But, Illuminati merged with 101st last CL and became one clan DURING the Clan League. OTTERYCAT moved to 101st well before the start of the next clan league.

If only 101st had joined Illuminati and not the other way around :D {But really thru, that would have worked per CL rules, as Otterycat would have stayed in Illuminati.}

No wonder we have played "THE AWESOME OTTERYCAT" 3 Cls in a row. According to the rule it seems like its been broken, but ye its up to the panel.
I for my clans view think that he must be removed from clot due this and 101 needs to sub in a new player for the new game. As a clan they have gotten all the rules way ahead of time and they should have read them? So some sort of punishment, as losing their ongoing games would be fair? (as he was allowed to play and even if one surrenders, one can become ai. Losing the game would be punishment enough?). Just as any rule breaking this would been solved the same way, right? If a clan have a player booted they would most likely lose the game(not necessary) and thus subbed their player out. As for the player himself i dont know if there is supposed to be a punishment for this in itself(again something the ethics panel have to decide).

note, just wording my thoughts here on what would be logically to me. For my clan and the clan league as a whole id want some kind of punishment be made.

Last time i checked the rules in the spreadsheet on 23rd December there was no exception in this rule. I dont really like that the rules are changed after they are published once.. Going with the initial rules that have been the current at clan registration point (the time when the clans should have read and commited to the rules with their registration) there is no way around a punishment actually.

23rd Dec version


Edited 1/26/2020 21:43:39

You 2 seem pretty biased though from my point of view. Me being punished as you've suggested would directly benefit your clan. I seriously doubt you would seek such punishment if it was someone from Hawks instead of 101st.

From my interpretation of the rules what I and 101st have done as a clan is totally in the parameters of the rules. (Refernce sections, Criteria for claiming a clans spot AND Clan movement/representation)

-Otterycat

Edited 1/27/2020 00:15:01

Rules are not biased.

Rules may not be biased but players are...

Anyways I will shut up and wait for the decision of the Ethics panel.

Edited 1/26/2020 23:14:21

The main problem is the rules are based off an older version of CL (CL9), as the rules decided on for CL10 were on the CLOT and not on an actual spreadsheet, so things that were updated in CL10 may not have carried over when the sheet did in CL11. Frankly I should have went over the rules more clearly, BUT, I had so many particular changes to be made, it's not surprising I missed some things. I do not think you can blame the players following rules that were made out more clearly in previous leagues.

From Clan League 10 discord :





Full List of CL10 Rules

https://web.archive.org/web/20180928130704/http://clan-league.westus.cloudapp.azure.com/rules

Edited 1/27/2020 00:04:08

I've stated this to the CL panel before, but in my opinion, the issue that needs ruling is the following:

- In Clan League season 10 there was a rule. It read as follows:

"If a player is present on Clan X’s roster in a given season, and decides to leave clan X to play for another Clan Y. This player cannot play for Clan X again for another 2 seasons. The only exception to this rule is if Clan X drops out of the Clan League."

This last sentence of this rule was present in Clan League 10, but was omitted in Clan League 11 and 12. The question the boils down to to whether an omitted rule is still an active one. If it's considered to still be the rule, we can run into a problem:
Do the rules of all seasons of CL still apply if they were silently omitted? That would cause some trouble.


Now, some people raised the issue about the writing of the rule and it missing its intention.
The updated version reduces the "This player cannot play for Clan X again for another 2 seasons" to a single season.
As not everyone knows the intent of the rule: it was designed so that "feeder clans" would benefit from players freely moving between their main clan and feeder clan. Think of Lynx players moving to 101st for a season, or Masters players moving to Apprentice for a season and the player returning to the main clan after the season is finished to play for their main clan. As it's not possible to define what a "feeder clan" is, this rule came into its existence. People argued that having Clan X dropping out should not allow a player to return to Clan Y.
So let's assume the following (and this is only for illustrative purposes, no namecalling):
Clan X = Lynx (Main clan)
Clan Y = Blitz (Feeder clan)
It's season 10. The player 'Jeffernub' plays for Lynx (X).
In season 11, 'Jeffernub' goes to Blitz (Y) to play for them. He is now unable to play for Lynx (X) for one season. So, in season 12, he can not play for Lynx (X) for one season, unless they drop out of CL.
With our current mechanics, a clan dropping out of CL has to start from the bottom. There is no advantage to be gained by going against the intent of this rule, as you can't get an advantage out of it.

It wasn't only for that reason. It was also to prevent people like Miyagi who were in both Masters and apex from being able to choose which clan to play for based on which clan needed them more. We didn't allow players to rejoin an old clan just because their new clan wasn't competing because we didn't want there to be a situation where people were feeling under pressure not to compete just so that the player(s) could go back to their old clan and compete.

Edited 1/27/2020 00:06:38

I would also like to ask that any personal insults not be included.

The exception from the CL 10 rules is completely irrelevant to the present scenario. Regardless of whether or not Illuminati dropped out this season, THE AWESOME OTTERYCAT cannot play for {101st} this clan league. If I understand it correctly, the exception is not really an exception, but to clarify that the limitation only affects the immediate next season and is removed if the first clan drops out.

Also, I have 0 doubt that hawks are more inclined to force THE AWESOME OTTERYCAT surrender ongoing games because they're playing each other, but they are fully within their rights to push for it. As long as they're not the ones making the ultimate decision they can come out en masse on the forums to push for whatever they want.

Edit: The reason that it was originally an exception to the rule was because it was worded differently. The original wording has no specific CL numbers, but only said that the player cannot play for Clan X for two more seasons. The intention was so that if player goes from Clan X (in CL 1) to Clan Y (in CL 2), he cannot play for Clan X in CL 3 and CL 4. However, if Clan X drops out in CL 3, then the player can play for Clan X in CL 4. This is the only exception. Whether or not Clan Y drops out does not matter at all.

The wording could have reduced confusion immensely by simply stating that the restriction was for the next two seasons, not just two seasons (thus avoiding the exception). Note that krunx's comment that it was a typo is incorrect, and the clan names were written as intended.

Edit 2: Slight correction. My proposed wording with the word "next" is incorrect, as Beren pointed out, since I neglected the possibility that Clan X drops out in CL 2. Other than that I think everything I said is still correct.

Edited 1/27/2020 00:49:01

The CL11 Rules were a direct copy of CL9 rules, I shouldn't have to say that this was a mistake, and I plan to implement the rules as they were intended, not as they were mistakenly written.

Also to note this was my fault and I understand that, I new the rule stated "Clan X" and not "Clan Y" and I should have not have allowed him to play.

I'm not sure if my mistake should cost Ottery and his clan any harsh punishment.

Edited 1/27/2020 00:27:03

As long as they're not the ones making the ultimate decision they can come out en masse on the forums to push for whatever they want.

Asking for the punishment of a rivalling clan doesn't seem like the ultimate smart move to me. The most you get out of it is that 3 seasons from now you make your own mistake and people remember.

@DrApe, that's not true. In your scenario if Clan X drops out prior to CL2, the player would then be able to play for Clan X if they came back for CL3.

they are fully within their rights to push for it. As long as they're not the ones making the ultimate decision they can come out en masse on the forums to push for whatever they want.

I'd like to invite you to read the rules and refer you to this specific one:
"The panel reserves the right to ban any player for a season for excessive spamming on the CL forum threads. Harassing the panel will result in a ban as well(You will be warned once). Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but please express it in a respectful manner."

@Beren Thanks for the correction, I've updated my post. The main point that still stands is that Illuminati dropping out is completely irrelevant.

@Farah I think so far they have presented their arguments "in a respectful manner", but yes of course spamming can and should be punished. Perhaps the phrase "en masse" should have been avoided.

Edited 1/27/2020 00:57:11

Haha, yes. I didn't see your edited post, but the 'en masse' part made me point out that specific rule.

So the rule:

"If a player played for Clan X in CL 9 and moved to clan Y in CL 10, then they can not represent Clan X in CL 11. This rule is meant to stop free movement of players and restrict the advantages gained via allied clans (For ex - FakeNamePlayer for Masters/Apex, Lynx/101st, Masters/Apprentice, GG/GGr etc). The only exception to this rule is if Clan X drops out of the Clan League."

By letter of the law Ottery/101st is in violation of this rule. By spirit of the law I don't think so. The rule provides an exception for Clan X dropping out, but it makes sense that the same reasoning should apply to Clan Y dropping out.

Unless someone can give me a good reason why this shouldn't be allowed my opinion is we should clarify the exception and carry on.

Ofc Hawks or every other clan of Division B would have a profit of a punishment for 101st. I dont think that is a reason for not bringing arguments though.

But actually I only stated out that the rule as it was at the beginning was broken. I didnt call out ottery or 101st.

As one might remember I wrote earlier in this that the rules are not clearly pointed out. That they should be made clearlier before clan league begins. And. You see what we got now.

If the rules for CL9 count now why isnt there any reference in the Rules Sheet then?

Glass, if you want to read by the letter of the law, Ottery is still not in violation. As it it says "can not represent Clan X in CL 11", and this is CL 12. Everyone knows this would not make sense for the CL 12 rules. Mistakes happen and the same applies to the clan X/Y dropping out. The intention was clear.