Shouldn't that also depend on whether or not a tournament has started though?

I agree with Bonsai that that is the exact same thing, whether it's going over to 4 slots or going from 2 to 3 slots, the circumstances are basically the same, and while I agree that no harm has been done and agree with timi that this should absolutely not influence your slots, it should also not reduce your slots if you switch from 2 to a different 2; as long as the tournaments haven't started. And ofcourse it would count as substitutions, so if you decide to do 6 subs right at the start to get a more profitable line-up you take the risk of someone dropping out halfway and you being unable to switch someone in again.

imo if right now aoc would switch to british raj & cookies it should still only count as 2 slots, as he hasn't played any games in his hannibal tournament.

Was a rule broken if we follow the letter of the law? Yes.
Did MH break it on purpose? No.
Does it give them an unfair advantage over other teams? No.

So really, what's the problem? Let's all just accept that a mistake was made, but since it doesn't have any unfavourable consequences, we should proceed with the 3v3 EU tournament as it is.
I'm speaking as someone who is playing that tournament, is totally fine with AI being on the MH team, and would be really annoyed if any game had to be remade.

I think that league needs more bureaucracy to ensure fairness. That way it will be more fun for everyone! I promise

Ok, then I call BS, because it's the exact same situation and you're saying that you would charge us an extra slot, but not MH, mainly based on the premise that it is more of a pain in the ass to correct the MH issue.

AI should go back to his slots and they should figure something else out. Or you count the aoc issue as only two slots. I don't care, just be consistent.

Edited 2/13/2019 18:43:26

Interesting that the only people that are complaining are from Outlaws, and not even the Outlaws players that are in the tournament...

Ok, then I call BS, because it's the exact same situation and you're saying that you would charge us an extra slot, but not MH, mainly based on the premise that it is more of a pain in the ass to correct the MH issue.

AI should go back to his slots and they should figure something else out. Or you count the aoc issue as only two slots. I don't care, just be consistent.

It's not based on that premise. Let's see what happened: a sub was made when it shouldn't. Nobody has profited from it. After this, people (mainly outlaws) start to complain that it's against the rules. That's fine. So from now on, i'll enforce that rule. I'd recreate the tournament if you want, which is why is stated twice that if you want it recreated, just say so. So far i've not received any messages from anyone that the tournament should be recreated. Let's wait for TBest's response and please stop calling BS on a rule you want enforced.

I am terribly sorry for suggesting that rules should be enforced. It's very silly of me and I should be heavily criticized, but mainly because I'm an Outlaw, like usual.

Isn't it just ironic that the 'Outlaws' are the most adamant to stick to the law hah!

-- On a side note lets reserve judgement on what the actual decision TBest decides to do until he actually does it, alright?

edit: and maybe lets stop this tradition of going around in circles between the same people with the same arguments? Maybe?

Edited 2/13/2019 19:15:51

I will make two comments.

Firstly, this is similar to the Stats MW situation last season as he mentioned. However there is one small difference, which actually led to the decision that was made last time. In CL10 we used a clot to track all of these things (subs, slots, etc.). In order to let that count as a sub and not a slot Deadman would have had to go into the data manually and modify things, which would have been a pain (and might have upset some constraints and introduced bugs). Therefore we decided to count it as a slot. Now there is no clot, so these things are tracked manually. This means that the argument above is not relevant anymore, so the organizers should not consider that to be a binding precedent.

Secondly, as someone playing in the tournament (which has already begun) I have already put significant effort into picks in one of our games and it would be a pain to have to do this again. In addition, the tournament already exists and the games will be created regardless of whether or not it is recreated.

RIP poor farah's nice little commentary.

=/

The way I see it there is a pretty clear consensus here.
Firstly, 1 ) Rule was broken. It's clear that a slot is always counted in the rules.
2) In this case, invalidating the sub has a lot of disadvantages and extra work that are undesirable (if the tournament had not started, it would have been an easy fix in compered to now).

By far the easiest and simplest solution is to let the sub count and move on. However, giving MH a special one-time exemption is clearly unfair. Therefore, as pointed out by several commentators above, it is perhaps best to separate between slots and subs. In other words, if a player has played 0 games in a tournament prior to being subbed out, that player has not used a slot for that tournament.

Technically, the relevant part of the substitution rule for CL 11 (all divisions) will change from this :

Old Rule

In the event of a substitution, the on-going games for the retired player will not be remade. Only games which have not been created will be allotted to the substitute. Both players will use up a slot playing this tournament. A substitution can be carried out by the CL staff. We will guarantee the substitution within a maximum of 3 days. Any new games created within this 3 day period for the retired player may be forfeit as well.

To this :

New Rule

In the event of a substitution, the on-going games for the retired player will not be remade. Only games which have not been created will be allotted to the substitute. Both players will use up a slot once the tournament has more than one game created. A substitution can be carried out by the CL staff. We will guarantee the substitution within a maximum of 3 days. Any new games created within this 3 day period for the retired player may be forfeit as well.

PS. Thanks for everyone's comments. Also, I did ask both Audit and Ethics to provide their opinions here since there is an obvious connection between me and MH. With the posts that have been made, it seems clear to me that this change is the appropriate step forward.

Edited 2/13/2019 21:58:59

Thank you for the excellent solution, TBest. Hopefully we can all move on with the actual games now.

Thanks TBest!

BTW, I would never try and game match-ups by subbing people after teams are revealed. I would be shocked if another leader would either. We simply put the best we have available into tournaments at that time. I really can't see someone sending a worse player into a tournament with the intention to just sub them out. What do they gain by that?

This isn't like a NHL 'last change' scenario where you sneak your best line out against their 4th line.

New rule is better. Update in the sheet too.

@Chris...I do know that in one of our clan battles a guy from the other clan campaigned for a specific matchup. And I’m sure somebody would be willing to try it if given the option to do so. Whether or not it really gives an advantage is a debatable point

Just for clarification: when I substitute a player A with player B before the tournament begins. Do both players use up 1 slot then? I ask because player A actually never is 'playing this tournament'.

Yes, they both use slots at that point. The one exception being, if such a sub is done before lineups are made public. (An exception I have, since the time between templates and lineups is on the shorter end)

Q2 Thread first page

Are there different rules for A as for Q2 then?

Edit : Ah, I see it was mentioned above already

Edited 2/13/2019 23:08:54

^probably let other divisions know. I just accidentally saw this discussion here.

(sry for not following this conversation in depth, it's just not my division :) )

Edited 2/13/2019 23:12:24

more than one => at least one