Native Completed [NASTe] North American Small Teams Seasonal Ladder [Season 2]

[MrNomNom]

I fully intend to play 3-2. Bull**** to not.

 

[MadocComadrin]

And all of this rule shenanigans is why I was concerned about having a ladder in the first place! We aren't big enough to have the issues be overwhelmed by the successes.

 

[Catholic]

And all of this rule shenanigans is why I was concerned about having a ladder in the first place! We aren't big enough to have the issues be overwhelmed by the successes.

We managed it in both the K-BOOB and K-TiT, granted with some rules being given exceptions at the regard of the tournament organizer. It's not like the entire ruleset is bull****, just parts of it.

edit: And unless I'm wrong, lust is doing a good job of it in the ENL aswell.

 

[MadocComadrin]

Aye, but the ENL is bigger than NASTe, and Lust has already been put through the fire. Since we're rather small, we need more flexibility. I simply don't think a ladder is apt to give that flexibility.

 

[captain lust]

edit: And unless I'm wrong, lust is doing a good job of it in the ENL aswell.

Well yeah ENL has started well but I think Madoc was talking about the NA. Though even if that was the case, I still disagree with him. As you said, KBOOB, KTIT - I had my problems with their rulesets as well but this NASTe business desperately needs a resolution.

Aye, but the ENL is bigger than NASTe, and Lust has already been put through the fire. Since we're rather small, we need more flexibility. I simply don't think a ladder is apt to give that flexibility.

Well actually the whole point of a ladder is that it allows for more flexibility. Problem lies with some of the rules and arguably the ladder format (which isn't getting enough matches played).

 

[MadocComadrin]

Ah, I may not have put enough emphasis on flexibility as I should have. Kitten was willing to be both more forceful and dedicated, yet flexible than here. This lead to K-<mammary> to be rather successful. We need something that can capture the flexibility inherently so the admins aren't burnt out from sorting through issues and teams don't get the shaft.

 

[ryizzel]

It's like Marnid's point is a sexy 5'7 115 lb female, but Lust's point is a 5'4 230 lb female.

That would make your point a blind mutant?

I see yours more easily.

Also, sorry you didn't get it at first, it's not in your silly metric nonsense.

....lmfao. Anti is amused.

 

[Orion]

Talked it over with nom and he didn't object to it.

I'm honestly fine with going 0-0. If it was that close and we were winning, then we can do it again. What I'm sick of is constantly getting a disadvantage, the attitude and making rules and changing them on the spot. I read the rules through twice and I cannot see anything about either keeping scores or not. Where you pulled the rule about keeping them for postponements but dropping it for reschedules I do not understand. CRAP has brought 6+ players to 5 consecutive matches now and each time it's been rescheduled, wasting all of our players' time due to something that was in no way our fault.

Precedent states that if a map is disputed, its results are thrown out. See Balion v BkS, 2nd challenge, first attempt, first map. Balion felt like they got the shaft there too, but would you rather replay a map or have a 20-page ragefest between two teams about the dispute? I'm honestly curious as to which you (the general you) prefer. I'd rather not play mediator between two pissed off team captains after a match has been recorded because one captain lost and decides to dispute something after the fact. The rules in this ladder are meant to minimize the occurrence of disputes and the potential drama that follows in their wake.

wat

But there was no dispute. Both sides agreed to continue the match from where it was left off.

There was no dispute between Balions & BkS on the first map, either. The second map was disputed, and because there were issues that were cause for dispute on the first map it was also thrown out.

  And I'll argue this too. Of course it's the rules, what else is it? What stopped me from dropping one player for the rest of the map, being completely happy with it, except the rules? I'll even argue that on the GOOD vs. CRAP second try, the fact it wasn't played due to it storming at a guy's house was because of the rules. And of course it's the rules that forgive a team for not making three consecutive matches, don't reward the team that make it, and then punish a team for playing a player 12 hours before he was supposed to.

Is 6v5 a fair fight? Should fights that aren't fair be counted next to fights that are? If one team repeatedly wins matches because they're a man up, should their results be just as legitimate as the results from teams that always fight on even terms? Is 5v5 the same as 6v6? Should 5v5s be treated the same way as 6v6? Tactics & strategies shift with more or less players. Some strategies are slightly more effective 5v5 than 6v6. Should 5v5s be counted the same as 6v6s? It is not the fault of the rules if a team fails to organize their players properly. No rule change can get players to actually show up on time if those players show up late anyway, so the rules don't change a player's punctuality.

I'll even argue that on the GOOD vs. CRAP second try, the fact it wasn't played due to it storming at a guy's house was because of the rules.

Don't give me this bull****, Cath. The rules have since been changed because of that very situation.

And of course it's the rules that forgive a team for not making three consecutive matches, don't reward the team that make it, and then punish a team for playing a player 12 hours before he was supposed to.

The way admins handle repeated scheduling failures is to cancel the challenge. This lets you challenge somebody else and get away from poorly-organized teams. It's not the rules fault that you challenged one poorly organized team, and then challenged a team with several European players on it that is inherently difficult to organize. You can challenge any of the unranked teams + 3 ranks on the ladder. If you feel so strongly that your opponents are bringing you down, we could cancel this challenge too.

Oh, but then you'd be *****ing about how your challenge was cancelled, even though its intentions were to get you into a challenge with a better-organized team so you won't have this problem anymore.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

Edit in a second.

[Edit]

But there was no dispute. Both sides agreed to continue the match from where it was left off.

Negative. Reschedules replay the map. Only from postponements do scores carry over.

The reasoning is that in the case of a postponement, reason for dispute is delayed until it can be remedied. Reschedules are done when there is cause for dispute (losing players and not being able to provide substitutes is cause for dispute, as it is your own responsibility to ensure your team is present) that cannot or will not be remedied in short order. In this sense, the map that you played until 3-2 could be considered disputed, and by rescheduling both teams accept this fact and its results are considered invalid.

Also, your 'point' about vague wording of the rules is false. At all points where a postponement is listed as an option for the teams involved, it is always given with an upper limit of one hour. Postponements are always up to one-hour "timeouts" that teams can use to get more players on the field. The reason there is a distinction between postponements and reschedules is given above, and because player issues can sometimes be resolved simply by waiting. Also, not all teams can or will agree to postpone, as their members might have limited time to play, which is when a reschedule is preferred because it allows the teams to pick another time to conclude their match that is suitable for all players.

Ah, I may not have put enough emphasis on flexibility as I should have. Kitten was willing to be both more forceful and dedicated, yet flexible than here. This lead to K-<mammary> to be rather successful. We need something that can capture the flexibility inherently so the admins aren't burnt out from sorting through issues and teams don't get the shaft.

More flexible? Are you kidding? Should everyone be fighting 6v3s every 4 weeks, then? The rules are flexible. 1 match per 2 weeks (which isn't being strictly enforced at the moment), against any team within reach of yours, with the freedom to reschedule in case there are problems. If there are still problems, team captains still have options. Say their opponent is down one player. They can play two rounds and wait for a quick fix, during which they can drop a player if they want to for the sake of kindness, or they can agree to wait up to an hour for another player to show up. Failing that, they can still reschedule and conclude their match later without any real problems (other than a bit of frustration that always comes with scheduling).

Failing that, ladder admins are available to resolve disputes. Auto-wins and crazy penalties are the least likely outcomes, as all ladder admins will try to get the match played on fair terms first.

 

[captain lust]

The way admins handle repeated scheduling failures is to cancel the challenge. This lets you challenge somebody else and get away from poorly-organized teams. It's not the rules fault that you challenged one poorly organized team, and then challenged a team with several European players on it that is inherently difficult to organize. You can challenge any of the unranked teams + 3 ranks on the ladder. If you feel so strongly that your opponents are bringing you down, we could cancel this challenge too.

Well I don't see why European players are getting special provisions. I have never expected nor received any and I don't think it's fair on the US players.

And how can you deny that it's a failure of the rules that poorly organised teams are able to hold others back? Surely that indicates an inherent failure, by anyone's standards.

Is 6v5 a fair fight? Should fights that aren't fair be counted next to fights that are? If one team repeatedly wins matches because they're a man up, should their results be just as legitimate as the results from teams that always fight on even terms? Is 5v5 the same as 6v6? Should 5v5s be treated the same way as 6v6? Tactics & strategies shift with more or less players. Some strategies are slightly more effective 5v5 than 6v6. Should 5v5s be counted the same as 6v6s?

No 6v5 isn't a fair fight but that shows absolutely **** all. This is a 6v6 tournament and being unable to field 6 players shouldn't act as an advantage.

 

[Rhade]

How about adding a clause to the rules that forces cancels to be "faulted" to one team?

If a team forces a cancel two or three times, perhaps they should automatically lose?

I disagree with losing after one cancel, but it does seem a bit silly that teams can repeatedly "cancel" over and over again.

I like how you're sticking to your guns, Marnid, a good TO needs to, but I think people are just after a bit of accountability from teams who are repeatedly failing to uphold their end of their responsibilities, and some reward/flexibility for those who do.

 

[captain lust]

A reasonable proposal from Rhade. And these "faults" should stack up somehow, so repeat offenders can't keep holding teams back.

 

[Orion]

The way admins handle repeated scheduling failures is to cancel the challenge. This lets you challenge somebody else and get away from poorly-organized teams. It's not the rules fault that you challenged one poorly organized team, and then challenged a team with several European players on it that is inherently difficult to organize. You can challenge any of the unranked teams + 3 ranks on the ladder. If you feel so strongly that your opponents are bringing you down, we could cancel this challenge too.

Well I don't see why European players are getting special provisions. I have never expected nor received any and I don't think it's fair on the US players.

You're going to stop putting words in my mouth. Understand? I didn't say a team is getting any sort of special treatment because of European players, and I've been clear about this (with you especially, in PMs) from the beginning. I was saying that a team with European players is inherently difficult to organize on an American schedule. Furthermore, I said it is not the fault of the rules that team CRAP happened to chose a less-organized team to challenge, and it is not the fault of the rules that Europeans are more difficult to organize on an American schedule. This is not a difficult concept.

but I think people are just after a bit of accountability from teams who are repeatedly failing to uphold their end of their responsibilities, and some reward/flexibility for those who do.

Maybe I should have some sort of accountability for ladder admins that don't respond to rule change PMs, too. Then I could penalize the whole lot of you.

 

[Kitten-mew!]

Damn bro, I think I got mad owned by Marnid. Holding that L in my chest, G. Although, I gotta say that most teams opted out of playing lopsided match-ups. The only team I can remember doing anything distinctively so is J-PUBES, who fed up enough with scheduling difficulties that they decided to play with the full amount of people they had at every time. Even then, they lost on tiebreaker points to the team that they used the rule to beat in a match. Not saying that's cool-gangsta-crazy-mad-flex, yo, but it wasn't to such a widespread degree. There were a lot of issues in the previous two tournaments that the K-COCK (Clash of Classy Knights, I was going to do that but I felt it was pushing the line <.< >.>) was going to make a serious effort to resolve, but I aborted the project in the metaphorical womb when I uninstalled Warband. Heh. K-COCK. Except since it's run by me, it should K-ASS (Anal = Superior Sex). Hehhhhh. Heheheheh.

HEH.

Holdin' that L in mah chest,

Kitten (Kid into touching titillating european nipples, unf~)

MODIFY: ****, man, I had to edit that because winking emoticons are for people who are dead inside. ;3

 

[MrNomNom]

So, can we bring a 5 v 5 proposal to the ladder admins then?

Also, 5-0, 5-2, CRAP.

 

[Catholic]

So, can we bring a 5 v 5 proposal to the ladder admins then?

Also, 5-0, 5-2, CRAP.

Aye.
Well played. Good fights by LAG. Tough ****, good job.

 

[captain lust]

Spoiler

The way admins handle repeated scheduling failures is to cancel the challenge. This lets you challenge somebody else and get away from poorly-organized teams. It's not the rules fault that you challenged one poorly organized team, and then challenged a team with several European players on it that is inherently difficult to organize. You can challenge any of the unranked teams + 3 ranks on the ladder. If you feel so strongly that your opponents are bringing you down, we could cancel this challenge too.

Well I don't see why European players are getting special provisions. I have never expected nor received any and I don't think it's fair on the US players.

You're going to stop putting words in my mouth. Understand? I didn't say a team is getting any sort of special treatment because of European players, and I've been clear about this (with you especially, in PMs) from the beginning. I was saying that a team with European players is inherently difficult to organize on an American schedule. Furthermore, I said it is not the fault of the rules that team CRAP happened to chose a less-organized team to challenge, and it is not the fault of the rules that Europeans are more difficult to organize on an American schedule. This is not a difficult concept.

By lending weight to the fact that they have Europeans, you are giving Europeans special treatment. If it means nothing and didn't factor into any decision, why say it at all?



CRAP beats LAG 5-0 5-2 (missing screens from the 2 rounds played in the first instance that were postponed - Zero was there to witness).

Spoiler: screenshots

And that quote from Marnid in the first screen could be easily misinterpreted .

 

[Rurin]

Good fights, LAG. It was nice to finally play one. You had me worried when you won those first 2. CRAP somehow went into serious mode during 'intermission.'

 

[MrNomNom]

Also, I think LAG should get a half a victory, after I handed Catholic that warhorse. ;_;

You had me worried when you won those first 2. CRAP somehow went into serious mode during 'intermission.'

That was a fun intermission.

 

[Catholic]

CRAP has two europeans and so does LAG. I fail to see how this factors into anything. I suggest we drop it.

And once again, glad to finally be ranked. Great fun match with LAG. One of my funnest scrims in awhile, both maps, and not even because we won.

 

[Orion]

Spoiler

The way admins handle repeated scheduling failures is to cancel the challenge. This lets you challenge somebody else and get away from poorly-organized teams. It's not the rules fault that you challenged one poorly organized team, and then challenged a team with several European players on it that is inherently difficult to organize. You can challenge any of the unranked teams + 3 ranks on the ladder. If you feel so strongly that your opponents are bringing you down, we could cancel this challenge too.

Well I don't see why European players are getting special provisions. I have never expected nor received any and I don't think it's fair on the US players.

You're going to stop putting words in my mouth. Understand? I didn't say a team is getting any sort of special treatment because of European players, and I've been clear about this (with you especially, in PMs) from the beginning. I was saying that a team with European players is inherently difficult to organize on an American schedule. Furthermore, I said it is not the fault of the rules that team CRAP happened to chose a less-organized team to challenge, and it is not the fault of the rules that Europeans are more difficult to organize on an American schedule. This is not a difficult concept.

By lending weight to the fact that they have Europeans, you are giving Europeans special treatment. If it means nothing and didn't factor into any decision, why say it at all?

It doesn't factor into the decision, it's just the reality of the situation. I can't believe you're having such a difficult time grasping this. Cath's complaint is that all the teams CRAP has faced so far have failed to meet expectations set in the rules. I was saying that of course there will be scheduling problems when there are European players in an American competition. You don't watch the weather forecast then walk outside in a torrential downpour and complain about the rain because you left your umbrella at home. **** happens, and you shouldn't sign up for a tournament expecting smooth sailing all the time, especially when you know there are going to be obstacles to overcome. If you aren't willing to roll with it you can roll your ass out of the ladder for all I care. Your pathetic redirection attempt failed, and now you're just backpedaling. Drop it and walk away.

Scores are being updated. Congratulations on finally completing a match, CRAP. Hopefully your future matches go smoother.