Krist115 Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 If T0 can proof SoW did rulebreaking, a RM should be good. If not: gratz on the win SoW.yea thats what im saying also Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimberly Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Always pm evidence of rulebreaking to TWR staff. I don't know how to be more clearer than this. I await T0's evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Ownage Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 l0l jack <3 <3: Back on topic, I agree with Newfy here, we'd love a rematch if you're so confident of beating us. It's the last ever war we put a Range Cap on though, most clans just abuse this rule, kinda pathetic, cause if we did there'd be havoc as we have quite a few 90+ Rangers for a small clan. Anyway, T0 refrain from replying to DV flamebaits or this topic as a whole, I'll handle them myself, and we'll wait for a mods decision. There's your proof. And it wasn't like 1 person would have effected the ending anyway lol. Good game though yo. Lol. We lost 100 points because of that incident, as you broke 2 rules we'll be happy to conceit that you lose 200 points if thats how the mods look at it. I await T0's evidence. I'll be happy to get it for you. <3: - Jack New account: Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorrtty19 Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 I don't think it depends how many rules SoW broke that decides how many points they lose. It's 25% of their total points. No matter how many rules they broke. Correct me if I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Ownage Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 I don't think it depends how many rules SoW broke that decides how many points they lose. It's 25% of their total points. No matter how many rules they broke. Correct me if I'm wrong. Oh ok, I'm not too aware myself lol. :wall: New account: Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 I don't think it depends how many rules SoW broke that decides how many points they lose. It's 25% of their total points. No matter how many rules they broke. Correct me if I'm wrong. It doesn't matter how many they broke but the severity, ie if one person ran slightly out of bounds one time it's unlikely the war will be a forfeit. There also has to be sufficient evidence, picture or video of rule breaking, saying they broke the rules isn't enough. With love to one, friendship to many, and good will to all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorrtty19 Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 I don't think it depends how many rules SoW broke that decides how many points they lose. It's 25% of their total points. No matter how many rules they broke. Correct me if I'm wrong. It doesn't matter how many they broke but the severity, ie if one person ran slightly out of bounds one time it's unlikely the war will be a forfeit. There also has to be sufficient evidence, picture or video of rule breaking, saying they broke the rules isn't enough. If you read my post before this post from me, u know then that I didn't say SoW are rulebreaking. I try with my last post only clear a thing up about the post from xjcx. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pumkinpie37 Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 those 2 rangers from sow must have been pretty beastly is jc is complaining about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machamp195 Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 those 2 rangers from sow must have been pretty beastly is jc is complaining about them. yeah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray0608 Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 anyways gratz sow... (for dv mems) no flames guys... Forums l Memberlist R.I.P. DVProud to be Leader of Divine Vindicators Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Ownage Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 anyways gratz sow... (for dv mems) no flames guys... Hey Ray. <3: - Jack New account: Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny_TeamDan Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Why not t0 are accepting their defeat? and they were saying dv that we dont accept our defeat We didn't break rules unlike SoW. Maybe if you wasn't so bias then you'd realise that. But then again half your clan is Dk so most of you probably have less of an IQ than a sloth. Sorry for not realising that in the first place. It's ok to still be mad you got wrecked by us fair and square though. :thumbup: lmao u make me lol irl :mrgreen:Yes DK is lolable irl. Expected, Great job SOW :thumbup:Cool propaganda. No, I could see your extra rangers wrecking our binders, and even when they weren't k0ing, they were still having huge effect making yours targets die faster than our targets. That swung the war in your favour without a question. Seeing as you've admitted to these already, I question whether I need to PM evidence to a mod, but if it still needs to be done then no worries. So yeah we'd be happy to have a rematch, or face the fact that you lose points for breaking 2 rules, which is 200 points if I'm correct? Also Sutty, damn...I had to phone the fire brigade for that flame-bait. A pity you do not, maybe because you can not?, counter my statement that those 4 were k0'ed already before we had any real rangers out, except for the snipers maybe.Secondly, you say our rangers wrecked your binders, this could be true, but if it is, its only after we had taken a huge lead and our pile didn't really listen well, thus when the difference was already made.Also, you have to agree with me that rangers rarely take binds with them, right?Maybe you have a different policy, but normally it costs too much invent spaces, considering the ineffective binds they deliver in the pile if they range and bind.In which case the 2rangers will be partially offset by having 2extra binders now, let's say, in your favourite, 1.5ranger remains.So taken all this in account, you dare to say that the 16man ending was only due to 1.5ranger? considering a quote from you:xjcx said: CrovaxKing said: yo, this is just a misunderstanding we had him as a "clan friend " rank. but w/e There's your proof. And it wasn't like 1 person would have effected the ending anyway lol. Good game though yo. ^so you're measuring in 2 ways? one way when you're accused and the other when you're accusing? I know we were wrong, but that was a mistake and would not have affected the outcome by more than a few endings. Lastly, such sarcasm isn't really productive^^Let's think about this... Range cap = pro melee correct? So a person tanking all melee vs a person tanking mixed...Who would last longer? Leaving bounds through trees can really be annoying as well. If it was a few steps then I doubt they'd be complaining. those 2 rangers from sow must have been pretty beastly is jc is complaining about them.Okay how about this we get say 10 people in melee on you and 5 people in range on you. And then the second time we put 8 melee on you and 7 rangers on you. I wonder which tank time would be better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thiesje Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Grats SoW, I guess. Animum debes mutare, non caelum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obfuscator Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Clan staff is discussing this war. Flaming on this topic is pointless and any flame posts made from this point on will be removed. As always, pm evidence of any rulebreaking to a TWR moderator, Lady_ninane in this case. "It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Ownage Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Evidence has been PMed to Lady Ninane, if you want it Y Guy then feel free to ask. :thumbup: New account: Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 I don't think it depends how many rules SoW broke that decides how many points they lose. It's 25% of their total points. No matter how many rules they broke. Correct me if I'm wrong. It doesn't matter how many they broke but the severity, ie if one person ran slightly out of bounds one time it's unlikely the war will be a forfeit. There also has to be sufficient evidence, picture or video of rule breaking, saying they broke the rules isn't enough. If you read my post before this post from me, u know then that I didn't say SoW are rulebreaking. I try with my last post only clear a thing up about the post from xjcx. ;) I was just trying clear up the rule issue about losing the points let me try again, breaking rules is 25% loss and forfeit no matter how many rules are broken, was only intending to confirm you were correct. :thumbup: With love to one, friendship to many, and good will to all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sutty Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Do allow me to relativate this. About the cap i have already explained, but those 2members extra made the pile only a little bit more powerfull, and our first 4k0's were mostly melee k0's. Which gave us a huge advantage before ranging even began to play a role. About the out of bounds, there was 1member, and one only, who went out of bounds massively, because he had to tank with his mousepad. He went out of bounds due to this, but also could not tank well at all because of this. Also, about the flames @bh, I wasn't there anymore, but i was there when you came spamming. That spamming could easily be seen as baiting...But as I said, do send any pictures with flames. No, I could see your extra rangers wrecking our binders, and even when they weren't k0ing, they were still having huge effect making yours targets die faster than our targets. That swung the war in your favour without a question. Seeing as you've admitted to these already, I question whether I need to PM evidence to a mod, but if it still needs to be done then no worries. So yeah we'd be happy to have a rematch, or face the fact that you lose points for breaking 2 rules, which is 200 points if I'm correct? Also Sutty, damn...I had to phone the fire brigade for that flame-bait. - Jack It's not a flame bait as it's true, the out come of the war clearly shows that. Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?TKO Blitz Member | Ex-Tempted Killers Council Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreagation Posted October 10, 2009 Author Share Posted October 10, 2009 It's not a flame bait as i's true, the out come of the war clearly shows that. The only thing the outcome shows is that we won, not how:).Please do think before you speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny_TeamDan Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Good win SoW t0 just got t0ed :thumbsup: It's not a flame bait as i's true, the out come of the war clearly shows that. The only thing the outcome shows is that we won, not how:).Please do think before you speak.Please do think before you speak. He was on your side silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Honestly, I'm not particular to any other clan. I deffnitely know T0 better than SoW, but this looks like an error from both sides (and if my information is incorrect then it's my fault, sorry.) SoW- You really should have followed the rules no matter how much you were winning. Win Abiding by the rules, just cause your destroying someone (no bait intended) it doesn't mean that you can say "Oh, they are losing anyways might as well cheat now and win faster." T0- You should have went to there IRC during the war (again if you did I'm misinformed) and said, hey, rematch us that's not fair. If SoW is as naive as to decline that then bring it to TWR Mods. Tell them if they post a win topic expect us to dispute it, because you cheated it wasn't fair. Mistakes on both sides but I am surprised by how SoW is acting, and althouh JC is also lancing out KO Trolls here and there, I expected more from both clans and clan leaders on these boards. I have lived my life to the best of my ability, but I have not been able to escape fate, anger, or pain. Bring me the answers, and the road that leads to truth, reveal to me once and for all, how all of this will end.Shadows cannot exist without the light. But without the shadows, the light has no meaning.[Downfall Forums][Downfall YouTube] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckingham Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 A couple dc's and a laggy world ruined what should have been a much closer war. Whether mods decide that it's a legit win or not, it would be nice to have a rematch. Big thanks to Ray for putting his members back on their leashes True Ownage Co-Leader Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20Rice04 Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Good win SoW t0 just got t0ed :thumbsup: It's not a flame bait as i's true, the out come of the war clearly shows that. The only thing the outcome shows is that we won, not how:).Please do think before you speak.Please do think before you speak. He was on your side silly. BOOOOOOM, Headshot =D> :lol: Look guys... I absolutely must be a mass baby-seal murderer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sutty Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Good win SoW t0 just got t0ed :thumbsup: It's not a flame bait as i's true, the out come of the war clearly shows that. The only thing the outcome shows is that we won, not how:).Please do think before you speak.Please do think before you speak. He was on your side silly. BOOOOOOM, Headshot =D> :lol: LOL K0 Dreagtion, i think you should read what we were talking about first. Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?TKO Blitz Member | Ex-Tempted Killers Council Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimberly Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Because of the nature of this violation (violation of cap that involves two forms of combat), the only acceptable decisions are these:Rematch with range on, no capRematch without rangeAccept a null fight. Best of luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckingham Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Just so we know which course of action to pursue, Does SoW have any preferences? A rematch with no range seems like the best choice to me. True Ownage Co-Leader Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now