I disagree. Division's still ongoing- most clans have upwards of 60 uncontested points remaining.

If Rule 7 had been invoked, it would massively reduce the gap between Hydra and M'Hunters- from 26 points to 14, nearly halving it. Going by Points Behind, Hydra would've had a better shot at 2nd than M'Hunters would've had at first. Climbing by 14 over 62 remaining points is challenging, sure, but not as challenging or inconceivable as climbing by 26 would be.

This decision likely locked in the promotion spots for Div C.

I'm hoping "dedcution" wasn't a typo and just a cool new type of punishment. The word conjures up the right connotations.

"Oh shit, I just got caught selling rock on the streets. What's gona happen to me?"
"Man, you real screwed right now. They gon find you. And you gona be dedcuted."

---

Back on the main topic, though, a difference of 12 Points Behind (which is the Hydra situation between the status quo and the Rule 7 scenario) is huge. That's about the distance you gain in a whole tournament where your clan performs near the top and the other clan near the bottom. Basically, this ruling was worth a whole tournament of nearly-pure gains for Hydra, and would've halved the distance between Hydra and a promotion spot.

That's why I hope its many impacts are assessed seriously- not to challenge the ruling, but to understand what this means for the other 33 clans competing under the same set of rules as M'Hunters. I think this significantly changes the picture of what we can do, now that a few burdens have been conveniently shifted.

Also think that, if M'Hunters aren't gonna be penalized but still get to keep the advantage they got from cheating, then the rule needs to be suspended for the rest of Division C- or M'Hunters are on a separate playing field. Hydra, CORP, VS, BIA, and LEA (along with M'H during the rest of the season) should be allowed to do exactly what M'H just did without penalty because as of right now M'H has uniquely benefited from the rules needing to be "clarified" rather than actually enforced.

Edited 7/26/2016 04:08:02

I am wondering why so many people choose not to ask me about what happened, but instead rave and conjecture.

Knyte you operate under the basis that all of us care about WL so much we dedicate our lives to winning it at all costs, which is simply not true. So you assume that since you saw me taking turns for LTE (which is crazy that you care so much about this that you check his profile) that I was trying to cheat a rule. This is simply not true, I play for fun, period. Cheating is not fun, why would I test my skills against another player/team and cheat? I don't let my kids do it and I certainly don't, not in real life and not in WL life. So you primary basis for your hate and vitriol is simply not true.

Secondly, I never tried to hide at all that I took turns for LTE, simply because I did not know it was illegal. The rule about operating only one account in league is not vague to a player accustomed to 2v2 ladder play. To me it meant I can't have two accounts in a clan and play both in the league, either on a team together or on separate teams. I didn't even imagine it would apply to baby-sitting an account in a 3v3 team game. Which is not even close to the same thing. On retrospect I can agree the rule could imply that baby-sitting an account would be against the rule, and if I had had any questions about the rule I would have asked for clarification.

So, in the end, you based your attack on my character not on facts, but on your assumptions that:
1. I must have cheated, and meant to do it.
2. Your reading of the rules (which is clearly biased against any M'Hunter in anyway you can find) is the only valid reading of the rules.

Both of those assumptions are incorrect. So please leave your vitriol behind and stop making attacks against my character, you know you could have talked to me before spamming the threads with hate.

On a side note:
Obviously you have an incredible amount of free time on your hands and I think that you should find a more constructive outlet for your intelligence (which you have, although misguided) than instigating discord whenever possible (and spamming the forums with your repetitive posts everywhere.)

I for one, love the fact that knyte helped instigate Discord™. It's brought the community closer, in my opinion.

I like how Emu Pub assumes it is not cheating if it was unintentional

Look, giving M'Hunters a free pass here and deciding that this just can't happen for the rest of the season effectively changes the rules in the middle of the season. You change rules before the season or after it- not in the middle. It's a competitive event; there's no good reason to decide that different games in the season will be under different sets of rules.

This isn't an attack on your character- but we have to deal with the consequences of what both CL management and your clan (not just my "biased reading of the rules") concede was against the rules.

Edited 7/26/2016 05:58:14

I agree with super smoove on the point that sentencing should be reduced because the cheating was unintentional, I do however believe that the league should still give punishment which they already have done (the retirement of Emu Pub) along with a simple apology by all the individual persons involved in the incident.

Moving on though, any cheating in any future league gameplay should be immediately punished under the same penalty whether it was intentional or not (of course the punishment would be proportional to the break of a rule) along with the League adding something along these lines to there rules.

I also agree partially with knite in the regard that "You change rules before the season or after it- not in the middle" so I disagree with the idea that the League should change any rules as also proposed by knight, "then the rule needs to be suspended for the rest of Division C", for the reason that M'Hunters is being punished (as mentioned before) and that changing the rules now would be even more detrimental as well as confusing to all players in the League.

Respectfully submitted,

[RE] Lord Kira

Clan league produced a set of rules.

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/141458-clan-league-8-preparation-thread

Those rules understandably contained ambiguity. Creating crystal clear, easy to read rules is notoriously difficult and the first clarification to the rules has been made. It almost certainly won't be the last.

The precedent has been set that where the rules are ambiguous, and players act in good faith, without an attempt to deceive, after the rules are clarified, clan league will not punish retroactively. This is a positive result for the community and all taking part in clan league.

The alternative would be to set a precedent that clan league can punish teams retroactively, which is always very dangerous ground morally. Lets, for example, take rule 8)

Stalling - Highly discouraged. No official rule since stalling is in gray area. A player could be suspended if blatant stalling takes place. Stalling is not taking 2+ days per turn. It is delaying a game that is clearly lost.

That isn't very precise. If clan league had ruled it would punish retroactively then lets suppose at the end of this season they decide to clarify that rule, and in the clarification alter it to remove the gray area wording and state, if you are caught deliberately stalling, then it is cheating.

Then in situations such as https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=11517718 they would be able to implement rule 7)

Cheating - Determined by panel (if not stated here). Cheating is 1 season ban (min) and loss off all points in those games.

Thereby banning the clan for a season when they broke an ambiguously worded rule, which was clarified after they had broken the rule to carry a much more severe punishment. This would be highly unfair.

I'm glad they didn't go down that route and wisely took a fair and nuanced view in making their decision in the Mhunters case. Good work clan league, Warlight is lucky to have a such a dedicated team who are prepared to make these kind of decisions.

A player may only operate 1 account in a given clan league

So there's a bunch of ambiguity in this rule (Rule 1) and at least one reading allows players to operate multiple accounts with no penalty?

Gotcha.

Again, though, the ruling's been made and it's final. But it's also changing the rules in the middle of the season, and that's extremely unfair to Hydra, VS, CORP, LEA, and BIA- which now have to end on a season where M'Hunters got to break Rule 1 with no consequences and they didn't.

Edited 7/26/2016 07:19:16

Probably the fairest thing to do would be at least to replay the matches where M'H got an advantage with the rule breaking.

Let me help you out.

1) Alts - A player may only operate 1 account in a given clan league (regardless of division, and must declare their main if using an alt.

When you quote a rule it is important you quote the entirety or you risk losing clarity and objectivity. The rule is ambiguous for a number of reasons: -

1. No clear definition is given for the word alt. Are you an alt if you log on a friends account once?

2. The rule appears to be aimed at 1 person having sole ownership of two accounts, and not a situation where there is shared access to an account.

3. Rule 6 contradicts your interpretation of rule 1, as it states someone can take over an account for a retired player. There are circumstances and constraints around it, but providing those are met, rule 6 states that one player may operate 2 accounts - assuming you take a sufficiently broad interpretation of operating 2 accounts to include logging onto your team mates account.

6) Retirements - Someone can take over an account for a retired player if it is declared and they violate no other CL rules in the process (RR limit, 2 clans, etc). A player can also be replaced entirely in a tournament due to retirement (if you have no access to their account), but only in games not started yet.

I absolutely agree that your interpretation is valid. The rules can certainly be read in that way. In order to be impartial however you need to consider both sides.

Given the lack of clarity, and the context that babysitting accounts is common practice in other competitive team events, then it is equally reasonable that you could read the rules and not see the actions of Emu Pub/LTEmperor as doing anything wrong.

I'm glad that the clan league organisers were able to objectively look at both sides of the debate. It was a complex case which needed to be understood from multiple angles and could not be resolved by taking a black and white approach. They showed strength to make a decision that is fair, even though they would have known they would take criticism from those who aren't able to/don't want to look at things from multiple perspectives.

Next rule breaker: Chromeo plays ME 1v1 with his own account and now 3v3 with the LTEmperor account on Great Lakes. I already told the clan league management about this and they gave me green light. What are the SJW's in this thread gona do about that?

Edit: Or to be more precise: The clan league management had a problem with Emu Pub taking over an account for someone in the same tournament. There was absolutely no rule going in this direction and no, Benjamin628's private chat doesn't count. An already playing player "multi accounting" with the account of a retired player is allowed according to the rules, else the prerequisite that this player isn't allowed to extend his tournament limit doesn't make sense.

Edited 7/26/2016 09:27:40

What are the SJW's in this thread gona do about that?

Yeah, I too am wondering what extreme viewpoint your alt has on the issue.

Edited 7/26/2016 10:49:17

This whole thread: TL;DR


Next rule breaker: Chromeo plays ME 1v1 with his own account and now 3v3 with the LTEmperor account on Great Lakes. I already told the clan league management about this and they gave me green light. What are the SJW's in this thread gona do about that?

So Semice is an SJW now?