After extensive discussion between the panel members and reaching out to M'Hunters to hear their account of the Emu Pub/LTEmperor situation, the Clan League council has decided that Emu Pub logged in for LTEmperor due to a misunderstanding of the rules, rather than an attempt to cheat. Therefore, they will be allowed to declare LTEmperor retired, and replace him with Chromeo who is currently only playing in 1 tournament.

To be clear it IS against the rules to take turns for a clanmate in Clan League, even though that is not the case in some other competitive arenas, such as team ladders. Due to confusion about the actual rule and importantly the honesty and cooperation of both Emu Pub and Norman in response to our inquiries we decided against serious punishment. That being said, since this rule has been made abundantly clear now, the next instance of this will result in an automatic point dedcution.

oh my, what a freekin whitewash.

Was the retirement reported to the league before Emu logged in and made his moves?

If So, then M'Hunters should have been informed what the rules concerning that are. If that happened and Emu logged on regardless, then its blatant cheating.

If the league wasn't informed prior to the turns being taken, then according to the rules, no replacement player is allowed since it wasn't reported as specifically required.

You really can't have it both ways. This screams of bias

Can you suspend the rule entirely for the remainder of Division C? Right now, due to the assumption that M'Hunters acted in good faith, there's the issue that the other clans abided by Rule 1 and now the M'Hunters- for 4 games (20 points)- had an uneven playing field with no consequences. Just compare it with the alternate universe whether neither Ox nor I reported the cheating- in that one, the other 5 clans in Division C would've been able to benefit from the same violation and get off on a good faith assumption as well; in this one, only M'Hunters get to do that.

Moreover, interesting choice to decide that the burden for clans being aware of the rules and asking for clarification rests not on the clans/clan points of contact themselves but instead of Clan League management. Seems to be a break with the standard trend of the burden being on clans- for example, under Rule 6, clans are the ones responsible for declaring a player retired; but under the precedent set by this ruling, clans can now avoid asking for clarification, break rules, and get out of it by being honest/cooperative enough for management to assume good faith.

Regardless, thanks for making a ruling on the issue after (presumably) consulting with not just M'Hunters but the other affected clans in Division C as well.

---

EDIT: One more question (this is Rule 7 for this season)-

7) Cheating - Determined by panel (if not stated here). Cheating is 1 season ban (min) and loss off all points in those games.

it IS against the rules to take turns for a clanmate in Clan League

So was this cheating or not? Does this allow us to break rules without cheating?

And if it was, does that mean Rule 7 is now suspended and penalties (not just the determination of cheating) are left to the decision of the panel?

Thanks again. Just have a lot of questions about this ruling.

Edited 7/25/2016 23:51:01

@indibob, of course not. It was made clear in the ruling that Emu wasn't even aware of the rule in the first place. If by bias you mean making a reasonable decision given the circumstances, then sure. Rules: making moves for another account in ladder: allowed. In CL: not allowed. Knyte's large google doc helps make it clear that it wasnt the specific wording of the rule that banned the practice, but instead an interpretation based on it being asked in a previous CL. Knyte points out benjamin had to ask specifically for clarification due to the wording not being clearly banning of the practice. As such, knyte's own post proves there is reasonable grounds on why Emu did what he did.

@knyte, the solution of public clarification and subbing already functionally eliminates the practice. What does your proposition add?

Indibob. Here is my thoughts. I understand your frustration to the decision. Especially for you who may have experienced CL before (If i'm not mistaking it's Emu's first). Emu never tried to hide anything, there was no willing to cheat whatsoever. Now this is not a perfect world, but every event helps to go in that direction.

Knyte, I understand your question that seems fair [edit : talking about the one above your edit]. But the CL leaders decision doesn't look to have been taken with comparing to other clans, but solely by judging honesty of player(s) involved. By that I mean CL leaders would never allow a rule violation, for any reason, including the one you are suggesting, no matter how fair it can sound to some extent. Life can look unfair sometimes, but this is not the market here. CL is the most prestigious and serious league on WL. There is no room for negotiating, begging, trading. CL leaders looked at the situation, judged it, took their responsibilities and explained it. It is pretty clear that it was exceptional, based on genuine facts and will not happen again (even in the case of the same situation in the future). I know it is not going in your favor, yet you sound a rather clever person so i'm sure you must be able to take a step back and understand the CL leaders decision making process here.

Edited 7/25/2016 23:58:40

^^ It eliminates the practice, but imho has two major issues:

1) It doesn't undo the damage done. For 20 points' worth of games, M'Hunters now had an unfair playing field. They now get to break the rule with zero consequences, while other clans can't take advantage of that anymore. I'm starting to get the feeling I just shouldn't have even brought this up publicly so CORP, Hydra, VS, etc., could've done the same with their "retired" players.

2) It sets the precedent that if you're not sure whether what you're doing is breaking the rules, you don't ask for clarification. Just go ahead and do it- break the rules. If someone comes after you, well, be "honest and cooperative," watch them assume you were acting in good faith the whole time, and enjoy the no consequences. All they can do is make you stop doing it in the future (¯\_(ツ)_/¯) and keep other clans from getting the same unfair advantage you already got. Great incentive system to encourage cheating, if I do say so myself.


Suspending the rules for the remainder of season 1 fixes #1; enforcing the rules instead of assuming good faith would've fixed #2.

Edited 7/26/2016 00:00:01

it is so clear that you cannot take moves for your team mates that everyone knows its cheating...its clan league...its completely obvious that its cheating...why would there be rules on number of games you can play if you are allowed to play every move for every member of your clan. How can that not be obviously cheating...and not a retirement...because the player hasnt even retired

ignorance of the law is no defence

Yeah, I'm also wondering how it was unclear if the very first rule states:

A player may only operate 1 account in a given clan league

(emphasis mine)

Seems to made that made it pretty clear you're not supposed to operate multiple accounts.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Regardless, the ruling's been made- it's final, not a good idea to call for it to be reversed. Just asking for clarifications for the sake of my current team (TLW in Div D) and for any teams I may compete under/act as point of contact for in the future.

Edited 7/25/2016 23:59:10

@knyte, a big, public "don't do it again or you lose points, thus is law" is a pretty big disincentive, no?

Disincentive to do it again, if you're the M'Hunters? Sure.

Disincentive to do it ever, if you're one of the 33 clans that didn't do it this season? Yep.

Disincentive for clans to ask for clarification in the future before just going and breaking rules? Certainly.


I really appreciate that the burden is apparently now on CL management for informing us of the rules. Makes things a lot more fun for the rest of us when we find something interesting.

Edited 7/26/2016 00:02:34

@gazpacho, sure it is, it's a defense in plenty of criminal trials. Murder relies on intent. If someone didn't intend to murder, it's not murder, it's (involuntary) manslaughter and the punishment is lessened.

@knyte, tlw -- as an example -- breaking the same rule at this point would probably "violate statutes of intent" for lack of a better phrase and would not fly by the committee. I don't quite see your point.

Edited 7/26/2016 00:05:43

I think a fair warning is the right call although Gazpacho has a fair point

ignorance of the law is no defence

you could argue that it's up to the clan to make sure they are up-to-date to the rules. Although I'm more upset that the improper conduct on the Division C thread was not mentioned that was inexcusable and goes against the good spirit that clan league should be played.

Anyways, Nobody wants to see other clans get punished and I'm happy to see no clan get punished for a first-time mistake =)

thats a bad example, and no ...ignorance is no defence, in real life or warlight...manslaughter isnt about knowing laws, it is about intentions and actions...if you can come up with an example where murder would be legally ok because of ignorance, id love to hear it.

Actually, "intent" under murder (and other criminal trials) refers to mens rea, which refers to the intention of committing that specific act- not the intention of breaking the law. If Bob knowingly kills Stacy and he's not criminally insane, it doesn't matter whether or not Bob knew that murder was illegal. I'm sorry, Bob, but I heard prison food's actually better than they say it is.

Although I'll try that the next time a cop pulls me over. "Whoops, didn't know that was illegal" has worked great in courts so far. :D


(I am, of course, dealing with common law jurisdictions here, since that's what I'm familiar with. Might work differently in your country.)

Edited 7/26/2016 00:06:43

i do not think there was intent to decieve, just a big breaking of rules which are not interested in intentions, but hey ho, im only a lowly division d drone so ideas above my station perhaps

i do not think there was intent to decieve, just a big breaking of rules which are not interested in intentions, but hey ho, im only a lowly division d drone so ideas above my station perhaps

Well, if you log in as your teammate and take his turns, that's not something you can do accidentally. Intent is kind of a given here.

Then again, you're right- this is Clan League. They don't have an intent plank for any of their rules.

Edited 7/26/2016 00:07:56

good point, bad example on intent.

Better example is in sentencing.