It clearly looks that letting CL be ruled by sole trusted authority don't work. As John Dalberg-Acton said, All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is what really happened. For all great work Beren abd Deadman did, they were unable to resist temptation to break rules they established themselves, and made excuses for players who were their friends. And I am afraid that whoever will run clan league, such things will happen again, probably this time just more in secret, for nobody find out.

Therefore, I would like to propose this: In addition to CL administrators panel and template panel, to establish 3rd entity - sort of control panel whose main purpose will be to check all CL panel decisions made when breaking rules is suspected, in border cases, how clans will be distributed to divisions in case of dropouts, and maybe other stuff where their control can be useful. In short, their purpose will be to prevent abuse of absolute power which CL panel had so far.

I don't think trhat this would complicate decision process too much, as 95 percent of decisions made by Beren and Deadman were cleraly reasonable and understandable. We just need trustworthy active people with permission to say: "Hey, in our opinion you did something wrong here ." This should lower amount of complaints on decisions, too, because with that check, most of people can be more sure that the decision which was made was really the best possible.

Personally, control panel should consist of players belonging to lower division clans, to further reduce absolute power which clans from A posessed over CL. With condition, that once their clan promote to A, the member of panel is obliged to leave. The amount of members would be 5 players optionally, but maybe 3 will be enough, but we need odd number for sure.

This is rough sketch, which needs more details obviously, but I think for you to get the idea this is enough.

So we've got a scandal over the same rule being broken during CL 3 seasons in a row? In CL8 it was ruled to be a gray area once MH broke it and the rule was deemed in place from the midseason onwards. In CL9 and CL10 it was explicitly stated, so it clearly doesn't seem excusable to claim that it was still some sort of gray area. Not only was the rule written down, it had already been at the center of drama.

I'm not saying anyone oughta be punished or anything, but maybe be a bit more honest about it so the discussion has an easier time getting somewhere? There was a rule that everyone competing was at least expected to know about, and then life happened, and even some of the people that made the rule in the first place were party to breaking it.

If it's not a real rule, then take it off the list. Cause now you're just penalizing the goody two-shoes clans that didn't realize everyone else was breaking it.

Having panels or a council of sorts doesn't stop corruption or rule breaking, only legalizes it. Back when I was on the panel there were a lot of sketchy decisions and discussions including other council members taking advantage over ignorance of others. It also took considerable amounts of time in order to talk people off the ledge of some ideas. I think all-in-all things may have been more.. fair? because the clan leaders all kinda got their say in things, but decisions took excessive amounts of time and I'd say that cheating/scandals were more commonplace. I used to share accounts with Miyagi despite being at the tournament cap to ensure his turns would get locked in to avoid boots and I used to communicate frequently with all members of Apex about our games. Collusion was commonplace in Apex in general. We used to collude on ladder games, team games, and definitely Clan League. Seeing things from others perspectives helps you not only win the game but grow as a player. I'm assuming since this was commonplace in Apex that the other clans had similar practices at the time as well. I don't have hard evidence but that's how the game was played then despite having a rule against it. It's not remotely shocking to me that these things happened a lot, and I wholeheartedly doubt Masters are the only ones at fault. WG is probably the only clan to not delve into these matters despite having the reformed Gnuffone in their clan.

I think one of the biggest issues that contributes to the boot problems that exist in Clan League is due to the nature of having such high profile multi-day tournaments. If you saw a public RR multi-day tournament how likely would you be to join? Most of us would not join because the time requirement in a multi-day RR is ambiguous. You will get games, but you don't always know when you'll get those games. Some people may use a vacation and prolong the tournament by a lot. Since the time requirement to compete is so ambiguous and real life situations pop up, the reality is that people will not be available for games that require you to think a lot and discuss with other people. Thus, the rule is very strict when the format of the league itself is what's at fault. Try playing 3v3 ladder and maintain above 2000 rating. Even though statistically your opponents will consist of teams that you should easily beat, the games take a lot of thought and discussion, requiring all 3 players to be present and discussing. Normally this gets put off to the last minute since naturally people see the timer at 2days+ and figure out a way to be on to discuss. Clan League involves playing opposing teams that are at or near your skill level, so waiting a lot of time will result in either sloppy play or boots. Both which kill the competitive environment.

The only true solution to all these problems is one that I proposed multiple times during format discussions of Clan League. If we want a Clan League with no boots and a high competitive environment then the only way to accomplish this is to switch the format to a RT format. The problems would no longer exist. Colluding in RT team games would be unnecessary. The only collusion that could occur would be in a 1v1, to which I say make it legal. Allow for players to have 1 person in a call with them as a coach, and dock the coach a game. Put a game cap on players and don't lock them into tournaments. So if a player wants to play 1v1 Greece, then 2v2 Szeuropa, then 1v1 Guiroma, then a 3v3 Europe.. let them. Allow fluid rosters.

That's the only solution that will completely kill this problem, and there's definitely cons involved with it. It's worth looking into though for whoever wants to run the next season of Clan League.

As for the people stepping forward and admitting fault on rulebreaking, ban them for a season. Anyone who did intentionally break the rules signed up for the competition and did so. So ban them for a season. Dock some points here or there, but this whole defamation of clans and trying to assert different rank 1s for the seasons, do you honestly believe that the rank 1s for CL7,8,9 would not have made rank 1? Was there any clan that did not at some point during those seasons collude in anyway? If you want to penalize clans super harshly for this, let the witch hunt begin. Just slap the players with some seasonal bans and move on otherwise this stuff's gonna get super messy.

I don't know what motivated the account sharing that occurred in CL7&8. But it seems like all 3 known cases in CL9 were driven by the desire to avoid boots which are obviously unhealthy to the game in general. Nobody wants to suffer from boots, and I'm sure getting to play and win an actual game instead of getting a boot win is way more enjoyable. After all, we're here to play a game not watch people boot which is why I find the idea Quicksilver mentioned above a potential improvement to the current situation.

After proper notification of whoever's in charge (perhaps minimum 24 hr notice? as this rule is more geared towards dealing with people who know they will no longer be able/willing to play ahead of time and are planning on leaving for extended periods) and subsequent announcement, a substitution and a new player's slot would be used up to replace the outgoing player in both his ongoing games (via account sharing with the substitute only) and his future games in the tournament (using the new player's account just as subs work now). This method provides clans a legitimate way of dealing with boots without cheating. As for concerns about such a rule increasing the likelihood of cheating, I feel that if there are players who would be willing to play on another's account/use it to provide guidance/whatever other ways to cheat there are, they can and will do so via account sharing just as easily whether the new rule exists or not.

@FiveStarGeneral:

I don't know what motivated the account sharing that occurred in CL7&8.

--> https://www.warzone.com/Forum/168387-call-exclude-mhunters-community-events

;)

Edited 6/29/2018 18:47:20

Maybe make the rules antifragile instead of trying to limit volatility in player behavior.

I think the real solution is a clan ladder by Fizzer. Then we can aggregate ladders to detirmine overall clan performance in a given time period.

I have a confession. I carried QB in the 2v2 ladder.

Can you even confess to something that's already public knowledge?

Blitz is still a clan? Who knew?

Idea of one shared account and clan vs clan game looks interesting.
But how will be team games played?

Edited 7/1/2018 10:58:51

To enforce the rule about taking over accounts without relaying on only trust would be good; even members of the CL panel have broken this rule. To do this, the Warzone servers could track or log when someone logs in. If someone logged in between when a CL season starts or ends and main account is taking part in CL and the account that logged in had logged in from the same device, then it's likely that the players exchanged log in details.

the Warzone servers could track or log when someone logs in

Its a game, no need to build a security state around it.

Its a game, no need to build a security state around it.

I'm pretty positive it already gets tracked.

I guess [IM]Youmustbekidding would know best.

We have come up with a suggestion for next CL panel: me, Jz, AG, B and Reza
Everyone in that suggested panel has agreed to be on it. It would be more of a panel style approach, like the one in the past. B and Jz would be doing mostly clot work, though they would also have equal say and vote in all major decisions. The other three would do most of the groundwork for other things (rule making, dealing with rule infractions, etc) so that B and Jz have time for clot related stuff and wouldn't get overburdened. We are happy to answer to any further questions about this if something isn't covered by this initial post.

Edited 7/2/2018 17:22:54

i have some nominations of groups that I would consider way more solid than that group you suggested.

1. 90, Edge, Jz, Brenn ag.
2. Edge, Jz, Brenn,Tbest, ag
3. Edge, chris, 90, Jz, Brenn
4. Cowboy, Tbest, edge, Jz, Brenn

kezzo have all of the people in your suggested panels agreed to do it in that panel? since all the people in the group i suggested have agreed to do it in that exact panel

No Fairplay Group?

no separate committee in this suggestion, here it's integrated into panel itself