We are searching for cup-admins!

By —·
Hello.

Since we have been running low on cups lately and an admin left our staff, we are searching for 2 new admins! These new admins will become cup-admins only. Which means you will only get to access our cup-server and our irc-channel. And you have to be very interested in cups because we don't want cup-admins that aren't doing cups. :) Do you feel like you would fit for the job?

Apply here!

We will announce who the new cup-admins will be next saturday, 21.00 (GMT +1)

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.

tarGet
13/08/2005 23:12:00

yaaaaay.. new CUP admins.. im so excited (or sum) !amazed

HoHo^
13/08/2005 23:16:00

Sweet

insen mapper
13/08/2005 23:49:00

yeah n1 :)

Flipsyde
14/08/2005 00:23:00

Hm, who will it be? :D I would like to be but I'm too busy for it... :/

radon mapper Tournament #3
14/08/2005 03:58:00

i wanna be :D

4knuk
14/08/2005 13:04:00

cupadmins ;) is good

mypTx
14/08/2005 16:24:00

Remember :D CupAdmin not an Admin :D

drake.
15/08/2005 17:16:00

but this doesnt mean that cup-only admins are not as important as normal admins or? :P it sounded like that ptx :)

tarGet
15/08/2005 17:30:00

1 LOVE IN XTREME JUMPS.. CUP ADMIN OR NORMAL ADMIN... WE LOVE U !amazed haha

4knuk
15/08/2005 20:00:00

right :D ^^

mypTx
15/08/2005 20:03:00

hehe :D yeah so it is

cahz0r Tournament #3
09/12/2009 15:58:00

i`ve voted yes because there is a difference in the prestrafe you are doing, i mean with cj pre is very hard to obtain 295 but with dcj you can have 299+, so there are 2 different techniques wich should be separated.

faker mapper
09/12/2009 16:04:00

I didn't vote, since I do not have enough experience to have a qualified opinion. From my perspective I would have voted no, since both CJ and DJC are another form of longjumping to overcome a longer distance and to trick the edgefriction (= same technique). Therfore you should upgrade to the better one (DCJ) if you want to be in the list. Not sure there are other (small/big) differences tho

Ggs`
09/12/2009 16:05:00

my vote "Yes" its 2 different techniques

m0ver
09/12/2009 16:10:00

Vote yes. And while you're at it, would you consider adding WJ to section since that is technique used in certain WR (kzse_marsh, wsp_airpino) and is useful to know that (for examples, mappers could pay attention to it.

NeMiQ22
09/12/2009 16:15:00

Yes but I think that 20 slots should be splited into both of them, that means: 10 best DCJs and 10 best CJs.

spr1n mapper
09/12/2009 16:18:00

imo if cj and dcj(mcj?) should be separated, then bhop with standup and w/o should be separated too. standup gives more air-time, dcj dives more time for pre. at least its logical I voted YES. tho I dont think adding new techniques is 100% good idea. but im looking forward for kz_longjumps3 with much more lj techniques. at least its what I belive good way for developing lj section.

Talent Cacalau
09/12/2009 17:01:00

Voted yes because it's logically ! if dcj is better than cj then cj is worse than dcj , so if anyone knows cj and doesn't know dcj , and he still can 265 cj block , he hasn't any chance to be in the LJ records section . But WTF! Why the heck are we talking about ljs? It would be better if nobody counts lj records so much!

Talent Cacalau
09/12/2009 17:03:00

sorry for double post , spr1n it's not like standups and normal bhops because you can do 299 pre at standups and normal bhops too. But the normal bhops shouldn't be used at blocks because even it's 245 no-standup bj distance it wouldn't do 245 block so easily as the standup does! But cj and dcj are equally at blocks . Dcj is better because better prestrafe - better distance!

kREWAN
09/12/2009 17:26:00

Elodiu is so right! :)

akse
09/12/2009 17:43:00

[b]YES ofcoz[/b]

uffo.
09/12/2009 18:11:00

YES

spr1n mapper
09/12/2009 18:32:00

[b]ELODIU[/b], if you would read more carefully you would notice I wasnt comparing prestrafes. lets me explane this another way. evry lj consists of 4 main things lets say: 1. prestrafe (doesnt matter if its bhop or cj, all moves before jumpoff is pre) 2. jumpoff (thats obvious) 3. airmoves (airstrafes or w/e you do in air, spin or look up etc...) 4. landing lets forget about jumpoff and landing, and just use pre and airmoves to compare cj with dcj and bj with standup bj. dcj gives better prestrafe oportunity over cj, because it extends prestrafe time with wich you can gain more speed - lets say average pre with cj is 290 and with dcj 299. tho there is no difference in performing airmoves - you can achieve equal speed gain etc. NOW... prestrafe for standup-bj is nearly the same - you can achieve 299 speed with both. but for bj air time is ~0.64s and for standup airtime is ~0.67s - wich gives an aportunity to fly longer. now tell how can advantage of DCJ over CJ be better (more unique... or w/e you are claming) rather than advantage of bhop with standup over nonstandup?

Fliborecord holder Tournament #2
09/12/2009 18:49:00

spr1n, I don't want to write longer, but the angle you're in compared to the block when you jump which affects your first strafe. I know that's not really a concrete effect since in theory you could move your mouse anyway you want, but practically it is a factor. This change seems pretty approriate in my opinion. The only thing that I think requires tweaking is that DCJ should be replaced with MCJ.

omilo
09/12/2009 19:06:00

Votes yes simply because I don't think it's fair to compare CJ to dcj. It's just to different when it comes to pre speeds. Thats why DCJ wr is 272 and CJ wr is 268. 4 units is a lot when it comes to LJ.

DiDo-Grecord holder
09/12/2009 19:36:00

why not

c0l3c7i0n
09/12/2009 19:44:00

Yes ofc.It will be very suitable.

zhady Tournament #2
09/12/2009 20:17:00

I voted 'Yes', for the same reasons as omilo.

SUBWAYZ
09/12/2009 20:19:00

Correct the poll please. "Do you think CJ and MCJ should be seperated in the LJ record" I voted yes, though we will see mcj like cj's in future by higher prestrafes.

nucLeaR
09/12/2009 21:26:00

You can do 299 pre with Cj too! 277.5 LJ +re + 21.5 gain = 299.0 ,right? 21.5 gain it's max if i'm not wrong. I voted hell yeah ,of course it's way a different tehnique.

SUBWAYZ
09/12/2009 21:33:00

ofc it's poss, thats what I meant with the " though" sentence.

z0dKZ
09/12/2009 21:43:00

I voted 'Yes' for the same reasons as ggs`

billz
09/12/2009 22:24:00

yes is OBV

PepoMerca
10/12/2009 00:50:00

I voted no, its the same shet

kz[a] Hazard
10/12/2009 01:52:00

yes ofc. ive said many times before that the difference in prestrafe is too large and gives dcj too much of an advantage. the only reservations i have then -> is what faker says...'techinally' it is the same technique (using doubleducks to eliminate edgefriction) - much like the standup bhop as opposed to the regular bhop lj (more air time?) maybe everyone is just trying to hold onto the regular cj (arguments being that because it is easier to get 299 pre with mcj that its not 'fair' for normal cj) the question is - is wanting to hold onto cj records reason enough to separate them? if people wanted to hold onto normal bhop lj instead of standup bhop - would they be separated too? anyway i voted yes purely because im not a mcj fan. im sure thats the general consensus.

Acelamb
10/12/2009 07:13:00

I am confident we should seperate DCJ and CJ, however, I'd wait until we have a strong top 20 for both. DCJ and CJ are quite different techniques, even though they seem the same. Obviously you get a lot more prestrafe which would flush out all of the CJ records. DCJ top should arrive in time.

Grrr
10/12/2009 11:32:00

nucLeaR, yes in theory its possible even to do over 299.9 pre with CJ, but as spr1n said it would be more obvious that bhops must be separated to +standups and nostandups, instead of splittin' CJs and MCJs

xPaw mapper
10/12/2009 12:21:00

I wont even vote, stop caring about ljs :D

kz[a] Hazard
10/12/2009 13:35:00

omg xpaw ur so cool

SUBWAYZ
10/12/2009 14:14:00

By not voting you won't have right to argue about this imo.

faker mapper
11/12/2009 03:45:00

Okay, the results are pretty much obvious I guess. Let's move on to the next poll.