Warrior General Games

Originally posted by GMathiasf
How'd did the Washington Wolfpack make it out of the first round if their owner hasn't logged in since the season began and they haven't played any scrimmages?

Their opponent had contacted us saying they forfeit. Guadalcanal will get the nod for this round due to the inactivity of Washington's owner.

Originally posted by Vitamin Water
Their opponent had contacted us saying they forfeit. Guadalcanal will get the nod for this round due to the inactivity of Washington's owner.

There needs to be some sort of set guideline or length of time for this type of situation. It's not really fair to a team in the Wolfpack's position (or even Guadalcanal) not to know how long they have before a forfeit.

It shouldn't take much to tell a team as soon after you know the situation that they have X days left or something.

I'm sure kr0n or islander would put up the flex to play the tourney games but i guess that can't work with the current system of only owners able to deal with scrims

Originally posted by Mercaptopropyl
There needs to be some sort of set guideline or length of time for this type of situation. It's not really fair to a team in the Wolfpack's position (or even Guadalcanal) not to know how long they have before a forfeit.

It shouldn't take much to tell a team as soon after you know the situation that they have X days left or something.

Washington's first round opponent had forfeited, which is the reason that Washington had moved on to the second round. Washington's owner has been inactive for over 2 weeks now, which is why Guadalcanal will automatically advance.

This situation isn't too hard to resolve. The real problem is when an owner doesn't respond to pm's, but gets angry later on saying that they never received one, and things like that. I just wish teams wouldn't sign up if they can't follow the rules we have set.

Originally posted by Vitamin Water
Washington's first round opponent had forfeited, which is the reason that Washington had moved on to the second round. Washington's owner has been inactive for over 2 weeks now, which is why Guadalcanal will automatically advance.

This situation isn't too hard to resolve. The real problem is when an owner doesn't respond to pm's, but gets angry later on saying that they never received one, and things like that. I just wish teams wouldn't sign up if they can't follow the rules we have set.

Sigh,you would think there would have been a better way then all these forfeits......................

Originally posted by Lava124
Sigh,you would think there would have been a better way then all these forfeits......................

There's no other way to deal with inactice owners unfortunately. If there was another way, we'd probably use it.

Originally posted by Vitamin Water
There's no other way to deal with inactice owners unfortunately. If there was another way, we'd probably use it.

I'm not complaining about how it's been handled. But if you have a more specific rule in place like "teams have X days from start of Round to have games schedule" or "teams have X days to accept a challenge after it is sent" it would really help, and it's also very easy to do.

For example with the Wolfpack, the agents on the team were more than willing to do anything they could to make the game happen. Everyone understands they couldn't meet the rules and no one is saying their forfeit is unfair.

However, if Painmaker had logged in last night would they still have had to forfeit? Was he already a few days late? There needs to be some sort of standard here and then you won't have complaints because you won't have possible situations where one team was forced to forfeit after 3 days while another had 7 days for example.

The standard is three days from the day that the matchups are posted. If owners don't respond, then we assume they do not want to compete in the game, and call it a forfeit. If an owner goes inactive, there isn't anything we can do. I don't know if this is listed in the rules, but I think it is.

I really wish that bort would give co-owners all the abilities that the owner has. That's what a co-owner is, so I see no reason why not. It would also help in circumstances like these.