From my perspective, the whole point of any P/R league has nothing to do with rewarding excellence and everything to do with rewarding prolonged excellence. The fact that new clams enter at the bottom is not a flaw. It is deliberate because the system is designed to reward persistence and sustained success.

Yes, but thing is that it is a really slow system (currently each season takes not even half a year, but 8-9 months!) while clans change a lot between seasons. With 7 divisions currently, a clan that belongs to top two divisions skill-wise, will now need to stay the same for 4 years. Who knows if Warlight will even exist by then...

Changing CL from P/R to CLOT is fine, but it represents a distinct philosophical shift in what Clam League is trying to be.

I don't agree with this. Purpose of Clan League was always to see which clan is the best. With P/R system moving so slow it becomes worse measure with each season. CLOT solves this and dilemmas that are created by radical shifts like these below.

If CL were to remain P/R, the question that would need to be resolved before the 9th season is who controls the actual identity of the 101st clam that competed in CL8 - the ones who control the clam, the players who competed for the clam, or neither.

That's not first case like that in history of Clan League.
CPU dissolved, XCD and BIA created in its place -> BIA got CPU's slot in division A, XCD treated as new clan. XCD went as far as division B, BIA remained in B until CL8
Lynx splitting from 101st (while containing all of 101st's representation previous season) -> Lynx treated as new clan, 101st destroyed and winding down from div A to div C in no time
XS rebranded, whole CL team creating ONE! -> ONE! got the div B spot, XS didn't compete
Acme Co. created mostly out of LEA (containing 7/9 of CL team) -> LEA remaining in C and getting destroyed; Acme as a new clan

Honestly, I would be surprised if this went like Lynx/101st or Acme/LEA, rather than XS/ONE. It's more interesting to see competition between similarly highly skilled clans rather than one-sided noob-bashing in lower divisions.

Edited 7/25/2016 23:23:11

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.

The question is:

Are you going to be dogmatic and think that the ones before you created a perfect system or are you going to fix the the issues they missed to the best of your ability?

Well, under Rule 6, it's clear that you can only invoke it by declaring (to CL management) that your player is retired- and that it doesn't apply retroactively; only for unplayed games. The only question here was whether it's unplayed games as of the notification date or as of the decision date, and that's been answered pretty clearly.

I agree with you that this rule doesn't work out great in practice and should be reconsidered, but you also can't change the rules in the middle of the season.

I never asked to change it in the middle of the season even though i did not know about it when i joined the tournament(like most), but at least change it after for next clan leagues.

The lack of 101st to report it in time,

Metatron, where are you getting this from? We reported it as soon as we knew. The date that Jinxed left me a message in skype saying he wasn't going to play anymore. We told the cl panel, the day after as I wasn't online the night he sent the message.

it is unfair that the negligence of 101st should result in having other clans be punished too.

What negligence are you talking about?


Anyway if you have any issues, we'd appreciate it if you took it up with the clan league panel rather than get into debates about it on the forum. I can assure you we (101st) did everything by the book.

Edited 7/26/2016 15:19:05

it is unfair that the negligence of 101st should result in having other clans be punished too.

What negligence are you talking about?

That 101st gave "free points" to some clans, but not others. However, I am 100% sure that they did not do so on purpose :p It is just an unfortunate consequence, that frankly, we will have to live with.

(i am not stalking div. B, but I understood it that 101st lost a few games when Jinxed left, but got to redo the others that were in picking stage.)

I'm sorry we don't have a crystal ball.. we can't magically know a player has retired until he tells us lol :P

Up until he told us, it was just a couple of boots, which most clans have had anyway.

That 101st gave "free points" to some clans, but not others. However, I am 100% sure that they did not do so on purpose :p It is just an unfortunate consequence, that frankly, we will have to live with.

Neh you fool! That's all a part of Platinum's master plan to win the division and also to screw up with Metatron.

Edited 7/26/2016 16:40:48

@TheRiverStyxie
"The lack of 101st to report it in time"

"Metatron, where are you getting this from?"
We both know 101st did not report it on time, it is a fact.
That does not mean it is 101st fault in anyway, but it is their responsibility regardless since Jinxed is part of 101st, he represents 101st.

101st is responsible for Jinxed actions during the clan league good or bad since they put him in as their representative player for the league.

"What negligence are you talking about?"
I am not accusing any specific 101st player of negligence except Jinxed, but he does represent 101st thus 101st negligence refers to Jinxed OR whoever reported it late(if such a thing happened).

I do not know the inner dealings of 101st, I did not dare to jump to the conclusion of who reported it late, if it was Jinxed or someone in the clan so I called out the responsible party in general; 101st as a clan.

101st through this instance alone it showed negligence through Jinxed(or otherwise) when it was reported late.

"I can assure you we (101st) did everything by the book."
I believe you but since I cannot be sure 100% I will not jump to any conclusions.

It does not matter whose negligence it was though, if a clan puts a player to represent it in clan league, the clan is responsible for his actions including the action of not playing games he willingly agreed to play.

101st is responsible for Jinxed actions including his negligence, just like it is responsible of winning games and leagues.

This does not mean its 101st fault though, it just means it is responsible for it.

To give you an example, if a child smashes a car with his bike, the parents are responsible for his actions, it is not their fault, but they have to pay for the damage regardless.


"That 101st gave "free points" to some clans, but not others. However, I am 100% sure that they did not do so on purpose :p It is just an unfortunate consequence, that frankly, we will have to live with."

I did not say it was 101st fault, I said it was their negligence (either by reporting it late or Jinxed own negligence representing 101st).

I do believe that 101st did everything they could to follow the rules and I KNOW it is unfair for them to play only the games after the retire was reported.
I KNOW they should play all the booted games or none to have a fair league.

That is what I was asking the administration about, to fix this totally unfair rule.

Also if the administration deems it that the clan must be punished for the late reporting(negligence) they should not be punished with less games since it effects the other clans too, but with reduced points or something that depend on the total games before reporting.
eg getting 1/2 points for the games booted before reporting or something.

Removing the games is the dumbest and most unfair idea I have every heard.

Edited 7/26/2016 19:54:29

I really don't know any of the details in terms of when things were done and who is claiming what, but here are my 2 cents:

I agree with Metatron that even though the 101st reported it as soon as they knew, that doesn't mean it should be retroactive to a specific date such as when Jinxed stopped playing or his last seen. Now I more than anyone understand that real-life emergencies can occur where a player goes dark for a few days before letting their clanmates know what is going on. However, that still doesn't exclude someone from "the rules" and in my opinion, the date should be from when 101st notified the panel not when Jinxed actually left.

However, you have to take a look at the Clan League as a whole and what it represents. Some may argue that it is an opportunity for WarLight to build the community of players from the smaller communities (clans) that have been created. I myself view the Clan League as an opportunity for each clan not only to show off their strengths and skills but also promote their clan (and of course have fun!). Being in the Clan League gives a clan more exposure and more name recognition. Now I believe that the higher the division, the more recognition one may get, but I think that every clan benefits from being in the Clan League when it comes to this point.

With that being said, even though I agree with Metatron in that 101st is responsible and it should be done from when 101st notified the panel, I think the panel got the decision right, even if it may go against their rules.
Sidenote: I think the rule needs revision especially after this season. Rules are still be worked as new situations come up so this problem is understandable.

As I mentioned before, the Clan League is about showing off your strength and skills to other clans. With this as a core aspect, I think that the other clans in Division B should welcome the challenge. It really comes down to if you want to win by default or if you want to win by playing the game and using your strategy to defeat the opponent. In my mind, as much as it can be nice to win by default, I would much rather play the game and lose a good game than be handed a win. Obviously, that is just my opinion but in the spirit of what the Clan League is, I think this is rather clear.

I may seem to be riding the fence but I think the biggest issue doesn't lie in what happened but in how the current rule is written. There is a balance to writing rules, providing enough to get the point across while avoiding including every detail so that if it is not in the rules, they can claim such. I have written rules for a number of various games and it can be difficult.

In essence, from what has been said and my limited knowledge of what actually happened, I think that the panel got the decision right but for the wrong reason(s).

Could you elaborate what you mean when you say "We both know 101st did not report it on time," ?

I do not know the inner dealings of 101st, I did not dare to jump to the conclusion of who reported it late, if it was Jinxed or someone in the clan so I called out the responsible party in general; 101st as a clan.

I'm the leader of the 101st roster so call out me if anything. Again I can't debate someone who makes a thread being upset if they aren't explaining in enough detail. I don't want to have a mis-understanding.

101st through this instance alone it showed negligence through Jinxed(or otherwise) when it was reported late.

Did you mean late by before clan league started?

"That 101st gave "free points" to some clans, but not others. However, I am 100% sure that they did not do so on purpose :p It is just an unfortunate consequence, that frankly, we will have to live with."

7 1v1s = 21 "free" points are being re-played, Every clan is receiving 1 clan win less except for Stahl the only clan that can make a point of this being unfair is Stahl which I will say is unfair on them.

I don't understand your point of 101st being negligence. I don't think we were in any way but if you have a valid point I will understand, So If you could explain in a bit more detail that I can understand maybe I can give you a more detailed answer.

Lol given that 101st is one of the very few clans to declare players retired under Rule 6 + in a really timely manner, I don't think you can call Plat "negligent" at all. He seems to have done an excellent job as clan point-of-contact so far.

I KNOW they should play all the booted games or none to have a fair league.

That is what I was asking the administration about, to fix this totally unfair rule.

Also if the administration deems it that the clan must be punished for the late reporting(negligence) they should not be punished with less games since it effects the other clans too, but with reduced points or something that depend on the total games before reporting.
eg getting 1/2 points for the games booted before reporting or something.

Removing the games is the dumbest and most unfair idea I have every heard.

We only allow games "not past pick stage" because it is very easy to manipulate this rule. Say you are losing/ have bad picks/ have no intel/ don't like the board, and decide to conveniently "retire". As per your interpretation of the rule, this game must be replayed as well, which is obviously not the intent here. This rule exists to prevent clans from completely losing a shot at promotion/ getting relegated due to the disappearance of one player.

We're not punishing anyone for "negligence". 101st reported the problem as soon as they found out, and all games falling under the criteria will be remade. The rule will be applied in the same manner to any clan which has retired players.

However, I'm not a fan of remaking games due to the effort it takes to track new ad-hoc games. I'll definitely be doing something about it next season.

It is possible, but surely because of different situations the CL panel can be pragmatic and make different calls depending on exactly what happened? o_O

Advantage in a game is interpreted differently by each person and is quite subjective. The current criteria doesn't leave much doubt as to which games qualify. It also requires lesser effort and is easy to implement. Therefore we have opted to use this to determine eligible games.

Edited 7/27/2016 03:43:08

Edited out some bug with edit got everything deleted :(


Yes Im talking about:

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=11411125

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=11435269

In those games it is clear as day that he got booted because of retirement.

Not that i'm not confident that almosttricky won't win it anyway.
(I have to admit he was the only one who was a challenge to me in Guiroma.)

@ Platinium
"Could you elaborate what you mean when you say "We both know 101st did not report it on time," ?"

Booting date: 11/07/16
Reporting date: 16/07/16

At least 5 days minimum late.
(I am now assuming that Jinxed reported it late(his retirement) and the clan did its best under the circumstances)

It is a negligence problem that 101st has responsibility anyway.


@MOTD it seems you did not include them because of the picks were made, which makes a valid point.
The rules are clear on that and though they are not perfect, they seem to work most of the time.

I think that there should be a case where retirement should be considered properly and games checked rather then strictly follow a rule that may make the league unfair.
In this case it was clear that he retired not because he was losing or anything, he probably retired before he saw his picks.(they were better picks in both situations)

If the administration accepted the retired excuse and a player gets booted in 6 games in a tournament with no indication of foul play, all six games should be redone to keep it fair for all the clans.

The reported retirement should have no bearing and neither the "not past pick stage" rule.
It should be either all games on boot or nothing.

If there is any DOUBT of foul play then no games will be redone, very simple.

Removing games with too basic rules won't work to make the league fair.

EG:
If player A COULD have lost 1 game(doubt) and then retired(rest boots) no remakes.
If Player A won 1 game and got booted in the rest with no indication he was losing but an obvious retirement boots, then remake all games(even the one he won)
If Player A lost at least 1 game and then retired,(rest boots), then there is doubt of foul play and thus no game is redone.


very simple strait forward rules and there is no chance of tricking it.

If there is a shadow of a doubt that there is foul play regarding retirements = no remakes.


@ Mifran
I mentioned almosttricky because the other players seemed not prepared of the map(let me have strategic positions without a fight), while he was better prepared.
It is not that i think of myself as unbeatable, but if you think you can beat me easy you are free to challenge me.

I consider myself unlucky i had to win a game on boot, I really want to kick everyone ass in it and now I will get the chance. :)

Edited 7/27/2016 08:49:38

Not that i'm not confident that almosttricky won't win it anyway.
(I have to admit he was the only one who was a challenge to me in Guiroma.)

I have to admit that i think Jinxed would won easily against u, so u can consider ur self lucky that he retired just in time before ur game.

@Metatron
Talking about preparations u should talk to ur teammate in the current CL 2v2 Final Earth where u guys have no clue on how the map balance works so far.
A reminder - https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=11411093
Those picks talks for them selfs, I can tell u that its WR and not SR when picking.

Edited 7/27/2016 10:52:09

that all games in pick stage(not turn 1) after that date(7/16/2016) are eligible to be replaced outside the RR tourney.

if you read it correctly it doesn't say when it counts as the date the game has been created or the date that the boot actually happened, if it's the first case then some games shouldn't be replayed as knyte actually noticed in the other thread.

Games Started before 7/16 4:14p (time zone doesn't matter here)

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=11577648

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=11578327

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=11577639

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=11577644

Games Started after 7/16 4:14p

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=11593064

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=11593060

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=11612188

To be super clear, though, the panel ruling has already determined that Rule 6 refers to games in the pick stage as having not yet started.

My list of games is the difference between the two possible interpretations, but the decision's already been made so it's a moot point on that level. And to be even clearer, I have no qualm (or any opinion on) this ruling, beyond props to Platinum as he's seemingly the only leader to make a timely Rule 6 declaration. :P He's clearly a kid 'cause he does his homework.

Edited 7/27/2016 17:28:38