Masters
Outlaws
Lynx
101st
Apprentice
WG
Sninja

>implying Apprentice can take ONE out of div A

They certainly gained that strength in CL7 and CL8 though. Back then you weren't advocating for them to be banned from being in the same division.

lol, how about just delete clan league? this is some serious A-grade high school bullshit. its a free game guys that people commit so much time to.

see me after class machine washed blitz

I don't think the worry is that the feeder clan will throw games to help the main clan - I would agree that wouldn't make sense. I think it is more that the main clan will help the feeder clan against a common opponent. Given all the sketchiness and bans handed out over shared accounts and helping with picks and game play recently, I would suggest this isn't an outrageous concern even if you think it's unlikely.

I can't comment that well on CL6 because I wasn't around for it. During CL8, we (101st/future Outlaws) were all butt-hurt because we had evolved into a strong group of players, requested that we be able to operate independently and were told no by Lynx (to the point where we couldn't even make all of our own decisions, when Kantos was forced into our lineup as a sub). We didn't even have as close a relationship with Lynx at the time as exists today.

So to the current 101st who thinks they're getting screwed - congratulations, you're just in the same situation that we were in. We had to choose between moving to Lynx or forming an independent clan. Your turn.

you're ugly bonsai

This is not a Outlaws-therapy group in which you discuss how badly you have been threatened by Lynx and had to found your own clan. You did so and that's your choice. You got the spot which could have been decided in different way, but that's history.

You made about 20 posts now not beeing able to state a clear rule nor did you come up with an explanation, why on earth we have to assume feeder clans cheat for sure and therefore have to introduce a rule over "feeder" clans not beeing able to promote to div A.
And I will tell you what. The moment a "feeder" clan promotes to div A there will be a new dynamic, which makes the clan more independent and I am very sure those guys wouldn't be fine with collaborating.

And by the way you are starting discussions it is pretty clear there will be no rule!

Plat not even able spotting sarcasm on the case that he needs to be banned. Hmmm .... maybe he cheated. Ethics Panel please check him and ban him before he can do any harm. We do not need a specific rule for that, as we don't need a bloody rule in every case we take a decision.

Edited 11/26/2018 08:40:14

let's put this in the most objective fashion, you want feeder clans to be punished before they even get to play

the real question here is why, don't be shy and let's discuss, surely we'll work something out together

If feeder clans are allowed it is only reasonable to also allow big clans to field a primary and a secondary roster so that weaker players get a chance to experience clan league without being forced to move away from their friends...

or do you want to punish big clan for being big?

Edited 11/26/2018 12:26:27

Am I the only one who sees the phrase "feeder clans" as completely moronic? They are training clans.

then call them training clans because training for sure as hell cant be done in the main clan right?

the real purpose of these "Training Clans" is to get first pick on as many prospecting players as possible without having to allow them into the "elite" Clan.

Hey aoc,

Isn't there a reserve cliffs league for precisely that purpose? To allow newer players in larger clans to get experience?
You could also organise an internal league of some sort.
I don't see this perceived punishment for larger clans. But I could be missing something...

Edited 11/26/2018 12:54:46

yes we must force new guys out of the famed exclusivity that is clan league and put them in containment leagues :)

for that reason training clans belong into CL A but large clans must put their prospects somewhere else right?

Edited 11/26/2018 13:00:54

Meh,

if you want to propose a secondary roster, go ahead and write to TBest. Might be a few kinks to work out though :)

But I've played RCL and don't see the problem. Was quite fun as well. It doesn't have the same level of engagement as CL though, I'll give you that.
But beyond that: it does help having a wider (clan) community around as support to keep one engaged. Which is why I'd suggest internal leagues or tournaments, which shouldn't be a problem for a larger clan. Or set up a friendly competition with a rival clan. Or encourage your players to join a general P/R league or team ladders or AWP... There's never a lack of opportunities to play in warlight.

And most of these don't have the same level of politics or peer pressure attached to it as the higher clan league divisions, so I'd argue for most new(ish) players it could even be more fun ;)

See you nicely wrote up how training can be done(i too did play RCL) without needing training (or more accurate feeding) clans in the Clan League alongside their mother organisations =).

But if you insist on the benefits of training clans in Cl the same arguments are valid with primary secondary rosters.

Treating players like some kind of food that's being served to clans is dehumanizing. There's enough of this shit in real-life politics, no need to carry it over to a browser game, thank you.

So you are complaining, that you aren't allowed to field a 2nd roster? I wouldn't have a problem with 2 line-ups per clan (with exactly the same rules as there are for switching line-ups of different clans). Go forward and ask the management, if you are allowed. Is this a current scenario or do you only want the option? Anyway, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

CL8 Lynx (Div.A) helped 101st/Outlaws (Div.B) and based on this I guess few players are assuming CL11 or later, similar situations may arise where a Main clan helps the Junior clan or both work towards an advantage.

Main clans have helped Junior clans in ways which are against rules or gives them unfair advantage generally (like Lynx players helping 101st players in ladder games or Master players revealing moderator reports to Apprentice player), but saying we shouldn't allow a junior clan (or feeder clan) to play in same division as main clan(or mother clan) because they may collaborate is not correct. Instead we can have clan wide punishments for such cases (reduce 10% or 20% of points scored upto that point) for both clans, be it main/junior or two friendly clans.

Having second roster from one clan (say Darklords A and Darklords B) should be fine as long as they don't manipulate things imo. Idk how many clans can field a second roster, but it will give chance for many players to play CL.

Personally, I don't have a problem with them being in the same division, so long as there are rules in place for player movement (motd/Beren had that pretty detailed). That is the biggest risk to me is some sort of roster manipulation.

The 2nd risk is some sort of helping each other. If they are on a shared discord for example, they would need to not share intel. I don't know that they WOULD do this, but obviously we've had a fair amount of this type of stuff from some other clans.

So as long as those two things don't happen, I see no reason why they can't be in the same division.

We feel the need to state a few points in our thought process to explain how we arrived at these verdicts, as well as clarify some other points that have since been debated.

We start with the latter. We are also asked to advice and help the administrator in his creation/updating of the rules. We want to let everyone know, that we do consider all opinions in this thread, particularly the constructive suggestions that are already looking ahead to possible rule changes for CL 11. F.ex. rakleader mentioned some things we have already discussed and started gathering ideas and possible solutions for. We thought about how we can update rules to be more user friendly in that regard, but for the same time how we can make sure that we're limiting (and in the best case, not presenting) any grey areas that could be abused. That's going to be a tough task until CL 11 starts, but we're going to continue working on that matter until then. We're certainly going to continue looking into this thread to think about other ideas that were presented by everyone.

Currently the discussion has evolved into a direction on the decision on if parent/feeder clans should be allowed to play in the same division. Even prior to this discussion it has been a controversial topic in the community and as this discussion has shown so far it is clear that this issue will need to be fully clarified to proceed.
We certainly want to see all different viewpoints in the community and would ask the same points to not be restated again. We would hope other voices from the community to voice their opinion on the issue too, to have a more constructive and community representative debate on all the big topics.

Those two things seem to be the most important things to talk about the future of CL.

Now we want to take our time to explain our thought process for these cases a bit.

FiveStarGeneral mentioned that a 2 slot reduction would be enough of a punishment for the players. We were not that far off of that same general thought. During the debate of those cases we had to ask ourselves which basic line of a punishment we want to give players for a first time rule break. A point reduction and therefore a correction of the past and current standings will be made, but in addition to that, there needed to be individual consequences. A 1 slot reduction was pretty fast thrown out of the window as we talked about finding a baseline. A 1 slot reduction would not affect the majority of players, since most of them aren't playing in all 3 available slots per player, and we wanted to find a baseline, that would serve as an effective penalty for every player. Note that only a ban could affect a player who only typically plays 1 slot, but in the end we still decided that was too harsh, and a 2 slot reduction would be a better baseline for the next season. In the end however we added 1 additional slot to be reduced in the following season, which resulted in the overall 3 slot reduction as our baseline (2 slot reduction for next season, followed by 1 slot reduction in the 2nd season). Why did we add that 1 slot punishment? Firstly it affords us some right to enact all 3 slot reductions immediately if a player does typically play fewer than 2 slots, thus ensuring it can serve as an effective penalty for everyone. Secondly, though we were of the opinion that a 1 slot penalty in any season would likely not affect the majority of players anyway, it still serves as a useful addition to show that people who broke the rules, need to gain their slots back as they need to earn their trust back.

We started to use that baseline effectively with CL 9 cases. Applying it to unresolved CL 8 cases however was more unclear in regarding its rules. The general ruleset clearly stated that a case of cheating (which should be determined by the panel) should result in a ban at minimum and we received the confirmation that this ruleset, posted by ChrisCMU, was used by the previous CL council. Although it would have been much simpler for us to take that route, we felt it wouldn't be fair to enforce these harsh punishments to CL 8 cases, for being both some time ago and also there being less awareness of any rules. Therefore we took the MH ruling as sufficient cause for ourselves to also deviate from having to ban any players. The MH ruling was also the reason why we ended up with different punishments in both CL 8 cases. Since the Masters case happened after the MH ruling was made by the previous CL council, there was reason to make a slightly stricter verdict in comparison, because in that ruling it was clearly prohibited to take turns for others in games i.e. receiving help in CL games.

That's the reason for the difference between CL 8 and 9. We had then to decide how we would handle cases of multiple rules being broken and it was agreed it wouldn't be fair to treat people who broke one rule the same as people who broke multiple rules. That's why we had to escalate penalties to bans for the players who broke multiple rules. We did end up taking into consideration that we want to be a bit more lenient for players who came forward with those cases. Therefore we decided to give these people a punishment that effectively is 2 steps below the baseline, though never below 1 slot punishment, because we didn't want to make a precedent where people came forward with these cases and end up with no punishment at all, which could be misused by players in the future. Therefore we decided to lower the original punishment about 2 steps, which you can see in a lot of verdicts.

F.ex. Master Jz received in CL 8 a 2 slot punishment, but because she came forward we reduced it to a 2 slot punishment (1 slot the next season and 1 slot the 2nd season) and finally to a 1 slot overall punishment. Same for Beren who we took down from the 3 slot (2-1) baseline punishment to a 2 slot (in the next season) to a 2 slot (1-1) punishment.


We essentially have the following escalating set of penalties:

Warning
1 slot reduction
2 slot reduction (1 slot reduction the next season and 1 slot reduction in the 2nd season)
2 slot reduction
3 slot reduction ( 2 slot reduction the next season and 1 slot reduction in the 2nd season) [BASELINE]
Ban

From that point on, any need for further escalation resulted in one additional slot reduction.

We don't expect everybody to agree on our punishments or our thought process, but we do hope that it generally helps to understand the process and how we ultimately arrived at those verdicts.