CPAHQ Statement: Review of the March Madness Final Four

KLONDIKE,  CPA Headquarters- Yesterday, the March Madness Final Four battles took place and caused a stir between the armies.  As per request, both battles were reviewed for cases of major judgmental errors or negligence.


How The Review Process Works

As a result of our current short lifespan in the army universe, we had not fleshed out proper protocol for reviewing a battle, which has caused some confusion as to what a review means.  Put simply, we will review any battle that is requested within reason.  Obviously, if a battle is objectively one-sided, we won’t waste our time with it.  But if the battle was close, the battle is open for review requests.  In addition to this, the entire battle is reviewed.  The army that requested a review may only have a problem with one room result, but we go over every part of the battle to cover all of the bases.  When reviewing the battle, we use anything that is at our disposal as a record of the battle.  Ideally, we are reviewing a video of the entire battle.  If a video is not available, we will use everything else at our disposal.  This includes pictures, judge conversation logs, army accounts of the event, and neutral accounts of the event.

What Constitutes an Overturn of Results

Overturning the result of a battle is a huge deal.  It creates numerous logistical problems in terms of how to move forward with battles and judges, as well as a host of other psychological problems.  As much as our community can pine for a completely objective judging system, the components of a battle will always be subjective.  We can set out guidelines, sure, but overstepping the boundary of those guidelines can create a “meta game” within Club Penguin armies.  Armies aren’t diverse as is, so creating a judging system where each part of a battle is valued in a hierarchy scale would result in many armies battling the exact same way.  Hell, this has already started to take shape with those who listen to the battle jargon from our judges.  Point being, overturning a result establishes that there is a strategy that is better than the others.  It creates the notion that battles are won in lost in a way that they shouldn’t be.  Results can be overturned at a whim, so just request a review for every battle!  This does not create a healthy, competitive community.

To overturn the results of a battle, CPAHQ looks at things from a completely objective standpoint.  There are certain ideals in battles that are accepted across the community.  The nuances of battles that are recognized by all are what we rely on.  Then, we try to see if a logistical case can be made for both sides to win a room, or a battle.  Like any competitive community, there is going to be human input that defers from one another.  Without it, armies would be completely rudimentary.  If CPAHQ overturns a battle because one judge panel sees a side that another judge panel doesn’t, then that opens the door for other armies to seek a second opinion.  It undercuts the judges that we trust and employ, all because of a different opinion.  Now if the judges are shown/admit to making critical errors during the course of a battle, then of course that will be taken into account.  Ultimately though, it will take more than a different viewpoint to overturn a battle.  That is the responsibility CPAHQ must uphold.

Regarding our Judging System

While the results of these battles are important to us, what matters most is the state of our judging system.  The battles that took place on Saturday caused an upheaval in terms of the results, which is something that shouldn’t happen if our judging system is satisfactory.  Whatever the reader chooses to take from this statement, do not put anything on the judges of these particular battles.  CPAHQ has not offered a judging infrastructure that demonstrates success.  For that, we are sorry.  Going forward, CPAHQ will begin a complete overhaul of our judging protocols, selections, and hiring process to create a better experience for all.  Again, the problems from yesterday’s battle are not the result of incompetent judges.  They are a result of a laissez-faire judging system that we chose to run.

Rebel Penguin Federation vs Army of Club Penguin

The controversy between the Rebel Penguin Federation and the Army of Club Penguin battle mainly revolves around the first room, which was ruled as a tie.  ACP claims they should have won this room, meaning that the battle should have never gone to overtime.  ACP cited their speed and their size over RPF as to why they should have won the first room.  When discussing this battle with ACP and the judges, the judges relayed that they experienced lots of trouble with Club Penguin Rewritten in the first part of the battle.  It wasn’t till around the :03-:04 mark that the judges began to view the battle in complete real time.  However, the after effects of the lag were still apparent, with troops not being in the places they likely were to be in.  Superhero123 and Austinfraud were effected by this.  The other judge, Amber, did not lag like her fellow judges did, and had originally claimed the room was an ACP win.  The judges reviewed the video as well as pictures taken from both RPF’s website and ACP’s website.  This led them to the conclusion that they would have ruled the first room an ACP win if they had been able to actually watch the battle.  ACP should not be handed a loss that was due to a technical error.  The decision previously made was not a correct representation of the battle.

CPAHQ overturns the result that the judges concluded on Saturday, March 27th, 2021.  ACP wins the battle by a score of 2-1 (ACP, ACP, RPF).  The overtime rule is scratched from the new result, as it is no longer necessary.

Ice Warriors vs Help Force

The battle between the Ice Warriors and the Help Force involved more than just one room.  HF’s main grievance was the overtime room, citing their immense size advantage and tactical variety over IW, as well as claiming the judges’ analysis was wrong.  Issues were also brought up with the ruling of a draw in the second room, citing similar points to their overtime room argument.  Recounting the second room shows that the size difference was smaller than reported, at a 5 troop advantage for the Help Force (39-34).  One thing that will be done in the future is requiring an army to change into a different color if both armies share the same color.  Many people have had trouble distinguishing IW troops from HF troops in this battle.  It’s times like this where we miss CPATG… anyway, the Ice Warriors made up for their size deficit with their quickness in room two.  The tactic completion from IW was top notch.  Coupled with their speed, they gave HF a run for their money to win this room.  However, HF did not have a poor performance.  Their size advantage propelled them into numerous situations where the Ice Warriors were uncomfortable, but quick thinking from the IW leadership resulted in this having a minimal impact on their success.  We believe that there is a case that both armies could have won this room.  We know that size is the most important factor in a battle, so it would be wrong for HF to lose a room where they did not fall off the grid in every aspect other than size.  But, the Ice Warriors were more impressive in the other components of the battle for most of the room.  This results in a confirmation of the draw that was ruled by our judges.

The overtime room was much more controversial than the second room, with HF leaping out to a massive size advantage.  While initial claims had the size advantage around 11, recounts from both HF and CPAHQ show that the size advantage was at 8 penguins up until the :04 mark.  By the :09 mark, the difference was cut down to 4.  This shows that the door was still open for IW to win the room, but they would have to put on a brilliant showing to do it.  After reviewing a video of the overtime room, it became apparent that there was a slight error made in judging.  This error was the statement that HF did not move until 7 minutes into the overtime room.  This was not true, as HF moved forms as IW did.  However, after reviewing judge logs, this factor did not play a major part into the judges decision.  The judging logs cited their ruling of IWs win to be their more diverse tactics and better completion of said tactics than HF.  The judges also did not feel inclined to change their opinion after being shown a video.  Austinfraud said he can make a case for either a tie or an HF win in OT, but the other two judges remained set that OT was an IW win.  After reviewing the room, it showed that HF had multiple opportunities to use their size to suppress IW, but didn’t.  While IW used big word bubbles frequently, their speed allowed them to still have diverse tactics while using big word bubbles.  IWs performance was tantalizing after multiple reviews, demonstrating a masterclass in making up for a size disadvantage.  While HF had a good size advantage, it is not controversial to say that IW performed better in multiple other aspects of the battle.  It is easy to focus on one thing that the viewer disagrees with so much, that the other parts of the battle become invisible to the viewer.  Ultimately, a case can be made for all three verdicts of the battle.  It would be improper to overrule the judges ruling because of a varying opinion.  IW winning the overtime room is a testament to their tactical ability.  While many will think that HF won the overtime room, it is important to remember that it takes a whole lot to do so.  The judges did their due diligence and ended up feeling doubly-confident about their rulings, so it is not the place of an admin review to overturn the result when the argument clearly exists.

CPAHQ upholds the result that the judges concluded on Saturday, March 27th, 2021.  IW wins the battle by a score of 2-1-1 (HF, tie, IW, IW).

CPAHQ would like to apologize to the Rebel Penguin Federation for these circumstances.  This is not something armies have had to deal with before, but the HTML5 era has brought us with new challenges that we have to set precedents for.  It is truly unfortunate that these events transpired, and we will be looking for a way to do right by RPF in a situation that effected them without their intent.  We would also like to apologize to the community for this entire ordeal.  It is completely understandable to be upset with these results, but we hope it is not a deal breaker in terms of your support.  For our viewers who will continue to support us after this decision, thank you.  We know there is no way to make everyone happy in these scenarios, unfortunately.  Tough decisions are apart of our job, otherwise it wouldn’t be much of a job.  The March Madness Championship battle times will be posted tomorrow.

DMT

CP Army Headquarters Director-in-Chief

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
1 Comment
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Potassium
Potassium
1 year ago

KLONDIKE, CPA Headquarters- Yesterday, the March Madness Final Four battles took place and caused a stir between the armies. As per request, both battles were reviewed for cases of major judgmental errors or negligence.

How The Review Process Works
As a result of our current short lifespan in the army universe, we had not fleshed out proper protocol for reviewing a battle, which has caused some confusion as to what a review means. Put simply, we will review any battle that is requested within reason. Obviously, if a battle is objectively one-sided, we won’t waste our time with it. But if the battle was close, the battle is open for review requests. In addition to this, the entire battle is reviewed. The army that requested a review may only have a problem with one room result, but we go over every part of the battle to cover all of the bases. When reviewing the battle, we use anything that is at our disposal as a record of the battle. Ideally, we are reviewing a video of the entire battle. If a video is not available, we will use everything else at our disposal. This includes pictures, judge conversation logs, army accounts of the event, and neutral accounts of the event.

What Constitutes an Overturn of Results
Overturning the result of a battle is a huge deal. It creates numerous logistical problems in terms of how to move forward with battles and judges, as well as a host of other psychological problems. As much as our community can pine for a completely objective judging system, the components of a battle will always be subjective. We can set out guidelines, sure, but overstepping the boundary of those guidelines can create a “meta game” within Club Penguin armies. Armies aren’t diverse as is, so creating a judging system where each part of a battle is valued in a hierarchy scale would result in many armies battling the exact same way. Hell, this has already started to take shape with those who listen to the battle jargon from our judges. Point being, overturning a result establishes that there is a strategy that is better than the others. It creates the notion that battles are won in lost in a way that they shouldn’t be. Results can be overturned at a whim, so just request a review for every battle! This does not create a healthy, competitive community.

To overturn the results of a battle, CPAHQ looks at things from a completely objective standpoint. There are certain ideals in battles that are accepted across the community. The nuances of battles that are recognized by all are what we rely on. Then, we try to see if a logistical case can be made for both sides to win a room, or a battle. Like any competitive community, there is going to be human input that defers from one another. Without it, armies would be completely rudimentary. If CPAHQ overturns a battle because one judge panel sees a side that another judge panel doesn’t, then that opens the door for other armies to seek a second opinion. It undercuts the judges that we trust and employ, all because of a different opinion. Now if the judges are shown/admit to making critical errors during the course of a battle, then of course that will be taken into account. Ultimately though, it will take more than a different viewpoint to overturn a battle. That is the responsibility CPAHQ must uphold.

Regarding our Judging System
While the results of these battles are important to us, what matters most is the state of our judging system. The battles that took place on Saturday caused an upheaval in terms of the results, which is something that shouldn’t happen if our judging system is satisfactory. Whatever the reader chooses to take from this statement, do not put anything on the judges of these particular battles. CPAHQ has not offered a judging infrastructure that demonstrates success. For that, we are sorry. Going forward, CPAHQ will begin a complete overhaul of our judging protocols, selections, and hiring process to create a better experience for all. Again, the problems from yesterday’s battle are not the result of incompetent judges. They are a result of a laissez-faire judging system that we chose to run.

Rebel Penguin Federation vs Army of Club Penguin
The controversy between the Rebel Penguin Federation and the Army of Club Penguin battle mainly revolves around the first room, which was ruled as a tie. ACP claims they should have won this room, meaning that the battle should have never gone to overtime. ACP cited their speed and their size over RPF as to why they should have won the first room. When discussing this battle with ACP and the judges, the judges relayed that they experienced lots of trouble with Club Penguin Rewritten in the first part of the battle. It wasn’t till around the :03-:04 mark that the judges began to view the battle in complete real time. However, the after effects of the lag were still apparent, with troops not being in the places they likely were to be in. Superhero123 and Austinfraud were effected by this. The other judge, Amber, did not lag like her fellow judges did, and had originally claimed the room was an ACP win. The judges reviewed the video as well as pictures taken from both RPF’s website and ACP’s website. This led them to the conclusion that they would have ruled the first room an ACP win if they had been able to actually watch the battle. ACP should not be handed a loss that was due to a technical error. The decision previously made was not a correct representation of the battle.

CPAHQ overturns the result that the judges concluded on Saturday, March 27th, 2021. ACP wins the battle by a score of 2-1 (ACP, ACP, RPF). The overtime rule is scratched from the new result, as it is no longer necessary.

Ice Warriors vs Help Force
The battle between the Ice Warriors and the Help Force involved more than just one room. HF’s main grievance was the overtime room, citing their immense size advantage and tactical variety over IW, as well as claiming the judges’ analysis was wrong. Issues were also brought up with the ruling of a draw in the second room, citing similar points to their overtime room argument. Recounting the second room shows that the size difference was smaller than reported, at a 5 troop advantage for the Help Force (39-34). One thing that will be done in the future is requiring an army to change into a different color if both armies share the same color. Many people have had trouble distinguishing IW troops from HF troops in this battle. It’s times like this where we miss CPATG… anyway, the Ice Warriors made up for their size deficit with their quickness in room two. The tactic completion from IW was top notch. Coupled with their speed, they gave HF a run for their money to win this room. However, HF did not have a poor performance. Their size advantage propelled them into numerous situations where the Ice Warriors were uncomfortable, but quick thinking from the IW leadership resulted in this having a minimal impact on their success. We believe that there is a case that both armies could have won this room. We know that size is the most important factor in a battle, so it would be wrong for HF to lose a room where they did not fall off the grid in every aspect other than size. But, the Ice Warriors were more impressive in the other components of the battle for most of the room. This results in a confirmation of the draw that was ruled by our judges.

The overtime room was much more controversial than the second room, with HF leaping out to a massive size advantage. While initial claims had the size advantage around 11, recounts from both HF and CPAHQ show that the size advantage was at 8 penguins up until the :04 mark. By the :09 mark, the difference was cut down to 4. This shows that the door was still open for IW to win the room, but they would have to put on a brilliant showing to do it. After reviewing a video of the overtime room, it became apparent that there was a slight error made in judging. This error was the statement that HF did not move until 7 minutes into the overtime room. This was not true, as HF moved forms as IW did. However, after reviewing judge logs, this factor did not play a major part into the judges decision. The judging logs cited their ruling of IWs win to be their more diverse tactics and better completion of said tactics than HF. The judges also did not feel inclined to change their opinion after being shown a video. Austinfraud said he can make a case for either a tie or an HF win in OT, but the other two judges remained set that OT was an IW win. After reviewing the room, it showed that HF had multiple opportunities to use their size to suppress IW, but didn’t. While IW used big word bubbles frequently, their speed allowed them to still have diverse tactics while using big word bubbles. IWs performance was tantalizing after multiple reviews, demonstrating a masterclass in making up for a size disadvantage. While HF had a good size advantage, it is not controversial to say that IW performed better in multiple other aspects of the battle. It is easy to focus on one thing that the viewer disagrees with so much, that the other parts of the battle become invisible to the viewer. Ultimately, a case can be made for all three verdicts of the battle. It would be improper to overrule the judges ruling because of a varying opinion. IW winning the overtime room is a testament to their tactical ability. While many will think that HF won the overtime room, it is important to remember that it takes a whole lot to do so. The judges did their due diligence and ended up feeling doubly-confident about their rulings, so it is not the place of an admin review to overturn the result when the argument clearly exists.

CPAHQ upholds the result that the judges concluded on Saturday, March 27th, 2021. IW wins the battle by a score of 2-1-1 (HF, tie, IW, IW).

CPAHQ would like to apologize to the Rebel Penguin Federation for these circumstances. This is not something armies have had to deal with before, but the HTML5 era has brought us with new challenges that we have to set precedents for. It is truly unfortunate that these events transpired, and we will be looking for a way to do right by RPF in a situation that effected them without their intent. We would also like to apologize to the community for this entire ordeal. It is completely understandable to be upset with these results, but we hope it is not a deal breaker in terms of your support. For our viewers who will continue to support us after this decision, thank you. We know there is no way to make everyone happy in these scenarios, unfortunately. Tough decisions are apart of our job, otherwise it wouldn’t be much of a job. The March Madness Championship battle times will be posted tomorrow.

DMT

CP Army Headquarters Director-in-Chief

1
0
We would love to hear your thoughts, please leave a comment!x
()
x