Conflict is no stranger to controversy, and World War IX is no exception. Armies from each alliance expressed grievances throughout the war, including consistent criticisms of the CP Army Judges organisation. With nothing done to ease their minds, the Sapphire Concordat persisted in voicing disagreements with how aspects of the war were handled. With the assistance of hindsight, join us in assessing the core of these claims.
Note: This post contains the personal opinions of the authors and does not represent Club Penguin Armies’ views in any way.
Initially, the Sapphire Concordat was established by the People’s Imperial Confederation and Special Weapons and Tactics as a brother alliance. Following this, the alliance became a conglomerate that united many small/medium armies throughout the community. First seen on the battlefield in the Bloodbath Barrage against the Dark Vikings, the Concordat developed as an opposition to the Blue Sunset Alliance. The Blue Sunset, comprising of the Water Vikings, Elite Guardians, and Rebel Penguin Federation, was formed to wage war on the Army of Club Penguin. With new signatories in Templars and the Clovers, the Sapphires aimed to turn the tide of a seemingly unbalanced fight against ACP.
As leaders of an army within the Concordat, we quickly learned that victory would not come easy. Facing sizes of 50+, we knew that tactical superiority was our best opportunity for victory. The highly contentious nature of World War IX led to numerous angles of criticism from Sapphire sympathizers. These convictions include inconsistency in judge guidelines, the impact of advocacy for CPAJ reform by SC armies, and the influence of the Rebel Penguin Federation’s lasting reputation.
In the eve of World War IX, clashes between the two alliances were deemed one-sided affairs. This was due to the tactical dominance of the Blue Sunset Alliance, as well as their speed and supplementary size.
As the war continued, SC commanders took note of judging critiques in final summaries, leading to consistently closer battles. In spite of these improvements, which were noted by judges, size became the primary justification for BSA victories. This is in contrast to numerous past battles in which smaller armies managed to defeat their foe regardless of size. Such instances include the AUSIA Arena Summer Edition battle between PIC and Dark Vikings and victories claimed by the Penguins of Madagascar against SWAT. Both instances included a size gap of 8+ penguins, the latter of which featured a 10-troop size differential. This duality is in direct contradiction with rulings throughout World War IX. Had there not been precedents beforehand, these rulings would be far more justified.
With SC armies showing improvement in speed and prowess, it is fair to say that more rooms should have been ruled in their favor. However, these inconsistencies could be averted through a consistent implementation of updated judge guidelines. These have seemingly not been overhauled since the existence of Club Penguin Army Headquarters. Refreshed guidelines may provide some clarity on the impact of size within battles and assist judges through constant reinforcement. Tactical advantage has been used throughout army history as a reason for success over larger opponents, raising questions as to why this was discarded during World War IX.
Consequences of Advocacy
Armies within the Sapphire Concordat have a history of pushing for reform within the CPAJ system. Consistent criticism from armies such as ACP and SWAT has led to soured relations between the army’s leaders and head judges. These fragmented relationships gives reason for some to suspect that CPAJ may have a preference for BSA armies, who don’t have a troubled history with the organization. Others rebuke this by stating that improving attitude towards CPAJ may result in improved opinions of armies. Such a claim is hard to substantiate because it’s impossible to concretely determine whether or not it is true.
However, as the war continued, several close battles led numerous key figures within the Concordat to believe that the judges ruled unfairly. An example of this is the Battle of Mchdonalds, where the judges allowed a battle to continue when armies were facing intense discord connection issues. Only later was this addressed, with CPAJ deciding that future battles under similar circumstances will be voided.
Head judges are unpaid and overworked. World War IX is a prime example, and they deserve respect for the dedication they put into keeping the CPA community afloat. However, it is our opinion that it completely within the rights of armies to push for reform when necessary. Army leaders and community members should feel safe voicing concerns and holding judges accountable. This being said, judges are human and have feelings as well. While we aren’t able to prove this causes bias in verdicts, insulting judges or using harassing language may very well impact how they view your army. Though every army deserves to voice opinions, judges deserve respect and grace. There is definitive reason for SC armies to be concerned about rulings, but this would not be an issue had relations been more cordial.
A Predetermined Future
There is little introduction needed for the Rebel Penguin Federation, having established themselves as an ever-present monolith. Despite their recent aversion to war, the Rebels have maintained an impressive streak of success. This has rightfully contributed to their outstanding reputation as an army that has dominated the CPPS era. With that said, their glowing trail of victory has led some to suspect that it could influence future battle judgements. These onlookers purport that past RPF superiority has led to predetermined outcomes in war, as many believe that the Rebels cannot be beaten.
Comments by some CPAJ staff have reinforced this claim, referencing RPF as a “war machine” that is difficult to overcome. The concerns of Concordat leaders are, once more, assertions that are hard to substantiate. We are unable to be enveloped in the minds of the judges. Such abilities will remain impossible until Elon Musk perfects his Neurolink technology. Until then, onlookers can only infer the beliefs and intentions of judging staff through the information available. The community will continue to be polarized on this issue in the continued absence of definitive answers.
In the aftermath of World War IX, the community has been left with inflamed views and perspectives. Though much of them are based on reality, the faults of CPAJ have never been at the hands of individuals. Despite the decentralized nature of the judging organization, desire for change has been misappropriated into personal attacks against people. Though some are in a position of influence within CPAJ, they are unable to make changes to judging conduct alone. The removal of an individual will not fix any of the discussed issues. As such, voices for change should be tempered while maintaining civility. The validity of reasonable arguments may be tossed aside in the presence of overt hostility.
In the absence of definitive proof of misconduct, community opinions will continue to clash within army Discord servers. Onlookers can only evaluate these circumstances and determine their own perspectives. We believe many of the concerns the Sapphire Concordat raised are valid. We view relevant reforms as the correct avenue to address the critiques.