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.

I also agree that the whole clan should be banned.

Btw, here's my suggestion: ignore these nobodies' rants and move on.

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.

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.

Rak, are you actually my alt ?

@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

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

I considered commenting on this, but rak said it all so precisely that I don't have anything to add :)

ban my children from seeing me again
Karen fucking took the kids, wtf

Edited 11/19/2018 23:32:44

The severity of some of these punishments is honestly a lose-lose for everyone. I hope the panel remembers this is just a free online Risk game that we play for fun. We're not professional players that compete in some paid league. Sure, in competitive sports, you see people suspended for several years for doping and whatnot, but this is just a hobby lmao.

With that being said, I don't think it's right or useful at all to be levying bans on players, unless they're truly just bad apples. A 2 slot suspension is already more than enough in getting the message across to our convicted criminals while having a significant effect, because at the end of the day, this is your goal right? Or is it to deter people from snitching/confessing and doing the right thing while encouraging the truly amoral to continue quietly surviving in the manner that they always have?

And what is the need to go to this extent and end up undermining the best clan on WZ and in the process, make CL Div A less fun and competitive for everyone? Does any clan serious about CL actually want to play and win Div A with such a hollow Masters?

Most importantly, do you really feel the need to tell people they can't play in this community event for one whole year even though some of them are amongst the most outstanding characters on this site and have contributed more to CL, the game, and other players than most of us ever will? Because you are essentially telling these players that they are not welcome, and I, for one, would still be more than happy to play against Deadman, Xeno, and Farah, provided they don't cheat again. Our community is small enough, so what do we gain by excluding each other even further? How many more 'one years' will CL and WZ last for? This is why I don't think bans should be used except as an ultimate last resort to block out those dirty players that we truly want to distance ourselves from, and I find it an unwise decision to be using them unless these guys are guilty of such offences once again.

Finally, it is mindboggling to me that we are penalizing players 2 years!!! down the road for things they did 1.5 years ago in a community competition in some free Risk game. I'm guessing the panel probably came up with that to serve as a more lenient middle ground versus an immediate punishment next season, but once again, the immediate punishments are already more than enough to get the message across and to have an impact as well.

To summarize, I think the severity of the panel's sentences are overkill on mostly the wrong people. They don't fix the initial problem, revelations will likely become scarcer/nonexistent, and they hurt CL and the community. I hope you guys can consider reevaluating your punishments, especially with regards to bans.

If clans have players with extra slots, I think allowing coaches would be okay per template or whatever to help mitigate the whole 'recreating scenarios' and 'discussing with non-teammates' deal. So long as a slot is used. I don't really have a comment for anything else since people have already detailed the problem with boot avoidance and stuff already.

+1 what FiveStarGeneral said, and also what rakleader said. These guys have their heads on straight.

Question:

One of the trails this panel has judged upon was in regards to a player using custom scenarios to study a match, with another person as advisor.

Is the crime in question specifically the custom scenario or the advice?

I assume the advice. A player I assume would not be punished for the act of re-creating a game and playing against an AI, for example.

http://prntscr.com/lkhhc4

I like the Panel's decision but I think Rak is onto something with how we conduct CL in the future.

Edited 11/20/2018 02:33:44

Ho hum, the drama never stops.

Thanks rak for stating clearly what most sane people feel. Can I try to summarize?

1. Boots suck, and no one wins.
2. Try to make next CL so boots are easily and legally avoided.
3. Have some fun.

Assistance is the problem. The intent of CL is to test depth and skill. If people help each other that are not in the game that is an issue.

Boots are a totally separate issue that i understand not everyone feels the same way about. I think it is pretty easy to see the helping issue though and I assume all can agree on that?