its a line that has to be decided since there is obviously no objektive truth about it, even so its still a problem.... and even if you cant remove all thise problems you still can try to remove the worst ones

I want Outlaws banned from CL because they get butthurt over everything. This takes fun away from the game and in consequence messes up the CL structure. It's objektive truth.

I don't need to list out any factual arguments because it's obvious that's the right thing to do.

---

Alternatively, we could ONCE AGAIN try to draw the line? Which clans to limit? The ones that call themselves training clans? Fair enough, but then they should be allowed to play together the moment they stop doing that.

If you guys are unable to operate on facts and can't suggest a rule, there will be no rule. It's pretty simple.

why is everyone so upset all of a sudden? well you could say that there cant be formal agreement.... also that they cant have a promotion system, that would be quite easy to see if you actully did promote players from one to another specifik clan, and then you could have a % for that, and prehaps a ethics council that could judge in cases of doubt

Edited 11/24/2018 18:39:26

@cowboy
If you can't see the difference you may want to get your eye sight tested... Big difference in outlaws One! Relationship than 101st Lynx

Edit; arguing and taking personal shots is pointless and childish and doesn't help further the discussion at all

Edited 11/24/2018 18:47:43

You totally missed my point, tacky.

I'm saying given the position to ruin lynx's chance, by giving up a game against ONE (example), an outlaws player would likely to so. (More likely than an apps or 101st player would.)

Edited 11/24/2018 19:09:31

@everyone I mean honestly though what would stop a Master from helping apprentice to beat rivals in CL. How could we tell? Also doesn't help when clans like Lynx moves players like Joi back and forth. Also doesn't help when clans are filled with alts from another clan. For example it looks like Discovery is really loyal to FCC....

Discovery isn't loyal. FCC managers manage it completely.

Where there are cheaters, there are whistleblowers.

big boy

Edited 11/24/2018 20:19:56

To be honest this drama was so predictable it's morbidly enjoyable.
The punishments are exactly what the crowd wanted. The "cheaters" were found, and judgments were issued. Even if it was just vocal minority talking, it's what the people wanted, otherwise this ethics panel wouldn't exist at all.

The TJC thing is funny, because the clan pretty much dissolved late in CL9 (which is when all 'cheating' happened) and most of the players punished wouldn't even play CL11.

As for 101st-Apprentice... once again, so predictable it's funny. Back when Platinum was leader of 101st, and the clan played in division B, there didn't seem to be any talk about possible "dangers" coming from training and "teacher" clan possibly both in division A. But some time after the split happened, it suddenly became the main talking point from Platinum and some of (ex-)Outlaws? It's funny how the perspective changes. (And yes, I do think there is no real reason 101st and Lynx shouldn't be allowed in the same division)

Let's be honest, none of this talk is to make this competition better. It's all just to find the "guilty", or even imaginable possible future "guilty".

And at the end of the day... well, it really is just a flash game, so xD

Drama exists solely because people love drama. Not because there is anything remotely controversial about people who like each other competing against each other in a competition which also contains people they don't like.

if you want drama there's mexican novels

"I want Outlaws banned from CL because they get butthurt over everything. "

What the absolute hell did we do to you?

If you're having an argument on the forum with one of our members, don't make this into a clan thing because it isn't. I and all the other Outlaws have done nothing to warrant being banned in clan league.

* @Krunx + Rento "I want Outlaws banned from CL because they get butthurt over everything." - What a ridiculously moronic statement followed by a paragraph of Krunx rage to being called an "attention whore", how dare you insult the whores. It's embarrassing and pathetic.

* @Tito You have to understand that it is not wrong for players to have concerns, telling players to fuck off isn't helping your case.

* @Cowboy The "they might collude" is more than enough of a valid point to justify a ruling, also the fact that it's taking a spot from another clan that has a unique identity.

* There is a distinct difference between two clans simply being friendly with each other than 101st/Lynx + Master's/Apps, one being natural and not going to be anything "deep" and one being part of the clan structures. It's a very big difference and to compare these relationships isn't correct.

*Onoma raises an interesting point, that issue never came up as there was the whole 101st/Lynx drama happened. So we never actually got to around to that issue, The split happened before the issue of 101st/Lynx being in the same division ever happened. I never stated an opinion on that matter cause I never needed to do it cause I felt confident Outlaws would get the spot but I was always against the 101st/Lynx being in same division in theory.

Edited 11/25/2018 00:02:38

@Styxie:

I think Rento was sarcastic, after some accusations about Lynx being a hivemind or something like that.

Edited 11/25/2018 00:12:51

Banning 101st from getting to A out of fear that they'll throw their games to lynx is silly. Just ban game-throwers if it becomes an issue.

Also voicing my support for the punishments made; I'd love to tell half my team what to pick every game but it doesn't measure a spread of slots that way. You'd just largely be testing the best player in each clan generally, which is pointless. It's a terrible clan mechanic to encourage (the dynamic that you can succeed more if you listen to X better/comparable player to assist with move ideas; creates pressure by some players to try to intervene vs many players fighting back against this dynamic; just wholly unhealthy in every regard) and really demeans the individual nature of the various games and turns them into games by committee.

Want it noted that I say this despite loving farah and wanting to play vs him in A :(

I despise the idea that a boot can cost a game/tournament/team etc. and I've come forward saying that if I had a teammate that was about to boot and I didn't have the vacations to stall for time to let them replace for AI, and I had their password, I'd 100% set a vacation for them. I think it would have been outrageous for punishment to be inflicted on max or zbd for the cl10 stuff and am glad nothing happened there, although I even wonder if warnings were necessary. The people that had game punishments levied against them did not just do that and fundamentally altered what is expected out of limited slots via providing additional advice/assistance in settings where it ought not be seen as appropriate and the team setting provided through cl competition.

Going forward, I don't think it's an unreasonable suggestion to have it such that players can submit their login info to the cl ethics committee or some other 3rd party through something like cryptobin prior to cl starting

https://cryptobin.co/f7y651s5

From there, they can say what the word to encode their cryptobin is to their teammates (they would not share the link if they did not wish to with their teammates; they'd just say the encoding word to teammates, and the link to the ethics committee/other reasonable third party). If a boot looks like it would be an issue, someone in the ethics committee can be given this password by a teammate and take a vacation -- should it be available -- for the player.

While I personally think the whole rigmarole of this is unnecessary and have no problems with what max/zbd did, I feel this solves just about every concern those who DO have issues with vacations during a tournament

Edited 11/25/2018 00:30:42

oh and the password to decode the crypto I pasted is weewoo

its not wrong to have concerns, its very wrong however to use concerns as a base for measures

i'm curious what the response to the anti-vacation set for teammate crowd says re: my suggestion, because I really think the only concerns are:

a. the pro-vacation crowd or the pro-security/privacy crowd might not feel it's necessary or may not want to feel pressured into sharing a password (there's no obligation to share/do this; it's merely an option should a player fear they may come into a situation where they may be booted)

b. there may be fears of who is responsible for monitoring these passwords doing something untoward (it doesn't have to be the ethics committee necessarily if there are members on it that are deemed problematic; just merely the concept is I think interesting. if the issue is in picking people, I think that's solvable. we got here through picking people, after all.)

c. there are worries about responsiveness or bias in responsiveness (not an issue if those held accountable for these links are trusted through various measures / held responsible to check something and respond over X period of time at risk of some punishment)

Edited 11/25/2018 00:36:50

It's an unfair assumption to make that people will collude because they have been structured very closely. If you think it's fair, I don't think outlaws should be in A because you would probably collude against lynx if you could.

"In my time with the clan, players in lynx offered to play for 101st. Our response was always no."

Tbh, that sounds really bad already...