In the past weeks discussions have been started about the following case. Therefore we felt the need to make another announcement.

UPDATE: Clan League 13


• Case: Masters claiming slot of Apprentice in CL13
  
  Rules: If a clan X retains active players who accounted for one third of their slots (6/18) and one third of their scored points then it is guaranteed to retain its spot.
  If clan X splits and X does not retain both one third of their slots and of their points, another new clan Y can claim the spot if they have active players accounting for one third of that clan's slots and points. If X didn't meet the requirements, while two different clans Y and Z do and both claim the spot then the spot is awarded to neither clan and both must start from the bottom.
  
  Decision process: Currently all of Apprentice players in CL 12, who were included in the lineup have made a switch to Masters. Therefore the necessary criterias are fulfilled. We discussed the rules specifically. We see a potential room for a different interpretation of the words "another new clan Y", meaning that it's not clear what "new" actually means. We think that new doesn't mean an actual new clan created on Warzone and therefore never was part of the competition, but rather come to the conclusion, that "new" can only mean clans, that haven't been part of the latest CL season. In this moment we think it's the right decision to give Masters the slot of Apprentice, as the Apprentice players who have earned the slot shall be given the chance to keep playing in that slot.
  
  Verdict: As long as the Masters fits the criterias mentioned in the rule and as long as Apprentice doesn't fit the criteria to retain the slot, the slot switches from Apprentice to Masters in CL 13.

We also thought about the following proposal and therefore want to present it to you. This isn't the place to vote on the proposal, but rather a place to gather opinions. On this basis, a voting might be happening. If it happens Cowboy will inform clan representatives in a seperate mail. This rule change won't be made without a voting.

UPDATE: Voting proposal


• Shall a clan be allowed to field multiple lineups / A try to solve potential brother/sister clan issues
  
  Explanation: The last couple of seasons have shown recurring disagreements about brother/sister clans in Clan League and potential problems/advantages of them towards independant clans.
  For examples there were disagreements regarding the voting process of the templates. Shall brother/sister clans be allowed to both vote on the templates?
  Then there were disagreements of brother/sister clans playing in the same division, which resulted in a more heated debates.
  And as the Masters/Apprentice case of claiming a slot of a potential brother/sister clan has shown there were disagreements and debates again, if it should be allowed for brother/sister clans to claim the slot of each other? Among others it can also prevent a start from the bottom, which independant clans have to do in contrast to brother/sister clans. Therefore it can also be a potential point of discussion if the clan that originally owns the slot, starts from the bottom again in the next season, so it would not only be a fusion of these clans, which seems to be the case in the the Masters/Apprentice case, but rather a simple switch. Could the rule of claiming slots be "misused" to the advantage of brother/sister clans? Can the rule be restricted? Shall the rule be restricted?
  
  Decision process: We're aware of these (potential) problems, but we're not able find a suitable definition of what brother/sister clans are and therefore can't forbid them to participate in Clan league. We can't determine where we should draw the line. Are Lynx and 101st brother/sister clans? Are Masters and Apprentice brother/sister clans? Most would assume yes. But the point of discussion was always, what about other clans that have had certain connections and maybe regularely play tournaments together. Where can we draw a line to safely assume that clans are brother/sister clans? We couldn't come up with a rule change to forbid them to participate, as we can't find a suitable definition.
  
  We asked ourselves what else we could do. We had a long thought process in which we came up with a potential rule change. Before we explain that rule change and the potential advantages/disadvantages we potentially see to occur, we want to make known, that we didn't come to an agreement to the following solution. Therefore we decided to ask the clan leaders via a voting about their opinion.
  
  If we're not able to forbid brother/sister clans to participate in clan league, we thought, if we can solve the issues for the future by allowing all clans to field multiple teams in CL.
  
  So shall it be allowed for clans to field multiple teams?
  
  Pros:
  - it hopefully resolves future problems of brother/sister clans by giving every clan a shot at fielding multiple teams
  - if needed and if it's the communities spirit we're potentially able to put in explicit rules to restrict potential issues regarding multiple teams of the same clan and brother/sister clans
  - it's a try, there is no harm to go back to the current system, if it shows drastic impact on the variety of clans (see cons)
  
  Cons:
  - potential negative effects towards smalle clans, f.ex. if clans go on a recruiting drive to field multiple teams
  - Extra rules and red tape are required to create this scenario, leading to potential problems down the road.
  
  Conclusion:
  If the clan leaders decide to vote for the rule change, we're making sure to keep especially an eye on the impact of the rule towards smaller clans. We don't want smaller clans to be forced to leave CL as they lose their players to other clans. We strongly encourage all clans to not recruit from each other and especially not raid smaller clans.
  If the rule change is accepted, we're going to make sure to adjust the current rules to that change. F.ex. regarding clan movement as not only the movement within the same clans should be loosened, but also for brother/sister clans (if announced as such beforehand) as we're putting them on the same level basically.
  Note the vote isn't set in stone and is more of a gauge of opinion. This is a huge change to Clan League and must be widely accepted by the community, as well as the members of the panels that organize it.
  
  If the rule change doesn't have the support of the clans, we're keeping the current rules, as we don't think we can come up with a definition of brother/sister clans to forbid them and we don't think it's possible for the panel to come up with individual decisions on all potential cases, as there could be to many individual cases that differ from each other. Finding a clear-cut course seems to hard and might inflate the rules even more, which doesn't seem to be reasonable to us. Especially since we can't know about all the connections potential clans have with each other.
  
  We're happy to hear more arguments for or against such a rule change. We give you some time to think about it, since we think this is a rule change that can have a bigger impact on the future of Clan League.
  
  Depending on the receptions in this thread, we'd like to inform you that if there will be a voting, it should start soon. All clans who participated in CL 12 would be able to vote on the matter via their clan representative.

Edited 5/13/2020 07:49:35

Umm Ethics Committee We Already Solved This Issue

I Just Wanted To Say That

Hi Edge, thanks for doing this


Below is just a little thought of mine

IMO, the spot in the CL should go only to the clans, not players.
This measure does help to force people to organise their clans in the way they want it, to solve internal issues inside the clan. So in total making clan stronger, to defend them in case if some people leave that clan.

If people cannot solve their issues they are joining another clan or making a new one. This is understandable. However, in this case, the right question should be the following: Do they want to be a part of a good clan they like or just want to play in CL? The former should be a priority in my point of view


Regarding brother/sister clans. Let clan leaders vote; I guess they are part of the system; it is in their interest to have a stable system.


Also, I would like to change the system of the bottom groups. Having, for example, divisions A, B and C. Where C is swiss system tournament to all clans not participating in A and B. It would let some clans that have been dropped for CL to come back faster if they have skills of course.


p.s. I am not against Masters' claiming the spot of Apps but, I think the rule should be changed

p.p.s. No drama, please.

Edited 5/13/2020 08:24:11

Hi,

- potential negative effects towards smalle clans, f.ex. if clans go on a recruiting drive to field multiple teams

I don't believe this will be a problem.

Clans forming multiple teams will obviously form a senior team and and then a junior team. The so called elite clans poaching the most try to poach the best players who then join their senior team and they have little incentive to poach for their junior team. The fame is earned by the senior team.

The big clans are historically the victims and not the offenders of excessive poaching.

@KKND there are plenty of reasons where a clan might be working fine but the members are forced to leave and form a new clan because of the mistake or negligence of one person:

Few examples from the top of my head:
- the manager turns inactive
- a manager trusted a player with manager rights who kicked the whole clan
- the manager turns against everyone in the clan (see ONE - RA case)

I see not a single reason why everyone of the clan but the one person who actually is at fault should be punished by losing a cl spot.

#nodrama

I support the ruling regarding Apprentice/Masters, it's a good thing the rules are being followed and ruled on accordingly so.

I'd also like to see multiple teams being allowed generally speaking.

Thanks ethics panel, our guardian angels to the devil's of chaos.

@mod

As an example, 20 members in clan ABC
6 players played last CL, now they want to join/create a new clan

14 other clan members want to play next CL.
What should be the decision here? I really think it is internal clan struggle, every clan does so.

the spot in the CL should go only to the clans, not players.

Well KKND in your 6/20 wanting to split. The spot goes with the 6, they earned whatever division they are in. The rest should have played the previous season or been nicer to them.

Simple reason it's players not clans is there's no ruling body, the clan doesn't have a directors board. There could be one guy in charge who kicks people for no reason, has a fight, or the only admin goes inactive so they can't invite new players.
Clan league committee can't dictate to clans or step in on internal clan matters. Yes, clans should a lot of things, but the clan founder always has a veto right
Clan league committee does know the players of the last season and allows them a game in the next, 1/3 remaining in their previous clan or one separate clan

Your clan of 20 would only need 2 players of the 6 to remain and keep its slot.
It is just one third of players needs to remain in the clan to it's spot. That's very few. Unable to retain one third suggest you won't be retaining them the following season and also, you're fielding an untested lineup aka, a new team.

I guess rules says nothing about clans taking their toys away beacuse they were to be punished for cheating. As for me, it should not be such straightforward to be reinstated to CL. Also, absence time should not count toward ban period.

Edited 5/13/2020 12:18:41

I haven't followed the whole story but what Zev says makes sense to me.CL positions belong to clans not to players.If clan A doesn't wish to participate in next CL for any reason, it should be replaced by the rightful clan not by one that might have collected players that left clan A.

@krzystof just for your information since you might be talking about masters.

There are no clans being punished but individuals. In our case deadman and farah for 2 seasons, jz for 1 season. None of these has been playing cl for apprentice/masters the last seasons either.

@Mylo

Well, what if other 14 members have little lower skills so they decide to let these 6 people play to have better results?

You can change the numbers to play them around. Like full clan consist of 70 members and 11 of them are playing. Still the same answer from you?

What if 8 of 11 are leaving the clan or retiring?

Edited 5/13/2020 13:10:54

Don't really want to deepen the topic on this thread, but with 70 players in a clan, there still only needs to be one of them in the wrong position to fuck up cl for the others, while in the other situation if 11 were playing cl there have to be at least 8 players hijacking the cl spot together. Seems obious to me which one should be the prefered option.

Edit: if players retire they surely won't request to transfer the cl spot. Only if there is such a request and more than 2/3 move to the same clan the spot can be transfered

Edited 5/13/2020 13:47:18

Edge, I like your voting proposal - conditional on B teams having the same rights as sister clans like Lynx/101st would have (e.g. template voting/ movement between clans).

(But maybe create another thread for this, since this one is likely to get derailed.)

I don't think the original post addressed the issue of two teams from the same clan being in the same division... Obviously there would be an incentive for the worse team to tank all games to the better team so that the clan gets the win. A rule preventing this would be ultimately unenforceable because it's impossible to tell if a boot was accidental or intentional, or if somebody just made a bad predict or was intentionally playing poorly.

It seems like this solution to the brother-sister clan problem fails to resolve any of the problems mentioned, and perhaps makes them and others worse:

First, you mention the issue of sibling clans voting. In the proposed system, would each team get a vote, or each clan get a vote, no matter how many teams they had in A/B? If the former, it rewards larger clans, which simply recreates the original problem. If the latter, then there's still the problem of sibling clans getting extra votes.

Second, you mention the issue of sibling clans playing in the same division. I gave my thoughts on that above.

Third, you mention that the issue of sibling clans taking each others' spots. This remains to be an issue in the world of multiple teams. If Apps could have made a team B, they still would have merged with Masters so that Masters' better players could play in a higher level of clan league. This scenario still would have come up and been just as controversial. Also, it creates additional problems. If team B from ONE! all decide they want to create a new clan called TWO?, do they get ONE! B's spot? Or do they have to start from the bottom?

There's an additional issue of moving players from one team to another. Would current rules against spot changes still apply (i.e. if you move to another team you have to stay there for another full season), or would it become a fluid system where when a clan's B team promotes as the A team relegates, the A team all move back up to what was the B team and vise versa, essentially making the last seasons' promotions and relegations not happen. Some may say that this is currently an issue with sibling clans, but that's not the case because there are no sibling clans that are in position to swap places now or in the near future. FCC and Disco have a division in between, so it's impossible for Disco to surpass FCC. Lynx is not relegating from A any time soon, and if we're being honest with ourselves, 101st probably isn't promotion either, so this is also not a likely source of issue. While it might happen in the future between sibling clans, it would happen much less often than with multiple teams from a clan.

Finally, it's not more equitable to have multiple teams per clan than having the current system of some sibling clans. Only a few clans would be able to field multiple competitive teams, meaning it still puts some clans above others since most clans couldn't make a second team, essentially making it the same as now, but with more iterations of sibling clans, and the additional problems described above.

Edited 5/13/2020 14:05:41

How about bringing back the Reserve Clan League?
Then we could have 101st, Discovery, MH's second team and whoever else is interested play there.

Problem solved.

Sad day for Warzone.

Creating new rules isn't something that comes under the purview of the Ethics Committee, so I don't understand why they are proposing this at all. But to address this proposal I have a few thoughts.

Allowing B teams doesn't make detecting or defining sibling relationships any easier unless you are giving sibling clans more rights than independent clans, they have no incentive to declare themselves as such otherwise. I can't see any compelling reason why a sibling clan ought to have more rights than an independent clan, so this proposal doesn't seem to solve any of the problems sibling clans pose for the organizers.

In addition, if having sibling clans is a headache for the leadership (which it is), why would making it easier for clans to establish them be a good thing? None of the arguments in favor of teams was actually an argument in favor of B teams. They were all arguments essentially saying, "having a sibling clan is an advantage, so let's allow all clans this same advantage." But all clans already have the ability to create sibling clans today. Currently there are very few examples of sibling clans, but there is nothing currently stopping any clan from creating their own version of 101st or Discovery, except the desire and motivation to do so.

Sibling clans pose tricky questions for the integrity of the competition: should players be able to move back and forth, should they be able to play in the same division, should they both get votes, etc. Allowing B teams doesn't solve any of those questions, and actually has the potential to take a mildly annoying issue and make it dramatically more consequential.

There are some other objections that are more closely tied to the format of Clan League. With the current linear promotion and relegation system, there is a long path for a new clan to travel before they can potentially compete for the championship. The more teams we introduce into the competition, the longer that path becomes. This is already a complaint, and if 3 or 4 clans decide to take advantage of this, we potentially have to add yet another division to the hierarchy.

Another issue is clan/team stability. The promotion relegation system also breaks down when teams form and dissolve on a somewhat regular basis. If it is easy for a clan X to create a B team for people who would otherwise not play in their A team, they might do so, and if X is a strong clan, their B players might do well in the lowest level and promote. If the next season or the season after that X decide that they actually don't have the resources to field two teams, they'll fold the B team and bring their players back to the A team. I'm sure it would be especially galling for a clan to be denied promotion in Season 13 by a B team, watch that team play Season 14 and then drop out.

In addition to these B teams likely securing the promotion spots, this has a negative impact on the in-game experience for players in the lower divisions. Ideally they'd be playing against clans that are around their skill level. There is already a problem with new clans entering the league who are at a higher level than the lowest rung (see Lu Fredd, FC, and Polish Eagles this season), and if you allow B teams this will happen even more frequently.

tl;dr - allowing B teams doesn't solve any of the problems you mentioned and creates a host of new ones.