Some war rules.
 

I've written down some stuff to have more fair online wars. Last two wars seen on this boards ended up in dicussions and I hope to stop this with more honest rules.

If you're a clanleader, you should think about reading it.
http://www.geocities.com/stanspaz/index.html

Contacted you via ICQ ;)...

You did? I haven't got any message yet.

It's about time we have a clan war agreement for clans to follow.

U talking about:

XÐ VS ÑW
¢¢ VS ÑW

??¿¿ ( just want to know )

Yes.

I am reading it, however you cannot force any one clan to agree or obay them.

I am not going to but I hope people will agree to them so no stupid discussions will start.

its nice but some things are stupid
and that clans could decided them theirself

I don't like that shield thing...but overall it seems like a good idea.

And then get in endless discussions. However, the first clan just joined. Which is GpW. I think TF is joining to according to your first message Unhit?

XD vs. NW is the last clanwar yes, but CC vs. NW wasn't the second last one.

Some of your statements I dont agree with Newspaz:

#1
"The minimal ammount of members is 3"
The leader's responsiblity... However, if the clan has less than 3 members then 2 vs. 2 is the only option.

#2
"Every member in the clan must be well recognizable"
You're talking about popularity and how well known members are here aren't you? Well, some clans don't visit JCF or something like that much and don't play JJ2 too often but they can still have good players who they want to use in clanwars.

#3
"The ammount of players in the clan can not be any higher than 40"
Even though my clan doesn't have that much, I still think that it's the clan's and leader's business how many members they have.

#4
"The minimum player ammount is 3 vs 3"
2 vs. 2 can be fine too, imo.



I don't mind some of the other rules, I won't care if they have to be followed in clanwars either. In other words, CC only agrees partially, because I don't agree with some of the rules, especially #2.

#4
"The minimum player ammount is 3 vs 3"
2 vs. 2 can be fine too, imo.

erm.. then its a 2vs2 match not a CLAN match

Actually, I meant that they should wear a clantag :)

"Wars must be held in CTF or Team battle mode. "

Assault, Bank Robbery, JailBreak, or any other team gametype works. Change this rule to "Wars must be held in a known team-based gametype", and I will _consider_ letting you add DM to the list of agreed clans.

I agree with this, however there is an aception for me;) I always have my clantag on in 1.23 however, not always on tsf;) dont ask me why:)

I agree with everything, but I would recommend you add the extra stuff about #2 to clarify, becuase while I was reading it I got the same impression as CraccoBoy.

As far as the 2 vs. 2 thing goes, I would have trouble considering a 2-person clan a real clan. A 2 vs. 2 imho isn't a real representation as a clan as a whole, it's more like a dual like what Shadow said.

That's my 2 cents.

Something tells me you're taking this abit too serious.

SSF
 

Mods take things too seriously because they're the ones that have to clean things up :p

Believe me, I was one, just cooperate and bow down to the Mod/Admin conspiracy!!! :D :D :D

Hmmm, oh, whoops, I should stay on topic ;)
*goes to site*

Hmmm, ok, I agree to everything except the things I put up here (good ol' criticism):

1. Agree with Boss, 2v2 can be fun (even though I like 4v4)

2. Disagree with CTF ro Team Battle only, those are most popular, but any team game should do fine as long as both leaders agree.

3. Minimum can be 2. Actually, its can be quite competitive to have 2 players practice together and play CTF or whatever that way. iCeD and BOBBT did it a while ago and showed all their ownage. Yeah I know they weren't in a clan, but that doesn't mean someone else cant form a clan for the same purpose.

4. Any agreement is fine as long as the two participating clan leaders agree to the terms, I just put that bit there to sum up everything Newspaz said :p

Well, 2 vs 2 shows a really small part of the clan. The only thing you'd need is two good players. It doesn't really represent the clan. I think 3 vs 3 doesn't do that as well, but 4 vs 4 just starts a lot of lag.

Well, 2on2 was mostly what BW did (because of our grand total of 5 members! w00t!)... we owned. ;)

Wow, but 99% of everyone from the Black Wolves are inactive =P

No, 80%. SteelTalon isn't inactive, so 1/5 = 20%, 4*20=80, 80%. I'm smart :)

There are 2 points I disagree with.

No. Why? What's wrong with about 3 people who are leading the clan together? Not just one person who have all the power, but just a small *group*?

and the minimum..2 should be fine, too..

It should have been "at least one leader".. Do what you think. I think a 2 vs 2 doesn't represent a clan. It represents two people. I also think 3 isn't enough, but hey.. Small clans need a chance as well.

Blah. I don't like the idea with the allowance of shields. No one's (I think) ever used them before in a clan war. Why now?

Yes. Forgot to say. I also don't like that idea. Especially in CTF, you are killed by two shots of the shield then! That sucks...

They are a part of the game. Face it.

I agree with Newspaz, the gameplay would be a lot different.
It could be intresting see how it will change the game.

I agree with cb 2 vs 2 is okay to and sorry but your are nto the boss of jj2 i will never let anyone take over jj2. i think in a clanwar you should bleach your name i saw some didnt and always use the clantag i saw somewho didnt even do that :confused: The last 2 clanwars when the tread started where :
XD VS NW
CC VS CM
But because there where a bit trubble at:
XD VS NW
CC VS NW
I where asking u that ( newspaz)
Anywhay the last clanwars played now are:
XD VS AV
(dunno is it XD-NW ?? )or CC VS cm :S ( doesnt matter)
I think a clanwar is a clanwar when you play 2 vs 2 (real) if both clans agree.

Edit: ugh i should work on my spell :\