #91 Posted 25 June 2015 - 07:37 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

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

OK, the rest of the tournament is now on hold due to an unclear and unstated dispute.  WS its in your court now.  File your dispute.  Let it be heard.

 

You have yet to clearly define exactly what your dispute IS!

 

SO we gather its over 10A now.  And that you feel we should have somehow known what you were bringing in without you telling us...

 

OK lets do this.  I feel we can either go to the council or go to GW or have Dracs mediate it.  Just get it together.  As I am not part of the portion of the council that decides this and neither is JlNN then someone figure it out.  WS and VULCAN should both have the opportunity to state their cases.  

 

So bring it.  until then the tournament is on HOLD and possibly OVER if the council cannot come to a decision today as we all need to be prepping our turn-ins for tomorrows deadline otherwise.

 

We were willing to match them and as far as we knew it could have been a 15 on 15 battle if ACES was short at their other battle.  They never communicated.

 

I, personally, feel they have no grounds for a dispute on this as they hit the battle button and never told us how many to bring at any point.  So we brought all.  Which, regardless of agreements in back rooms, we can do by the rules.  

 

By this token if they wish to dispute 10A then I wish to dispute 9A.  They were given parameters for this battle and did not stick to those parameters.  

 

Difference is, we were never given our parameters for 10A as they never communicated how many they were bringing!!


Edited by PostTraumatic, 25 June 2015 - 07:43 PM.


Pertinacious #92 Posted 25 June 2015 - 07:44 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 2284 battles
  • 718
  • Member since:
    02-24-2012
that post was too irrelevant, so I deleted it. apologies 

Edited by Pertinacious, 25 June 2015 - 07:49 PM.

 


s1r31ch #93 Posted 25 June 2015 - 07:49 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 29 battles
  • 140
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Team SF is willing to host a council meeting in our  TeamSpeak. 7pm est

Parisienne #94 Posted 25 June 2015 - 07:59 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 274 battles
  • 766
  • [-WS-] -WS-
  • Member since:
    11-18-2013

View PostPertinacious, on 25 June 2015 - 01:44 PM, said:

that post was too irrelevant, so I deleted it. apologies

 

I got to read it yay!!!!!


 

*****

[content moderated - insults / inappropriate language]
~PrimordialSlime

 


 

 


macfloam #95 Posted 25 June 2015 - 08:48 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 119
  • [TOP-D] TOP-D
  • Member since:
    11-12-2014

Making agreements with your ENEMIES so that you can both have an opportunity for maximum points in a round by having more battles than you could normally staff if you weren't getting into bed with your supposed enemy...yeah, I'm sure that's EXACTLY what GP intended this event to be all about. This is the worst example of going against the spirit of the competition imaginable. You're gaming the system to allow your clan to grab up as much of the gold as possible. For all the issues TFE & SF had with each other, at least we fought each other to the best of our abilities. We tried to deny each other points, while maximizing the points for ourselves only. TFE made alliances with FALO & FACK to try to spread SF's forces thin to give us an advantage. By contrast, you're making agreements with the very people you are attacking so that you can BOTH benefit. 

 

For the record, agreements made outside of the rules are not binding. -WS- know this, which is precisely why they have not filed a formal complaint. In fact, they've stated multiple times that they are not disputing the results of the battles. If your council of leaders have any spine, they'll vote to nullify all battles where two clans agreed to fight 1v1, as this is a clear violation of the spirit of the competition, and a heinous example of gaming the rules. 



Traurig_Yoda #96 Posted 25 June 2015 - 09:00 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Open Beta Tester
  • 3 battles
  • 2,275
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    02-18-2013

View Postmacfloam, on 25 June 2015 - 03:48 PM, said:

Making agreements with your ENEMIES so that you can both have an opportunity for maximum points in a round by having more battles than you could normally staff if you weren't getting into bed with your supposed enemy...yeah, I'm sure that's EXACTLY what GP intended this event to be all about. This is the worst example of going against the spirit of the competition imaginable. You're gaming the system to allow your clan to grab up as much of the gold as possible. For all the issues TFE & SF had with each other, at least we fought each other to the best of our abilities. We tried to deny each other points, while maximizing the points for ourselves only. TFE made alliances with FALO & FACK to try to spread SF's forces thin to give us an advantage. By contrast, you're making agreements with the very people you are attacking so that you can BOTH benefit. 

 

For the record, agreements made outside of the rules are not binding. -WS- know this, which is precisely why they have not filed a formal complaint. In fact, they've stated multiple times that they are not disputing the results of the battles. If your council of leaders have any spine, they'll vote to nullify all battles where two clans agreed to fight 1v1, as this is a clear violation of the spirit of the competition, and a heinous example of gaming the rules. 

WG should pull their sponsorship of this event, wow...



PostTraumatic #97 Posted 25 June 2015 - 09:08 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

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

 

 

Actually clan cooperation, alliances, and budgeting troops is something that was encouraged in the rules and there is no rule stating two clans cannot set a number to go in if it is going to be a battle in good faith where the winner of the outcome is not pre-determined.

 

For those behind the curve on this, it has been moved to PM's and from what I see WS is standing down on their dispute.  They need to go ahead and formalize that by posting their current stance on this.  

 

For the record, if you make an agreement between another clan and for any reason it does not work out, that is not a "disputable game offence" which can be contested in my opinion.  It is just a broken agreement between two clans.  There is no rule in the book in regard to any alliance or agreement breakdowns.  Only the result matters.

 

More than just Vulcan and WS had one v one matches and it is far better than just getting for a battle less victory.  It was all by the book and the points and territories were legitimately on the line.

 


Edited by PostTraumatic, 25 June 2015 - 09:14 PM.


SHreDDed__WhEaT #98 Posted 25 June 2015 - 09:09 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 59
  • Member since:
    12-23-2011

****

[content moderated - disputing moderation]
~PrimordialSlime



Pertinacious #99 Posted 25 June 2015 - 09:15 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 2284 battles
  • 718
  • Member since:
    02-24-2012

View Postmacfloam, on 25 June 2015 - 04:48 PM, said:

Making agreements with your ENEMIES so that you can both have an opportunity for maximum points in a round by having more battles than you could normally staff if you weren't getting into bed with your supposed enemy...yeah, I'm sure that's EXACTLY what GP intended this event to be all about. This is the worst example of going against the spirit of the competition imaginable. You're gaming the system to allow your clan to grab up as much of the gold as possible. For all the issues TFE & SF had with each other, at least we fought each other to the best of our abilities. We tried to deny each other points, while maximizing the points for ourselves only. TFE made alliances with FALO & FACK to try to spread SF's forces thin to give us an advantage. By contrast, you're making agreements with the very people you are attacking so that you can BOTH benefit. 

 

For the record, agreements made outside of the rules are not binding. -WS- know this, which is precisely why they have not filed a formal complaint. In fact, they've stated multiple times that they are not disputing the results of the battles. If your council of leaders have any spine, they'll vote to nullify all battles where two clans agreed to fight 1v1, as this is a clear violation of the spirit of the competition, and a heinous example of gaming the rules. 

 

I understand your sentiment but making a new standard to punish a past act that was not illegal is very dangerous. 

So much, in fact, that the United States Constitution expressly prohibits it. 

http://www.heritage....3/ex-post-facto


 


Rob7183 #100 Posted 25 June 2015 - 09:17 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 106 battles
  • 409
  • [SF] SF
  • Member since:
    03-01-2015

View PostPertinacious, on 25 June 2015 - 09:15 PM, said:

 

I understand your sentiment but making a new standard to punish a past act that was not illegal is very dangerous. 

So much, in fact, that the United States Constitution expressly prohibits it. 

http://www.heritage....3/ex-post-facto

 

Shhhh...don't tell the EPA that.  You'll kill the entire premise behind the Superfund Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act.  They've prosecuted any number of people by interpreting rules differently after the fact.

Edited by Rob7183, 25 June 2015 - 09:18 PM.

Rob7183.png 





11 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 11 guests, 0 anonymous users