<< Back to Clans Forum   Search

Posts 1 - 30 of 246   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next >>   
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 16:07:02

[WG] Reza
Level 59
Report
The ethics committee have reached decisions on past cases of rule breaking across Clan League that have not yet been dealt with. To be more transparent we will be summarising our findings with the announcement of our decisions. As a preface to both, it is important to state the overarching thoughts in dealing with these cases. The overall aim of this committee was to discipline where necessary, but with leniency where possible in order for CL to continue being fair and still a fun, competitive event for the community. For that reason it was decided to avoid bans where possible and instead apply reductions to the 3 maximum slots a player can use in a given CL season. In determining these limitations a number of factors were given consideration.

  • All cases have been held up against the rules in effect at the time, but due to vague and unspecific rulesets of past seasons, as well as rulings of former CL panels, certain cases have been judged more leniently/harshly as a result.
  • Where accounts were shared for CL, both the person sharing the account and the person playing on the account were considered to be complicit, nuances withstanding. Similarly, players who did not directly break the rules, but either knew about rules being broken and tried to either hide it or failed to report it have been judged as complicit and will face appropriate consequences.
  • The committee did not want to punish a clan as a whole when the case was not a clan wide incident and has rather dealt with guilty individuals where possible so that innocent clan members can continue to compete.
  • Those who came forward about their involvement in these past cases have been shown leniency and given reduced verdicts in recognition of their shared value for a fair and honest competition going forward. We hope this will encourage people in the future to always come forward with cases of rule breaking. Nevertheless, they could not walk away with no penalty. After much deliberation and review, our approach was to lower the severity by two increments for coming forward; a minimum 1 slot penalty still withstanding.
As updated rules are announced at beginning of future seasons, the rulings that made here will not necessarily be used as precedents for future incidents, but the same overarching thought process above can be expected. In the future, we of course hope the rules will not be broken, though we wish to make it clear any future rulings that are made by this committee are expected to have greater benefit for those who will come forward, and greater consequences for those who do not report it when they have knowledge of rules being broken.



Due to it probably not being seen by most at the time and this thread probably getting much more attention, here I would like to remind that the structure that the new administration team is following (specifically towards the rules and rule breaking sides). The structure is set up so that there is a main Leader in charge of all administration. There is an Ethics committee that was elected to deal with any rule breakings and rules. An Audit panel that is to be contacted in case thought of Ethics committee wrongdoing.

If for example you have any questions/appeals regarding any of the Ethics committee rulings it should be brought to us but in case you are appealing our thought process/integrity then it should be done via the Audit panel.
Here are the people in each role:

TBest - Leader of Clan League and Main Administrator (https://www.warzone.com/Profile?p=856960317)

Math Wolf - Audit Panel (https://www.warzone.com/Profile?p=253091943)
Ko - Audit Panel (https://www.warzone.com/Profile?p=7818276235)

Reza - Ethics Committee (https://www.warzone.com/Profile?p=398976518)
Edge - Ethics Committee (https://www.warzone.com/Profile?p=7432342455)
Red Army - Ethics Committee (https://www.warzone.com/Profile?p=7732083958)
Min34 - Ethics Committee (https://www.warzone.com/Profile?p=538068105)
Psykkoman - Ethics Committee (https://www.warzone.com/Profile?p=5056337626)


Below are all cases that the committee knew of and have deliberated. Evidence gathered and 'interviews' conducted for all cases are stored and if required can be shown. Also, the incidents are sorted by CL season due to generally falling under the same rules, and the cases are identified by clan due to some involving several players; this does NOT mean it was a clan wide incident.
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 16:07:11

[WG] Reza
Level 59
Report
    Clan League 8

  • Case: Masters
    Incident: Master Ryiro was unable to continue with CL 8 and a group was created to find a substitute and he was eventually substituted with Master Jz. In a CL 3v3 tournament on the great lakes of Masters team Jz, Farah and QB, the former two discussed details including picks and orders of several games with Deadman (Master of the Dead). Jz had previously asked Deadman whether this was allowed to which we determine Deadman to have wrongfully consented due to belief that other clans were doing it. At one point Sephiroth was pressured to either share account details or commit orders on behalf of QB; reluctant to share details it seems Sephiroth would commit the orders, though in the end QB committed orders for himself and no rule was broken. QB and master of desaster may have been privy to these conversations, however there is a lack of evidence that they saw any of it nor or participated and thus there isn’t any direct evidence they themselves broke any rules of CL 8.

    N.B. This incident occurred after a previous ruling by a former CL panel on M’Hunters which prohibited taking turns for others i.e. receiving help in CL games. The committee have taken a wider understanding that during CL 8, many clans were considered to have been discussing and helping each other in CL games which was against the rules, though not explicitly. JZ and Farah initially came forward with this case.

    Verdict:


  • Case: 101st/Outlaws
    Incident: Tackytical recreated an ongoing CL game using a custom scenario to simulate the remainder of the game and played it against ZeroBlindDragon. Though CL 8 rules were not entirely specific, this was determined by the panel as against the rules with intent to acquire an unfair advantage i.e. cheat. The chat in the game shows knowledge of ZeroBlindDragon regarding the true opponent in the game.

    N.B. Tackytical has expressed that at the time they were not aware this was against the rules. This incident occurred before the previous ruling by a former CL panel on M’Hunters which prohibited taking turns for others i.e. receiving help in CL games.

    Verdict:

    Clan League 9

  • Case: The Juggernauts Clan
    Incident: Several members of the clan participated in or had knowledge of rules being broken. Rikku (#1 Cata Cauda Fan) eventually went on to retire, but initially went on vacation and left his account credentials with members of his clan to continue playing his games. Rikku advised covert conduct in disguising profile flag changes. A coordinated effort was made through discord by dry-clean-only and Xenophon to handle Rikku's account; machine-washed bliss and Ikillu (Weaponised Autism) were brought in to help disguise the flag changes. Carlos created the chat and had knowledge of the incident as well as contributed to discussion regarding how to conceal the flag changes. Machine-washed bliss also shared his account details with Branislav which led to Branislav committing orders for Machine-washed-bliss in order to avoid being booted. Bugs Bunny (Severus Snape) received help from Xenophon on picks in CL games. Though not part of the clan roster, Weatherman is also confirmed to have had knowledge of the rule-breaking.

    N.B. CL 9 rules had been updated to be notably explicit, and it is clear from discussions all those involved knew full well that they were breaking the rules.

    Verdict:


  • Case: ONE!
    Incident: Beren and Wick had already begun playing a CL 2v2 tournament. Wick planned to retire and not having the time to continue actively playing, they explicitly broke the rules by deciding Malakkan would take over Wick's account to avoid being booted in ongoing games.

    N.B. Malakkan was later officially substituted in to play the remainder of the tournament. Beren came forward with this case.

    Verdict:


  • Case: Masters
    Incident: Timinator and Farah had already begun playing a CL 2v2 tournament. Farah was unavailable for a short while, and so Deadman (Master of the Dead) who had the account credentials committed orders to avoid Farah being booted in ongoing games. Upon Farah’s return the three of them also continued discussing CL games. To be clear, Farah and Deadman received a standard penalty similar to case CL 9 ONE!, because Deadman committed orders on Farah's account to prevent a boot. This was increased however due to the additional aspect involving Timinator and Farah discussing their CL 2v2 games with a 3rd person (Deadman).

    N.B. Deadman was the one to come forward initially.

    Verdicts:

    ~~Combined Verdict of cases CL 8 Masters and CL 9 Masters (affecting Deadman and Farah)~~

    Explanation: As we stated at the beginning of this post, those who came forward with these cases are to be shown leniency. Deadman and Farah warranted a 2 slot penalty for their misconduct in CL 8 and a ban for their misconduct in CL 9. Considering there are two incidents, their combined penalty after we recognise that they came forward results in a reduced penalty of a 1 season ban for both players.
    Clan League 10

  • Case: SNinja
    Incident: Rakleader logged into Tof’s account to activate a vacation due to Tof not being able to extend his existing vacation for their 2v2 team. Were upfront with the case and came forward.

    Verdict:


  • Case: Lynx
    Incident: 90 logged into Dom’s account to extend his vacation for their 3v3 team. Before doing so ZeroBlindDragon attempted to acquire permission, but let it proceed knowing that there was no official sanction for their actions.

    Verdict:


    The above case overviews are not exhaustive and not as in-depth (in terms of intricacies of each person’s full actions) as the committee could see but they are deemed to be a reasonable enough summary to help understand our decisions.

    N.B. These verdicts extend to all alts of the same player and come into effect immediately after CL 10 for CL 11.


Edited 11/19/2018 19:24:07
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 16:07:18

[WG] Reza
Level 59
Report
reserved for updated Clan positions in past (and present) CL's

Edited 11/19/2018 16:28:52
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 16:07:22

[WG] Reza
Level 59
Report
reserved
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 16:07:29

[WG] Reza
Level 59
Report
reserved
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 16:16:47


Farah♦ 
Level 60
Report
Let the drama commence.
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 16:50:44


Toua Tokuchi
Level 54
Report
Evidence gathered and 'interviews' conducted for all cases are stored and if required can be shown.

Can it be posted on forum? or should I write mail for that?
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 16:51:15


Master Moto - モトキ
Level 61
Report
MASTERS OUTDATED

LYNX OVERRATED

ONE! JE'BAITED

LONG HAVE WE WAITED

M'HUNTERS ACTIVATED



M'hunters winning next clan league now!!!
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 16:58:49


Onoma94 
Level 60
Report


Edited 11/19/2018 16:59:10
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 17:00:10


89thlap
Level 60
Report
N.B. Malakkan was later officially substituted in to play the remainder of the tournament. Beren came forward with this case.

It was Malakkan who made the ONE! case public. Not sure if that'll change things, but I hope that is the only "mistake".
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 17:04:32


master of desaster 
Level 65
Report
It's unfair to do bans for cl 8 now. You better make point deductions for that season. That would make this decision as meaningful as the punishment that farce ended up with. Saying you were lenient for those who came forward is plain ridiculous. I don't accept that ethics panel.
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 17:15:33


Jefferspin 
Level 61
Report
What scum.
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 17:25:07


Mudderducker 
Level 58
Report
Injustice!

Power to the people
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 17:27:14


Farah♦ 
Level 60
Report
I call upon the audit panel to ban Jeff and Rak

Edit: R.I.P. Not Jeff

Edited 11/19/2018 17:27:37
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 17:34:13


ChrisCMU 
Level 60
Report
Thanks for the well explained post. I am not going to debate any of the conclusions one way or another (I will leave that up to the parties involved).

I just wanted to say I appreciate the transparency and all of this being out here for us to see. I also appreciate the effort of the entire panel (looks like a pretty exhaustive effort).

Might be good to have a listing of the slot reductions at the end as a summary, just so we can see who is restricted where, for each season. Maybe organized by season, then by division (where the team WILL be)?

Edited 11/19/2018 17:36:21
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 17:36:52


Platinum
Level 60
Report
@ChrisCMU

If your banned for 4 slots, you are banned entirely for the next season. Than you are banned for only one the next season after.. 3 + 1 means the 4 Slot Penalty.

Edited 11/19/2018 17:37:26
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 17:48:40


ChrisCMU 
Level 60
Report
I already deleted that question when I reread that :)
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 18:06:20


Edge 
Level 62
Report
@Toua Tokuchi
Can it be posted on forum? or should I write mail for that?


We want to keep that decision to the involved players. If they appeal their punishment or ask for all the evidence, we can show it here.

@89th
It was Malakkan who made the ONE! case public. Not sure if that'll change things, but I hope that is the only "mistake".


From the evidence we have, this is incorrect. In our evidence it is shown, that Beren came forward with the case along with Deadman in their retirement statement from the 27th june 2018 in the official CL 10 discord server. malakkan made his statement 1 day later in the forums.

@mod
It's unfair to do bans for cl 8 now. You better make point deductions for that season. That would make this decision as meaningful as the punishment that farce ended up with. Saying you were lenient for those who came forward is plain ridiculous. I don't accept that ethics panel.


It was not easy for us to come to the decisions we did. First of all we had to take into account the rules for CL8 that were very fuzzy and vague (as the administration team for it changed) and originally they were set as follows: https://www.warlight.net/Forum/141458-clan-league-8-preparation-thread which asks for a minimum of a season ban for rule breakings.

But then you had rulings like : https://www.warzone.com/Forum/169294-clan-league-group-c-mhunters-gl-team-ruling

So the question was how do we as a new panel decide on an old rule-break like this? We decided that our verdict is fair based on all the nuances.

We also want to remind you, that the Masters case happened after the MH ruling, while Tacky and Zero's actions happened prior to that date, which we factored into our decision as well.

Last but not least we want to remind you, that Deadman and Farah didn't received their bans only for their actions in CL 8, but their 2nd rule breaking case in CL 9 factored into the overall punishment as well.

Hopefully that makes it more understandable the predicament we were in and how we have tried to solve it looking back and how we are looking to solve it going forward.

It is hard to manage to keep all the best players (which many sadly gained an unfair advantage) whilst keeping it fair for people who didnt do anything. It goes without saying that we arent happy to ban or punish people but we found it necessary and found our approach in the end to be balanced.
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 18:12:59


ChrisCMU 
Level 60
Report
I am not advocating for/against a particular type of punishment (slots vs points). Everyone should keep in mind that one of those punishes clans while the other punishes players. Perhaps that was factored in here?
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 18:57:51


Buns157 
Level 68
Report
Hahaha this will be a good thread.

Cheers for creating and running the clot deadman. But clearly we don't need you anymore so looks like you're banned m8
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 20:00:10


Beren • apex 
Level 63
Report
From the evidence we have, this is incorrect. In our evidence it is shown, that Beren came forward with the case along with Deadman in their retirement statement from the 27th june 2018 in the official CL 10 discord server. malakkan made his statement 1 day later in the forums.


This is false. That post in the discord server does not implicate anyone specifically. And even if you claimed that you could figure out who was meant there, it was Deadman who said that not me anyway.

In any case everyone in our clan knew this substitution was made, so feel free to punish us all for not disclosing it at the time.
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 20:04:40


Jefferspin 
Level 61
Report
I also agree that the whole clan should be banned.
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 20:05:13


Sephiroth 
Level 60
Report
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 20:25:03


Sephiroth 
Level 60
Report
Btw, here's my suggestion: ignore these nobodies' rants and move on.
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 20:57:51


rakleader
Level 63
Report
I've said this before the whole ethics panel thing happened, but I think we're focusing on the wrong issue here.
In almost all of the cases covered here, people have broken the rules to avoid boots or non-joins, not to gain an unfair advantage.
If they had been given an option where they could avoid the boot and replace their teammate without breaking the rules, I'm sure most of them would have taken it.

CL10 was a big improvement in that area, with the CLOT that allowed substitutions, but I think we could go even further in CL11. Perhaps let someone log in for his disappeared teammate to play his moves, or activate a vacation? Or allow a substitution in-game, as long as the other team is warned beforehand? The rules can be more flexible and still fair at the same time.

I play CL for fun, and in my opinion, there's nothing that sucks more than a player disappearing mid-game. You play 10 great turns on a 2v2 or a 3v3, and all it takes is someone booting (on your team or on the other team) to ruin your fun.
Rather than play a 3v2 and gain a meaningless victory, I'd like it better if the other team had an option that allowed them to keep playing and give me a real fight.

The fact is, Clan League is played over a really long period of time, and we all know some players will disappear at times during that period. The current rules are quite strict, and only allow for three options:
1) Let them boot and ruin the fun for everyone involved. (Like all those Bonsai boots during CL10, I don't think it made anyone happy, teammates and opponents alike.)
2) Break the rules, replace them, confess and get punished.
3) Break the rules, replace them, say nothing and get away with it.
I'll be honest: if one of my teammates boots during CL11, as it stands I'm pretty sure I'll choose 3). But if I'm given a fourth option where that teammate can be replaced without breaking the rules, I'll gladly choose it.

So I don't know who is making the rules now, the administrator or the ethics panel? But I hope that before CL11, they can make the rules more flexible, so we can all avoid boots without resorting to cheating.
I find it sad that the only people punished here are the people who came forward and/or were stupid enough to get caught, while the ones who kept quiet got away with it. And by that, I'm not saying I want everyone punished... I'm saying let's make rules that keep the fun and give people no incentive to break them.
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 21:08:03


ChrisCMU 
Level 60
Report
CL9 allowed subs. It wasn't automated, but was allowed. In fact the announcement thread says a player MUST be subbed if they leave the clan mid season (I don't recall if that happened or changed). I don't remember having subs in 8 (we didn't state it as a rule, and I don't remember doing it).

People also did makeup games prior, though they were on the honor system and there were issues with that not being consistent. For that reason we outlawed it in CL8.

I agree scenario 1 is the worst (just have boots happen and ruin games).

However, there was a mechanism for replacing people in CL9, it just wasn't as good as CL10. I am not saying that should/should not absolve any or some actions of people above. But they probably had the option to take the boot, stall a turn while arranging a sub, and just live with the AI for a turn. Most games the AI for a turn won't swing the outcome of a game I hope.
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 21:08:27


malakkan 
Level 63
Report
Rak, are you actually my alt ?
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 21:15:25


ChrisCMU 
Level 60
Report
@Rak-

The panel could have decided to agree with you and throw out subbing/extending vacations and such (which is a plausible conclusion any person could come to).

These are the cases:
Case 1 - issue was helping each other, not just subbing
Case 2 - makeup games were outlawed
Case 3 - complete shared turns
Case 4 - straight subbing
Case 5 - 3rd party discussion in addition to just avoiding boots.
Case 6 - only boot avoidance
Case 7 - only boot avoidance

In your world, that means that only Case 4,6,7 would not be punished (people would get warnings perhaps), No competitive advantage was gained. The other cases would still be punishable as there were clear rule violations (knowledge share, makeup games).

It is reasonable to want no punishment on 3 of the cases (two of which were not punished at all BTW). But it is also reasonable to see why the panel punished the other cases. So really you only disagree on case 4, where someone subbed without prior permissions.

Edited 11/19/2018 21:18:06
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 22:42:39


Ekstone 
Level 55
Report
Huh, how many rule violations! :O
Well, perhaps it means that the problem is with the rules themselves, no? ;)

For example, I fully agree with rakleader, the boots kill the fun a lot, so rules which not maximally let avoid the boots maybe not enough good rules.

Btw, the good rules are what no one wants to break.
And the best rules are what no one able to break ;)

I mean, the current CL rules can easily be broken and the risk of falling is not high either. And even the punishment (slot reductions), if one falls, is not so high to deter people (imo). And the other issue: when I don't want to break the rule but any of my opponents can easy break them without any risk, so why I do not do that (also) then? (because if I do not, then they will have an advantage over me) etc. etc. etc.

So again, the best rules are what no one able to break.

Ok, to create these rules in an online game almost impossible, I know :P

But here are an idea for an alternative Clan League:
There would be 6 1vs1, 3 2vs2 and 2 3vs3 tournaments as earlier.
But instead of filling slots by clan members, every clan should create (and leveled up) six shared clan accounts which joined to those 6+3+2 tournaments. And after that every clan can organize how they will play on those accounts. So boots are prevented (boots = bad organizational skills which an important skill for the clans), and no one can break these rules ;)

This is just a quick idea but seems provide solutions ;)
And would be fun if the private chats would be shared in the end :D

Edited 11/19/2018 22:44:30
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 23:08:05


alexclusive 
Level 62
Report
I considered commenting on this, but rak said it all so precisely that I don't have anything to add :)
Posts 1 - 30 of 246   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next >>