The New Deal

You, duelist, have chosen to be apart of the clan wars on YCG.
Post Reply

Commissioner?

Yes, it should be Stardust.
17
65%
Yes, it should be someone else.
0
No votes
No, we should not have one and let the leaders handle it.
9
35%
 
Total votes: 26

User avatar
Zanrith
Super Special Awesome Duelist
Posts: 11043
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:37 pm

The New Deal

Post by Zanrith » Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:16 pm

VOTING ON THE BELOW LEGISLATION IS HERE.


So, as you all have been aware, the clan wars situation is very unstable right now. I intend to fix that here and now.
Let me put a few things in the books.
I'm not leaving.
I'm not mad at anyone.
I'm certainly not giving up.

As it has been fairly well expressed, some people are not in favor of a single person being in control of the clan wars. I am willing to work with that. This IS Antsy's and my project, but it has gone far beyond that now.We have had many arguments over the past few days and weeks, of which we cannot seem to settle on. I am here to propose what I would like to call "The New Deal", named after Franklin Roosevelt's new plan for the American people in order to recover from the Great Depression in the 1930's. At the time, some opposed the New Deal due to its change. My plan here offers plenty of change to get the clan wars back going again, much like the original "New Deal". You may disagree with what I have to say in the following, but believe me, it is only for the best.To begin my reforms of the system, I would like to first postpone all clan wars which are going on until we can establish the new rules. This will prevent anyone from getting confused about what rules we are playing by. This takes effect the instant I post this thread.

Next, we have our most important issue up there.
I have never really expressed my title as commissioner until yesterday, and it was in the original rules, but was removed some time ago, although I do not know why. If participants wish to have a commissioner, then I will gladly be the person to essentially "run" the wars. What I mean by "run" is to lead the council, address certain issues with the council and vote with the council on issues, and update the OP on the clan wars thread and make sure the clan leaders are updating their clan pages.
However, if the poll I will be adding suggests otherwise, then I will step down as the commissioner and be just a clan leader which simply updates the OP thread with new rules we decide on. We will have to rely on the individual clan leaders of the council to enforce the rules, and trust that all of them to update their OPs with Records, something which only Loki and I have done on our own.

We have other reforms to discuss as well.
These will probably invoke the most arguments.

What was my intention of creating the clan wars?
To have fun, not to test for YCS.
I would like to propose a ban of every deck considered "Tier 1", and "Tier 1.5"
This would help every clan out and give everyone a more fair playing ground in my opinion, something that we really need.

What do you do if someone disconnects?
We have had this issue several times.
I would like to propose a rule which states, "If your opponent disconnects from the match in duel 3, an automatic re-duel is declared without siding, both players using the same deck in a single duel. If they disconnect in match 1 or 2, it is a do-over."

What about the 3 types being changed?
So we aren't stuck with the same types...
We should be able to change our third type every 2 months, in my opinion. It makes the wars more versatile.

What about leaving clans?
Members shouldn't be locked into clans.
Members should be able to leave a clan whenever they want. HOWEVER, they cannot join a clan that their former clan is currently warring, to prevent them from losing on purpose.

What about the alliance format?
So we can have alliances.
Stardust Dragon wrote: The alliance format would take place as follows:
Alliance Format
If a clan A declares war on clan B, then clan B can call on their alliance, clan C to help them in the war, if C agrees. Clan A could then call on their alliance, clan D, to start an alliance war.
Since clan A and clan B were the original ones to declare war, clan C must use clan B's types, and Clan D must use Clan A's types.
Instead of the typical war format where participants get 2 hearts, each participant will get 3 hearts, and each alliance will get a total of 15 hearts.
Records from the alliance war in terms of the war log must still be updated on the clan page OPs.
The war ends when Alliance A/D or Alliance B/C hits 0 team hearts.
What about alliances in general?
So we don't have to fight alone.
We shouldn't have secret alliances. We should make alliances open and for everyone to see. We don't want a World War I on YCG. I have yet to come up with a system for establishing alliances, so if someone comes up with an idea of anything, then please say something.

I would also like to make this "The Thread" which people come to in order to discuss issues with the clan wars and legislation in general, so we can have the main thread be for more in general questions. This is open-forum to anyone, and I highly encourage everyone to post here.

Thank you for your time everyone, and please leave feedback on your opinions of the "New Deal".
Last edited by Zanrith on Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
insert clever signature here

User avatar
GenexKing352
Ultimate Rare Duelist
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:35 am
Location: Scheming in my Lair

Re: The New Deal

Post by GenexKing352 » Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:28 pm

Wow, I was just learning this in History today lol. I have a problem with the tier one ban. Today's meta isn't clearly established as of yet, meaning my tier 1 could differ from your tier 1. And don't get me started on tier 1.5 which is almost every deck. I support this decision but it can turn out messy.
Image

DEATH to the SIX SPAMS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Crusher Control, my own creation

http://i.imgur.com/O4dRJRp.png

Image

User avatar
Zanrith
Super Special Awesome Duelist
Posts: 11043
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:37 pm

Re: The New Deal

Post by Zanrith » Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:29 pm

GenexKing352 wrote:I have a problem with the tier one ban. Today's meta isn't clearly established as of yet, meaning my tier 1 could differ from your tier 1. And don't get me started on tier 1.5 which is almost every deck. I support this decision but it can turn out messy.
Once we get the meta established after the first YCS, then we could institute the ban.
As of Tier 1.5, there are very few decks that would even qualify. What we should be running at most is tier 2. Remember, this is supposed to be a fun tournament.
insert clever signature here

User avatar
dracostrike
Ghost Rare Duelist
Posts: 8654
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:53 am
Location: I am Fire. I am Death!

Re: The New Deal

Post by dracostrike » Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:36 pm

I vote SD should remain as a commissioner since he has a great job with it (look at the wall of text). ^^

I am for the ban of tier 1.

I think the wording for "What do you do if someone disconnects?" needs to changed since I could lose the first match and be about to lose the second when I accidentally disconnect.

I am for the third type sticking for 2 months.

I am for leaving clans without locking.

I am for the alliance format.
Image
Dnet: dracostrike *Signature created by DFB*
Zeta wrote:DRACO I FORGOT YOUR A PERSON! YO lol!

User avatar
arkain07
Parallel Rare Duelist
Posts: 3072
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 1:14 pm
Location: USA Tennessee
Contact:

Re: The New Deal

Post by arkain07 » Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:53 pm

Thing is I will pick what i feel is best and right. Feeling may get hurt. But yeah i will wait for if there is a tie and break it.
Image
Atumman105 wrote:This isn't easy for me to say, but I've been 100% completely wrong about Monarchs. Thanks to Arkain, I now properly understand both them AND the importance of hand advantage. Thanks, Arkain!

user name here is the same as DN Arkain07

Clan = Moon

User avatar
EvilGod10
Card Ruling Guru
Posts: 7608
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 10:53 pm
Location: Death Valley

Re: The New Deal

Post by EvilGod10 » Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:27 pm

I have held off voting. SD, I want go clear a few things up.
The role of the commissioner is not to lead the counsel, but commission it. That means it will be up to the commissioner to ensure ALL issues get a fair say and vote for the counsel. They also should ensure that the clans are following the rules of war.
If we can agree on this, I am happy to have a commissioner, and will even back stardust for it.
Image
Any man who must say, "I am the king" is no true king.

User avatar
Zanrith
Super Special Awesome Duelist
Posts: 11043
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:37 pm

Re: The New Deal

Post by Zanrith » Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:47 pm

I would definitely agree that the commissioner should have that role, giving the leaders all a fair say. And you are right, no single person should lead the council.
insert clever signature here

User avatar
EvilGod10
Card Ruling Guru
Posts: 7608
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 10:53 pm
Location: Death Valley

Re: The New Deal

Post by EvilGod10 » Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:56 pm

Then you have my vote.
Image
Any man who must say, "I am the king" is no true king.

User avatar
GenexKing352
Ultimate Rare Duelist
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:35 am
Location: Scheming in my Lair

Re: The New Deal

Post by GenexKing352 » Wed Jan 15, 2014 12:10 am

Those are some interesting poll results.
Image

DEATH to the SIX SPAMS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Crusher Control, my own creation

http://i.imgur.com/O4dRJRp.png

Image

User avatar
moonsaber
Ghost Rare Duelist
Posts: 6684
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:21 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The New Deal

Post by moonsaber » Wed Jan 15, 2014 12:47 am

I dont think you can ban tier 1 simply because it raises too many issues.

Who decides what is and isnt tier 1?

Even if you do ban tier 1 decks a new set of "meta" or tier 1 decks will appear as a result. Meta isnt really as well defined as a specific set of decks. So basically all that banning tier 1 decks does is cause a meta shift.

That said im all for having stardust as commisioner
D Net Username: Moonsaber
Australian Nationals 2015 Top 64 (9th in swiss)
Oceanic championship 2015 Top 8 (2nd in swiss)
YCS Sydney 2016 Top 8 (5th in swiss)

User avatar
antsy8
Secret Rare Duelist
Posts: 1784
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 6:36 am
Location: Infinity and Beyond

Re: The New Deal

Post by antsy8 » Wed Jan 15, 2014 1:26 am

Zan zan, does this mean that I still get rules and regulation privileges?
Image___________
*Signature created by Kamikon Wolf*
dedoombringer wrote:Doomster is when I "hulk" up and crush dragons.
Feel free to duel me on DN, name: antsyo

User avatar
Zanrith
Super Special Awesome Duelist
Posts: 11043
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:37 pm

Re: The New Deal

Post by Zanrith » Wed Jan 15, 2014 1:27 am

You should, as you are the other person to whom everyone owes their respect to for making the clan wars in the first place.
insert clever signature here

User avatar
EvilGod10
Card Ruling Guru
Posts: 7608
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 10:53 pm
Location: Death Valley

Re: The New Deal

Post by EvilGod10 » Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:01 am

moonsaber wrote:I dont think you can ban tier 1 simply because it raises too many issues.

Who decides what is and isnt tier 1?

Even if you do ban tier 1 decks a new set of "meta" or tier 1 decks will appear as a result. Meta isnt really as well defined as a specific set of decks. So basically all that banning tier 1 decks does is cause a meta shift.

That said im all for having stardust as commisioner
I tried calling you moon just now. Doesn't work. You are cheese. That is your name. Anyway.
You make a really good point. I am against the banning of tier 1 decks.
Everything else I am cool with.
Image
Any man who must say, "I am the king" is no true king.

User avatar
Rowwdy Yisb
Ghost Rare Duelist
Posts: 8392
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 5:12 pm
Location: London, Britain
Contact:

Re: The New Deal

Post by Rowwdy Yisb » Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:06 am

I am for everything you've said, including you staying on as commissioner.

Especially the banning of tier one decks, that's probably the rule I like the most.
ChaosDraGon00 wrote:Rowwdy's right

User avatar
moonsaber
Ghost Rare Duelist
Posts: 6684
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:21 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The New Deal

Post by moonsaber » Wed Jan 15, 2014 4:04 am

Rowwdy Yisb wrote: Especially the banning of tier one decks, that's probably the rule I like the most.

You have to consider the feasability of it though. Do you really think it is feasible? I dont think it is.

From my past experience custom banlists and limiting of tier 1 decks always ends in disaster.

Like its not a matter of whether tier 1 is fun but rather a matter of the implications and problems involved with the issue.
D Net Username: Moonsaber
Australian Nationals 2015 Top 64 (9th in swiss)
Oceanic championship 2015 Top 8 (2nd in swiss)
YCS Sydney 2016 Top 8 (5th in swiss)

Post Reply