The exception from the CL 10 rules is completely irrelevant to the present scenario. Regardless of whether or not Illuminati dropped out this season, THE AWESOME OTTERYCAT cannot play for {101st} this clan league. If I understand it correctly, the exception is not really an exception, but to clarify that the limitation only affects the immediate next season and is removed if the first clan drops out.

Also, I have 0 doubt that hawks are more inclined to force THE AWESOME OTTERYCAT surrender ongoing games because they're playing each other, but they are fully within their rights to push for it. As long as they're not the ones making the ultimate decision they can come out en masse on the forums to push for whatever they want.

Edit: The reason that it was originally an exception to the rule was because it was worded differently. The original wording has no specific CL numbers, but only said that the player cannot play for Clan X for two more seasons. The intention was so that if player goes from Clan X (in CL 1) to Clan Y (in CL 2), he cannot play for Clan X in CL 3 and CL 4. However, if Clan X drops out in CL 3, then the player can play for Clan X in CL 4. This is the only exception. Whether or not Clan Y drops out does not matter at all.

The wording could have reduced confusion immensely by simply stating that the restriction was for the next two seasons, not just two seasons (thus avoiding the exception). Note that krunx's comment that it was a typo is incorrect, and the clan names were written as intended.

Edit 2: Slight correction. My proposed wording with the word "next" is incorrect, as Beren pointed out, since I neglected the possibility that Clan X drops out in CL 2. Other than that I think everything I said is still correct.

Edited 1/27/2020 00:49:01

The CL11 Rules were a direct copy of CL9 rules, I shouldn't have to say that this was a mistake, and I plan to implement the rules as they were intended, not as they were mistakenly written.

Also to note this was my fault and I understand that, I new the rule stated "Clan X" and not "Clan Y" and I should have not have allowed him to play.

I'm not sure if my mistake should cost Ottery and his clan any harsh punishment.

Edited 1/27/2020 00:27:03

As long as they're not the ones making the ultimate decision they can come out en masse on the forums to push for whatever they want.

Asking for the punishment of a rivalling clan doesn't seem like the ultimate smart move to me. The most you get out of it is that 3 seasons from now you make your own mistake and people remember.

@DrApe, that's not true. In your scenario if Clan X drops out prior to CL2, the player would then be able to play for Clan X if they came back for CL3.

they are fully within their rights to push for it. As long as they're not the ones making the ultimate decision they can come out en masse on the forums to push for whatever they want.

I'd like to invite you to read the rules and refer you to this specific one:
"The panel reserves the right to ban any player for a season for excessive spamming on the CL forum threads. Harassing the panel will result in a ban as well(You will be warned once). Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but please express it in a respectful manner."

@Beren Thanks for the correction, I've updated my post. The main point that still stands is that Illuminati dropping out is completely irrelevant.

@Farah I think so far they have presented their arguments "in a respectful manner", but yes of course spamming can and should be punished. Perhaps the phrase "en masse" should have been avoided.

Edited 1/27/2020 00:57:11

Haha, yes. I didn't see your edited post, but the 'en masse' part made me point out that specific rule.

So the rule:

"If a player played for Clan X in CL 9 and moved to clan Y in CL 10, then they can not represent Clan X in CL 11. This rule is meant to stop free movement of players and restrict the advantages gained via allied clans (For ex - FakeNamePlayer for Masters/Apex, Lynx/101st, Masters/Apprentice, GG/GGr etc). The only exception to this rule is if Clan X drops out of the Clan League."

By letter of the law Ottery/101st is in violation of this rule. By spirit of the law I don't think so. The rule provides an exception for Clan X dropping out, but it makes sense that the same reasoning should apply to Clan Y dropping out.

Unless someone can give me a good reason why this shouldn't be allowed my opinion is we should clarify the exception and carry on.

Ofc Hawks or every other clan of Division B would have a profit of a punishment for 101st. I dont think that is a reason for not bringing arguments though.

But actually I only stated out that the rule as it was at the beginning was broken. I didnt call out ottery or 101st.

As one might remember I wrote earlier in this that the rules are not clearly pointed out. That they should be made clearlier before clan league begins. And. You see what we got now.

If the rules for CL9 count now why isnt there any reference in the Rules Sheet then?

Glass, if you want to read by the letter of the law, Ottery is still not in violation. As it it says "can not represent Clan X in CL 11", and this is CL 12. Everyone knows this would not make sense for the CL 12 rules. Mistakes happen and the same applies to the clan X/Y dropping out. The intention was clear.

Gotta love Beren. Only speaks when necessary. 😉

I haven't been around for long enough to weigh in on a debate about something this fuzzy, but it seems to me that both sides are pretty evenly split down the middle, so I think it's definitely a job for the ethics panel. Don't let that stop the debate though. 😉

if Oterrycat broke a rule, he should be punished. Rules are not meant just to be broken over and over again.

Although Illuminati merged with 101st and now Illuminati doesn't play in Clan League. The question is: Does this count as a violation of the rules saying as of after the merger, Illuminati had almost no players, but now has a lot?
Agreed with LND.

I doubt there is any punishment that will not favor the clans of Division B . Aren't the punishments supposed to favor the other clans in the division?I

Edited 1/27/2020 21:52:32

no, punishments are made to punish

Substitution No. 1 for Lu Fredd https://www.warzone.com/Clans/?ID=158

Template: Strategic Greece 1v1

Out: Samwise https://www.warzone.com/Profile?p=55107551726

In: We ride! https://www.warzone.com/Profile?p=1145466253

"But actually I only stated out that the rule as it was at the beginning was broken. "

You didn't really state that it was broken but needed to be more clear, which I agree with, but really didn't touch this rule, which i missed. Plus you gave me several other rules which were issues, that to this day, i am not sure how to fix.

I talked with the ethics panel much earlier to see if the rule was there, and I was told that it was. I had a lot on my plate, and it's not surprising that some things were missed, but I apologize for it happening.

i volunteer for legislative for next season ;)

Edited 1/27/2020 17:03:55

Volunteer for scorekeeper first

its simple, ban ottery. his argument that we are asking for him to banned because it benefits our clans is simply not true. if the same thing happened in fcc, i would have vouched for him to be banned also. respect the rules or scrape CL and lets play MW's clan cup instead.

I feel that from the next season the first rule should read as a general principle that states that CL is an event where the clans are challenged to compete in a sportsmanship manner. Any other rule, especially if not 100% clear in the spirit, may be interpreted based on common sense. If any rule is found to be obsolete, it can be even deleted or modified.

@Let's fight!!, Yeah. I said that basically. Rules are not there just to be broken. If someone breaks a rule, punish them. What's the point of CL rules of people can get by with breaking them?

It is simple: he broke a rule and he should be punished. Why is there debate about this?

Edited 1/27/2020 21:55:28