rts-league.org

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Do you want a new forum account? Send us an e-mail with your desired nick and we'll get it done!
(If the link doesn't work for you, right-click on it and save the e-mail address for use in your e-mail client)

#1 2008-04-24 04:58:19

ZwerG_Michi_de
Member
Registered: 2008-04-23
Posts: 23

Roster - Rule

This topic is about this thread:
http://www.rts-league.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=688

I have had enough. Matt and Ped have given the reasons why the rule is in place. If you cannot follow a simple rule, then that is your problem. Many other clans have no problems with this rule, in fact only 3 clans this season have violated the rule. I am sorry if you find it not fair but the rule is in place to make the RTSL fair. Before the rule, clans would get random players to play one match, that same player would jump to another clan the next round and cause suspiscions of cheating and smurfing. Not a pleasant experiece at all for the players or admins.

So my suggestion Zwerg, is to update your roster all the time, check it out as well, make sure all the players you may use in the future are on the roster, it is not RTSL's or the other clan's fault if you fail to be a active operator. As for people saying why is Zwerg getting off the hook, well people are saying that because we have a strong policy, which has been held for years. Your clan is not getting off the hook, you will be treated the same way all clans have for using an illegal player, your clan will receive 2 admin losses.

This topic is over. I dont want to see anymore crying over this rule, follow the rule or face the music. 99% of clans follow the rule with no problem, so the rule will stay. Continue on through the rest of the season.

Just some little response, because u admins havent read my post. ( and omg, i know my english is bad, but u should be fair and read my posts anyway, please)

Im totaly ok with the rule, that only players can participate which are in the roster. This is damn right and needed and without this rule there would be no RTSL possibly, because players could just jump betweeen clans if they want to.
B U T (and this is the part the admins NEED to read P L E A S E - also "terminator"-admins, which realy did not read my last both posts in the linked thread above)
IF both sides of an matchup agree, even players from the SAME clan can play, without beeing in the roster.
Please! This is realy a major change which is absolutely necessary in my opinion. There is absolutely NO argument to NOT put in this change into th rule.

And once again (im writing this the third time, i realy hope the admins will read it this time)
im n o t fighting for no AL for ZwerG
Give us the AL and then change this (again a strong word, sorry) dumb rule. smile

Thanks

And if u want: discuss! I realy want to hear an argument, why this rule-change isnt possible?

Offline

 

#2 2008-04-24 13:27:09

Mattlight
RTSL Alumnus
From: Oregon, USA
Registered: 2007-11-10
Posts: 999
Website

Re: Roster - Rule

We did read your post, don't worry smile

I understand your suggestion and think it makes sense, but it has problems unfortunately.  One problem with the suggestion you're making is that, if we allow clans to agree to use non-roster participants, it makes the leagues a real headache to manage.  Instead of having a black and white rule to determine things on, we have to look at each case extensively and decide if it warrants enforcement of the rule or not.  It causes a huge amount of ambiguity as to what sort of decisions we have to make based on each case. 

Another problem is the potential abuse of this suggestion.  The reason for the rule is to prevent players from "clan hopping" to play RTSL matches.  If we allow clans to agree on using non-roster players, then the possibility gets opened for clans to start using this to get an advantage, and that starts to lead to smurfing and cheating.  It's not a route we want to go on. 

A third problem, related to the first, is that it simply isn't worth the trouble for the admins and the clans involved to make decisions in these areas when it's an extremely simple matter for the clan involved to check their roster and make sure the player is valid.  The only reasons why a clan wouldn't do this is if they're lazy, or if they don't have a full team on and need to grab a player to play last-second. 

Like I said up top, I agree with your analysis of this rule and I'd like it too if we could simply have clans agree to it.  Unfortunately, that opens up a huge amount of possibilities for cheating and extra work for us admins, when to prevent that it takes 10 seconds of an operator's time to check.


Join the media team!
FeaR clan
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee180/SirZev/Sigs/MattLight3.jpg
MSN: eiles3@comcast.net | ESO: Mattlight | Skype: Matt_to_da_light | Gamespy: TeHMaTFaCToR
When I'm not in my right mind, my left mind gets pretty crowded.

Offline

 

#3 2008-04-24 14:21:40

Pedestrian
Webmaster
From: Saint Louis, MO, USA
Registered: 2007-11-10
Posts: 1603

Re: Roster - Rule

Thank your for your post, Michi_de, and I can promise you that the staff is considering a rule change for next season.  However, I think the rule should stay as it is written now, for the following reasons:

Right now the rule is black and white.  We enforce the rule fairly against all clans; you might feel that the rule is unfair, but there are no allegations that we are favoring one clan over another (and we aren't).

That would change if we turned this rule from a black-and-white one into something that needs to be *interpreted* by the staff.  I don't want to deal with questions such as "Why was it ok for Zwerg to use a player not on their roster, but [Clan X] got penalized for it?"  The current rule avoids that problem by penalizing all clans equally.

A bright-line rule like this is both easier for the staff to apply and more fair to all clans in the league.

Offline

 

#4 2008-04-24 14:58:31

ZwerG_Michi_de
Member
Registered: 2008-04-23
Posts: 23

Re: Roster - Rule

Well, but ur arguments are not that strong, are they?

1. Admins need to work extra, because they must find out if both clans agreed in a playe participationr.
This is wrong.
If both clans agree, its their decission. ONLY if a clan says afterwards "i didnt agreed into that xyz could play, imo he could not" and the other clan have no screenshots to proove him wrong, then he is right und u just give him admin win (this is totaly like its now! just look in the thread i linked above, no change at all! ). Thats it, u dont have to confirm anything, u dont have to work extra and ask anybody. U just read what the people say and thats it. Absolutely no more work.
People confirm, or they do not. Read what they say, its just so easy like its now. Black and white.

2. Clans will abuse it.
This is wrong.
The most clans participate for fun and just to have a fair match. I honestly believe that each clan is here to play fair. Why should anybody cheat? For what reason?
And on the other hand, how to abuse this rule? If a clan agree (and it can be prooved by screenshots) there is no way to abuse. No clan have to agree in anything, its theier decission. If they want admin wins, because theier matchup partner dont have enough players (in the roster, but online there is somebody) they just can do that. Absolutely NO change to now.

Imo there is still no reasonable motive to abort this rule change.

Back in ESGL this rule caused absolutely no problems. Clans never tried to get an advantage of such "cheating". Thats the experience i got in my 3 years playing AoC in ESGL.

Offline

 

#5 2008-04-24 17:42:53

TcP_LucaOr
Veteran
Registered: 2007-11-20
Posts: 162

Re: Roster - Rule

Why not a compromise change that still keeps the rule, but avoid its more harsh interpretation?
A humble proposal for next season.
---------------------------------
Current Rule 3.4
If a Clan uses a player that is not listed and eligible, they will receive an administrative loss for each game in which the ineligible player participated. If, when asked, a Clan refuses to swap out an ineligible player, and the games are not played as a result, that clan will receive a Miss (see below, Rule 8.3).
--------------------------------
Modified Rule 3.4
If a Clan uses a player that is not listed and eligible, then:
- If the clan using an ineligible player LOST the game, that clan will receive an administrative loss for the game;
- If the clan using an ineligible player WON the game, that clan will receive a MISS, and the game will have to be rescheduled and played with eligible players;
- If, when asked, a Clan refuses to swap out an ineligible player, and the games are not played as a result, that clan will receive a Miss (see below, Rule 8.3).
-------------------------------

I think we all agree that the bad thing is turning a win into a loss: so keep a 1 point penalty for using an ineligible player. If the game is loss, who cares. But if a clan win a game, let them repeat the game. In this way nobody will abuse (you have nothing to abuse... best case scenario is you get penalized one point and have to replay), there is no grey area and no interpretation, and no agreement needed on part of the clans... should work right?
Makes sense?

Last edited by TcP_LucaOr (2008-04-24 17:43:36)

Offline

 

#6 2008-04-24 19:11:23

IvIoIzT
Veteran
Registered: 2007-11-21
Posts: 213

Re: Roster - Rule

ZwerG_Michi_de wrote:

Well, but ur arguments are not that strong, are they?
Why should anybody cheat? For what reason?

You could ask the same question to anyone who uses droptrick, point trades, map hacks, or any other form of cheating. There are people in the world who are sad enough to do anything to win.

The rule is just fine as it is. Its not exactly hard to follow: Add players to roster, pick team from players on roster. If the names not on there, don't use them. Really not difficult.

Props to RTSL staff for sticking to your guns ^^


Im socialy retardet?AHHHH LOOOL.You are just a rdm noob who enver can improve his skill and going to be allready fatter behind his computer.
You are max.  embarrasment  for our com. Thats the fact.
And you are to dumb to understand this.
I think you are a guy from the english underclass of your social system.

Offline

 

#7 2008-04-25 06:51:00

ZwerG_Michi_de
Member
Registered: 2008-04-23
Posts: 23

Re: Roster - Rule

But there is no way anybody could ever abuse this rule-change? So why even talk about cheaters?
And have u ever seen maphack, pointtrader or droptricks on RTSL?

This is just like, if u would imagine:
U are allowed to steal whatever u want from a store. The only condition is, that the owner of the store allowed u to do so. And u are like the guys: "ooomg - every store will be robed now!!! This is so crazyyyy. And the police will have to work way more then now, because ehm... no reason"
And im like
O_O

Offline

 

#8 2008-04-25 08:36:12

IvIoIzT
Veteran
Registered: 2007-11-21
Posts: 213

Re: Roster - Rule

Your analogy makes no sense. I have seen plenty of clans try to use smurfs, changing this rule as you suggest will only make it easier for them.

Can you even give a reason why you want to change the rule? What do you find so difficult about following the rule as it stands now?


Im socialy retardet?AHHHH LOOOL.You are just a rdm noob who enver can improve his skill and going to be allready fatter behind his computer.
You are max.  embarrasment  for our com. Thats the fact.
And you are to dumb to understand this.
I think you are a guy from the english underclass of your social system.

Offline

 

#9 2008-04-25 12:24:45

Mattlight
RTSL Alumnus
From: Oregon, USA
Registered: 2007-11-10
Posts: 999
Website

Re: Roster - Rule

Can you even give a reason why you want to change the rule? What do you find so difficult about following the rule as it stands now?

Yeah, if we have several cases like this with clans calling for this sort of action, we'd be more inclined to reconsider, but as it is this rule's been in place much longer than I've been staffing over even visiting RTSL, and I don't think any clan's had much trouble with it.


Join the media team!
FeaR clan
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee180/SirZev/Sigs/MattLight3.jpg
MSN: eiles3@comcast.net | ESO: Mattlight | Skype: Matt_to_da_light | Gamespy: TeHMaTFaCToR
When I'm not in my right mind, my left mind gets pretty crowded.

Offline

 

#10 2008-04-25 14:39:34

forge
Media Team
Registered: 2007-11-11
Posts: 184
Website

Re: Roster - Rule

I can't believe it but I have to support Michi here. Not in all details but in the basic opinion he has. I myself have some admin experience through various tournaments and finally the ESL atm.

I already talked to Matt about this topic and I have the opinion that admin's shouldn't be complete slaves of the rules. If this is be true then this league wouldn't need any admins, everything is determined by the rules. So what's the job of an admin? Sure, he has to check if the rules are followed but imo the more important job he has to do is acting as an intermediator for the clans. If I followed the rules at the ESL to a 100% then there would be no AoE3 at the ESL.

Concerning this special case: If we, mymF, had insisted on this rule then I guess we would have been resposible for various admin losses in the past. IMHO if both clans green up and the game starts both clans have indirectly agreed on the lineup. Demanding an admin loss after that game wether you were aware of the violation or not is just showing total lack of fairplay. I mean check the rules before the game if you are keen on any possible points. If that happens to us we would simply say "it's annoying but the match is played. next time we'll check in time". But if we were the victim I would probably freak out. I really hate clans which use any possibility on exploiting the rules for some easy points. That's what kills the fun.

In case of ZwerG the decision is even more... questionable. I mean they participate for several years now and this player played in many RTSL games. He is in the clan since good old vanilla days and never left (you can check that in eso). So what happened? The RTSL page was remade last season and he was forgotten by their operator. Sure it's ZwerG's fault but if the RTSL page hadn't been remade ... You get what I want to say. It wasn't on purpose and they didn't intend to cheat anybody. Because that's sooo obvious I absolutely have no problem at all with a little exception here. And that's why you admins and no robots.

Btw I screen any chatlog of ingame/channel in order to have evidence if something similiar is happening to us wink

Last edited by forge (2008-04-25 14:43:00)


ESO: rush_frantic

www.mymF.de

Offline

 

#11 2008-04-25 18:28:39

ZwerG_Michi_de
Member
Registered: 2008-04-23
Posts: 23

Re: Roster - Rule

IvIoIzT wrote:

Your analogy makes no sense. I have seen plenty of clans try to use smurfs, changing this rule as you suggest will only make it easier for them.

To be honest: i think my analogy makes perfect sense.
Its u, what makes none. Sorry, but whats ur argument? Oh, there is none. Cool.

"It makes easier for them" ... omg... :wallbash:-smilie
How? Please tell me HOW does "it makes easier for them" ? U have to ask ur opponent if its ok to cheat and he agrees. Yeah, realy easy cheat. I see.

There is an option, when ur hosting games which is called "allow cheats". Well... do we get cheated more often, because - if everybody agrees - its allowed to cheat?

I think that this is just a rule which shouldnt be handled so crazy stiff. Be more flexible and if everybody says "its ok, if u do not give ZwerG AL" but u do anyway. Well... i dont see any sense in that. After all: everybody is ok with that matchup. And if you would have been from beginning on that fair, nobody would say "why is zwerg getin no AL? we got, but they are not. Thats pretty unfair"
But u wasnt fair, when both clans agreed on a matchup why u gave AL? Because of rules? Actually.. there are just cases like that one, where u are realy allowed to be more the friendly moderator, not the rule reader. Like forge said.

Offline

 

#12 2008-04-25 18:46:48

Mattlight
RTSL Alumnus
From: Oregon, USA
Registered: 2007-11-10
Posts: 999
Website

Re: Roster - Rule

So you're saying you have proof that SD and you agree to use an invalid player in your game, but you didn't bother adding him to the roster?  There's no reason why two clans should have to sit around agreeing to play with an invalid player when the one clan can just go add that player.  Your whole argument that the two clans can agree on it is so full of inconsistencies. 

If we decide to change this rule it would be to more of a change like Lucaor suggested.  Your idea frankly doesn't make sense...both clans agreeing on the matchup does not equal both clans agreeing to use an invalid player, and if both clans did agree to that, it makes no sense why the offending clan couldn't just add that player to the roster right then. 

And finally, as to it being too strict, we heard the same complain incessantly when we were very strict on not letting clans that dropped last season participate this season.  Frankly, sticking to the rules strictly has worked out in that situation just fine, and up until now we haven't had any complaints with this rule.  It's so easy to avoid these problems that I don't think any change is necessary.  Just update your roster when necessary and you'll avoid this sort of penalty.


Join the media team!
FeaR clan
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee180/SirZev/Sigs/MattLight3.jpg
MSN: eiles3@comcast.net | ESO: Mattlight | Skype: Matt_to_da_light | Gamespy: TeHMaTFaCToR
When I'm not in my right mind, my left mind gets pretty crowded.

Offline

 

#13 2008-04-25 19:58:30

Pedestrian
Webmaster
From: Saint Louis, MO, USA
Registered: 2007-11-10
Posts: 1603

Re: Roster - Rule

You might get more sympathy if it took more than 20 seconds to update your roster before a match.

This rule is so easy to follow that it baffles me when clans violate it at all.

ZwerG_Michi_de wrote:

Be more flexible and if everybody says "its ok, if u do not give ZwerG AL" but u do anyway. Well... i dont see any sense in that. After all: everybody is ok with that matchup.

By "everybody" you are referring to the two teams involved in your match.  That is not how I would define "everybody."

We have to think about the entire league - every clan - when we enforce these rules.  If we let you off the hook because your opponent agrees, but Clan A decides to enforce the rule against Clan B in a different match ... we don't think that would be fair.  We eliminate this problem by enforcing the rule equally against all clans.

forge wrote:

IMHO if both clans green up and the game starts both clans have indirectly agreed on the lineup.

We place the burden of complying with this rule on the clan who is breaking the rule.  You propose to shift this burden to that clan's opponent.  I think the flaw there should be obvious.

Offline

 

#14 2008-04-26 05:23:39

ZwerG_Michi_de
Member
Registered: 2008-04-23
Posts: 23

Re: Roster - Rule

lol - its possible to change the roster 20 sec before the match starts?
omg this rules are more broken then i 've ever thought. Then its damn easy to smurf like hell oO
Why u even then complain about smurfing, when u have a auto-smurfing rule here?

When nobody have to agree in a roster-change, then i can change it whenever i want to? I mean.. thats what u said o_O

re's no reason why two clans should have to sit around agreeing to play with an invalid player when the one clan can just go add that player.

Offline

 

#15 2008-04-26 11:39:04

IvIoIzT
Veteran
Registered: 2007-11-21
Posts: 213

Re: Roster - Rule

A player has to be added to the roster one week before playing a match. What Ped means is that it only takes 20secs to actually go to the effort of updating your roster. Considering the amount of effort league staff go to on their own free time to keep this running, the least you can do is take that 20secs to update your own roster. Or not, in your case.


Im socialy retardet?AHHHH LOOOL.You are just a rdm noob who enver can improve his skill and going to be allready fatter behind his computer.
You are max.  embarrasment  for our com. Thats the fact.
And you are to dumb to understand this.
I think you are a guy from the english underclass of your social system.

Offline

 

#16 2008-04-26 13:57:48

Pedestrian
Webmaster
From: Saint Louis, MO, USA
Registered: 2007-11-10
Posts: 1603

Re: Roster - Rule

^ What Mort said is correct.  Sorry if my post was confusing.

Offline

 

#17 2008-04-26 14:02:10

ZwerG_Michi_de
Member
Registered: 2008-04-23
Posts: 23

Re: Roster - Rule

The change of the rule is not meant to be used everytime. I mean... why should a clan try to ask each matchup if a better player can play, if the other matchup partner dont accept it anyway? U realy think that any clan will agree in a matchup where they have less chances to win? No clan will ever agree in that. This rule change will be only used in 2 situations:
- 1 clan dont have enough players online, if the other clan dont want admin wins, they will agree in a match with 1 player which is maybe not in the roster. Isnt that good? That would improve the rtsl a lot i think wink
- a clan forgot to add a player into his roster (maybe when the league changed its system *whistle*)

Is there any other possible situation where u can use (or even abuse) this rule?
For example: u just add a player into the game, which istn in the roster, but the opponent clan dont see that (he havent checked the roster). But isnt it now the same way? In the end the cheated clan still can say "we did not agree into him playin".
This rule will stay black and white. Clear like nothing. Absolutely no change to now.

Why dont u give it a try just for one season?
I realy dont get why ur so fixed with u own rules..

Offline

 

#18 2008-04-26 16:21:41

forge
Media Team
Registered: 2007-11-11
Posts: 184
Website

Re: Roster - Rule

Pedestrian wrote:

forge wrote:

IMHO if both clans green up and the game starts both clans have indirectly agreed on the lineup.

We place the burden of complying with this rule on the clan who is breaking the rule.  You propose to shift this burden to that clan's opponent.  I think the flaw there should be obvious.

Please don't quote me out of the context. I know it's a tricky case and you can't see it black and white as it is done at the moment. I know that ignorance is no excuse but we are not at court but in a gaming league. And for us as a clan it would be annyoing to the maximum if someone would do that to us, demanding admin win after a game was played. I prolly can't explain it good enough because English isn't my native language. Already tried that with Matt and it seemed to fail. Once again my core statement is that admin shouldn't be just slaves of the rules.


ESO: rush_frantic

www.mymF.de

Offline

 

#19 2008-04-26 19:23:52

Black Adder
League Administrator
From: Praha, Czech Republic
Registered: 2007-11-15
Posts: 6357

Re: Roster - Rule

forge wrote:

Please don't quote me out of the context. I know it's a tricky case and you can't see it black and white as it is done at the moment. I know that ignorance is no excuse but we are not at court but in a gaming league. And for us as a clan it would be annyoing to the maximum if someone would do that to us, demanding admin win after a game was played. I prolly can't explain it good enough because English isn't my native language. Already tried that with Matt and it seemed to fail. Once again my core statement is that admin shouldn't be just slaves of the rules.

I know what you're saying, I've seen many such cases but, well, I can't help myself but see it as the fault of the offending team. The team demanding the aws might be called unfair and such but, as you can surely see, such would be the case with clans not allowing the non-roster player to play.

The point is I don't think the proposed change would change anything at all (possibly it would only augment the number of 'unfair disputes') smile

Last edited by Black Adder (2008-04-26 19:24:21)


[nex]Black__Adder (@BlackAdderPlays)

"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself." Peter O'Toole
"The true measure of a hero is when a man lays down his life with the knowledge that those he saves... will never know." - The Outer Limits

Follow RTSL on Facebook

Offline

 

#20 2008-04-27 03:06:05

ZwerG_Michi_de
Member
Registered: 2008-04-23
Posts: 23

Re: Roster - Rule

ehm... black adder? Have u read the thread i linked in the first post?
The changed rules wouldnt have caused that. Both clans said "its ok if player xyz play", but the admin gave AL. This case happend maybe only 1-2 times this season. But thats exactly what im saying: the rule change will be in rare use.

And as i said: the rule will be stay as it is now. The only change is possible if

- 1 clan dont have enough players online, if the other clan dont want admin wins, they will agree in a match with 1 player which is maybe not in the roster. Isnt that good? That would improve the rtsl a lot i think wink
- a clan forgot to add a player into his roster (maybe when the league changed its system *whistle*)

If u think there are other possibilities, tell me. I want to read only one imagin case where this rule can be abused.

Offline

 

#21 2008-04-27 06:11:12

Black Adder
League Administrator
From: Praha, Czech Republic
Registered: 2007-11-15
Posts: 6357

Re: Roster - Rule

No, you don't see the problem. The changed rule would be used pretty often because no one would feel the need to fill in the roster.

I'm sorry but from my experience, benevolent rules never work as intended and quite often must be replaced with much clearer ones (meaning I think we would end up with the same rule we have now in the end) hmm

You see just the good part of your change, you kind of ignore the worse part which, I fear, would surface often. Everyone wants to win.

Last edited by Black Adder (2008-04-27 06:20:48)


[nex]Black__Adder (@BlackAdderPlays)

"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself." Peter O'Toole
"The true measure of a hero is when a man lays down his life with the knowledge that those he saves... will never know." - The Outer Limits

Follow RTSL on Facebook

Offline

 

#22 2008-04-27 08:10:54

ZwerG_Michi_de
Member
Registered: 2008-04-23
Posts: 23

Re: Roster - Rule

Nobody would keep the roster up to date? ROFL ! ^^
The worst argument so far.
If people realy stop renew the roster, i simply wont agree into a player play and the clans will lose. Who would be so lazy and take this risk. I know who: nobody.
This change was used FOR YEARS in esgl (german aoe2 leauge) and it caused never any problems.

So far i havent read any realy good arguments from the admins here....

Offline

 

#23 2008-04-27 09:16:53

Black Adder
League Administrator
From: Praha, Czech Republic
Registered: 2007-11-15
Posts: 6357

Re: Roster - Rule

Correction - you don't think they're good smile

If people realy stop renew the roster, i simply wont agree into a player play and the clans will lose. Who would be so lazy and take this risk. I know who: nobody.

And why would you do that? Because you want everyone to have the roster up to date? But in that case, we don't really need your change, do we?

Last edited by Black Adder (2008-04-27 09:19:18)


[nex]Black__Adder (@BlackAdderPlays)

"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself." Peter O'Toole
"The true measure of a hero is when a man lays down his life with the knowledge that those he saves... will never know." - The Outer Limits

Follow RTSL on Facebook

Offline

 

#24 2008-04-27 13:20:11

ZwerG_Michi_de
Member
Registered: 2008-04-23
Posts: 23

Re: Roster - Rule

Ok, once again :

- 1 clan dont have enough players online, if the other clan dont want admin wins, they will agree in a match with 1 player which is maybe not in the roster. Isnt that good? That would improve the rtsl a lot i think wink

...... this is just the major change (and pretty much the only one)... other situations just wont happen that often.

so omg... black adder, just read what i post =/
In case my english is that bad, tell me. Then i can try to improve, so everybody get my message.

The rule change is simply not for lazy people. Its just: in some cases its realy needed. Just to improve the league. Like the case (which i linked in my initial post) where zwerg got AL. With the rule change we would have not, AND nobody would have felt treaten unfair. Because u could say "both clans agreed into this matchup" AND u could have said this in the same situations happend before. So... i still think ur arguments are weak...

The rule change is realy nothing what gona be used a lot. How often did u gave clans AL in this situation this season? 2 times? So with my change u wouldnt had to give clans AL for nothing.

Offline

 

#25 2008-04-27 13:30:29

Black Adder
League Administrator
From: Praha, Czech Republic
Registered: 2007-11-15
Posts: 6357

Re: Roster - Rule

You don't see the problem - clans shouldn't be able to determine any such thing like if the other clan receives an al or not. The match does not influence just the two clans like you vehemently proclaim here, it influences every other clan in your division. By that logic, EVERY other clan should have a say in whether that player can play or not. You see?

That's why there are rules with one possible interpretation. And when the rule is open to interpretation, only admins should have the power to decide. Clan players are biased. Admins are not.

Last edited by Black Adder (2008-04-27 13:33:02)


[nex]Black__Adder (@BlackAdderPlays)

"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself." Peter O'Toole
"The true measure of a hero is when a man lays down his life with the knowledge that those he saves... will never know." - The Outer Limits

Follow RTSL on Facebook

Offline

 

Board footer

©Copyright 2007-2017 by RTS-League.com Hosting provided by Maximumdirect.net This page generated in 2 milliseconds.