So, is this poll observed by ranking-mods who making the rules or not?

67 % of the voters (yet) are against the rule as it exists (56 votes). 60 % of the people who voted against the current rules are totally against such a rule in which way ever. 40 % who are against the rule wanna see it optimized, in which way ever. Just 33 % wanna keep this rules as it is.

So, i guess, mods have to do something....

Post based on 83 votes, 27 votes for the rules, 22 votes wanna have a fixed rules, 34 people are totally against it, 14.12.2010, 12:30 h CET.

well, the votes are based on registered forum-accounts.

this poll is saying more than ur words that u were asked for such a rule from "many" players. 

There is this poll against your word that u were ask by "many" players.

Please answer following questions:

- How you wanna avoid that this rule get abused?
- How you wanna make sure that just unbiased refs with enough technical knowledge will make such a decission
- How you wanna explain to the "many" players who have always and forever a fucking connection, that they probably will never be able to play a cw again?
- Who are the people who ask for such rule, how many are they? Please give a reasonable explanation why this rule was implemented, i don't see a regular basis for such a rule.

wrote:

well, the votes are based on registered forum-accounts.

this poll is saying more than ur words that u were asked for such a rule from "many" players.

There is this poll against your word that u were ask by "many" players.

Please answer following questions:

- How you wanna avoid that this rule get abused?
- How you wanna make sure that just unbiased refs with enough technical knowledge will make such a decission
- How you wanna explain to the "many" players who have always and forever a fucking connection, that they probably will never be able to play a cw again?
- Who are the people who ask for such rule, how many are they? Please give a reasonable explanation why this rule was implemented, i don't see a regular basis for such a rule.

The rule will be modificated as fps said.

About the ref we will discuse this in ref private forum, they I think all can make this work good.
They are learning fast all comands, all technical knowledges, etc...
About the players who have the fucking conection is their fucking problem, but in this rule doesnet sais THEY NEVER EVER WILL PLAY A CW -.-'
its sais if both sides agree they can play it...
Yesterday in cw lucky vs smurfs, ultima and zydek had 3%loss and ping from 60 up to 120....some seconds...but they didnt had it more...lucky didnt say anithing agains this and I as a ref, didnt saw any problem for this because they had a normal ping and normap packets...no loss...as u can see here was all ok from my part.
cw rnt vs cro, drina had 260 ping at the begining and himself joined spect to not play there, but we wasnt agains this...we could let it try to play and see how it goes...no problem here also.
About the peopel who ask for this such rule voted alredy for the rule and is

YES, and we already have it, and it's fine 33% (27 votes)
YES, BUT current rule edition is inacceptable 27% (22 votes)
total 60% (49 votes) said yes and they want to modificate it.

NO, we don't need it at all; it's been since ages that we played without such rule and it was always fine only 41% (34 votes) against 60% (49 votes).

Seems many didnt understood how this rule will work, it clearly easy to understand that if clan with lagly player doesent or dont give a fuck to change the player, and the oponent sais change that lager....the lager replyes with ''gtfo'' this situation I alredy had : ]
So this rule will avoid this problems, ref will decide what to do in cw with lagers also the both sides of clans....if they want to play they CAN PLAY IT...

Well if it's up to the ref, then there is no need of any sort of rule:

.

...

The problem is more, the left hand, darkangel, does not know what the right hand (black rose) is doing.

Which means, giving different facts to the same request.

Please tell me, when you 2 pull the same rope.