"but not many expected Metatron to go 6-0 in Guiroma "

To be exact no one expected it except me of-course :P

That just shows how much everyone around here sucks at predictions. :P

Edited 7/24/2016 15:57:20

@Tony, that is my understanding too

Not my understanding, but I dont mind rematches.

In my opinion a retirement declaration must be before the boots, but there is a comitte and they will decide. They will post it soon and I will do an update about it and the games that have finished those days (I didn't want to do more updates till this was finished).

^

Edited 7/24/2016 21:08:53

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/169082-clan-league-8-group-b-retirement

what if we got booted while beating our opponents 14-8 income by turn 2, and then 14-13 income on turn 3 but only this time along with devastating positional advantage?

^and since no one wants to deal with my situation, the point is I think we should leave bias out of these decisions entirely and go along with some distinquishable-by-fact black and white guidelines

There will be no make-up games for boots. That is what was decided by the folks before me and I'm going to respect that.

Well i do see that the reporting date matters in the games to be redone.

I think that if a player is deemed to be retired, all the games he was booted in because he retired should be redone.

The lack of 101st to report it in time should not effect the other teams.

The way the rules are it seems that not only 101st will be punished but even the clans that are going to have a rematch.

I think it is only fair that it is established which games he was booted from when he retired and do a rematch of those.

The date of reporting is only relevant to accept the excuse of retirement.

Once the administration accepts it, it should have no value on the games that will be a rematch.

The way it is now some clans will have free points for games they have not played while other will have a rematch.

I do not care what other before you have decided about this issue, it is unfair that the negligence of 101st should result in having other clans be punished too.

Edited 7/26/2016 04:08:55

I don't see how that is negligence on our part. As soon as Jinxed told us he wouldn't be coming back, we reported it to the council. Every new game from that date will be replayed I think(I didn't check the precise date these game were made, but that's my understanding of it). It's pretty difficult to declare a player retired without the consent of said player, as if he suddenly returns, he's no longer retired, and thus capable of playing his games again.

Jinxed is part of your clan, his negligence in joining a league and not participate in it falls under the clans responsibility.

If I suddenly retire, it's VIW responsibility because I am part of VIW, I represent VIW during these games.
My actions during this league, including my retirement represent VIW actions.

If I neglect to play a game I willingly joined for any reason and not inform my clan mates in time for the games to start, it is my negligence but also the clan I represent.

I do not mean it was 101st fault but the responsibility is theirs for the good and the bad deeds of their members.

Edited 7/26/2016 17:46:23

This whole argumentation is going nowhere. 101st have followed the rules of CL8 by reporting ON TIME that Jinxed had retired. So there will most likely be replacement games. Like it or not, it is clearly stated in the Clan League rules that this can happen. 101st/Outlaws took their responsabilities by reporting that Jinxed had retired and I think that they will only re-do the games that happened after the retirement notification. If people of other clans don't report retirements on time it isn't our problem, we did what we had to do.

If there were games that started before it was reported, you cannot call it reported on time.

It is called reported it late.

Now if it was Jinxed fault for informing 101st late or 101st that did the retirement notification on the forum late, it is irrelevant, 101st is responsible for it in either case.

In the first case 101st is responsible for putting a player that represents them in clan league, if the player does good, 101st they are responsible(thus gets the credit), if he does bad(eg: gets booted for any reason) they are responsible too.

I don't know why you are jumping on the defense here, I am the one trying to show that if someone is reported as retired and is accepted by the administration, then all his booted games should be redone not just the ones after the notification.

I doubt it will help your clan in this clan war, but it could help others that happen to have the same issues in another future clan wars, you might suffer from the same problem yourselves again next season.

Edited 7/26/2016 18:41:25

How do you explain managers of Clan League are thinking about giving replacement games to 101st then? Like only giving the post-retirement games but not thoses before. I think that rule is legit. I am on the defense because you are saying 101st did not take responsability in this and it is not true at all.

Edited 7/26/2016 19:44:37

Metatron, I'm the first one who dislike this situation (I'm one of the damnifieds here), now I have to play a game and win to recover points (and the tounament win) while the other main contenders had 2 free victories (in B.Islands there were boots from MoOoOoOoO too). The games were created before the notification, but the boots were after. The CL commite decided those games had to be redone and that's all. Unfair? Yes. We can try to improve it for the future? Yes. But for now let's stop here the discussion about this issue. If you don't want at least use the other thread, no need to have the discussion in two places.

Edited 7/26/2016 22:42:36

The thing is, we're following the rule here. And remaking all the games including the ones before the retirement puts in place a precedent that is equally problematic; if one player misses 2 games picking, someone can just claim he retired and change him for the next games to replay these games or whatever just use an excuse to play these games back.

As per CL rules there is a clause concerning players considered "retired" and the possibility of allotting replacement games for them. As clans competing in CL, it is understood that we follow the rules which is why I support the idea of having those 7 games remade.


That being said, I would like to make the case that next season there should be no remade games whatsoever, even in instances like this. That would clear up a lot of issues in terms of what situations merit replacement games (hopefully zero) and stop occurrences like this from happening ever again. It is too late to stop this now, but there should be no excuses for behavior like this in the future, and I fully agree it should be the clan's problem, and not Clan League as a whole, that has to deal with it.

Edited 7/26/2016 23:11:25

Hmmm no replacements are also not great either. Players giving their accs codes to avoid retirement booting, and since you can always pull a "I didnt know it was against the rules" and have no consequences whatsoever, I believe it will be a normal thing.

Update:
Some games will be redone so:
+21 max points and -7 loses to 101
-6 points and -2 wins to Stahl
-3 points and -1 win to the ONE, VIW, Sninja, REGL
Linberson win was not added yet so Blitz has no changes.

New finished games:
ME:
dagorin (REGL) defeated grizzlis (ONE)
grizzlis (ONE) defeated kram (Stahl)

Guiroma:
PJ017 (ONE) defeated almosttricky (Sninja)
metatron (VIW) defeated berserk (REGL)
linberson (Blitz) defeated almosttricky (Sninja)
linberson (Blitz) defeated berserk (REGL)

Greece:
Kknd (blitz) defeated elbee (REGL)

French:
PJ017 (ONE) defeated Kevin (stahl)
PJ017 (ONE) defeated tac(ky)tical (101)
PJ017 won the tournament with 6-0!

T.Map:
markus (101) defeated tulan (Sninja)
awesomeusername (Blitz) defeated MoOoOoOoO (VIW)

China:
One defeated stahl

ME 2vs2:
VIW defeated Sninja

Europe:
Sninja defeated REGL
VIW defeated stahl


Classification (by points):

   Clan    points   Max points    Wins   Losses   Winrate
1º ONE       97        191        30      14        68.18%
2º VIW       81        192        25      14        64.10%
3º Blitz     75        201        22      12        64.71%
4º 101       61        204        18      12        60.00%
5º REGL      48        156        15      25        37.50%
6º SNinja    42        169        12      23        34.29%
7º Stahl     29        137         9      30        23.08%

Edited 7/27/2016 13:26:35

I believe you made a typo, writing VIW instead of 101st at the start of your last post Memele.

@LeQuébécois_Benoit

"I am on the defense because you are saying 101st did not take responsibility in this and it is not true at all. "
Where did i say that they did not take responsibility?
I just state that is is their responsibility and as far as I know some mistook what I said as if I said it is their fault.

As far as I know 101st took responsibility by accepting the decisions of the administration for choosing a member that represents them and then he retired without prior notice.(negligence)

I just pointed out how some rules are too generic and can hinder the fairness of the league they way they are.

I used 101st as an prime example of how the rules were unfair in this situation.

This is the lost time i mention this topic here.

Reply to me in the other topic please.