Sign in to follow this  
Lenin

announcement Recent FOE vs. Apex Community Dispute

Recommended Posts

Why cant I dispute on behalf of Apex?

  • Clan wars and wilderness are different. You are bound to come into contact with most if not all clans in wildy, but not in clan wars. If you had nothing to do with the prep why do you feel like you have control over it?

this is very wrong but good on you @ glad apex has made you a bit broccolied already


Yeah so clans can bring lvl 126 mains to preps but as long as the other clan doesn't dispute, they get cotm points lmao what a joke

LMFAO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm more concerned about the fact that neither clan knows how to kill people with 30 men than a cape switch

stop the fucking press people @ is so ahead of everybody else in the ridiculously easy f2p server, truly the most elite f2p 30 vs 30 cwa strategist to ever exist!!1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think cape switches are cauliflower and a mostly non-factor.

 

However, the argument you are making in regards to the Wilderness vs. Clan Wars is like saying if you see someone get mugged in the city you can report it to the police, but if you see someone get mugged in the suburbs then only the person who got mugged can report it to the police. 

 

The only reply-able post in two pages. Godbless.

 

The examples are far off because you've given two examples that relate to the wilderness and not clan wars. With your analogy, wilderness would be an open world with a variation of chances and possibilities i.e. city AND suburbs. Clan wars would be more like being abducted by pirates or aliens, which means you're stuck with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just apex that are affected by rule breaking, every clan that's competing for COTM is affected.

 

By points yes they are. But you still dont understand that we cant dispute on behalf of the loosing clan who happily continued.

 

By that approach we shoudn't have given you COTM for last month because you broke the rule of challenging early? We should have got involved and disputed am I right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stop the fucking press people @ is so ahead of everybody else in the ridiculously easy f2p server, truly the most elite f2p 30 vs 30 cwa strategist to ever exist!!1

 

weren't you a part of that clan that barely maintained a 50% winrate and then closed when you won like 4 in a row lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reply-able post in two pages. Godbless.

 

The examples are far off because you've given two examples that relate to the wilderness and not clan wars. With your analogy, wilderness would be an open world with a variation of chances and possibilities i.e. city AND suburbs. Clan wars would be more like being abducted by pirates or aliens, which means you're stuck with them.

 

Not exactly. As a staff, you would go forward with a wilderness dispute even if Clan A and Clan B had zero interaction during that trip. In fact, you would not even ask if there was interaction; the evidence would just be reviewed per usual. With that being said, it does not hold water that non interacting clans are barred from bringing disputes in clan wars.  Despite cape switches being insignificant in my book, the underlying point has some merit. If you want to bar non participants from raising disputes (personally not sure why you would want to bar them), then you should clearly outline that for all scenarios. Hiding behind the idea that they probably would have interacted in the wilderness is not a strong enough case to justify the position you laid down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not exactly. As a staff, you would go forward with a wilderness dispute even if Clan A and Clan B had zero interaction during that trip. In fact, you would not even ask if there was interaction; the evidence would just be reviewed per usual. With that being said, it does not hold water that non interacting clans are barred from bringing disputes in clan wars.  Despite cape switches being insignificant in my book, the underlying point has some merit. If you want to bar non participants from raising disputes (personally not sure why you would want to bar them), then you should clearly outline that for all scenarios. Hiding behind the idea that they probably would have interacted in the wilderness is not a strong enough case to justify the position you laid down. 

 

Disregarded your entire reply after "wilderness dispute". If you failed to read the OP I wont bother reading your reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disregarded your entire reply after "wilderness dispute". If you failed to read the OP I wont bother reading your reply.

 

You should read my prior post as my first was the only replyable post according to you. You should read all of what I have to write before you make any assumptions. I pick my words carefully. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By points yes they are. But you still dont understand that we cant dispute on behalf of the loosing clan who happily continued.

 

By that approach we shoudn't have given you COTM for last month because you broke the rule of challenging early? We should have got involved and disputed am I right?

 

I could be mistaken, but I do not believe Hotkeying has ever been a part of a clan who won COTM. You should do your research before you make blanket assumptions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should read my prior post as my first was the only replyable post according to you. You should read all of what I have to write before you make any assumptions. I pick my words carefully. 

 

In the original post I explained that wilderness and clan wars is different. I'm not going to repeat myself a 1000x. Starting a point from wilderness is therefore pointless.

 

I could be mistaken, but I do not believe Hotkeying has ever been a part of a clan who won COTM. You should do your research before you make blanket assumptions. 

 

Thought it was 5defkid's post since he tagged me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the original post I explained that wilderness and clan wars is different. I'm not going to repeat myself a 1000x. Starting a point from wilderness is therefore pointless.

 

 

Yes, but the underlying logic you applied as to why the wilderness and clan wars are different does not hold water. If you want to separate them, power to you, but at least have a logically sound argument for when these problems arise. So now if you go back and re-read my post that starts with the wilderness you will understand why said point is valid in light of the context provided by this post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but the underlying logic you applied as to why the wilderness and clan wars are different does not hold water. If you want to separate them, power to you, but at least have a logically sound argument for when these problems arise. So now if you go back and re-read my post that starts with the wilderness you will understand why said point is valid in light of the context provided by this post. 

 

Ofcourse it holds. You cannot expect one to hold the same standards and guidelines to clan wars as you do to wilderness. The nature of fights that occur in both are extremely different. Thats why I said re-read the original post. Clan A and Clan B prepping means they both are involved in the action. Clan C, D etc. aren't. In wilderness, most if not all clans come into contact with each other either through pkris, crashes etc. There is 0 possibility of this happening in clan wars. Clan C, D etc. have no relation to the prep whatsoever. Example: you might see a clan with 40 mains and decide not to fight and dispute their topic as well. Even if there is no fight they still come in contact.

 

Rest is already mentioned in OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

idk about this one my friend @

 

Have to respect ranks decisions. We can't force them to do something they dont want to dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ofcourse it holds. You cannot expect one to hold the same standards and guidelines to clan wars as you do to wilderness. The nature of fights that occur in both are extremely different. Thats why I said re-read the original post. Clan A and Clan B prepping means they both are involved in the action. Clan C, D etc. aren't. In wilderness, most if not all clans come into contact with each other either through pkris, crashes etc. There is 0 possibility of this happening in clan wars. Clan C, D etc. have no relation to the prep whatsoever. Example: you might see a clan with 40 mains and decide not to fight and dispute their topic as well. Even if there is no fight they still come in contact.

 

Rest is already mentioned in OP.

 

For the third time, that is not a logical argument. You cannot set that level of burden based off "Most if not all clans come into contact with eachother through pkris, crashes etc". Most does not equal ALL. There is a possibility that Clan A and Clan B were NEVER in the same world during a trip and if Clan B made a dispute topic about Clan A then you, as a staff, would have gone forward with it. Just because MOST clans interact during normal trips, does not mean that ALL clans do. 

 

It is okay for clan wars and the wilderness to have different guidelines, but they cannot have different guidelines because of the faulty assumption that all clans will interact with each other during a weekend trip. That argument simply does not hold water. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the third time, that is not a logical argument. You cannot set that level of burden based off "Most if not all clans come into contact with eachother through pkris, crashes etc". Most does not equal ALL. There is a possibility that Clan A and Clan B were NEVER in the same world during a trip and if Clan B made a dispute topic about Clan A then you, as a staff, would have gone forward with it. Just because MOST clans interact during normal trips, does not mean that ALL clans do. 

 

It is okay for clan wars and the wilderness to have different guidelines, but they cannot have different guidelines because of the faulty assumption that all clans will interact with each other during a weekend trip. That argument simply does not hold water. 

 

Thats why I said "most if not all". Godbless.

 

Thats not the only factor. Your failure to read the original post does not mean anyone's argument is weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this