<< Back to Clans Forum   Search

Posts 1 - 20 of 298   1  2  3  ...  8  ...  14  15  Next >>   
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 16:07:02

[WG] Reza
Level 60
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 60
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 60
Report
ChangeLog: (These will be listed below)
1. Added Lu Fredd case and updated ONE CL9 case verdicts on 2019/1/15
Link: https://www.warzone.com/Forum/323031-clan-league-ethics-committee-announcement-thread?Offset=240

Effective change from previous verdict:
Malakkan reduced from '2 slot reduction followed by 1 slot reduction' to '1 slot reduction followed by 1 slot reduction'
Lu Fredd: Max given 1 slot reduction, Lucien Muller 2 slot reduction

Edited 2/9/2019 14:21:09
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 16:07:22

[WG] Reza
Level 60
Report
    UPDATE: Clan League 9

  • 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, though Malakkan has provided sufficient evidence showing he was at least equally involved in the decision to come forward. His verdict below has been similarly reduced as a result.

    Verdict:


  • Case: Lu Fredd
    Incident: Max and Lucien cooperated in recreating ongoing CL games using a custom scenario to simulate the game. By CL 9 it was widely understood this was not allowed, though the rules were still not specific. Their claim is that both players were new to CL, unfamiliar with the less specifically stated rules, and that their clan leader also failed to communicate this aspect of the cheating rule to the players. From the games we were provided with, an unwillingness to log into another's account to play turns because it is against CL rules would also seem to support the claim that there was no actual intent to gain an unfair advantage i.e. cheat, when this rule was broken.

    N.B. Max came forward with this case. Given all the particular circumstances around this case, the committee came to the decision that the base verdict that has been used thus far in other cases was not entirely necessary here, and would be lowered.

    Verdict:


Edited 2/9/2019 12:16:05
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 16:07:29

[WG] Reza
Level 60
Report
reserved
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 16:16:47


Farah♦ 
Level 61
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


Motoki 
Level 62
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 61
Report


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


89thlap 
Level 61
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 66
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 62
Report
What scum.
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 17:25:07


Mudderducker 
Level 59
Report
Injustice!

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


Farah♦ 
Level 61
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 61
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


(deleted) 
Level 62
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 61
Report
I already deleted that question when I reread that :)
Clan League Ethics Committee Announcement thread: 11/19/2018 18:06:20


Edge
Level 63
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 61
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
Posts 1 - 20 of 298   1  2  3  ...  8  ...  14  15  Next >>