I'm sorry I missed this weekends games, as I try to be there so as many people who want to play can play, but I have a ridiculous workload this week not to mention being on that jobs grind.

Quote from: Ltin on September 23, 2013, 03:24:57 PM
Ehh. Pc is still better.

Quality post.

Just kidding.

[spoiler][/spoiler]

212 takes Platforms.

As a head's up, I won't be available this Saturday.
Should be good for Sunday, though.

Quote from: Kniescheibenzerschredderer on September 15, 2013, 03:22:58 PM
I like ur minimap with no radar, mart.

We've already been over this subject, okay?

Anyone who thinks that Oven showed even the slightest hint of bias towards FC, or towards any other clan, is mistaken.

Quote from: Kit Fisto on September 06, 2013, 05:52:46 PM
Wait, you think that the OT films, if released now, would be rated R?

They would probably be G!

You're putting words in my mouth, Kit Fisto.

Quote from: Kit Fisto on September 06, 2013, 04:45:41 PM
It's not that my age would affect if I could play it or not (I'm already 17), it's that I think it is better not to have that content unnecessarily.

SWBFR will be a SW game. Just imagine a SW film that is rated R. I can't. I think that LA would have overstepped their boundaries if they made 1313 M. Being a lifelong SW fan I can tell you that I will be disappointed if there is any M/R material produced by any company.

I'd love to see your credentials in either the MPAA or the ESRB.
How do we know that the films in the original trilogy would have the same ratings that they have now if they were released this year?

Quote from: Oven on September 04, 2013, 04:52:28 PM
Scorpion, thanks. I'm not letting any of the players from eliminated clans join 1.0/212/YAK. For cases of people who have been flip-flopping tags, but werent ever in enten or uef either, they are forced to choose one.

I have to go right now, and will make edits tomorrow.

But neither En'Ten nor U.E.F. were eliminated.  wat do?

Quote from: Shazam on September 04, 2013, 04:49:00 PM
Oven I highly suggest that we find more in-game admins.  It would be awesome if I could play for YAK every once in a while.

I'll try my best to pick up as much slack as possible, though.

Quote from: Oven on September 04, 2013, 04:20:17 PM

Amendment 1 (Clan membership)

All participating clans must maintain a member-list. The list can be updated over time, but must obey the following rules:
(a) A player may appear on at most one list.
(b) Once a player appears on a list, they cannot be removed from that list.

When counting players before a battle, for clan A, the players whose name appears on A's list are counted as "members", and all who remain are counted as "mercenaries".

Discussion

The above is absolutely unambiguous, but I will spell it out below.

1. For the purposes of the ICW3, each participating clan forms a unit. These clans are, for all I care, the only clans in the universe. Anyone not in these clans is considered to be clanless. So, if you are a member of Alpha (say), I consider you clanless in the ICW3. I don't care that you're in Alpha any more than I care about the other clans you're in for other games, or which school you attend in real life, etc.

2. Now, the members of a clan, for the sake of the ICW, do not need to be the "real" members of the clan. That is, if a player who is not "officially" a member of clan A, declares that they are an "acting" member of clan A for ICW purposes, then they will be counted as an A-member.

3. But your clan is fixed for the entire ICW. You can't change.

4. Therefore if you wish to help other clans after your clan is eliminated, you must do so as a Mercenary.

5. Before any more battles resume, all three clans must give me their list. It can be updated arbitrarily many times, but it must obey the rules in the amendment.

6. It has to be this way and I defy anyone to (claim to) reject this rule on "moral" grounds. The reason is obvious: the tournament stops being a competition. Why bother pretending to "compete" if eliminated clans can just reassemble as stronger, more numerous entities? It would make a mockery of the entire motivation for not only the ICW, but the historic tournaments of the past such as the original GGWs.

7. Please note that if the clan on whose list your name appears is eliminated, you may still play, but you will always be a merc. If your name appears on the list of no clan, you will always be a merc (unless your name is added by some clan later).

What're the retroactive measures?
What happens to the U.E.F. and En'Ten members, whose respective clans dropped out?  Since neither clan submitted a list, I assume that means that they're allowed to pick a side just as long as they stick with it?

This post is a little bit of a work in progress.  I've tried to keep it as a summary of what's happened.  Me interjecting my opinion is noted by "**."

WHAT HAPPENED:

Russia:
-Issue is raised of who is an acting member and who is a merc.
-**Consider this hypothetical: In the ICW3, there are clans A, B, and C.  Player 1 (P1) is a member of clan D, which is not in the ICW3 and so can be an acting member of clan A, B, or C.  P1 plays as an acting member of clan B vs. clan A in Week 2... can P1 be an acting member of clan C in clan C's game vs. clan A the same week?  Can P1 be an acting member of clan C in Week 3?**
-Shazam scheduled a rematch
-**The wording he used suggested that it's a tentative rematch, pending your evaluation of mercs vs. acting members.**


Kastel:
-SirPimped was recorded traveling through a wall glitch.
-Accident or intentional?
-SirPimped says he was wall hugging and walked into the wall; that is, that he entered the glitch as an accident.
-**To enter this glitch it doesn't matter where on that wall you hug, just that you hug it.  SirPimped's explanation is not inconsistent with how one would enter the glitch.**
-**This is not to say that SirPimped is innocent, just that I believe that he is not guilty, if that makes sense.  I fail to reject the null hypothesis of innocence.**

Harbor:
-(To set the stage) In the buffer, certain players used inappropriate names and Gdh had to kick several people.
-Nico, playing with 212, was a jet trooper.
-Rage alleges that a jet trooper stole a tank on the mountain
-Birdosrus alleges that the tank that was stolen was in a crevice
**Birdosrus's allegations are not inconsistent, to the extent that they do not refute Rage's allegations, with what I saw.  I'll explain: (I believe this transpired after Nico stopped using jet) I saw a tank coming from an area near what Birdosrus would later describe as a crevice.  Birdosrus, spawned as a clone pilot, drove the tank to the tank-healing bot in front of the Republic's main command post.  But that doesn't mean that Rage's allegations are false, because the tank that came from the "crevice" was not the only tank there (there was another!) so it's possible that the tank from the mountain and the tank in the crevice are different.**
-A member of YAK, I believe Rage, switched to Republic to take a tank.

WHO IS TO BLAME:

Russia:
-Me, for not being sure how to interpret the acting members.

Kastel:
-The wall?

Harbor:
-Nico for being jet, and the member of YAK who switched sides for switching sides.
-Various players for having inappropriate usernames.

DEFLECTION

I see a broad interpretation of acting members.

Allowing for acting members, Oven wrote that "clans may declare non-members to be 'acting members' for the sake of counting in the ICW3, as long as those non-members are also non-members of the other 3 participating clans" and went on to say that "[t]hese 'acting members' are counted as clan members in matches" (emphasis added).

That is, someone who is formally a member of a clan that is not participating in the ICW3, such as WUSI, can act as members for a game.  Now, I purposefully emphasized matches.  If someone is an acting president of a firm, for example, that means that they are temporarily president to fill a vacancy, keyword being temporarily.  I emphasized "in matches," because it defines--in my opinion--the temporary duration.  Namely, when the match is over, they are no longer an acting member and not covered by the restriction on members of the other 3 participating clans.

But I digress.  It's a poor argument because Oven wrote "matches" not "match," which implies that one's status as an acting member is something that will happen more than once.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE:

Russia:
-See if it's inconsistent with the acting member rule, whatever it is, and go from there.  I think the rematch is more tentative than anything.

Kastel:
-Umm... how do we punish a wall, especially when that wall isn't really there?

Harbor:
-I think that although 212 won't like, a rematch would be an adequate remedy.
-Or, in the next week, Nico and the player of YAK that switched sides can't play
-Attacks are lost

Quote from: Gen.Hond{snp} on September 02, 2013, 10:30:20 AM

And why the hell is there a rematch for Russia? We played it fairly and your taking it back? Just because YAK whined about it and Enten and 1.0 didn't do in previous matches.. YAK get special privileges?
No screw that. YAK isn't a little princess. If Enten and 1.0 had matches before with recon spamming then there is no reason for a rematch. And there won't be if you want us to keep playing in the ICW3.
No one wants to play a rigged event.

My understanding is that the reason there will be a rematch for Russia has nothing to do with recons.
I'm under the impression that there'll be a rematch on Russia because of mercs vs. acting members.

Quote from: Gen.Hond{snp} on September 02, 2013, 09:49:27 AM
Also the Russia match there is no reason for a rematch. Yes we were accused of to many mercs(after the match ) but we clearly had pointed out who is who and that problem was resolved by Phantom and I. There shouldn't be a need for a rematch on Russia. And there won't be a rematch just because of recon spamming.  Especially when 1.0 and Enten had these battles on Russia before WITH OVEN and there was no reason to redo that match just because of recons. YAK doesn't get special treatment just because they complained to much. 

And if Harbour has a rematch YAK should be penalized for switching teams and stealing a tank. 

We're not having a rematch just because of recon spamming.
The recon thing is that, going forward, Russia will be played without recons.

Quote from: Ten Numb on September 02, 2013, 05:45:56 AM
Wow a rematch? Even after you decided that 212 took habour? Why can't they just attack it, without an extra attack.

I think that it's pretty hard to say with a straight face that, given what transpired on Harbor, no penalties should be given.  To be honest, I was--for quite some time, until I saw the picture of a YAK playing on 212 side--of the opinion that 212 would forfeit their attack due to the jet.

But put yourself in Shazam's position, attempting to remedy a situation that cannot be resolved without taking drastic measures.  You want to squabble before he makes decisions and you want to squabble after.

Quote from: Shazam on September 01, 2013, 08:04:54 PM
There will be a rematch of Harbor and Russia next week.  It will be played as if Saturday's matches never happened, but it will not count against a clan's two attacks for next week. 

So, Russia will be played on Saturday, 3:00 PM EST and Harbor will be played at 4:00 PM EST.  Teams will be the on the same side as they were this week.

The matches will be recorded to ensure there is not as much controversy as last time.

Please do not argue.

A rematch on Harbor is probably for the best in the long run.
And Russia is, unfortunately, a necessary evil.

Quote from: WusiBabyEater on September 01, 2013, 07:42:53 PM
RED, RED RED RED?

What a quality post.
Instead of taking shots at Rage, you could have at least referenced Oven on acting members, saying that "[he] can't regulate the internal structure of participating clans."