We have updated our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Dismiss

Jump to content


Photo

Help Us Improve Clan Discussion


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1552 replies to this topic

#41 Kenny

Kenny

    Mars

  • Posts:3,762
  • Joined:22-February 06
  • Rating: < -5 | 0 | +5 >
  • RS Name:Mars
  • RS Status:Member

Posted 12 February 2015 - 1:25 PM

Regarding PMing users when they're posts get deleted. There's far too many posts that get deleted per day for us to do that. There's instances when we delete 20 or more posts from a topic (because they quoted the post that started it all that broke the rules for instance) and more. It would not be feasible for us to PM every single one. I know on other boards they do that because they don't have the shear volume of activity we get, even when it's less than before.

Fair enough I agree there probably are lots of posts that get deleted on a daily basis to actually PM users individually.

Your post was deleted because it was unsubstantiated claims out of nowhere, which will lead to nothing but flaming (flamebaits, etc) which will derail the topic.

Kinda agree but the counter arguement would be the post my response was to was someone flamebaiting, I think it probably would have been better to delete the source to where the bait was coming from rather than someone quoting a person trying to flamebait - correct me if I'm wrong? Also regarding unsubstantiated claims, lots of people are already doing this in posts saying 'x clan', 'x player(s)' has/have done such and such without further evidence or sufficient evidence proving the actual theory. If one post gets deleted because of this - shouldn't there be some consistency in that every other post with such unsubstantiated claims should be deleted?

In regards to that topic: every fight topic is discussed by the CD staff before any action is taken, so if you see two topics up it doesn't mean there's no action taken against them it's just being discussed. Well, I shouldn't say all topics. Most topics are. If a topic should obviously be locked with no contest possible, then they would be closed right away.

This isn't true (until I mentioned this point earlier & seeing as the topics I mentioned just get moderated) - I haven't seen any fight topic really get merged or deleted in the past 2 months where 2 clans of the same fight have both posted 'victory' topics. Either this rule gets updated or gets deleted (I could search further than 2 months but I honestly don't see the point).

"If a clan regroups in single they forfeit topic rights" - you're right; many clans have done this, however often times both clans have done it so we weigh it among a variety of other factors to determine which clan gets the topic rights. For example: if both clans ran to single but the other clan had sufficient proof that they won (eg. more ending ops in a matched fight or opponent leaving the world/ending), then you can see where the balances would shift. Think of them as guidelines as well as rules. Decisions are made often on moderator judgement, not a strict interpretation of the rules. If we enforced the rules to a t we would have a hell of lot more banned users.

In a recent scenario where 1 clan is fighting 4 clans, only the 1 clan fighting against the 4 clans has gone to single. You won't see all 5 clans going into single. The scenario here would be 1v4 - the clan fighting on their own is outnumbered and understandably has to go to single to regroup. Surely then you can't expect that clan to claim a win against 4 clans? However this is proven wrong on Clan Fights. I'm not convinced any moderating is actually done on clan fight topics / outcomes. If so then this rule needs to be updated.

Regarding the crashing rule, let me explain how this works: Clan A crashes a fight between Clan B and Clan C. Let's say Clan A crashes their fight, they can't post a topic. However, if Clan A fights Clan D (who is ACing Clan B and C's fight), then it's acceptable since they're fighting the anticrash and not crashing the fight. Let's say if it becomes a cluster because Clan A just fights everyone and thus crashing the fight (Clan B+C+D vs. Clan A), then Clan A can't post a topic about the cluster because they crashed the fight. Really this balances allowing clusters to happen while at the same time minimizing the effect of crashing on here. This also allows two fights to happen on the same world, which happens regularly.

Can I just clarify something - the point of an AC is to stop an actual fight from crashed. If a clan that wants to crash has 20-30 members more than a clan that has a non mandatory AC you can't really expect the clan(s) fighting not to stop and help out the clan doing them a favour. If an AC was to get cleared, do you honestly not believe the clan that came to crash would not crash the actual clans fighting? If a clan massing with the intent to crash, regardless of them fighting a non mandatory AC it's the same principal. A non mandatory AC is really there to stop small groups of crashers not a clan that pulls 70-80 people to do it. The rule needs to be adjusted to be honest unless you & other CD staff truly want to encourage clans to crash & gain small advantages from killing non mandatory ACs

Anyway, overall, the topics ended up being merged because it was unclear on who the direct winner was. The world being taken down contributed to most of it.

Just as a side note, not every decision made it perfect, and it never will be. There will be those who are happy with it and those who are unhappy with it. It's the way it works. Both sides are passionate for what they believe happened in the fight because they were there and personally experienced, albeit at the point of view of themselves only. This also applies to other areas such as post removals. We don't see everything and we're not an all knowing system which works mechanically. Some moderators may look at a post and feel it's worth a deletion versus a suspension, while other moderators will feel the opposite. It works the same way in real life with any person in authoritative positions. I personally err to the side of leniency, but that can only go so far.

Yeah fair enough - thanks for the reply



  • 0

Posted Image


#42 ^jordy

^jordy

    Member

Posted 12 February 2015 - 1:38 PM

Keep the posts related to the subject, timezones are important, but keep to the point.

Thanks.
  • 1

DxnqbIG.gif

 

LtNmu8e.png

 

Wc8ZA8u.png

Global Moderator - PM me if you need any assistance 


#43 Danne

Danne

    Member

Posted 12 February 2015 - 2:25 PM

Keep the posts related to the subject, timezones are important, but keep to the point.

Thanks.

http://forums.zybez.net/topic/1660895-help-us-improve-clan-discussion/page__st__20#entry16067540
  • 0

mcU4TJA.gif

mMknUZz.gif


#44 B0rntowildy

B0rntowildy

    Member

  • Posts:5,149
  • Joined:22-June 09
  • Rating: < -5 | 0 | +5 >
  • RS Name:B0rntowildy
  • RS Status:Retired

Posted 12 February 2015 - 2:59 PM

Keep the posts related to the subject, timezones are important, but keep to the point.

Thanks.

http://forums.zybez....0#entry16067540


  • -1

#45 Kevin.

Kevin.

    Make it count

  • Posts:12,820
  • Joined:21-January 07
  • Rating: < -5 | 4 | +5 >
  • RS Name:King Bradley
  • RS Status:Retired

Posted 12 February 2015 - 3:22 PM

They fought DI while you fought VR. What's the controversy here?


That fight stopped as soon as we clashed with VR they walked from within the normal bounds to dwarfs to crash us.

Not really sure what your trying to pull here Shadow but the mods arnt that silly.


[18:25] @Kev|: 001612:002712:002612] [00Kev|12] True_2k8
[18:25] @Kev|: 0012[001612:002712:002812] [00Kev|12] we need u to hit rot
[18:25] @Kev|: 0012[001612:002712:003012] [00Kev|12] srs
[18:25] @Kev|: 12[001612:002712:004312] [00True_2k812] k coming


I don't see any mention of DI/DF winning over VR or RoT declaring a victory over DI/DF. From what the topics stated, it was VR vs RoT and DI vs DF.

  • Note: You must provide two kinds of pictures: one of the actual fight and one of your clan's starting or ending options.
http://forums.zybez....ent-resolution/

VR's version has no picture of their starting or ending options, thus rendering their PoV null. Please fix this error.


If you're doing an anti-crash, why would you take a starting picture? And from what is stated in the topic, the world crashed, so there is a reasonable excuse why there isn't an ending opts picture which was a big reason why it was merged in the first place.

 

@Kenny, each post is different. Sometimes the way it's worded can be a big difference. Also, I understand what you mean. But, how are we going to enforce that? Would we turn fighting an AC into a crash? Or would it be based on how they impacted the fight (no real measurements are possible unfortunately)?

And well, in regards to one clan going to single versus four, we deal with it based on the evidence we are given. I'm sure you would understand it better since you physically fought in the fight. We make decisions as a group after analyzing as much as we can. It's on a case-by-case basis which may swing things one way or the other based on what we are given.
  • 2
Senior Moderator | Questions? Contact me.
The forest was shrinking, but the trees kept voting for the axe because its handle was made of wood and they thought it was one of them.
Spoiler

#46 Danne

Danne

    Member

Posted 12 February 2015 - 3:27 PM

If you're doing an anti-crash, why would you take a starting picture? And from what is stated in the topic, the world crashed, so there is a reasonable excuse why there isn't an ending opts picture which was a big reason why it was merged in the first place.

1. Because you know you're going to be getting into a fight with RoT? Don't bs me, you and everyone knows VR knew that they would be fighting RoT. It wasn't just some AC, they were fully massed.

2. How was RoT able to get a proper ending pic then? By the way, VR did manage to get an ending picture, but no options are displayed in the picture.

Just do the right thing would ya? thx hun

Edited by Ďanne, 12 February 2015 - 3:28 PM.

  • -10

mcU4TJA.gif

mMknUZz.gif


#47 Kevin.

Kevin.

    Make it count

  • Posts:12,820
  • Joined:21-January 07
  • Rating: < -5 | 4 | +5 >
  • RS Name:King Bradley
  • RS Status:Retired

Posted 12 February 2015 - 3:40 PM

If you're doing an anti-crash, why would you take a starting picture? And from what is stated in the topic, the world crashed, so there is a reasonable excuse why there isn't an ending opts picture which was a big reason why it was merged in the first place.

1. Because you know you're going to be getting into a fight with RoT? Don't bs me, you and everyone knows VR knew that they would be fighting RoT. It wasn't just some AC, they were fully massed.

2. How was RoT able to get a proper ending pic then? By the way, VR did manage to get an ending picture, but no options are displayed in the picture.

Just do the right thing would ya? thx hun


I actually don't know that. From what I see from the topics posted, VR was ACing DF and DI's fight. You hit the ACing clan and it turned into a fight.

It's not like any clan planned when the world crash would occur, so they could quickly gather up their ops and take a picture before it disconnected. This led to each topic being reasonable enough to be kept open and thus merged. Like I said to Kenny above, you were personally involved in the fight with your clan so you're going to know more than me. However, so does a VR member and they're saying something different. We make a judgement based on what we are given. That's that.

Also guys, I appreciate the input, but let's not bring clan beef onto this topic.
  • 0
Senior Moderator | Questions? Contact me.
The forest was shrinking, but the trees kept voting for the axe because its handle was made of wood and they thought it was one of them.
Spoiler

#48 Nullusion

Nullusion

    Fashion Nugget

Posted 13 February 2015 - 12:35 AM

1. Because you know you're going to be getting into a fight with RoT? Don't bs me, you and everyone knows VR knew that they would be fighting RoT. It wasn't just some AC, they were fully massed.

2. How was RoT able to get a proper ending pic then? By the way, VR did manage to get an ending picture, but no options are displayed in the picture.

Just do the right thing would ya? thx hun

Had VR not have been there at all it would have been RoT crashing DI and DF instead of VR occupying RoT while we had our planned fight. When there's a fight that's already been planned for that we know will almost 100% get crashed, why would we not have a third party ready? Fully massed or not, they were there to keep you away from our fight and did just that for the most part. If each of you wanted to fight each other I'm sure that could be planned in private or done on another world. That's not why they were there though. To top it off we were attacked by RoT before we even began the fight. So much for being there to fight only VR.

As far as the proper ending picture I don't know why it's that big of a deal considering the circumstances. I wouldn't expect anyone to try to log back in just for an ending picture on a server that has repeatedly gone offline. It might not be a problem for RoT to sit around for 20 minutes just for the sake of getting a picture, but not everyone is going to do that.
  • -3

uEoiIpc.png


#49 iX Shadow Xi

iX Shadow Xi

    Member

  • Posts:1,625
  • Joined:05-February 07
  • Rating: < -5 | 0 | +5 >
  • RS Name:Shadow
  • RS Status:Oldschool
  • Clan:Reign of Terror

Posted 13 February 2015 - 2:31 AM

I apologize that the evidence I posted resulted in beef being discussed on this thread.
  • -1

Reign of Terror

53BYxRx.png  wE3ljd3.png      HpSOmbx.png     5xsyE2K.png


#50 Kenny

Kenny

    Mars

  • Posts:3,762
  • Joined:22-February 06
  • Rating: < -5 | 0 | +5 >
  • RS Name:Mars
  • RS Status:Member

Posted 13 February 2015 - 6:19 AM

@Kenny, each post is different. Sometimes the way it's worded can be a big difference. Also, I understand what you mean. But, how are we going to enforce that? Would we turn fighting an AC into a crash? Or would it be based on how they impacted the fight (no real measurements are possible unfortunately)?

And well, in regards to one clan going to single versus four, we deal with it based on the evidence we are given. I'm sure you would understand it better since you physically fought in the fight. We make decisions as a group after analyzing as much as we can. It's on a case-by-case basis which may swing things one way or the other based on what we are given.


A clan that hits an AC has every intention of ruining an original planned fight and yes that should be treated as crashing a fight. An AC doesn't go out with a predicament that they're going to 1v1 an actual clan but just clear the few crashers there might be. This has already been mentioned before, not just by myself but also by others - Do you honestly believe if an AC left the fight; the clan that hit the AC would just watch the ongoing fight? There is every intention of crashing the original fight if a clan full on hits an AC. It's not about being at the fight or not - there are more than enough moderators here that are active in the clan world to make a good judgement call. There really is only one answer to the above question - yes you would expect a clan to crash a planned fight while being in a 'crash war'.

Then again you could just remove the rule where crashers can't post 'Victory' topics - I'm not here to be biased and unbaised towards certain clan(s). Feel free to make a decision to what fits best because as of now I would say clan(s) that crash have rights to post a 'Victory' topic on Clan fights which is somewhat different to the rules.

----

There is always plenty of evidence supplied on clan fight topics / videos that 'X' clan is/was in single for an 'X' amount of time - you can't expect clan/clan(s) to wait for anyone to just sit in single and regroup. This rule just isn't enforced that well I don't think.

Edited by Kenny, 13 February 2015 - 6:22 AM.

  • -3

Posted Image


#51 Jules

Jules

    You can grow but remember, empires always fall.

  • Posts:8,252
  • Joined:03-September 06
  • Rating: < -5 | 2 | +5 >
  • RS Status:Retired
  • Clan:less

Posted 13 February 2015 - 6:53 AM

You can't expect RSC to enforce rules when everyone in the clan world is too much of a spastic to actually stick to any rule that was ever set up.
  • 0




Proud former Forsaken captain and Runescape Elites leader.


#52 ZLAT

ZLAT

    Five Star General; Frontline Veteran

  • Posts:8,185
  • Joined:01-July 06
  • Rating: < -5 | -1 | +5 >
  • RS Name:Zlat
  • RS Status:Member
  • Clan:Reign of Terror

Posted 13 February 2015 - 9:35 AM

1. Because you know you're going to be getting into a fight with RoT? Don't bs me, you and everyone knows VR knew that they would be fighting RoT. It wasn't just some AC, they were fully massed.

2. How was RoT able to get a proper ending pic then? By the way, VR did manage to get an ending picture, but no options are displayed in the picture.

Just do the right thing would ya? thx hun

Had VR not have been there at all it would have been RoT crashing DI and DF instead of VR occupying RoT while we had our planned fight. When there's a fight that's already been planned for that we know will almost 100% get crashed, why would we not have a third party ready? Fully massed or not, they were there to keep you away from our fight and did just that for the most part. If each of you wanted to fight each other I'm sure that could be planned in private or done on another world. That's not why they were there though. To top it off we were attacked by RoT before we even began the fight. So much for being there to fight only VR.

As far as the proper ending picture I don't know why it's that big of a deal considering the circumstances. I wouldn't expect anyone to try to log back in just for an ending picture on a server that has repeatedly gone offline. It might not be a problem for RoT to sit around for 20 minutes just for the sake of getting a picture, but not everyone is going to do that.


Not only do you not know the rules of clan discussion, but you completely ignored Kevin when he said "let's not bring clan beef onto this topic."


  • 0




8SVS0ls.png
e7cc389d18.png


#53 Nullusion

Nullusion

    Fashion Nugget

Posted 13 February 2015 - 11:56 AM

Not only do you not know the rules of clan discussion, but you completely ignored Kevin when he said "let's not bring clan beef onto this topic."

It's not about the beef. It's about the fact that an anti-crash was set up and was hit. Everyone can say "oh it's 2015, learn to accept it" or we can look at the rules the way they were set up as the way they should be. Why should crashing a fight be supported any more now than it would in the past? If clans are really fighting for that "RSC win" they might want to begin fighting fair and by the rules.

The second part was in reply to the disconnecting servers. Considering many of the servers have been going offline in the last few weeks it's going to affect the ending of any clan. At that point I'd think the fight was a draw anyways because it couldn't be continued.

The rules might need tweaking, but nothing major.
  • -4

uEoiIpc.png


#54 Kevin.

Kevin.

    Make it count

  • Posts:12,820
  • Joined:21-January 07
  • Rating: < -5 | 4 | +5 >
  • RS Name:King Bradley
  • RS Status:Retired

Posted 13 February 2015 - 12:52 PM

Let's leave the moderating to the actual moderators please. If you have an issue with a post, report it. If you have an issue with the action (or lack thereof), contact me or one of the other CD Admins.

@Kenny, each post is different. Sometimes the way it's worded can be a big difference. Also, I understand what you mean. But, how are we going to enforce that? Would we turn fighting an AC into a crash? Or would it be based on how they impacted the fight (no real measurements are possible unfortunately)?

And well, in regards to one clan going to single versus four, we deal with it based on the evidence we are given. I'm sure you would understand it better since you physically fought in the fight. We make decisions as a group after analyzing as much as we can. It's on a case-by-case basis which may swing things one way or the other based on what we are given.


A clan that hits an AC has every intention of ruining an original planned fight and yes that should be treated as crashing a fight. An AC doesn't go out with a predicament that they're going to 1v1 an actual clan but just clear the few crashers there might be. This has already been mentioned before, not just by myself but also by others - Do you honestly believe if an AC left the fight; the clan that hit the AC would just watch the ongoing fight? There is every intention of crashing the original fight if a clan full on hits an AC. It's not about being at the fight or not - there are more than enough moderators here that are active in the clan world to make a good judgement call. There really is only one answer to the above question - yes you would expect a clan to crash a planned fight while being in a 'crash war'.

Then again you could just remove the rule where crashers can't post 'Victory' topics - I'm not here to be biased and unbaised towards certain clan(s). Feel free to make a decision to what fits best because as of now I would say clan(s) that crash have rights to post a 'Victory' topic on Clan fights which is somewhat different to the rules.

----

There is always plenty of evidence supplied on clan fight topics / videos that 'X' clan is/was in single for an 'X' amount of time - you can't expect clan/clan(s) to wait for anyone to just sit in single and regroup. This rule just isn't enforced that well I don't think.


At the same time, that clan is out and they were hit by the other clan. Why grant a specific clan immunity just because they're ACing? I understand the consequences, but unfortunately things can't be as clear cut as they used to be. Again, it raises back the idea of defining fighting an ACing clan as crashing.

Keep in mind videos don't follow the same rules as Clan Fights. We don't delete videos because they're just videos; they're not victory topics.
  • 1
Senior Moderator | Questions? Contact me.
The forest was shrinking, but the trees kept voting for the axe because its handle was made of wood and they thought it was one of them.
Spoiler

#55 ZLAT

ZLAT

    Five Star General; Frontline Veteran

  • Posts:8,185
  • Joined:01-July 06
  • Rating: < -5 | -1 | +5 >
  • RS Name:Zlat
  • RS Status:Member
  • Clan:Reign of Terror

Posted 13 February 2015 - 12:58 PM

Not only do you not know the rules of clan discussion, but you completely ignored Kevin when he said "let's not bring clan beef onto this topic."

It's not about the beef. It's about the fact that an anti-crash was set up and was hit. Everyone can say "oh it's 2015, learn to accept it" or we can look at the rules the way they were set up as the way they should be. Why should crashing a fight be supported any more now than it would in the past? If clans are really fighting for that "RSC win" they might want to begin fighting fair and by the rules.

The second part was in reply to the disconnecting servers. Considering many of the servers have been going offline in the last few weeks it's going to affect the ending of any clan. At that point I'd think the fight was a draw anyways because it couldn't be continued.

The rules might need tweaking, but nothing major.


These rules have been here for years, long before you came back from inactivity. They work perfectly but yet you seem to be the one of the few individuals crying for no reason. I mean, you had a CLEAN fight didn't you?; since RoT & VR were fighting.
You cry when your fight gets crashed and you cry when you get cleaned fights .... ???
Now I personally was not there, but from what I can tell from DF's video is that you guys randomly stopped your fight, multiple times with no RoT in sight, and crashed the fight between RoT & VR. Perhaps you don't agree with your leaders decision, but don't come crying that the rules of CD should be changed when in fact its your leaders decisions that needs to be changed.

You ignore Kevin's reply, you get fried.

Edited by ZLAT, 13 February 2015 - 1:02 PM.

  • 0




8SVS0ls.png
e7cc389d18.png


#56 Danne

Danne

    Member

Posted 13 February 2015 - 1:03 PM

Not only do you not know the rules of clan discussion, but you completely ignored Kevin when he said "let's not bring clan beef onto this topic."

It's not about the beef. It's about the fact that an anti-crash was set up and was hit. Everyone can say "oh it's 2015, learn to accept it" or we can look at the rules the way they were set up as the way they should be. Why should crashing a fight be supported any more now than it would in the past? If clans are really fighting for that "RSC win" they might want to begin fighting fair and by the rules.

The second part was in reply to the disconnecting servers. Considering many of the servers have been going offline in the last few weeks it's going to affect the ending of any clan. At that point I'd think the fight was a draw anyways because it couldn't be continued.

The rules might need tweaking, but nothing major.

VR were out and not fighting anyone, they're free game.
  • 0

mcU4TJA.gif

mMknUZz.gif


#57 Kevin.

Kevin.

    Make it count

  • Posts:12,820
  • Joined:21-January 07
  • Rating: < -5 | 4 | +5 >
  • RS Name:King Bradley
  • RS Status:Retired

Posted 13 February 2015 - 2:03 PM

Not only do you not know the rules of clan discussion, but you completely ignored Kevin when he said "let's not bring clan beef onto this topic."

It's not about the beef. It's about the fact that an anti-crash was set up and was hit. Everyone can say "oh it's 2015, learn to accept it" or we can look at the rules the way they were set up as the way they should be. Why should crashing a fight be supported any more now than it would in the past? If clans are really fighting for that "RSC win" they might want to begin fighting fair and by the rules.

The second part was in reply to the disconnecting servers. Considering many of the servers have been going offline in the last few weeks it's going to affect the ending of any clan. At that point I'd think the fight was a draw anyways because it couldn't be continued.

The rules might need tweaking, but nothing major.


These rules have been here for years, long before you came back from inactivity. They work perfectly but yet you seem to be the one of the few individuals crying for no reason. I mean, you had a CLEAN fight didn't you?; since RoT & VR were fighting.
You cry when your fight gets crashed and you cry when you get cleaned fights .... ???
Now I personally was not there, but from what I can tell from DF's video is that you guys randomly stopped your fight, multiple times with no RoT in sight, and crashed the fight between RoT & VR. Perhaps you don't agree with your leaders decision, but don't come crying that the rules of CD should be changed when in fact its your leaders decisions that needs to be changed.

You ignore Kevin's reply, you get fried.


If them interfering was such an issue, then why didn't you just simply switch worlds?
  • -2
Senior Moderator | Questions? Contact me.
The forest was shrinking, but the trees kept voting for the axe because its handle was made of wood and they thought it was one of them.
Spoiler

#58 ZLAT

ZLAT

    Five Star General; Frontline Veteran

  • Posts:8,185
  • Joined:01-July 06
  • Rating: < -5 | -1 | +5 >
  • RS Name:Zlat
  • RS Status:Member
  • Clan:Reign of Terror

Posted 13 February 2015 - 2:23 PM

Not only do you not know the rules of clan discussion, but you completely ignored Kevin when he said "let's not bring clan beef onto this topic."

It's not about the beef. It's about the fact that an anti-crash was set up and was hit. Everyone can say "oh it's 2015, learn to accept it" or we can look at the rules the way they were set up as the way they should be. Why should crashing a fight be supported any more now than it would in the past? If clans are really fighting for that "RSC win" they might want to begin fighting fair and by the rules.

The second part was in reply to the disconnecting servers. Considering many of the servers have been going offline in the last few weeks it's going to affect the ending of any clan. At that point I'd think the fight was a draw anyways because it couldn't be continued.

The rules might need tweaking, but nothing major.


These rules have been here for years, long before you came back from inactivity. They work perfectly but yet you seem to be the one of the few individuals crying for no reason. I mean, you had a CLEAN fight didn't you?; since RoT & VR were fighting.
You cry when your fight gets crashed and you cry when you get cleaned fights .... ???
Now I personally was not there, but from what I can tell from DF's video is that you guys randomly stopped your fight, multiple times with no RoT in sight, and crashed the fight between RoT & VR. Perhaps you don't agree with your leaders decision, but don't come crying that the rules of CD should be changed when in fact its your leaders decisions that needs to be changed.

You ignore Kevin's reply, you get fried.


If them interfering was such an issue, then why didn't you just simply switch worlds?


Issue for whom? We've been 1v4ing clans for months now and winning. We're not the ones complaining about RSC Rules lol.
  • -1




8SVS0ls.png
e7cc389d18.png


#59 Ross

Ross

Posted 13 February 2015 - 2:44 PM

Why is this turning into a quote tower argument? This isn't going to help improve clan discussion. The decision has been made now move on.
  • 0

#60 Kevin.

Kevin.

    Make it count

  • Posts:12,820
  • Joined:21-January 07
  • Rating: < -5 | 4 | +5 >
  • RS Name:King Bradley
  • RS Status:Retired

Posted 13 February 2015 - 2:53 PM

Okay, I'm going to try and draw the discussion back to how it would relate to policy.

We are not going to close DF's topic because they attacked RoT. I don't see any win topics of DF claiming a win over RoT. The VR/RoT topic will remain merged because, as I said previously, the results were unclear because the world went down as well as a combination of other factors. There's no blanket policy that is going to be made because every clan fight is different. Those points made on the topic are guidelines that help us make fight decisions based on them. If we followed them perfectly, then every topic would probably be closed.

Continuing on, VR was ACing and yes, they were fighting RoT. Being an AC unit does not give you special protections from being attacked by other clans. It is very unfortunate I know because the clan could just crash the fight after killing the AC. But, such is the clan world it seems. Nothing is going to change about it just because we put special rules in. Clans have crashed long before without posting topics and they will continue to do so. Are we allowing crashing topics? No. If you crash a fight, you are not allowed to post a win topic against them, obviously. But if you fight an AC, you're still fighting another clan which is a separate fight. The best suggestion would be to move the fight to another world if they're interfering with each other (as unlikely as that would solve much in a crash war sadly).
  • 5
Senior Moderator | Questions? Contact me.
The forest was shrinking, but the trees kept voting for the axe because its handle was made of wood and they thought it was one of them.
Spoiler




Font:
Arial | Calibri | Lucida Console | Verdana
 
Font Size:
9px | 10px | 11px | 12px | 10pt | 12pt
 
Color: