Enough Is Enough: Administrative Statement Regarding The Judging Crisis

ALASKA, CP Army Hub Headquarters – The Army Hub administration has collaborated with the head judges to provide a statement on the recent judging drama that can only be described as a judging crisis. Enough is enough and the following changes are to be put into immediate effect. 

The problem here has escalated to such an extent that whilst there may be judges available to judge a battle/invasion they often refrain from doing so for fear that their decision would be reviewed, and that will be subject to harassment and bullying from community members. This poses a serious threat not just to the battles in the future, but also the very judging institution that we have enjoyed the luxury of. Judges, wherever it may be, must be respected, unless there is absolute overwhelming evidence suggesting bias of any kind. In this instance, the correct course of action is to contact an administration, not take it into your own hands. 

What one must also understand in this situation is that this is only a game. Judges take time off their lives to judge your battle. A full thirty minutes. Thirty minutes. Let that sink in. While you may have your reasons to attend the battle, the hype and all of it. Judges have little to no incentive to judge your battle, much less have a reason to adjudicate wrongly. Even in order to fully become a judge, a judge must advance through a training phase, after being selected from a pool of applications. The recent behavior of army leaders/community members and their evident hostility towards judges have been absolutely uncalled for and extremely unprofessional. 


Protection of the Judges

The administration has taken into account the concerns of Judges and their legitimate fear of judging a battle, and as a result CP Army Hub will now be moderating the clashes between judges and army leaders post battle, and will effect punishments accordingly. As you all have already seen that we take reviews seriously and effect punishments to Judges in the odd scenario that a decision is overturned. The administration will now also be effecting punishments on army leaders and troops of the army for excessive hostility towards the judges post-battle.

The following punishments will result from judge harassment, depending on the severity and regularity of the situation: 

  • Temporary muting and banning from the CP Army Hub Discord server.
  • Permanent banishment from the CP Army Hub Discord server.
  • In more severe cases Top Ten deductions for the army the offender represents.

While this might seem extreme, these measures were taken after repeated complaints from the Judges over their hesitation to judge battles for fear of a heavy backlash and extreme bullying. 


The Battle Review Guidelines

The past week has shown a sharp increase in the number of appeals over a battle verdict that has been submitted to the administration. While this may seem viable for a few select battles that desperately require review, time has shown that this review feature of adjudications has been misused to a large extent. 

As a result of the abuse of this option, the following new guideline will be put into effect immediately: 

A review will only take place if the head judges and administration are in agreement that the losing army had a significant size advantage that was not considered in the result. Reviews will not take place due to tactics, formations, or any other judging factor.

Finally: please, be kind. We’ve come this far and avoided the cliche so often heard in today’s society, but has sadly somewhat lost its meaning: real people with real emotions and feelings are behind the computer screens. We are here to have fun and enjoy ourselves. Check yourself and treat others how you would like to be treated. Let’s do better, as a community.


CP Army Hub Chief Executive Officer


CP Army Hub Executive Producer


4 Responses

  1. A very small percentage of the judges today are shown to have purposefully rigged a battle or had the intention of swaying it to another army’s favor. This percentage isn’t even one percentage, it’s maybe way smaller. The minority shouldn’t be a generalization of the rest of our judges. Anger and other rage-related emotions are bound to happen over a loss, but it shouldn’t be taken out on those who put their time into deciding the verdict. In original armies, the concept of judges existed primarily for tournaments, so armies would go back and forth over who was the real victor. If battles such as SWAT and Water Vikings happened previously, god knows what rage posts would go out over the other army’s “illegitimate” claim. Judges are both a necessity and a blessing to armies today, and to have those willing to witness the whole battle and decide a winner is honestly far more relieving than endless bickering. Judges should be proud of judging a battle and not cover in fear over the dominant personalities of today’s leaders. Speaking as a fellow judge rather than an administrator, these measures are appropriate and much needed. Whether a judge takes offense or not, the leaders and troops harshly criticizing the judge with blatant insults are reflecting their army as sore losers.


  2. well said! thanks for the much needed announcement


  3. the judges are horrible


  4. […] game but a livelihood for the people involved. This phenomenon has escalated to the point where the judges actively avoid accepting battles out of fear of being harassed, questioned, and possibly stripped of their judging […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: