So, we've had some drama following this decision. I thought I'd summarize it here for the sake of transparency and because everybody loves some Clan League Drama.

1) Why is KKND allowed to play on Alexclusive's account for the coming turn?
Alexclusive currently resides in Azerbaijan, a country that has just had a major conflict. As such, they have blocked warzone. Alexclusive has to get on a flight to get back to Germany, but it's rather likely that his flight will be cancelled, due to the flight infrastructure not being all that good. IF, and only if, Alexclusive can't fly back to Germany because of this, KKND is allowed to take his turn. Now, I would not endorse sharing account information, but this is a special situation. It is merely a backup plan.

2) Recreation of Discovery versus Polish Eagles on 2v2 Volcano Island
I missed a substitution for Discovery on Volcano Island 1v1 and 2v2. They subbed out Denriev. After they sent me a reminder, I took care of the substitution. The team had a game created in the meantime with Denriev in it. The question is if this game should be recreated. I will debate this with the Clan League Panel, but this is my personal stance:
The Discovery team consists of two players. One of them was subbed out, the other was supposed to play the game. Alarm bells should've gone off when the game was created with the wrong players for both of them. However, they both joined and played out the game. After the game was lost, I was approached with the request of recreating it, as I missed the substitution. There's two sides to the coin here, in my opinion. One being that I missed a sub and that obviously shouldn't happen. The other side however, is that when a game gets created with the wrong players, you should notify me or the Clan League Panel so we can delete the game. Playing it out and demanding a remake afterwards is just wasting the other team's time. If we want to get really technical, the substitution was only made by PM, not on the forum thread it was supposed to be according to the rules. However, I'd like to dismiss that technicality as I'd rather have substitutions via mail (preferably both on the forum and PM though). I've told Discovery to ask if Polish Eagles are up for a remake a few days ago, yet so far this hasn't happened as far as I'm aware. If Polish Eagles agrees with a remake, I'm all up for doing it. If not, my personal stance is to let the result be as is.
Expect a final decision on this in the coming days.

3) Lynx favouritism
I don't like Lynx

4) Outlaws vs FCC game
A quote by Plat:
"I'd like the special permission to remake Outlaws vs FCC game as Tainted Monk had circumstances he was unable to join his game. Assuming both parties agree. Given the above decision and the earliness of the league, I think it's a beautiful request to give."
Answer: Stop wasting my time. Ask FCC if you must and let me know what they say.

Why do I need FCC permission? If Lynx didn't need Outlaws or other clans permission to fit their special request. How does this make sense under your imagined ruleset?

And you wonder why people say your favouring Lynx?

Outlaws lost 5 points for a non-join against FCC on DRoR, we followed the rules and we accepted the consequences with no complaints. So why is it so different when Lynx make a complaint that a player might boot and all of a sudden they get special treatment?

Edited 10/6/2020 11:18:11

I've heard rumors that Xenophon doctored screenshots and triggered the start of the Azerbaijan-Armenia war, all in order to score a win against alexclusive on 2v2 Volcano Island.

Will the Clan League Panel take action against him for those actions, or is that considered within the rules?

And you wonder why people say your favouring Lynx?

You're the only one who's said this. So no, I don't wonder.

Outlaws lost 5 points for a non-join against FCC on DRoR, we followed the rules and we accepted the consequences with no complaints. So why is it so different when Lynx make a complaint that a player might boot and all of a sudden they get special treatment?

For anyone who's too daft to understand, there's a few things at play here.
1) You had a non-join. This is different from a boot. The non-join could've been prevented by activating a vacation. Had you asked me if you could activate a vacation on his account as he was facing some special circumstances that made him unable to join the game, I would've agreed.
2) The player in question was active before the game started. Apparently he was last seen 4 hours before that non-join. Enough time to activate a vacation or join.
3) Lynx didn't complain. Alexclusive pointed out his situation and politely asked if they could have this measure as a last resort.

Given all this, no remake. So scrap the permission bit.

There's no rule in the clan league spreadsheet that made me aware of such a mechanic being possible. Here's your rule.

"It is prohibited to take over someone's account. This is very hard to police, and we're relying on trust. But if someone goes inactive, just substitute them. Do not take control of a retired player's account to save their current games. These games should be forfeit as a penalty for retiring the player."

By this definition, Lynx should follow it as the rest of us do. If you wanted to change the rules and add your amazing judgement, do it before the season begins. That seems the sensible thing.

From my perspective, I followed the rule of the league. I didn't make any requests cause it is clearly not prohibited in the rule. Therefore Outlaws is at a disadvantage for a rule that was created about 7 hours ago!

---

A non-boot/non-join aren't exactly the same but they both follow the same principle of failing to commit/click a join button. It's still fundamentally the same principle of not doing what your suppose to before the game ends.

You made the point that you don't have a favouritism for Lynx in your previous. I'm simply explaining where that perception may have been created.

Edited 10/6/2020 13:42:51

It's not a new rule. It's a situation where a player is completely unable to commit, and has communicated that to me. I repeat that it's not even sure if someone has to log in to his account. Furthermore, Outlaws had a non-join by a player who was active hours before they didn't join. You can set a vacation to prevent said non-join: everything would've been okay. Why your player didn't do so is not of my concern, as they clearly had the opportunity to do it.

Also, considering favouritism regarding Lynx:
Any clan that would've brought up this issue (verifiably) would've gotten the same treatment. If Tainted Monk was locked in an embassy with his access to warzone cut off, I would've let you set a vacation on his account. You make the point that you didn't know this was possible, and that's a fair point. However, you then said how you were going to make up a reason why he didn't join to get the same treatment. Enough reason for me to refuse a remake altogether.

I've already stated that this was a one-time thing. I'd like for that to remain true. However, if a bizarre situation like this happens, do let me know, and let me know with proof. This isn't a new rule or anything, this is me being open to make an exception to a rule that exists. I'm not here to enforce every rule with as much accuracy as possible. In that case, a lot of substitutions would've not counted, as they weren't posted in the forums, for example. I'm here to organize this league as I see fit. And if I can prevent a boot by someone who's in a situation where he is 100% unable to access warzone, I will.

Edited 10/6/2020 13:58:42

I'm not saying your lying but do you have proof he was online before the non-join? Otherwise you can't really say that.

My player could've had a circumstances where putting a vacation for a online flash game was the last thing on his head for what maybe credible reasons. Is this not the whole point why banked time is allowed? Couldn't Alex not make his picks within the first 3 days. Using the banked time for its intended purpose? (For emergencies such as this?). I don't think you can be the judge of other people's behaviours, we're all different. For some people, they work the day after they grieve a loss for a loved one. Some need extra time. Each person has a set of different values/needs/mindsets. What can be a circumstance that's deemed unplayable for them, is playable for you. Is it really fair that you make that arbitration call? And if so, can you illustrate the grounds you deem it on roughly if possible?

When this decision was made I was mad and upset. It was wrong behaviour and I expressed that through discord. Whatever is said in Discord doesn't really reflect what I really think (for me Discord is a fast food for talking, here is for proper articulation of thoughts), it's mostly emotion while here I try to be logical. I don't remember saying that and if I did (show proof if I did cause I can't remember), i'd say i said in a satire way because at that time I had strong views that this is a exploitable rule, which there's a fair ground to say it. I don't think I'd literally say I'm gonna lie.. Not that much of a dumbass to seriously say that. I did inform you that I need to talk to Tainted Monk to gather the information if this was really difficult circumstances or your typical boot. You can make the decision thereafter based on that info, it will be his words not mine.

To prevent this situation at least from happening, can you please make a note of these "Special circumstances" if you're going to keep this precedent? so other clans like us can be made aware that such a mechanism is enabled? A rough note on what criteria would have to be sufficiently covered would be nice.

Otherwise I do apologise for my wrong behaviour sincerely on Discord, I jumped the gun there.

You shouldn’t defend your actions Farah.

You’re the queen of Clan league now, you answer to no one.

I can't think of a different decision that would open a bigger can of worms and add more drama.

So clearly it was the right call.

I'm not saying your lying but do you have proof he was online before the non-join? Otherwise you can't really say that.

We have someone stating that he was online a few hours before the non-join. This statement was made before the non-join happened, so it wouldn't make sense to be a setup.

My player could've had a circumstances where putting a vacation for a online flash game was the last thing on his head for what maybe credible reasons.

Your player was busy with school and decided not to join as he didn't know the rules. As stated in this very thread, players playing CL are expected to have read through the rules. It's like the Terms of Service you agree to.

Is this not the whole point why banked time is allowed? Couldn't Alex not make his picks within the first 3 days. Using the banked time for its intended purpose? (For emergencies such as this?).

We give you banked time and it's up to you how you spend it. How could I enforce or expect people to use their banked time in a certain way anyways? You claim to know its intended purpose; I say there is none.

What can be a circumstance that's deemed unplayable for them, is playable for you. Is it really fair that you make that arbitration call? And if so, can you illustrate the grounds you deem it on roughly if possible?

A little hint is being completely unable to commit your turns while you would like to do so. If any requests come in, I'll judge them on an individual basis; I'm not making a rule out of this, which you seem to not comprehend.

When this decision was made I was mad and upset. It was wrong behaviour and I expressed that through discord. Whatever is said in Discord doesn't really reflect what I really think (for me Discord is a fast food for talking, here is for proper articulation of thoughts), it's mostly emotion while here I try to be logical. I don't remember saying that and if I did (show proof if I did cause I can't remember), i'd say i said in a satire way because at that time I had strong views that this is a exploitable rule, which there's a fair ground to say it.

Again, it's not a rule. I don't mind your behavior on Discord. Debate is encouraged, even when it gets heated. I'd love to show you proof, but there's been about a thousand messages in several Discord servers discussing this very ruling, so I have no idea how to find it. If it was satire or not doesn't matter; it showed that there was little basis to your claim of Tainted Monk having some issue that prevented him from committing.

To prevent this situation at least from happening, can you please make a note of these "Special circumstances" if you're going to keep this precedent? so other clans like us can be made aware that such a mechanism is enabled? A rough note on what criteria would have to be sufficiently covered would be nice.

There is no new formal rule. I will repeat that if something extreme happens and I'm aware of the situation (and can verify the situation) I will do my best to come up with a solution to have a player not boot. This isn't a precedent per se, just me making an exception to the rule of players not being able to take over. I'm very sorry you lost 5 points over a non-join, but it was nowhere near the circumstances of Alexclusive. Also note that Alexclusive informed me about the situation and asked me to make a decision before he might be booted; not after losing points. A third point I'd like to repeat is that it's not yet sure whether KKND will actually have to take a turn for him. It's a backup, not a reinforcement.

The way I understand all this: Farah clearly doesn't understand that being busy with school feels a lot like being stuck in war-torn Azerbaijan to some teens. I sincerely hope that kid from Outlaws can get a plane out of his school so he can join the next game.

EDIT: /sarcasm for those who may not have caught it.

Edited 10/7/2020 10:13:09

Tbf @Math Wolf, you cant compare "busy with school" with a war. And a war like Azerbaijan and Armenia have for decades and decades and decades even before the Soviet Union times... I support this Farah's move. It's an uncommon situation.

I suggest a list of "extreme situations".
1) wars 2) floods 3) death of a relative 4) player actually dying...

etc.

Substitution

Clan: USSR

Deadman's RoR 3v3

Player out: alex82500 https://www.warzone.com/Profile?p=8645862111

Player in: China https://www.warzone.com/Profile?p=1954125027

Substitution

Clan: USSR

Strategic MME

Player out: zaky http://warzone.com/Profile?p=8347107640

Player in: Eóinob https://www.warzone.com/Profile?p=7779939574

Edited 10/8/2020 17:16:48

So, now Farah has so kindly supplied the details, I think I am now able to weigh in with my opinion.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to allow taking over someone’s account under such circumstances, however things seem a bit complicated to me.
1. The rules do not state that such allowances can be made.
2. The rules also are very clear that this is what the extra 15 days are for; these are intended for emergencies like this.
Now, Timi said alexclusive was already eating into his banked time. I don’t know whether the cause of this was Warzone being blocked because of the war, if so then I have no problems with it. But if it was because of stalling, then this really isn’t okay; the banked time is for emergencies, and if you don’t have enough to get through emergencies because you have been stalling when there is no emergency, that is your own fault.
Since I don’t know all the answers to this, I am tentatively supporting this decision. However, I think if such allowances are going to be made, the rules should be updated to include examples of what kind of situation is appropriate for these exceptions (e.g. they must be unforeseeable events, within reason) and (if we want to get really technical) what kind of proof of said emergency is required to make the exception application legal.
Hope that all makes sense!

Edited 10/7/2020 01:31:38

tough decision...
tbh I would not have made it that way. I can understand both views.
Problem might becone:
Who knows how others get their boot/non-join. If others than alex would have had this issue they likely kept silent and took this boot as penalty (shit happens). It will be hard to draw the line...

That's the beauty of someone dealing with cl on his own. It doesn't matter if there are precendences, farah can just decide the next case again as he pleases to find the (his) best solution. It's not complicated and doesn't need the rulebook to be rewritten.

For sure this is exciting drama.

I think Farah has made the right decision.

I do think there needs to be some rule or at least an agreed process to ask for a takeover. But a very vague one that leaves the power with the organiser.
With no rule, you could get a lot of requests for help..

A player disappearing, quitting, retiring is the same as a player dying. So, death can't be a good enough reason for a takeover, so why would being sick?
School, exam etc, there are 12 subs. Exams periods are known months in advance, if you can't do it, sub out.

Now that the option exists, should we all be sharing our passwords? Or he was able to sms his password out from the embassy.

I think the ability to take over accounts could be only for Extreme events and for a maximum of 2 turns?
Flood, war, hurricane etc. I can imagine if your house is flattened you can have a week off (+ original bank). Likely it's even possible to compare player's flag to the news as evidence.

Otherwise, sickness, death of a relative etc, these can be dealt with in 2 weeks of bank.

Additionally, there should be second part to the rule. If the original player does not come back, the game is forfiet.

I don't like repeating myself, but I think the key part to take away here is that there is no new rule. There is a rulebook that covers most situations. However, it can never cover everything; the rulebook would have to be infinite. We had an ethics panel that decided how much a punishment would be by looking at the spirit and intention of the rules. That is what I do now. Let's just say that if you have a situation like this, contact me. There will be no change to the rules because of this exemption. It would be impossible to draw the line anyways.

1. The rules do not state that such allowances can be made.
2. The rules also are very clear that this is what the extra 15 days are for; these are intended for emergencies like this.
Now, Timi said alexclusive was already eating into his banked time. I don’t know whether the cause of this was Warzone being blocked because of the war, if so then I have no problems with it. But if it was because of stalling, then this really isn’t okay; the banked time is for emergencies, and if you don’t have enough to get through emergencies because you have been stalling when there is no emergency, that is your own fault.
...
However, I think if such allowances are going to be made, the rules should be updated to include examples of what kind of situation is appropriate for these exceptions (e.g. they must be unforeseeable events, within reason) and (if we want to get really technical) what kind of proof of said emergency is required to make the exception application legal.

1. The last rules covers all missing rules: "We will use our best judgement as a panel to resolve issues which are not covered by the rules listed above." Since the panels are gone now, its just Farah that makes the call if something is not covered by the written rules.

2. Banked time is (in my opinion) to be used in cases where some extra discusion time is needed for team games, and for short rl-issues (e.g. school project or something). An actual war is not a short issue, so I find it fair that someone takes over Alex account in this case.

3. Making a rule for every emergency would be more than overkill, and would prob cause lots of loopholes. Therefor the powers of the panel to make decisions on the fly, are the best option there is, since they can review things on a case to case basis, looking at all circumstances and consequences.