-=-
Menu
Tournaments
Profile
Poll
Latest videos
Latest comments
2019-09-16: "CDF in, vetoes ..." -Laro24
2019-09-15: "GG lads ..." -GrytmasternCC
2019-09-15: "-t3> in." -Vivando
2019-09-15: "no scam" -Vivando
2019-09-15: "After a dozens ..." -Krzysiek
2019-09-15: "Postponed to a ..." -Vivando
2019-09-13: " ..." -Vivando
2019-09-13: "I should be abl..." -Loon
2019-09-09: "weirdchamp ..." -ThunDer
2019-09-08: " ..." -batata
2019-09-08: "GG guys ..." -GrytmasternCC
2019-09-07: "hm, i should sa..." -Loon
Latest matches
flag -t3> [13:05] [GpW]flag
flag CX [17:18] -t3>flag
flag [CDF] [13:10] CCflag
flag [GpW] [05:03] [CDF]flag
flag CX [13:03] [CDF]flag
flag CX [08:07] [CDF]flag
flag [GpW] [09:03] [CDF]flag
flag [GpW] [13:00] [CDF]flag
flag [CDF] [05:04] CXflag
flag CX [14:01] [CDF]flag
Latest forum posts
By: Toni, in: What JJ2 level title best describes your sex life?JJ2 related 2019-09-08 01:11
Underrated Paradise
By: DanZeal, in: Funniest moments!Forum games 2019-09-07 20:02
[20:00:05] DannyZ[CDF]: Jag var i Finland tidigare...
By: SirEmentaler, in: What JJ2 level title best describes your sex life?JJ2 related 2019-08-21 20:45
I just wanted to say this topic was inspired by a ...
By: Slaz, in: What JJ2 level title best describes your sex life?JJ2 related 2019-08-20 14:13
ELEKTREK PYRAMID :dizzy:
By: PurpleJazz, in: What JJ2 level title best describes your sex life?JJ2 related 2019-08-19 06:44
15 Second Rush
More...!

JJnet's forum

«Latest posts» «Latest threads» «Search» «User CP»

  Page: 1 2 3 4 5
     Improving rules v2 | [q] 2012-03-13 20:07
Lithium
aEsavatar
JJnet user

Posts: 1758
107
Grytolle asked me to check out existing rules and try to improve them. So here they go:

General rules with regard to the ladder site

Clans abusing the ladder system in any way in order to gain an advantage or just to be a nuisance will be deleted. Further punishment may include deletion of the accounts of the person responsible for the abuse, in extreme circumstances. For example, someone who has made fake accounts for fake wars may lose all of his/her accounts and banned.
All clans with atleast 20 points may not refuse a CW against any clan more then 3 times (It's 3 times in total. It still counts if it's different clans who sent the challenges. But it's 3 per league.). But they may refuse to play normal matches and to reschedule the CW by using the "change day" button. If they do refuse 3 CW challenges in a row, they will lose 1/3 of their points. Repeatedly rescheduling CW to senseless dates or only playing very low ranked clans in order to be able to decline challenges will be considered abusing the ladder system and the clan will risk penalties. If a clan has a CW scheduled within the next 30 days, this rule does not apply and they may refuse all challenges sent to them. Also, remember that the CTF and the TB ladders are separate competitions. So the CW refusal rule is also separate for each ladder.
And remember that the site is using GDT+1

A player may only be a member of one active clan at a time.


Besides arranging the text (fix grammar errors and for example place CW rules on one place only, not throughout the entire text), I believe the CW system should be made more clear and fair. People are basically forced to play clanwars. Maybe remove the limit or change it to 5 or 7 times? The rule could also apply only for the first ranked, as before.

§15 If one clan for some reason can't continue the game, they have 10 minutes to find replacements. If they are unsuccessful in doing so, it is up to their opponents to decide whether they want to claim a forfeit win or not. They are within their full right to do so, but should keep in mind that it can be harmful for clan relations and not really worth it in what is supposed to be a friendly game. Submitting a tie is allowed, provided that the score in indeed tied. The choice remains completely with the team entitled a to a forfeit win. You are entitled to a forfeit win even if you are behind 39-0 when the other team runs out of players.

Should be made more clear. Teams usually continue to play short of one player - it isn't allowed by the rule. Allow it or officially disallow it. Also, does this apply to clanwars as well?

Quote:
Gry: The coin flipping procedure should be formalized for clanwars, or replaced with the "challenged decides" system that we have for ladder matches


You mean if the teams can't agree on the color? I say the challenged should decide, as in normal ladders, but there is already a rule about it:

§13 Concerning what colour teams should play as, a team choses colour on the opponent’s map. Upon agreement, other manners of choosing colours are allowed.

It should be the same for choosing the map order IMO.


§6 There must be atleast two rounds played. Two rounds is the default case. If you want to play more rounds, remember to save proof that both clans agreed on this. If the CW ends in a tie, there soulde be a final round played.

A clanwar rule that was recently added, but it wasn't announced on the frontpage, I think. IMO one round clanwars should be allowed IF both teams agree.

There are other issues too (mappool, veto system). Discuss here.

EDIT: TB season is quite inactive. How about returning the first season system? (TB and DOM get allowed in the regular season).






We rode on the winds of the rising storm,
We ran to the sounds of the thunder.
We danced among the lightning bolts,
and tore the world asunder.
Replies
Lithium
aEs
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 1758
107
#76 | [q]2012-03-17 18:43
Quote:
I would vote for a challenge-cooldown per clan, per refusal. The time I'll leave to the implementers to discuss.


This.

Quote:
Also, I am pretty sure that CDF has been a long-time enemy of RA (and thus Y).


You're wrong on this one. Though a lot of former RA members (including me) joined Y, the Y leader was Hordy, and he didn't really care about the flamewars. He wanted to win the season. He was a CDF member before as well.


We rode on the winds of the rising storm,
We ran to the sounds of the thunder.
We danced among the lightning bolts,
and tore the world asunder.
Lithium
aEs
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 1758
107
#77 | [q]2012-03-17 19:03
Anyway, to get back on the original topic:

SUGGESTIONS:

General rules, mappool and stuff

Re-arrange the text in the existing rules (fix grammar errors and clear them up)
Allow TB and DOM in the regular league
Re-arrange the mappool (hold a contest maybe?)
Hold a contest for a new ladder logo (Slayer)
Add gold, silver and bronze medals for the first three places (Laro)


Normal match rules

Award two points for a won ladder and one for a tie to both teams (Slayer and Aimane)
Allow or forbid playing short of one player
Challenger should pick the map first (Veg)


CW rules

Add a punishment for no-show (Slayer) OR award the opponent instead (Lithium)
Change the refusal rule (remove it completely/allow 5 or 7 refusals/make it apply for the first one or first three/add a cooldown (wKtK))
Formalize the coin flipping procedure (Gry)
Clans who have already played against each other do not need to do it again (Urbs)


Other

Aimane's overhaul idea
Robee's overhaul idea



Is that the final list?







We rode on the winds of the rising storm,
We ran to the sounds of the thunder.
We danced among the lightning bolts,
and tore the world asunder.
Vegito
CC
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 398
31
#78 | [q]2012-03-17 19:04
Quote:
ohh and im pretty sure season 1 had different rules about cw's.

And Y actually died partly because they weren't able to get a team ready for CC (they really weren't half as organized and single bent on cdf as some make them out to be, tbh, nobody ever cared much about cdf contrary to their belief).


I am not sure. At that time the rule was like that for the ladder leader? Or it was directly changed for everyone? I don't think it was at the current state though but I can't be sure.

Quote:
I would actually be fine with the rule being changed to no refusals at all if you have a certain amount of points, I am arguing that the current wording of the rule is simply too misleading as to what it does. It barely makes any difference if you have 3 refuses compared to no refuses at all if one clan can just spam challenges at you.


There should be some form of protection. If anything, a rule should be made that CW challenges only count if you do so for a date at least a week away. That counts as a serious challenge I guess. Refusing will still give you at least 3 weeks if not more to discuss/prepare.
That counts as a "cool down" period too I guess emo.
[GpW]Urbs
[GpW]
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 377
54
#79 | [q]2012-03-17 20:50
Well, we could make it explicit, that one clan can only re-challenge the same clan in like 1/5/7/14 days. So there isn't even a slight possibility of a challenge re-occuring during the same day or sth.
Grytolle
avatar

JJnet admin
Posts: 847
87
#80 | [q]2012-03-17 23:37
Just change the date to a time appropriate for you instead of refusing the challenge? ;o
Lithium
aEs
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 1758
107
#81 | [q]2012-03-18 01:00
One more thing. It's not a rule, it's a technical issue, but still. Why does it show the Israeli flag instead of the Serbian flag? Can you fix that? Also, can you get me a flag and a profile link in the crew section?


We rode on the winds of the rising storm,
We ran to the sounds of the thunder.
We danced among the lightning bolts,
and tore the world asunder.
WarrioR
[fmcs]
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 15
2
#82 | [q]2012-03-18 01:08
I understand your point of view aEs but still I have to agree with Urbs that the rule is there for stronger clans to be able to do a cw here and there and not the opposite way - to protect lower-skilled clans. Also what cooba said - if you aren't gonna be that active and don't wanna play CWs then you shouldn't expect higher place than skilled clans which are genuinely active and willing to play CWs.

Therefore, there are 2 solutions imo:
1)
Quote:
one clan can only re-challenge the same clan in like 1/5/7/14 days

2) adding a rule that the challenged clan has, let's say, a week to make a decision. An example how it would look in practice: refusing the first challenge - a week, refusing the second one - another week, rescheduling the third one by a month = 1,5 month in total for you to prepare.

Also, how about adding a rule that clan A doesn't have to accept the challenge from clan B and vice versa provided these clans already played a CW (in the same season)?

As for the problem with stops, I'd say typing 'stop' should be mandatory before stopping the game via console so that players have at least a second to prepare. Half a loaf is better than none. emo
[GpW]Urbs
[GpW]
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 377
54
#83 | [q]2012-03-18 08:33
Ya IMO the response time should be adressed as well, because if the challneged clan w8's till the last day (IMO that's what we did when we rejected the first challenge from VS, or at least we waited a very long time) leaves the challenger hanging, thereby possibly giving the edge to the challenged clan (not sure whether they should prepare at all).
Adding a rule that if the clans played once during the season makes it non-obligatory for any of them to play again sounds ok.

Lithium
aEs
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 1758
107
#84 | [q]2012-03-18 11:10
Updated the post. Should I add it to the first post as well?

btw 1000 posts emo emo emo emo


We rode on the winds of the rising storm,
We ran to the sounds of the thunder.
We danced among the lightning bolts,
and tore the world asunder.
Vegito
CC
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 398
31
#85 | [q]2012-03-18 12:17
Good ideas imo. Should also formalize that whoever challenges picks the level first. That leaves no room for error. CWs are different and the order gets picked through a coinflip. Anyway, not sure what else.. I will probably think of something during the season again.
Lithium
aEs
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 1758
107
#86 | [q]2012-03-18 12:59
Added.

Also Gry, do you have any idea why are my thanks disappearing? I lost 5 somehow.


We rode on the winds of the rising storm,
We ran to the sounds of the thunder.
We danced among the lightning bolts,
and tore the world asunder.
Grytolle
avatar

JJnet admin
Posts: 847
87
#87 | [q]2012-03-18 15:15
No idea
wKtK
avatar

JJnet user
Posts: 707
121
#88 | [q]2012-03-19 11:13
More like 10, you had 60 first and now only 50...
Also I had 37, not 34...

Can someone fix this please?


Nostalgia warning, well, at least if you're one of those ppl...
Grytolle
avatar

JJnet admin
Posts: 847
87
#89 | [q]2012-03-19 14:03
The only reason I can think of is that someone is removing them... not that many suspects possible
wKtK
avatar

JJnet user
Posts: 707
121
#90 | [q]2012-03-19 14:08
I hope it can be fixed, otherwise i will just like 10 of Lith's posts, and ask him to like 3 of me :p

EDIT: also sorry for offtopic. orz


Nostalgia warning, well, at least if you're one of those ppl...
Lithium
aEs
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 1758
107
#91 | [q]2012-03-19 14:20
Quote:
The only reason I can think of is that someone is removing them... not that many suspects possible


Random likes from wKtK and CR are disappearing for me, and afaik only admins can remove these.


We rode on the winds of the rising storm,
We ran to the sounds of the thunder.
We danced among the lightning bolts,
and tore the world asunder.
Lithium
aEs
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 1758
107
#92 | [q]2012-03-24 22:11
Sorry for the double post, but what rules are going to be accepted?

Quote:
SUGGESTIONS:

General rules, mappool and stuff

Re-arrange the text in the existing rules (fix grammar errors and clear them up)
Allow TB and DOM in the regular league
Re-arrange the mappool (hold a contest maybe?)
Hold a contest for a new ladder logo (Slayer)
Add gold, silver and bronze medals for the first three places (Laro)


Normal match rules

Award two points for a won ladder and one for a tie to both teams (Slayer and Aimane)
Allow or forbid playing short of one player
Challenger should pick the map first (Veg)


CW rules

Add a punishment for no-show (Slayer) OR award the opponent instead (Lithium)
Change the refusal rule (remove it completely/allow 5 or 7 refusals/make it apply for the first one or first three/add a cooldown (wKtK))
Formalize the coin flipping procedure (Gry)
Clans who have already played against each other do not need to do it again (Urbs)


Other

Aimane's overhaul idea
Robee's overhaul idea



We should know before the new season starts IMO. At least accept the TB/DOM and CW rule suggestions.


We rode on the winds of the rising storm,
We ran to the sounds of the thunder.
We danced among the lightning bolts,
and tore the world asunder.
Grytolle
avatar

JJnet admin
Posts: 847
87
#93 | [q]2012-03-24 22:32
we've gone through about half of the suggestions... we'll continue tomorrow hopefully


I can tell you now already that the TB-ladder will get more gamemodes, and that we will implement the 3-2-1 points rule for ladder mathces
(This post has been helpful to 1 of the forumers.)
Lithium
aEs
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 1758
107
#94 | [q]2012-03-24 22:38
OK emo


We rode on the winds of the rising storm,
We ran to the sounds of the thunder.
We danced among the lightning bolts,
and tore the world asunder.
wumpa
avatar

JJnet user
Posts: 57
4
#95 | [q]2012-03-24 22:50
Off

Lithium:
Quote:
OK emo


You use the forum as a chatroom, I think half of your post are look like this... emo
(This post has been helpful to 1 of the forumers.)
Lithium
aEs
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 1758
107
#96 | [q]2012-03-24 22:56
if you bothered to make the post, you can also bother searching for some proof to back you up

hf searching through 1000 posts


We rode on the winds of the rising storm,
We ran to the sounds of the thunder.
We danced among the lightning bolts,
and tore the world asunder.
Vegito
CC
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 398
31
#97 | [q]2012-03-25 13:26
If you make the 3-2-1 system, you gotta change the CW point system too cause CWs will become less interesting otherwise. Only need 7 ladder wins at most to get the same result as a won CW vs someone higher than you emo
[GpW]Urbs
[GpW]
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 377
54
#98 | [q]2012-03-25 13:40
Well, I'm not sure it's all that bad. Mby you won't fret over losing a cw as much and more will be played?
Although your prediction is the more likely one I guessemo
DanZeal
[CDF]
avatar
JJnet admin
Posts: 283
15
#99 | [q]2012-03-25 13:41
Veg, don't you worry 'bout a thing


"The myth that women should not lift heavy is advanced only by women who fear effort and men who fear women." -Eric Midkiff
cooba
[si]
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 323
51
#100 | [q]2012-03-25 14:11
It's 2-1, not 3-2-1, right?


Jazz 2 Online
http://www.jazz2online.com
  Page: 1 2 3 4 5