Unfortunately we can't reactivate the old thread, so we'd like to link it at least, so you're able to check it out.https://www.warzone.com/Forum/323031-clan-league-ethics-committee-announcement-thread?Offset=0
The Clan League Ethics Panel are currently aware of three unresolved cases that have been brought before us to reach verdict on. This post will be summarising those cases and our verdicts.
Clan League 7
Case: 101st (Platinum)
Incident: Platinum shared his account details with ZeroBlindDragon who was confirmed to have gone on to play CL games on Platinum's behalf.
Verdict: Our process has always been to uphold the rules that were in effect at the time of any incident brought before us. Significantly, CL 7 rules are not objectively verifiable anywhere in the public record. Further to that the incident was long enough ago that forcing retrospective action also serves increasingly more so as disruption to future CL than some form of late justice. As such, there will be no action taken, and this case considered closed.
Clan League 9
Incident: There is an allegation that Hades had the remainder of his CL 9 games played by ZeroBlindDragon or perhaps some other player after Hades shared his account details. All involved in the allegation have denied CL games were played by anyone other than Hades himself, i.e. none have come forward with an admission to these allegations. Without better objective quality evidence that can in any way help to verify the allegations are true, the Panel is unable at this time to exact any punishment on those accused. The connected CL game links around the time in fact show CL games ending in Hades' boots which does the opposite and supports the narrative of Lynx players that Hades continued to play (and miss) his turns as and when he could.
Verdict: Unless new evidence is brought forward that can support the allegations with some semblance of proof, there will be no action taken, and this case considered otherwise closed.
Clan League 11
Case: FCC (Photonic-Symmetry)
Incident: Photonic Symmetry previously played CL using a different account (pw-ews) and is therefore violating the rule which requires the same account be used throughout CL. Having contacted the player, they did not deny their former identity and their narrative is that they lost access to the old account, hence creating a new one. The last seen dates on the old account back ten showed no activity which would contradict that narrative.
Verdict: The Panel has decided there was no ill intent, or intended deception, yet technically a rule was broken. At most we could consider minimal punishment, however it was deemed unnecessary for what seems very certain to be a harmless case of lost account details. Providing the lost account remains inactive, there will be no action taken, and this case considered otherwise closed.
N.B. The rule relating to this incident exists to restrict alts and to preserve the identities of individuals competing in CL. To that end, going forward the Panel proposes to leadership that CL accounts that are 'lost' can and should be reported if a player intends to play under a new account. A live register can be kept which detects activity, and can periodically be checked to confirm the 'lost' accounts have remained inactive. The Ethics Panel has a functioning example of such a register.
As always, these verdicts can be appealed to the Audit Panel.