Don't Like the Ads? Upgrade your experience to remove the ads for only $20.00 per year.
Don't Like the Ads? Upgrade your experience to remove the ads for only $20.00 per year.
Sign in to follow this  

Attn UF Community

Recommended Posts

To all members of the Urgent Fury Community,

 

On behalf of the Directors and Staff, I would like to take this time to address the recent issues of clans and people leaving UF, due to a ruling in the Clan Rep Section of the current COD tournament: In Country, as well as the ruling itself.

 

The issue and it’s ruling were doomed from the start. From how the complaint was brought forward, to how it was handled, this issue was handled incorrectly. There is a process that needs to be followed and that process was ignored. When tried and trued processes are ignored, breakdown occurs and that is what happened in this case. Every aspect of this issue was bungled from start to finish.

 

As Directors and Staff, it is not only our desire, but it is our responsibility to the community to do our best to ensure that every product we put out and every issue we address is done so with the utmost due diligence. These issue, should not only be handled with our community in mind, but with our community as our priority. In this case as stated, there was a breakdown. For our role in this we do apologize.

 

In this case, we had a member from a competing clan in In Country, contact a member of staff personally, behind closed doors, with complaints that a clan participating in In Country had illegally placed members on their roster as well as they had participated in matches. This behind closed door contact is a direct violation of the process. Teams are informed that any and all complaints and tournament issues are to be discussed solely in the CR section. Both the player who wished to remain anonymous as well as their clan, are well aware that this was a violation, yet they ignored the process. This was the first breakdown.

 

The staff member, at the point of contact with the anonymous complainant, should of informed the anonymous complainant that he would not discuss this privately. If he had a complaint to have his CR post it in the CR section. That was not done. This was the second breakdown.

 

The contacted Staff member then brings this issue to the staff section for debate. Per the tried and trued process, staff is not to deliberate a tournament complaint, until there is a formal complaint. This is due to due process. The accused has the right to face their accuser. The accused has a right to defend themselves. To debate an issue, staff should have access to both a complaint and a rebuttal before reaching any conclusion. We need to see all the evidence to reach a fair ruling. The staff member bringing this to the staff section with out a complaint was the third breakdown.

 

Staff and Directors, both share responsibility in the forth breakdown as we did deliberate on one side of an issue. This was a violation of the process. There should never of been debate on this topic prior to a complaint and rebuttal. We needed both sides of the story, so again that is the fourth breakdown.

 

The fifth breakdown was a culmination of many things. The complainant was informed that this needed to be done in the CR section before we could address it. When it was posted, wildfire took over as soon as it hit and everyone chimed in they should be kicked. 3 clans were very vocal over this and it ended up being the 3 who resigned. To them there was no other side of the story. There were no mitigating circumstances. There was no need to debate this issue, as it was all black and white with no room for discussion. They felt this was a clear violation with no defendable rebuttal. They were asking for immediate action, no deliberations needed. Nothing else needed to be considered.

 

We could not do that. We had to look at all relevant evidence as well as past rulings. We had to take our time to come up with the right fair ruling. This was something that the Reps and especially the 3 clans who resigned, decided for us, that we did not need. They felt that we should answer them and answer them now. That is when we as Staff, committed another error. We caved to the pressure. We allowed the CR’s to dictate when the answer would come.

 

There are a lot of issues that can be resolved quickly. In this case due to all things that needed to be considered such as territories, pow’s, past precedents and all the clan who were beat by these players playing, made this not an easy fix. This issue would take some careful thought out deliberations on how to proceed.

 

Making a ruling in this situation will always and I mean always be seen as unfair to some. Everyone is affected by this ruling. What some may see as fair and equitable others not so as they will feel slighted. For all of these reasons, there was not an easy fix, yet here the CR’s were demanding immediate action and well as stated we caved and a ruling was made. The ruling appeared to be final and those who were not happy with it decided to revolt. That was the final breakdown.

 

Anyone who has participated here at Urgent Fury knows that a major requirement we have is that when you select your CR, we ask that you select an individual who is level headed, responsible and will represent their clan in a respectful manner. To select an individual who will do their best, to mediate any issues in an unbiased way as possible. This situation is a perfect example of why.

 

As I have shown there were many missteps along the way by many parties that contributed to what has transpired, however even when a ruling came down, that does not mean the end. I had an individual call me on Saturday night/Sunday morning at 3:46am regarding this situation. Thank you very much by the way? During our conversation I was very blunt and informed this individual that they called it quits way to soon. They informed me they felt it was over and final. I said, “how can you say that, when you did not try and mediate with Staff and the Directors over the final rulingâ€. The CR’s were more than welcomed to challenge and discuss the ruling, however that was not the route they chose. They chose to leave the tournament as a show of solidarity, rather than stand up for what they believed in, in the CR section. While that is their right to walk, I felt it would of served them better to mediate the situation as mature adults in the CR section. They had nothing to lose by doing so. Why was there such a rush? To that there was really no answer other than they felt it was a lost cause. You will never know unless you put forth the effort. In this case you have seen what has transpired with the accused. They have post up a resignation post and have sincerely apologized to the community for what has transpired.

 

Why is that important? I have read the post and seen the comments. We have heard comments come from both sides. When we talk about previous rulings, we seen an individual say you have to look at each case individually. When we do not rule exactly as previous we hear well you set a precedent. Right there you have 2 people on opposite sides on how you should view a situation. In the case of UF we look at everything. Every case is ruled individually on the evidence presented as well as how we handle previous incidents of like nature.

 

The rule that sparked this whole controversy came to be, because the community asked for it. The community was tired of seeing clans come to UF not as a clan, but just a mix match team to win tournaments. Teams of Ringers and Rent a Players. We listened to the community and the rule was born. This rule is known as the Rent A Player rule, affectionately known by quite a few as “The JYK Ruleâ€

 

Not soon after in late 2009 the rule was put to the test. A similar complaint was filed back then. When all the dust was settled and all the investigation was done, we found that the little pieces of the rule that people were picking out and wanting to be enforced, was not what the spirit of the rule was. If we were to of enforced the rule back then by that standard and the standard that was asking to be applied here, one of the teams who were very vocal of the removal of Aiel in this issue would of missed a year of playing here at UF as they would have been removed from that tourney and suspended a year. That did not happen, as one of the main themes of the rule is intent. Was their intent to defraud the community and defame the tournament? When we investigated the last time we found no intent to harm the community or tournament and it was an innocent omission or oversight. In that case we removed the players in question. Also in that case several more teams and another long standing clan in this community who has been an upstanding clan as well, could have been suspended over this rule, if we only looked at part of the rule. Their case too, was a simple oversight. They did not try defraud the tournament or the UF community. In that case when resolved as previously mentioned, there was no issue such as this one.

 

Now back to this situation. A ruling was handed down that was expedited needlessly under the pressure of the CR’s. Instead of using the CR section as intended, to mediate such rulings, they decided to walk from the tournament.

 

I will say that in this case that none of the Directors and or Staff were completely satisfied with the initial ruling and we continued to debate it in the staff section. Several proposals came up. Finally I myself proposed a ruling that everyone felt was the best possible solution to this situation.

 

Caracarn, leader of Aiel was to be approached with 2 options. I wished I could see the puzzled look on his face, as he has no idea what I am talking about, as option 2 was never presented. It didn’t have to be and for that I commend you Caracarn

 

Option 1: To resign from the tourney.

Option 2: Be removed from the tournament and suspended for a year.

 

Some may or may not agree with us giving them an option, however I will explain why it was done this way. As with the previous case and with this one, we felt the biggest issue here was intent. Community members felt that their whole intent was winning at all cost. That they had no issue with using ringers and or rent a players. That winning is what defined them and not their character. This is what we needed to know as staff. We needed to find out the intent of their actions.

 

While this case was very similar to the previous issue we had, we felt this situation was on a grander scale, more egregious and for that reason we felt the punishment should be on a grander scale. By taking option one this showed us they do hold UF in high regards. They realized the error of their ways and winning at all cost was not the reason for this adding of illegal players.

 

As stated when approached by Johnson, option 2 never was even brought up. As soon as Johnson started with the resignation option, Caracarn was all over it and remorseful with what transpired. Since this was Johnson who actually spoke with Caracarn, I will let him if he so chooses, to divulge more on this.

 

I would also like to add, that there was previous discussions with Staff and Caracarn about the possible merger with these gunners well before this incident took place. They were asking about if they would have to re-apply to UF in the event that they merge. This was more proof that that was their intention.

 

Even though that was their intention and no disrespect or dishonor was meant, it was decided that they needed to resign from the tournament.

 

So as you can see many breakdowns in the procedure occurred along the way. All parties involved share responsibility in the breakdown. As Directors and Staff we acknowledge our role and again we apologize for our errors in handling this. We are sorry that the community has had to endure this issue in the forums and we are sorry that long standing teams of our community felt the need to leave. We regret that this occurred and wished that these individuals could’ve at least had a little faith in the process to work this out.

 

We wish the best to those who chose to leave and ask that in the future, please allow staff the time to look at all angles of a situation. To have faith in the staff to come to the best possible solution. If a decision is made that you may not like, we will listen to a rebuttal.

 

The late Pearl Buck, an award-winning American writer once said, “Every great mistake has a halfway moment, a split second when it can be recalled and perhaps remedied.†Maybe in the future everyone involved in this issue can try and take notice before that split second is gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Don't Like the Ads? Upgrade your experience to remove the ads for only $20.00 per year.


Don't Like the Ads? Upgrade your experience to remove the ads for only $20.00 per year.

BANDIT I HONOR WHAT YOU JUST SAID!

 

It took awhile to read but of all honesty, i respect that. We all make mistakes, we just have to learn from them. I hope as a fellow officer that this community can bouce back from this event and put it behind them. With that being said Great words BANDIT and STAFF!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bandit I do have a question in regards to your post. How are we as Clan Reps suppose to know a topic is debatable when a Director posts "Ruling Finalized"? To me the word "finalized" means there is no room for discussion end of story. Now I know there were some mistakes made by ALL parties involved, and this could have been one of them but I'm just looking for some clarity on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading this post, I definitely learned a lot and it is much better reading about the topic after the dust has setteled. I do, however, want to comment on a couple of aspects that you pointed out. First off, the way the complaint was brought up definitely was a breakdown. I think the biggest reason people like to go "behind closed doors" is because they go to a staff member they can trust. However, it obviously started this situation off on the wrong foot, and I definitely feel the post should have originated in the CR section so the accused clan could have the ability to defend itself.

 

Secondly, where you comment on discussing the final ruling in the clan rep section is something I don't agree on. The post was made by a director stating the "Final Ruling." The situation you alluded to in 2009 was similar to this, as a "final ruling" was handed down. It was against us, so we fought to try to get our point across, but to no avail. The directors came back with something along the lines of, "The ruling is final, nothing more will be spoken of about this topic." So, I don't think you can say that the clan reps could have basically persuaded the directors to change their minds in the clan rep section. That is definitely something I see panning out differently.

 

Another thing you reference on more than one occasion is that the clan reps were demanding a decision. I was recently provided clan rep access towards the end of the tacmap because our secondary rep left our clan, and I saw nothing from any clans demanding an answer as soon as possible. I don't think you can blame clan reps for rushing a decision, because ultimately it is the staff and directors decision to make and it should not be influenced by other clans.

 

Lastly, I will defend our clan and the others that left. When you say you look over past situations, and if you read the rule black and white that a clan (us) would have been removed from UF for one year I think is a little different. In our case, we had put recruits on our clan roster, which was deemed illegal. However, other clans came forward saying they did the same thing, and even past clans I was in within UF did the same thing as well. The difference here is that the members put on this roster were still currently on an active GB roster. And the GB roster was another clan and it was a team, not a squads or doubles roster. I think that is the main difference and that is the reason why the clans left, because the rules were broken very clearly.

 

Overall though, I agree on pretty much everything else you stated in your message. I think all parties from the accused clan, to the clans that dropped out, to the staff, directors, and other community members wish this could have panned out differently. I think everyone learns from their mistake, and we all move on and continue to be a part of this wonderful community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tool, to be honest I am unable to answer that question as to your situation is unique. I wil allow the directors to answer.

 

Mike, you have never had issue an before with arguing your stance, even when a ruling said final. As I recall I have seen you fight feverishly before when a so called final ruling was made, even to the point of the ruling being changed. Nobody is infallible. There are times more evidence is brought forward or possibly an angle we have not seen. I myself have even over turned them.

 

In this case I have even said we as Staff caved into the pressure of being hurried to make a ruling. In doing so we erred. We have owned up to our part.

 

Matty, I am glad you see the reasoning behind not taking this to a trusted member behind closed doors. Next on the issue where you see final ruling as not being overturned, please see above. There have been quite a few instances where this happened and how can you say it could not happen as it did. We did change what we did, even without the reps challenging it.

 

As far as the rushing of the decision, I did say that while we were urged to do so quickly, the responsibility still fell upon us to do the right thing and we hastily made a decision. We have acknowledge our error in that.

 

Now as far as the past ruling and how you view it as different. We can debate this all you want, however the issue is exactly the same. According to just parts of the rule, you should of been removed from the tournament and suspended. We had to deal with some teams questioning then, just as happened this time, why teams were not removed and suspended. The only difference was, when we explained the intent of the rule and we found there was no intent to deceive or defraud by any parties so we just removed the players, the CR's accepted that for what it was and we moved forward without incident.

 

I hope this answers your question fellas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would usually stay out of this but I am curious. Had there not been such a large response and show of support from the clans and staff who left showing their disapproval with the ruling would it still have been readdressed and the ruling changed to meet what was initially being asked for? It just seems like had there not been such a large response then this issue would have been left alone at the "Final Ruling" stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While some may perceive that as the case, I will tell you this, I can personally attest that there was continued debate on what should be done, way prior to anyone leaving. The revision was born of continued dialog amongst staff and not due to those choosing to leave.

 

The individual who called me at 3:46am can attest, I told him they should not of left. They should of stayed and fought. There was a rhyme and reason for that.

Edited by Bandit99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to get one piece of clarification.

 

When was the info brought to staff? The reason I ask this is because if it was early in the week. That could have been the reason for the CR's to feel like a decision needed to be made. The reason is the said team had a week of wars. Now if they used these players for the week and won all their wars. Now we have more problems from that. Plus and POW's taken. So maybe the CR's had a reason for the want of a quick response.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Thanks for your response in advance.

 

Prime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

excellent post bandit. as long as ive known you here, and as much as we have disagreed in the past, i have always had the utmost respect for you and the way you approach a subject and the way you deliver information to the members of this forum.

 

i do however have one general question. since i have not participated in a recent tacmap, im not sure how the scheduling works. however, from past recollection, wars are chosen on sunday, and played out for the following 6 days. when an issue arises that requires deliberation, not only are past games, wins, and p.o.w.'s at question, but without immediate response the wars of the clan in question over the next few days also need to be considered. for future reference, have the directors and staff considered any way to postpone tacmap play for matters that require more attention or deliberation than just an "overnight" response? it would seem with a matter such as the most recent event of In Country, had the process gone correctly and the deliberation would have taken more than a day, that it would be unfair for participating clans to play with or against a clan awaiting a ruling of this magnitude.

Edited by xPUDDYTATx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prime no matter how you dissect this, there was going to be issues no matter what, however that is really beside the point as it was not handled correctly. Had they posted it in the CR section when they first got the info and we waited a week, then it would even be a bigger issue, however that is not what transpired.

 

The bottom line is we have to follow protocol. Many individuals failed in that. We all share responsibility in that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Puddy, I've been toying with the idea of play pause when issues arise for a little while now. So, yes, you will Prolly see that incorporated into future tournaments.....

 

Blasted from my HTC EVO using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I understand that this issue was brought to the table in a 'back door' style, as a user of UF I would question why a clan member would go directly to a non-tourney staff member? If I were to answer honestly I might breach a non-disclosure agreement, so I won't. However I am well within my realm and rights to ask Bandit if he could take a guess at the reasoning behind this.

 

Tapatalk + EVO = BI-WINNING

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great question Puddy....You are correct that in TacMaps when so much is at stake such as territories and POWS, there is sometime the need for a very quick response. Such as the case if a violation is reported on a Monday and Tuesday and the team in question has all their wars the rest of the week. As staff we can only do the best we can to quickly resolve the issue, because as you have said, so much is as stake.

 

As far as postponing wars and such, that to is a crap shoot. We have some who have no issue in it while others say it is unfair as they set up their roster for the nights they had scheduled and to move them would put them at a disadvantage. As you see there is no easy solution at this time, other than for staff to do their best to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. I will however give great thought on this question to see if there is a be all, beat all type of solution. Again great question Puddy and long time no see.

Edited by Bandit99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I understand that this issue was brought to the table in a 'back door' style, as a user of UF I would question why a clan member would go directly to a non-tourney staff member? If I were to answer honestly I might breach a non-disclosure agreement, so I won't. However I am well within my realm and rights to ask Bandit if he could take a guess at the reasoning behind this.

 

Tapatalk + EVO = BI-WINNING

 

Tool I am not quite sure I understand what you are asking? Could you please ask again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to throw this out there ... the directors and staff may want to consider revising the rule that states an infraction will incur a ban for one year. Maybe consider a ban UP TO one year. And then a clan's intent can be taken into consideration when determining the length of the ban. That way, UF staff will not feel forced to impose a full year's ban on a clan whom UF feels did not intentionally break the rule.

 

And while each situation should be considered independently because the facts will vary from situation to situation, it's consistency in that consideration that is important. I don't know how all the staff round table stuff works so this may be a moot point, but if you have 10 different staffers making a decision about how to handle these infractions, you are not going to get consistent rulings every time. Maybe three staffers who make these rulings. And if that is still too many, maybe it should be one staffer's responsibility.

 

Anyways, I'm just rambling off the thoughts that come into my brain as I read the above and consider what has transpired. It all sucks, really, that things happened the way they did. But I still have hope that the new UF can learn from it's mistakes as it tries to pave a new way. I don't doubt that it isn't easy at times and I do believe that the new owners and the staff have nothing but the best intentions for Urgent Fury.

 

In the meantime, maybe everyone else can learn to settle down and not let emotion overtake them, causing them to post some ignorant comments ... you know who you are. (If you think I'm talking to you, I probably am! :tongue:)

 

So good post Bandit, I think that is just what the community needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank Hippie and as far as the rule goes, it is being rebuilt from the ground up.

 

On your second point, this is something that have have thought about and briefly brought up one time, but I really feel the idea has merit and will be discussing this with the Directors.

 

Thanks again for your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....You are correct that in TacMaps when so much is at stake such as territories and POWS, there is sometime the need for a very quick response. Such as the case if a violation is reported on a Monday and Tuesday and the team in question has all their wars the rest of the week. As staff we can only do the best we can to quickly resolve the issue, because as you have said, so much is as stake.

....

 

With so much at stake, 1. Clans should be extra, extra cautious about what they do. A simple, "Hey Staffer, can these guys play? Here is the situation ..." would suffice. and 2. Maybe tacmap rules should be ALOT more stringent. No allowing other clan's players to participate, period. If you have not completed a merge BEFORE the start of the tourney, too bad. Or, give clans 75 roster spots and that can't change for the duration of a tacmap. The point is, there ARE creative ways to nip these kinds of issues in the bud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hippie another good post as these are the types of things we have been in discussions about the last few days. We have to get better. People complain so often we have so many rules, however it is due to instances such as these where new rules have to be put in affect.

 

It is a game and it should be fun, but in the same token it is a competition. While competition is great, there has to be guidelines and rules in place. If not, we see individuals and or teams just not in our community but in every aspect of competition, looking for ways to find an edge. Sometimes this edge comes in the form of hard work, but it also comes in the form of exploiting the rules and or flaws in the game. It is sad when that does occur, however it does and we must always try and do our best to get ahead of those who may try and obtain an unfair edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like where Hippi is going mainly because I was thinking the same thing, she just beat me to it. =P My thoughts on the ban length is not a length of time but maybe a number of tournaments...Also, my only concern for the future, that I don't believe was mentioned yet, was how it was brought to light to the rest of the UF community outside the CR section. Most of us, outside the CRs, had no idea there was even an issue and the first we hear about it was the ruling, without any details. Anyways, I'm not going to beat this poor dead horse anymore, just my thoughts...

 

Lastly, thanks for the post bandit. That clears a lot of things up. I look forward to seeing UF recover and thrive like it once did!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peebrain, I agree that a time frame is less as important as the amount of tournaments. This will be something that we keep in mind as we continue to rebuild the rule. Also, I think the issue wasnt brought to the public before the "ruling" as an over sight of a few things. First we had been discussing it so much and going back and fourth trying to figure out the truth of the issues and the best way to handle it for all involved that I think we didn't remember that it was only in the certain sections of the forums.

 

These suggestions that you guys are giving are great and come at no better of a time than now when we will be reworking the rule. Thank you for every ones support and patience as we try to fix what we can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  



Don't Like the Ads? Upgrade your experience to remove the ads for only $20.00 per year.