|
Post by TheClash on May 31, 2007 16:13:58 GMT -5
Is the Nato/RAY team realy playing in the NC tournament as a team ?
Its a joke isnt it ?
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on May 31, 2007 20:30:21 GMT -5
Nato Team, Doesn't this defeat the purpose of a Nations cup. I belive civic pride is at stake. Where are the best players. We already have a tournament based on clubs/clans. That is the ccc event. Now we have a group of players that regularly team up in ccc events, come together to compete. Why not just call it a RAY vs tournament. Oh, sorry it is RAY plus Poly. I am not angry, just confused. One of the RAY members proposed this event, and others of RAY are defeating the purpose of a civic based tournament. I can even understand a Brittish Commonwealth team. Or Eastern European team etc. Heck lets put a team together comprised of members with unpronounceable names. We can put Gogf in charge. Just an opinion, Ape We are allowed to play as regional blocs, NATO is a defensive alliance and a regional bloc. Having participated in a NATO mission personally, who are you to judge what I think about this organization? Why do I like NATO? Well, it did roll into Afghanistan, but it was smart enough to not go into Iraq during that country's early stages of invasion. I have too much beef with the US and I'm sure that the ladder members from other countries would agree with my sentiment. I'm sorry I'm not a flag waving, shotgun toting redneck. If it weren't for a few personal issues that came up with my life, I'd actually be preparing to move out of the country next month. On another note, this country does do some good things and participate in some worthy organizations...again, NATO being one of them. So, if it's personal prejudice you have, it's misplaced. If it's something else, you didn't train hard enough.
|
|
|
Post by cryptococcus on Jun 1, 2007 3:57:00 GMT -5
Because it's not f**king ccc and this isn't real life.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jun 1, 2007 5:39:03 GMT -5
Because it's not f**king ccc and this isn't real life. Give me a better reason as to why NATO should not be able to participate, post it in any of the threads where I have stated our case.
|
|
|
Post by NumberOneMercury on Jun 1, 2007 14:46:23 GMT -5
I'm sorry I'm not a flag waving, shotgun toting redneck. Well said. Good luck with the confederate states thing btw.
|
|
Arvcran
Worker
Tourney Director
Remember the purpose of CIV / BtS is enjoyment, entertainment, and hobby!
Posts: 181
|
Post by Arvcran on Jun 3, 2007 15:25:09 GMT -5
Dear Friends: At CIV4Players we are always trying to come up with new and innovative programs and competitions for our members. The Nation's Cup Tournament will be an event which will allow teams to be formed based on a particular home country (e.g. Canada, Germany). This seems particularly appropriate since the game Civilization itself is about nations, and since we really do have worldwide representation in the Ladder. Good luck to everyone who chooses to compete. And Please remember to have fun, and play with good sportsmanship. Like the CCC, this event is meant to bring our community together, not to cause international rivalries and friction. Sincerely, DTA If I was born in Canada, would I be able to play for Tunga Tuva, assuming there were enough players interested in playing for them? Or need I have a passport of the Nation I am playing for? What if all the Nations were playing for each other? Weird, I know, but would that be a global cultural victory?
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jun 4, 2007 7:35:56 GMT -5
Dear Friends: At CIV4Players we are always trying to come up with new and innovative programs and competitions for our members. The Nation's Cup Tournament will be an event which will allow teams to be formed based on a particular home country (e.g. Canada, Germany). This seems particularly appropriate since the game Civilization itself is about nations, and since we really do have worldwide representation in the Ladder. Good luck to everyone who chooses to compete. And Please remember to have fun, and play with good sportsmanship. Like the CCC, this event is meant to bring our community together, not to cause international rivalries and friction. Sincerely, DTA If I was born in Canada, would I be able to play for Tunga Tuva, assuming there were enough players interested in playing for them? Or need I have a passport of the Nation I am playing for? What if all the Nations were playing for each other? Weird, I know, but would that be a global cultural victory? I feel that NATO was held to a double standard. There were several examples of teams that had players from other countries. We had fielded an all American + 2 foreigner team and there was just the loudest uproar over the whole situation. Then, after the event starts, people start to shift their opinion. It was fairly ridiculous, in my opinion. Now, I'm hearing that the USA should have fielded more than 1 team and maybe even an elite team at that. That's what NATO was. Maybe I'm missing something here.
|
|
|
Post by toratoratora on Jun 4, 2007 9:10:00 GMT -5
Oh Can someone delete my Calander Entry for June the First thanks ;D
|
|
|
Post by venceslas on Jun 4, 2007 10:12:00 GMT -5
Let's explain me better. I have the feeling that USA should provide at least two teams due to the number of US civ player.
The spirit of NC is to have a common identity. For example:
nordic countries => Viking
So yes I agree with you that you must get more players, but by looking for in US players(they are plenty), not by creating entity too far from concept of nation in order to get some specific players.
If really it's hard to get a roster, you may also make an alliance with a neighbour country. But it seems to me a bit strange to make a USA team with player from turkey,belgiuim,norway... It's all the more strange for me that these countries are sometime already engaged in the NC.
chris.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jun 4, 2007 11:34:58 GMT -5
Let's explain me better. I have the feeling that USA should provide at least two teams due to the number of US civ player. The spirit of NC is to have a common identity. For example: nordic countries => Viking So yes I agree with you that you must get more players, but by looking for in US players(they are plenty), not by creating entity too far from concept of nation in order to get some specific players. If really it's hard to get a roster, you may also make an alliance with a neighbour country. But it seems to me a bit strange to make a USA team with player from turkey,belgiuim,norway... It's all the more strange for me that these countries are sometime already engaged in the NC. chris. See, that's a fine line that you're drawing there and it's a double standard, pure and simple. You're saying that the NATO team, which was more or less a USA team, with the exception of 2 individuals goes against the spirit of the Nation's Cup. However, the British Commonwealth can get away with combining 3 countries to max out their roster. We were willing to play with half the allowed roster (though, I bolstered it, just in case). I'll say this again. Where were your complaints for the other teams that had foreign nationals on their team? Those concerns had to be raised by us, only after similar concerns were raised AGAINST us. Double standard, pure and simple. You can't sugar coat it any other way. We had our team, we had our players for events lined up, instead we were gracious enough to combine our team with one that we had no intentions of doing so with. You had your dream team and we had ours. The big difference is, ours seemed to have offended a good portion of the ladder community. We could have been aholes and continued, but we did not. Not because we thought it was wrong, but out of deferrence to the admins and TDs, the last thing they needed was grief over this. I pointed out the examples where I think the double standard existed and I will continue to do so. Tell me I'm wrong. The spirit of NC is to have a common identity. For example: nordic countries => Viking Our team = NATO. What's the damn problem? The Scandinavian countries, you're looking at a historical, shared culture. On that basis, I can do the same with NATO, in that's it's Western European based. The Latino team was based more or less on being part of a similar language family. Technically, they could have had some French players, if they already didn't have them. I mean, damn, the French could have taken Belgian players on the account of language. That is a trivial matter. Maybe I should have based our team on the ability to speak English. Would you have had objections then?
|
|
|
Post by toratoratora on Jun 4, 2007 12:16:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jun 4, 2007 12:35:00 GMT -5
Really, where is it's seat in the United Nations? It does not have one. The expansion of your team was justified through the use of an archaic dominion. As I've stated before, using your loophole, I merely used NATO as the binding identity for our team. So what is your argument? Semantics? That's utter BS. If our team had been the Americans in RaY + Gametheory + Cryptococcus + 2 foreign nationals (Polydeukes & Rokkitlauncher) are you telling me you would not have had a problem? It would have and you know it. However, there was not the sense of outrage over the proposed Team Australia + Longhorn or Team Germany + RedPhoenix. Double standard, pure and simple. All I did was use an identity that covered all our players, not unlike your team did. Scandinavia/Team Nordic, it's not a unified country, but it is a shared identity. Team Latino, not a unified country, but a shared identity. We did the same.
|
|
|
Post by venceslas on Jun 4, 2007 13:47:47 GMT -5
See, that's a fine line that you're drawing there and it's a double standard, pure and simple. You're saying that the NATO team, which was more or less a USA team, with the exception of 2 individuals goes against the spirit of the Nation's Cup. However, the British Commonwealth can get away with combining 3 countries to max out their roster. Sure Commonwealth is not exactly a nation, but I can admit it as kind of nation. We were willing to play with half the allowed roster (though, I bolstered it, just in case). I'll say this again. Where were your complaints for the other teams that had foreign nationals on their team? Well, I have just reacted because the NATO team post. If some teams have played with foreign nationals(and outside the field of the team identity), I agree with you, it's not normal ans it's double standard. The Scandinavian countries, you're looking at a historical, shared culture. On that basis, I can do the same with NATO, in that's it's Western European based. The Latino team was based more or less on being part of a similar language family. Technically, they could have had some French players, if they already didn't have them. I mean, damn, the French could have taken Belgian players on the account of language. That is a trivial matter. Agree with your examples. However NATO is something for the militaries or the politics. Nation is for common people. The man in the street in norway or turkey has no special feeling with the us men. However I think the man in the street in norway may have the feeling to share something with scandinavian countries. About the Commonwealth, colonies are very old. There is a kind of link between people from the Commonwealth. At the opposite NATO is very young, and I don't think it create a link between the people. Maybe I should have based our team on the ability to speak English. Would you have had objections then? Well true to say, I think nobody would have said anything if USA and England made a team called North Altantic. It's only two countries which are very friend each other.... But here you got almost 30 countries... At the end, I think it's a set of element which tend to me think that NATO is too far from the concept of nation to come in the NC. Whatever the way it's just my opinion, and if admin say NATO is nation, we will play this team as nation. I have no special interest against NATO team, and especially against players from this team. I like these people, they are fair. I may disagree with you on this special point, but by reading your posts I'm pretty sure that we agree on many points. chris.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jun 4, 2007 14:40:30 GMT -5
Sure Commonwealth is not exactly a nation, but I can admit it as kind of nation. The Commonwealth is not even a kind of nation. It's Russian counterpart is the Confederation of Independent States and the successor to the USSR.. They function nearly in exactly the same way, except the Russians are a bit more domineering. You can twist it any which way you want, all three are organizations that are comprised of individual nations that have come together for one reason or another. Just because the US did not choose to incorporate Western Europe into its political entity does not mean that NATO is that much different from the British Commonwealth/CIS. From a political standpoint, it's the same damn thing, but instead of political domination it was cultural/economic domination. We can argue this for as long as you want. It's all semantics, as I've said before. Well, I have just reacted because the NATO team post. If some teams have played with foreign nationals(and outside the field of the team identity), I agree with you, it's not normal ans it's double standard. This is exactly the point I'm getting it. We got hit with a double standard and people were arguing over the name NATO, instead of what was really going on. The name does not mean a damn thing. I could have called the team the United States of Azzstopia and nobody would have really cared. Agree with your examples. However NATO is something for the militaries or the politics. Nation is for common people. The man in the street in norway or turkey has no special feeling with the us men. However I think the man in the street in norway may have the feeling to share something with scandinavian countries. About the Commonwealth, colonies are very old. There is a kind of link between people from the Commonwealth. At the opposite NATO is very young, and I don't think it create a link between the people. Again, this is straying from the point I was making that instead of directly attacking my water tight argument that we did not do anything any other team did not do first. Maybe I could have been a bit more judicious with the name, but tell the Russians that NATO has no sort of bond or the Turks. There are many ways to include/exclude people into a larger framework of greater culture. Well true to say, I think nobody would have said anything if USA and England made a team called North Altantic. It's only two countries which are very friend each other.... But here you got almost 30 countries... At the end, I think it's a set of element which tend to me think that NATO is too far from the concept of nation to come in the NC. The British Commonwealth encompasses 1/4th of the global population. NATO doesn't come anywhere close. I know my history, politics, and significance of both of these organizations. Again, this is semantics. The whole thing is straight up BS to me. What it comes down to is, due to public opinion we were denied the team we wanted to play with. How many TDs refused to TD if we fielded the NATO team? It's crap, and most of you know it now. Now I see posts calling for multiple teams from the US? WTF? That's exactly what we did. There were 4 members from RaY on that roster. I more than doubled the number of American RaY players, that would have been an extra team, which there are now complaints about there not being enough teams. I find the whole situation just ludicrious. Whatever the way it's just my opinion, and if admin say NATO is nation, we will play this team as nation. I have no special interest against NATO team, and especially against players from this team. I like these people, they are fair. I may disagree with you on this special point, but by reading your posts I'm pretty sure that we agree on many points. chris. They did allow us to play. Out of respect for the organizers of the event and not wanting them to have to deal with the fallout, I simply argued my case and let the whole thing go. Once we diluted our team and were put into a situation where we didn't stand a chance to win, everybody more or less shutup. Funny how that works.
|
|
|
Post by deviousdevil on Jun 4, 2007 15:30:22 GMT -5
The fundamental difference was:
1. Common heritage - Canada/UK/Australia. Take one on in a War, take the lot of us on.
2. We did not steal from any other countries. You went and put Rokkit on your roster when he was from one of our countries.
3. Without a merger I doubt Oz or Canada would have competed, you had tonnes of players in the USA.
4. Most of our "additions" aren't top players, yours was making an all-star team.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jun 4, 2007 15:53:24 GMT -5
The fundamental difference was: 1. Common heritage - Canada/UK/Australia. Take one on in a War, take the lot of us on. 2. We did not steal from any other countries. You went and put Rokkit on your roster when he was from one of our countries. 3. Without a merger I doubt Oz or Canada would have competed, you had tonnes of players in the USA. 4. Most of our "additions" aren't top players, yours was making an all-star team. 1. The common heritage argument is weak. If we strictly apply the standards set against Team NATO. Your team should in no way, shape, or form have been able to compete as powerhouse team. This is the argument leveraged against team NATO. Not a country. The Commonwealth is not a country. Nuff said. 2. I did in no way, shape, or form, poach any players. Do you see any forum postings where I asked for recruits? No, I managed to see that a good portion of the Americans in RaY did not bother to register for the event, I asked why and managed to convince them to play with some caveats. You can take it up with Rokkit as to why he did not want to play with Team UK. That's between him and you. When I formed NATO, he jumped on board. As for Poly, he also had his reasons for not playing with Team Germany. I actually ASKED him to join Team NATO. Now, here we go with the double standard again. You poached two ENTIRE teams. I had two people. Again, I don't know whether you just put Rokkit on your roster without asking or what, but whatever transpired between him and team UK, is just that, it's between yourselves. 3. Team NATO - I did boost our roster, but if you look at the roster between Team CSA and Team NATO, you'll see who our active players really were on Team NATO. It came out to just over 10 people. We were going to have a go with a small team as well. So what? So it's ok for you to "break the spirit" of the Nation's Cup for your own purposes, yet when we follow your example you get to scream bloody murder? Double standard. 4. Now we get to the real reason. Ok, I'll give you this one. I'm sorry if you can't stand the competition. Maybe, practice? This is the lamest of all excuses and the one that I will acknowledge. However, again, the French put out two teams, it's not difficult to see which one is the better of two, by a huge margin. Double standard. When you complain about the French, I'll acknowledge you have a leg to stand on. However, you did not. It's lame way to compete in a competition, cripple your rivals, but trying to not allow them to play.
|
|
|
Post by eiffel on Jun 4, 2007 16:04:35 GMT -5
Commonwealth was only allowed because they couldn't fill a single team alone... which is not the case for USA. Now, live with it, NATO will never be allowed in Nation Cup. You have enough top players in the USA to make a top players team, no need to find a poor way to get your friends in a team, you will soon have the "Non-Clan" tournament for that ;D
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jun 4, 2007 17:58:25 GMT -5
Commonwealth was only allowed because they couldn't fill a single team alone... which is not the case for USA. Now, live with it, NATO will never be allowed in Nation Cup. You have enough top players in the USA to make a top players team, no need to find a poor way to get your friends in a team, you will soon have the "Non-Clan" tournament for that ;D Minimum number needed for a team is 6. They can't fill every event, but it's enough to participate. So we can bend a few rules, because they can't get the team that they want? Is that how it works? Yet, when I FOLLOW THEIR LEAD, and do the same thing, there's an outcry. Straight up BS and a DOUBLE STANDARD. It's the same damn thing. Following what transpired in this Nation's Cup, I can go voicing concerns about the eliteness of other teams and go suggesting they merge with this team or that one. It's ridiculous. So next NCT, there should be only one French team. You'll have to go with 25 for a full roster and leave one player out in the cold. If we were to apply that to the French, how do you think they'd feel? They wouldn't feel very good about it, I'll tell you that. And it'll be alright. Next time, it'll be the CSA + Rokkit + Poly.
|
|
|
Post by cryptococcus on Jun 4, 2007 18:37:08 GMT -5
Why don't Poly and Rokkit just move to USA? Seems like easy fix to me. WTF Dey, do I have to do all the thinking? ;D
|
|
|
Post by deviousdevil on Jun 4, 2007 18:37:56 GMT -5
The fundamental difference was: 1. Common heritage - Canada/UK/Australia. Take one on in a War, take the lot of us on. 2. We did not steal from any other countries. You went and put Rokkit on your roster when he was from one of our countries. 3. Without a merger I doubt Oz or Canada would have competed, you had tonnes of players in the USA. 4. Most of our "additions" aren't top players, yours was making an all-star team. 1. The common heritage argument is weak. If we strictly apply the standards set against Team NATO. Your team should in no way, shape, or form have been able to compete as powerhouse team. This is the argument leveraged against team NATO. Not a country. The Commonwealth is not a country. Nuff said. 2. I did in no way, shape, or form, poach any players. Do you see any forum postings where I asked for recruits? No, I managed to see that a good portion of the Americans in RaY did not bother to register for the event, I asked why and managed to convince them to play with some caveats. You can take it up with Rokkit as to why he did not want to play with Team UK. That's between him and you. When I formed NATO, he jumped on board. As for Poly, he also had his reasons for not playing with Team Germany. I actually ASKED him to join Team NATO. Now, here we go with the double standard again. You poached two ENTIRE teams. I had two people. Again, I don't know whether you just put Rokkit on your roster without asking or what, but whatever transpired between him and team UK, is just that, it's between yourselves. 3. Team NATO - I did boost our roster, but if you look at the roster between Team CSA and Team NATO, you'll see who our active players really were on Team NATO. It came out to just over 10 people. We were going to have a go with a small team as well. So what? So it's ok for you to "break the spirit" of the Nation's Cup for your own purposes, yet when we follow your example you get to scream bloody murder? Double standard. 4. Now we get to the real reason. Ok, I'll give you this one. I'm sorry if you can't stand the competition. Maybe, practice? This is the lamest of all excuses and the one that I will acknowledge. However, again, the French put out two teams, it's not difficult to see which one is the better of two, by a huge margin. Double standard. When you complain about the French, I'll acknowledge you have a leg to stand on. However, you did not. It's lame way to compete in a competition, cripple your rivals, but trying to not allow them to play. Some tripe here. Worst the counter-poaching allegations, team Canada joined us without even asking for permission and we were hardly going to turn them away. Team Australia came to us after their captain was asked if he'd like to. There wasn't a "free" Australia or Canadian team trying to run independently, so what you're saying is nonsense as has become a theme. Notice also, no-one minded the Latinos, the Vikings or Commonwealth, but they recognised with NATO an attempt to totally ruin the event. As for this daft practice thing you're going on about, I won two events with the help of two partners, in fact I had a pretty good strike rate on winning events. Had I not played this cup, team Commonwealth would probably have not gone beyond 10 points, that is a fact, nor team Canada, UK or Australia had they been independent. I love how you think the Commonwealth angle is weak, given the Canada and Australia were founded by Britain. They were our colonies, that evolved to become self-Governing Dominons. Sure they aren't one country, but the precident was set by the Scandanvians and Latinos before our team emerged. Your nonsense goes further when you take the populations of the Commonwealth Nations that participated (Australia, Canada, UK and Singapore), we 'only' had 110 million people to draw from, still a 3rd of the US population and still you weren't content. Team NATO was your petulent response when America, a country with the most ladder players didn't get it together and you felt you were not going to win. In the end you took over the USA team within CSA, so no team USA in the CCC and the CSA lost to France, which you really don't like. As for the Rokkit thing, I'll quote the great man himself:
|
|