Turf War VII

Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:01 pm

The Consortium wrote:

As a comment, the last TW (6) was the only one where DCing was considered acceptable - indeed, encouraged. Virtually all of the prior ones discouraged and/or penalized DCing.

The reduction of DCing makes it much harder to have helpful outside team influence.

Assur hit the nail right on the head.

Well it'll kind of suck for a team if your alliance mates dominte the top of your challengable heap. In this case, I take it you either challenge and alliance mate, pray for a random matchup against someone (of course, raising changes an opponents challenge will get though) - or DC and hope you only lose 2 points.

Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:05 am

[quote="Kat"]

The Consortium wrote:

The final, hopefully, rules adjustment will be:
deleted this "Down Challenge 0 -2 0 -5 "
added this:
Down Challenge "Challenger" -2 -2 -5 -5
Down Challenge "Challenged" +2 0 +5 -5

This is rather 11th hour, and a bit questionable after certs (aka: entry fees) have been recieved.[/quote]

I guess I can see why someone having not been involved and/or not read the threads from the beginning could say that, but it is not meant to be such. This change resulted because many participants pointed out the falicy in the initial point scoring rule and the coordinators agreed that a change was in order and made sense. From the very beginning, it was planned and stated that the rules would be as tight as possible and that DCing and outside collusion/interference were targeted.

I understand and appreciate your thoughts, Kat, and enjoy participating with you in any event. Perhaps next time a different set of coordinators would be in order? It is a rather important and thankless job.

Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 5:35 am

Kat wrote:

The Consortium wrote:

The final, hopefully, rules adjustment will be:
deleted this "Down Challenge 0 -2 0 -5 "
added this:
Down Challenge "Challenger" -2 -2 -5 -5
Down Challenge "Challenged" +2 0 +5 -5

This is rather 11th hour, and a bit questionable after certs (aka: entry fees) have been recieved.

which alliance are you in again?

Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 8:17 am

[quote="The Consortium"]

Kat wrote:

The Consortium wrote:

The final, hopefully, rules adjustment will be:
deleted this "Down Challenge 0 -2 0 -5 "
added this:
Down Challenge "Challenger" -2 -2 -5 -5
Down Challenge "Challenged" +2 0 +5 -5

This is rather 11th hour, and a bit questionable after certs (aka: entry fees) have been recieved.[/quote]

I guess I can see why someone having not been involved and/or not read the threads from the beginning could say that, but it is not meant to be such. This change resulted because many participants pointed out the falicy in the initial point scoring rule and the coordinators agreed that a change was in order and made sense. From the very beginning, it was planned and stated that the rules would be as tight as possible and that DCing and outside collusion/interference were targeted.

I understand and appreciate your thoughts, Kat, and enjoy participating with you in any event. Perhaps next time a different set of coordinators would be in order? It is a rather important and thankless job.

Important, yes. Thankless: unquestionably.

A side note is the game is a bit of an anomoly. A paper-based game surrounded by modern IT conveniences. I read the boards far more than I participate; I give you that. However, being a paper based game, nothing should be 'official' unless announced in a newsletter.

The prospect that one may/may not get the latest updates because they do or do not frequent these boards is a weak one at best. Stating ignorance to something that appears in the official newsletter is also baseless.

Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 8:21 am

It's not "rules lawyering" to seek clarity. Rules lawyering is trying to bend the rules after the fact to justify a dubious position. I find it admirable that the moderators are trying to eliminate rules lawyering ahead of time by removing as much confusion as possible and to adhere to the stated goal of the contest.

Also, the stated rules in all of the announcements were clear that the moderators rule is final. I personally have complete faith in our moderators' ability and intentions.

I for one have no problem with the rules and am grateful that we have moderators that care enough to get it right. We also have a full month to strategize for Turn 1 while working with alliance-mates to score as many points possible within the rules. Nobody is being blindsided here (DCing has clearly been discouraged under the published point system), and the flavor and intent is being preserved, not undermined.

That said, I nominate Kat to moderate next year's Turf War. Any seconds?

Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 9:38 am

It doesn't do anyone any good to start any bickering before the contest has even begun. I say if anyone is unhappy with the rule change there is still time to pull out. I am quite sure the moderators are capable and willing to return anyone's certs if they now choose to not participate. In fact, it behooves those who wish to not participate to announce this asap to allow for their teamates to make alternate arrangements.

Healthy debates are good and fine but don't punish Oz and MD. They are in a tough position and should be comended for making sure this event is well run. Kudos to them.

Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:07 pm

We would prefer that no one pull out, rather, go out and get some more cannon-fodder and let's all have some fun.

Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:30 am

Obregon wrote:

It's not "rules lawyering" to seek clarity. Rules lawyering is trying to bend the rules after the fact to justify a dubious position. I find it admirable that the moderators are trying to eliminate rules lawyering ahead of time by removing as much confusion as possible and to adhere to the stated goal of the contest.

Also, the stated rules in all of the announcements were clear that the moderators rule is final. I personally have complete faith in our moderators' ability and intentions.

I for one have no problem with the rules and am grateful that we have moderators that care enough to get it right. We also have a full month to strategize for Turn 1 while working with alliance-mates to score as many points possible within the rules. Nobody is being blindsided here (DCing has clearly been discouraged under the published point system), and the flavor and intent is being preserved, not undermined.

That said, I nominate Kat to moderate next year's Turf War. Any seconds?

Obregon: Am I supposed to be sufficiently scolded now? A full month? The turn is due today.

...and tell me, oh soothsayer, in all the turf wars I've participated in - or my history in DM 47 - when have I spoken out about something? I've known both Oz and MD for....oh, a couple days now. They're both adults. I trust both also understand my issue is with the rules and timing of such. To a lesser extent, my issue is also with the Duel-2 community at large for necessitations an onerous set of rules merely to run a user-hosted contest.

I'll be happy to moderate the next turf war IAW the rules I stated above.

Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:35 am

The Consortium wrote:

The final, hopefully, rules adjustment will be:
deleted this "Down Challenge 0 -2 0 -5 "
added this:
Down Challenge "Challenger" -2 -2 -5 -5
Down Challenge "Challenged" +2 0 +5 -5

....and fyi Obregon: this was posted Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:05 am - ~45hours before due date and past when most have submitted their turn - thus the "11th hour" statement. Quite far from the full month you claim.

....and no - to answer some of the disparaging PM's - I wasn't attempting to 'take advantage' of any loophole.

Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:43 am

I'm not sure what the commotion is about. The community pointed out that the initial scoring system virtually encouraged DC'ing when that was not their intent. After reviewing community feedback along with their own internal discussions, the moderators amended the scoring to be commensurate with their intentions.

As we are in 2010 and not 1990, the use of these boards is paramount to real time communication. When setting up an event like this, it would be impossible to have these sorts of discussions in a newsletter which has a four week turnaround. I commend the moderators for having the humility to change their rules based on feedback, and I commend them for taking their own personal time to organzie and moderate the event which, as was previously stated, an inherently thankless job.

Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:56 am

Kat wrote:

The Consortium wrote:

The final, hopefully, rules adjustment will be:
deleted this "Down Challenge 0 -2 0 -5 "
added this:
Down Challenge "Challenger" -2 -2 -5 -5
Down Challenge "Challenged" +2 0 +5 -5

....and fyi Obregon: this was posted Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:05 am - ~45hours before due date and past when most have submitted their turn - thus the "11th hour" statement. Quite far from the full month you claim.

....and no - to answer some of the disparaging PM's - I wasn't attempting to 'take advantage' of any loophole.

The TW doesn't actually start until NOV this is still OCT

Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:57 am

MarmaDuke wrote:

I'm not sure what the commotion is about. The community pointed out that the initial scoring system virtually encouraged DC'ing when that was not their intent. After reviewing community feedback along with their own internal discussions, the moderators amended the scoring to be commensurate with their intentions.

As we are in 2010 and not 1990, the use of these boards is paramount to real time communication. When setting up an event like this, it would be impossible to have these sorts of discussions in a newsletter which has a four week turnaround. I commend the moderators for having the humility to change their rules based on feedback, and I commend them for taking their own personal time to organzie and moderate the event which, as was previously stated, an inherently thankless job.

You do know we have a large (based on %) inmate population that doesn't have internet access, right?

Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:59 am

gentleben wrote:

Kat wrote:

The Consortium wrote:

The final, hopefully, rules adjustment will be:
deleted this "Down Challenge 0 -2 0 -5 "
added this:
Down Challenge "Challenger" -2 -2 -5 -5
Down Challenge "Challenged" +2 0 +5 -5

....and fyi Obregon: this was posted Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:05 am - ~45hours before due date and past when most have submitted their turn - thus the "11th hour" statement. Quite far from the full month you claim.

....and no - to answer some of the disparaging PM's - I wasn't attempting to 'take advantage' of any loophole.

The TW doesn't actually start until NOV this is still OCT

Fine. I'm quiet.

Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:07 am

Kat wrote:

A full month? The turn is due today.

um. this isn't the first turn due for TW is it? Shocked

ok nevermind- phew!

Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:42 am

MarmaDuke wrote:

I'm not sure what the commotion is about. The community pointed out that the initial scoring system virtually encouraged DC'ing when that was not their intent. After reviewing community feedback along with their own internal discussions, the moderators amended the scoring to be commensurate with their intentions.

As we are in 2010 and not 1990, the use of these boards is paramount to real time communication. When setting up an event like this, it would be impossible to have these sorts of discussions in a newsletter which has a four week turnaround. I commend the moderators for having the humility to change their rules based on feedback, and I commend them for taking their own personal time to organzie and moderate the event which, as was previously stated, an inherently thankless job.

I appreciate the job being done by Darque and The Consortium. It takes more time than I am able to give. I am glad I can piggy back on their efforts and enjoy this competition