Duel2.Com  
•   Home  •  Rules  •  Your Account  •  Forums  • Newsletters  •
Navigate
· Home
· Content
· Encyclopedia
· Forums
· Members List
· Newsletters
· Old Newsletters
· Private Messages
· Setup
· Tourneys
· Your Account
User Info
Welcome, Anonymous
Nickname
Password
(Register)
Membership:
Latest: jetlibra5
New Today: 5
New Yesterday: 11
Overall: 19600

People Online:
Visitors:
Members:
Total: 0
Duel2.Com: Forums

Duel2 :: View topic - Civil War
 Forum FAQ  •  Search  •  Memberlist  •  Usergroups   •  Register  •  Profile  •  Log in to check your private messages  •  Log in

 
Post new topicThis topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Author Message
One Armed Bandit
ArchMaster Poster
ArchMaster Poster


Joined: Apr 15, 2004
Posts: 2555

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:13 am Reply with quoteBack to top

Much to my regret, I've read some of this thread.

I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how so many people could get so upset about a contest that is supposed to be FUN.

I think the important thing to remember is that this contest is not about the person who came up with the idea, its not about the organizer, its about the 30 to 50 managers who will be participating. It is their contest, plain and simple.

If the consensus is to have it in a closed arena, then we should have it in a closed arena. Period. And if your pride is wounded because the majority of people wishing to participate want something other than you want, then you have a couple of options. Either participate or don't. But hurling abuse at people who want something different than you or threatening to sabotage the contest... These things should be beneath us.

Should this contest be held in a closed arena with a required DA on the first turn and a simple scoring system, then I would love to participate. If the contest requires a team of sandbaggers to do well, if it allows for outside interference, or if there is a complicated set of rules that is abusable and a pain in the ass to keep track of, I'll probably pass.
View user's profileSend private message
Street_Legal
ArchMaster Poster
ArchMaster Poster


Joined: Jul 29, 2002
Posts: 3324
Location: The Big D (etroit) area

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:38 am Reply with quoteBack to top

An email from Lee states the following:

For the record, I don't object to opening a closed arena for a
contest--we've done that before. We also can't guarantee that an
existing team might not pop into the arena during the contest--we can
try to make sure that doesn't happen, but it's nearly impossible to
prevent completely. There has to be some honor on the part of the
managers. I'm not too crazy about opening a new arena (84?) but I
suppose it's possible if absolutely necessary. I don't think we could
do 95 because it might turn out to be a bloodgames arena and that
would be bad. I would argue strongly against opening a new arena.

So for the record Lee is pretty much against it though not totally opposed to it. My MAJOR issues are:

A) I tried, and successfully, got this ball rolling and now most everyone has decided that they want it somewhere where they know I cannot participate due to Sentinel's threat to disrupt it. I think it totally sucks that I'm being thrown under the bus on this contest after I legged it out. Yes it is for everyone and that should include me.

B) We need to save open arenas not open more that have proved unable to sustain themselves.

C) The arena was NEVER open to discussion only the scoring and rules yet that was misunderstood, or it was deemed to be beyond my control as the moderator of the contest. I guess I should have just TOLD everyone where and how as has unfortunately happened to me.

D) We should not be looking for special circumstances for this contest or exceptions from the company so as not to open them up to further aggravation down the road based on the dispensations we get for it.

As Lee said we need to show a certain level of integrity ourselves and if someone comes in and tries to mess it up then we need to police ourselves and make it known that we will make those managers pay for such actions (In game of course by attacking their warriors and punishing them when and where we find them). ToGS has gone nearly without interference so perhaps Sentinel implied interference was merely that implied and not forthcoming.

Come on ,for the good of the game,let's not show the newbies that there are certain groups of managers who are able to strongarm the game with their connections and that ANYONE can do things within this game and it is handled fairly and equally. Let's run it in 14 if someone shows up I have my original team there to lock up a few warriors, I will make it clear that if a participating manager uses a second team to challenge into the contest they are DQ'd, and my team will not challenge in as well (this is a given)!

_________________
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.

Thomas Jefferson
View user's profileSend private message
Street_Legal
ArchMaster Poster
ArchMaster Poster


Joined: Jul 29, 2002
Posts: 3324
Location: The Big D (etroit) area

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:49 am Reply with quoteBack to top

Rillion wrote:
Apex wrote:
It's your lack of seeing and accepting whats in front of you. You see what you want. You see it as Street over reacting and that he should be happy that you guys are allowing him to even attempt to participate in this contest. When it should be you that are happy that he took the time to get this thing started back up in the first place.


Where have I ever expressed that I feel Street should be happy "us guys" are allowing him to even attempt to participate in this contest? Where I have said he is over reacting? I have said he is being insulting and I have shown where I thought he (and you) were being insulting. You are attributing words and thoughts to me that I have not expressed here and you have no way of knowing if I even hold.

I did say that he either needed to dictate the terms of the contest and see who wanted to play under those terms or if putting the terms of the contest out there for debate, suggestion, and consensus building he had to accept that the result might not be what he wanted (which I will admit could be very frustrating).

But fine, you can think or say whatever you want about me, I'm done here.


Yes I did put it up for debate. But again you fail to recognize I did not put the arena up for debate. There's where the overstep occurred. Plain,simple to the point, and no insults. There for you to finally understand. Sorry the cussing and insults blurred this point from you now I've cleared it.

Rules:
+1 for a win against a competing team
All warriors DA'd to start, all must contain a prefix of A, F or D to be scored
Turn 0 you may DA again or fight an arena fight
Turn 1 scoring begins (Turn 0 used to give challenge options on turn 1)
If a manager brings in a second team and challenges into the contest he is DQ'd and his side will fight one team short (that's obvious right?)
Highest scoring faction of each turn wins the battle
10 battles won wins the contest.

No FtF participation allowed for warriors or they, and they only are DQ'd, you can fight your other guys but DO NOT challenge with the FtF warrior into the contest or you are DQ'd

Pretty simple and straightforward

AND OH YEAH it's, as always, going to be in arena 14!

_________________
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.

Thomas Jefferson
View user's profileSend private message
Valamond
Advanced Master Poster
Advanced Master Poster


Joined: Feb 14, 2006
Posts: 321
Location: On duty in Babylon

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:11 am Reply with quoteBack to top

Do we have a count of who is participating on each side at this point? And are we sticking with the team representative concept for keeping track of participation?

I just want to make sure that the process isn't changed and the people who already declared their intention to participate are not left out.

_________________
__________________________________________
---Valamond a.k.a. Pony Boy Curtis, The Outsiders

Life is pain...anyone who says differently is selling something. --The Man in Black

Teams listed in Extra Info
View user's profileSend private messageYahoo Messenger
TripwireDuel
Grandmaster Poster
Grandmaster Poster


Joined: Jul 18, 2005
Posts: 939

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:50 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

Street_Legal wrote:

Rules:
+1 for a win against a competing team
All warriors DA'd to start, all must contain a prefix of A, F or D to be scored
Turn 0 you may DA again or fight an arena fight
Turn 1 scoring begins (Turn 0 used to give challenge options on turn 1)
If a manager brings in a second team and challenges into the contest he is DQ'd and his side will fight one team short (that's obvious right?)
Highest scoring faction of each turn wins the battle
10 battles won wins the contest.

No FtF participation allowed for warriors or they, and they only are DQ'd, you can fight your other guys but DO NOT challenge with the FtF warrior into the contest or you are DQ'd

Pretty simple and straightforward

AND OH YEAH it's, as always, going to be in arena 14!


With these rules in place I am still willing to play and it doesn't matter to me if it is in a new arena or 14.

_________________
Tripwire, Iron Council
View user's profileSend private message
Display posts from previous:      
Post new topicThis topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



Powered by phpBB 2.0.10 © 2001 phpBB Group

Version 2.0.6 of PHP-Nuke Port by Tom Nitzschner © 2002 www.toms-home.com
Forums ©
:: fisubsilver shadow phpbb2 style by Daz :: PHP-Nuke theme by coldblooded (www.nukemods.com) ::