Temporary Reopening of Discussion {Peaky Blinders vs Epic Clan}

Recently a thread was archived, and a number of players expressed concern that it was a legitimate topic. i can confirm the discussion is active and mods are reviewing the facts and checking the various claims for accuracy. So while that is going on behind the scenes, the topic itself should be open for discussion, provided there's none of the personal attacks which lead to the archiving.

So having spoken with Njab and Croat, (Croat acknowledging he made some personal remarks that wasn't helping with the discussion) it seems everyone agrees that the points raised were legitimate topics.

So as long as it doesn't get personal again, and the focus remains on the facts of what happened, here are the main issues Croat introduced:

1) What are the roles of moderators when Clans 'dodge' or avoid games in order to maintain their elo standing? Should clans be punished or disqualified if they do this?

2) When a clan requests terms for their game, which is generally accepted, is there a point where this goes against the spirit of competitiveness, particularly when those demands are so restrictive that no other clan would agree to them?

3) Once picking begins, should a clan be able to leave when they don't get the countries they want?

4) Is leaving T2 when a players first moves fail or are anticipated by the other clan cheating?

=======

I'll leave it to Croat and Njab to provide the various (relevant) screenshots in support of their claims.. this was just to get the ball rolling again.

1. clans who intentionally dodge or play unbalanced maps to maintain elo should be punished but not disqualified.
2. this becomes an issue when a clan with a lot of elo only offers maps that are incredibly unbalanced but other clans are forced to play in order to gain elo. its like having some guy who has millions to spare on blackjack against some poor schmuck who works part time.
3. no, this is practically cheating because of how unbalanced the eu+ map is especially in 2v2. moreover, this issue is worse on other maps.
4. they should be punished. this is one of the scummiest move a clan can do. failing a rush and leaving t2.

also i think you should restore croats thread. i dont understand why it wasn't removed. ec did something super scummy and they are practically getting away with it. they should be ashamed of themselves for doing what they did and other clans should know what they did.

1) Hopefully nothing, because, lets be honest, since when did moderators ever make 'decent' decisions when it came down to inner-game relations such as these? Dodging/avoiding games will always be a thing, even if you try to punish people/clans for it. You can't just punish clans for not playing 5 cw's a day, just because they did that a couple days ago, and if you do so, what kind of precedent will that create?

2) Answer to this is easy: Then don't cw the clan in particular.

3) Again something that will always be a thing, forbidden or not. Its crazy to think otherwise. Dick move, but not really something that deserves punishing..

4) I think the real question here is, why on earth isnt this problem fixed in the first place? What kind of logic is there to allow people to leave turn 2 in clanwars, and not counting it as loss or surrender Perhaps, the admin under whose responsibility this falls, should fix this problem instead of wasting his time on personal vendetta's with some people. Also may I need to remind you that, most of the current active players in the current active clans, have probably all done this atleast once. Kind of hypocritical if you ask me.

Written by stryko is dead, 05.10.2019 at 18:47

...also i think you should restore croats thread. i dont understand why it wasn't removed. ...

There were some personal attacks that are in violation of AW rules. So you know, part of the discussion in mod forum is whether we sanitize the thread and repost it - no one is disagreeing with the topics and issues raised - just the personal attacks. Also , croat has just been informed that he can re-do the thread, minus the pillory. Based on his response, i get the feeling he's kind of busy atm and editing a post isn't always the most fun thing in the world.

Written by Waffel, 05.10.2019 at 18:59

...

4) I think the real question here is, why on earth isnt this problem fixed in the first place? What kind of logic is there to allow people to leave turn 2 in clanwars, and not counting it as loss or surrender ?...

Wasn't there a time when CWs were registered on T2? For some reason i thought they did this to counter wf'ing and any other irregularities a dishonourable clan might pull, so that the honourable clan could leave without swallowing the loss.

1. There needs to be set rules rather than moderator oversight. Most mods are biased unfortunately but this is the truth. So to avoid bias how about if you break the rules then there should be consequences. If you bend the rules then there is room for adjusting the existing rules. Dodging is a different topic.

2. If you don't accept the terms then that's completely fine. Although this categorized underneath dodging. I am not sure dodging can really be fixed other than having elo decay. If you are above 1050 you could lose 3 elo after 7 days of inactivity. If you are above 1100 elo you could lose 5 elo for every 5 days of inactivity. This will make clans more inclined to clan war if they have reached above this mark.

3. Once picking begins. You should not be able to leave the clan war without a penalty. They have this in Overwatch and League of Legends. Both play on an elo system similar to ours. This will prevent any unfairness. Nothing crazy maybe -5 elo for every clan war left. This will prevent clans from leaving if they don't get 1st pick or get the picks that they want. Also allow rejoining so that clans do not accidentally lose elo.

4. This is the same as #3. You should not be able to leave the clan war once you have entered and actually loaded into the game. Also we should change the way games start. Because what's to stop someone from starting the game before everyone is ready? Perhaps improve our "ready up" system so the game can only begin once everyone has clicked 'ready up'. This whole system can actually also be implemented with duels since it follows the same elo system.

Written by Waffel, 05.10.2019 at 18:59

1) Hopefully nothing, because, lets be honest, since when did moderators ever make 'decent' decisions when it came down to inner-game relations such as these? Dodging/avoiding games will always be a thing, even if you try to punish people/clans for it. You can't just punish clans for not playing 5 cw's a day, just because they did that a couple days ago, and if you do so, what kind of precedent will that create?

2) Answer to this is easy: Then don't cw the clan in particular.

3) Again something that will always be a thing, forbidden or not. Its crazy to think otherwise. Dick move, but not really something that deserves punishing..

4) I think the real question here is, why on earth isnt this problem fixed in the first place? What kind of logic is there to allow people to leave turn 2 in clanwars, and not counting it as loss or surrender Perhaps, the admin under whose responsibility this falls, should fix this problem instead of wasting his time on personal vendetta's with some people. Also may I need to remind you that, most of the current active players in the current active clans, have probably all done this atleast once. Kind of hypocritical of you ask me.

I have to say this is the first time my thoughts are exactly aligned with Waffel's

In general, all points mentioned are quite dubious, unclear and thus not up to sanction. By specially picking special players or special clans to implement the special sanctions, you won't make this game any more fair, but quite the opposite.

Written by Guest, 05.10.2019 at 19:32

....

I have to say this is the first time my thoughts are exactly aligned with Waffel's
...

Having thoughts aligned with Waffel is a clear sign you have reached a level of sophistication and conscious awareness few ever achieve in their lifetime.

Welcome to enlightenment. ♥

Written by PleaseMe, 05.10.2019 at 19:27

All the sanctions you suggest are easily abusable. I could start a CW any time when the other clan's members are AFK and make them lose elo in turn. The same happens if the enemy team disconnects and I end the turn instantly. Implementing that will do no good.

Written by Guest, 05.10.2019 at 19:51

Written by PleaseMe, 05.10.2019 at 19:27

All the sanctions you suggest are easily abusable. I could start a CW any time when the other clan's members are AFK and make them lose elo in turn. The same happens if the enemy team disconnects and I end the turn instantly. Implementing that will do no good.

4. This is the same as #3. You should not be able to leave the clan war once you have entered and actually loaded into the game. Also we should change the way games start. Because what's to stop someone from starting the game before everyone is ready? Perhaps improve our "ready up" system so the game can only begin once everyone has clicked 'ready up'. This whole system can actually also be implemented with duels since it follows the same elo system.

Written by PleaseMe, 05.10.2019 at 19:53

Someone can click ready up and end up waiting minutes for the other clan's members to do the same, and go AFK meanwhile. Just a pointless complication.

Written by Guest, 05.10.2019 at 19:55

Written by PleaseMe, 05.10.2019 at 19:53

Someone can click ready up and end up waiting minutes for the other clan's members to do the same, and go AFK meanwhile. Just a pointless complication.

Program it to allow us to 'unready up', also rejoining while in lobby is another way to unready up. Focus on solutions not problems.

1) Moderators have no place deliberating issues involving the Competitive community due to their history of bias and simply not listening to player complaints.

2) Let's all sit down and write an official ruleset for settings. I think we should use the following as a base for settings, with variants being able to change funds per default map preset: 4min / 10k funds / 3v3 / join until 0 / unanimous settings changes / Capture player Country (2x Turn hold) / 50 turn duration / None chance of rares / 1 initial country / No instant joining / No rejoining / Buildings Enabled (Debatable; When they're eventually patched to not be bad, I think they should be mandatory; let's debate buildings) / Extra Cities.

3) No. Learn more picks; If you rely on playing Turkey/Ukraine or UK/Germ and can't play anything, then you're obviously not ready for CW. Be flexible.

4) Not sure if Surrendering would change anything, but a loss is a loss. Clan ELO shouldn't be generated on turn duration imo, only W/L.

Before all, I decided to go publically on this way, everyone are free to express their opinions in a polite way, independently what they think of each part of this discussion. Be objective and please express yourselves in a polite way.


So, let me again point out my opinion about each:

Written by brianwl, 05.10.2019 at 18:38

1) What are the roles of moderators when Clans 'dodge' or avoid games in order to maintain their elo standing? Should clans be punished or disqualified if they do this?

Dodging clan wars is an obvious thing, but hardly 100% provable same as Elo feeding like WD has explained in a prevouis thread about 2v2 cws (1 player using 2 accounts for the same coalition).
Players who dodge can easily say whatever excuse in their defence and no one can prove if they are lying. But still, when it becomes a constant, things are being obvious. It becomes iritating and not-competitive at all.

In my opinion, we should implement a solution about dodging, therefore elo stacking.
For example:
Football team achieve 5 wins in first 5 matches of the season league. Then they stop playing their matches with various excuses, leaving other teams to fight between themselves in case to gain enough wins to reach the 1st ranked team.
Something similiar is with clan wars. Maybe even worse because the Elo system gives you a negative points in case of loss, making things even harder for the competing coalitions which didnt do a positive start of the season.

Peaky Blinders were at the begining of this season right at 890 elo. We were avoided by all top coalitions, not including Illyria. Only 'newbie' coalitions who wanted experience in clan wars and Illyria has given us a chance to get back in competing.
Without it, a coalitions with a bad seasonal start would be let on to be or not to be. Our only option would be to stay where we are and wait for the next season to make a better start. Or we could just abandon our coalition and jump to those 'better' positioned ones. If possible.

The most clear signs of killing the competitiveness in CW scene.

To be honest, this problem cannot be resolved in the easy way because, on the other side, there can be just a coincidence that leading coalitions cant play at some moment, that's why are they just staying on the elo they earned.

In summary, we will have to talk about implementing the most acceptable solution where with any kind of proofs, from at least 3 competing coalitions, a constant-obviously dodging coalition would be punished by, for example, certain amount of removed Elo.
Disqualification is not needed in this case. Because some kind of elo punishment would already make things acceptable.

Written by brianwl, 05.10.2019 at 18:38

2) When a clan requests terms for their game, which is generally accepted, is there a point where this goes against the spirit of competitiveness, particularly when those demands are so restrictive that no other clan would agree to them?

This thing was actually also the deeper than it seems to be.

Competitive scene is sticked to the eu+ map since ever. But with being understandable, other coalitions have a freedom to propose a clan war in another maps with another settings to spread the competitiveness to another maps, with another settings (as funds, turn duration, etc.)

Generally, I am not against it. But when it becomes the question - Either cw us with our map demands, either no cw, it's again opening another question, is those ultimatums really a competitive thing?
I guess not.

My coalition has agreed to do several clan wars in maps and with settings which are quite strange to us, but we have accepted it. But when it becomes a constant ultimatum, it stops being fun; because every coalition that actually is constantly competing on cw scene (not talking about few isolated cws between scenario coalitions) is experienced mostly at Europe+ map. Some of those are more experienced in other maps, some are less experienced there. And it has to be respected. Independently which one you belong to.

I don't think those ultimatums should be punishable, especially not for disqualification. But they need to be stopped.

First solution which comes to my mind is to implement a scheme where after certain amount of cws between 2 coalitions at standard Europe+ map, 1 of the coalitions can propose a clan war in another map with another settings and the other coalition should agree on that in a polite discussion about settings to satisfy both sides.
Ultimatums like either play what we demand you, either we don't give you a cw should be forbidden.

Written by brianwl, 05.10.2019 at 18:38

3) Once picking begins, should a clan be able to leave when they don't get the countries they want?

This is happening very often, even generally players do not care so much about it since they just want to play matches.
There are always the same lame excuses being said when this happens.
For example:


Or things like:
'I didnt have time to pick'
'I accidentally missed a pick by watching another thing'
'I wasnt here for 30 seconds and it skipped me a pick'

They are all irrelevant. Once the CW starts, you have to respect the already implemented system of a random pick. There is no existing excuse for missing a pick or not catching the country you wished to play with. Whatever is the reason of your missing the pick, it is irrelevant and not anyone's problem then your own.

This should be punished with some lower amount of Elo losing for the leaving coalition. For example -5 Elo.
It is the really simple thing which would stop such a things as fake dcs, fake excuses and similiar without any tails. Every coalition would be pushed to pick as the random picking system chooses.

Simple and easy as that.

Written by brianwl, 05.10.2019 at 18:38

4) Is leaving T2 when a players first moves fail or are anticipated by the other clan cheating?

With all needed proofs from the coalition who faced the cheating (leaving turn 2 after an obvious loss due to a failed rush or similiar) from another coalition, the cheating coalition should definitely be punished in a harder way and bear the consequences for their disrespectful behaviour with the intention not to lose Elo points.


Those are the lowest way of incompetitiveness.
You are all introduced about what happened yesterday between two competing coalitions, so I will post a screenshot proofs again:











The disrespect which continued after even the admin of this game, who is also one of the leaders of mentioned coalition came instantly online to give us the elo which belongs to us, afterall they have decided not to give it to us and we were said they will let the rest of stuff team to decide about the punishment.
Fair enough from clovis even it was still not fair from certain cheating coalition members.





As I have already pointed out at 3) ; no excuses can justify the cheating (avoiding the Elo loss).
Why?

So simply.
If certain player from cheating coalition really had troubles with connection, he could politely ask for a tie members of another coalition or just leave the CW turn 1.
Since he has done a proper turn without any trace of letting others know that he is having troubles with connection (because obviously that was a lie), after the mentioned coalition's members saw at turn 2 that the rush has failed against opposite coalition member's rush, where cw was actually automatically lost for them, they've just decided to leave a clan war, so the winning coalition don't gain elo, therefore, so they don't lose their elo.

In my opinion, which was supported already by majority of competitive players, it is the bottom of the bottoms. The disrespect and incompetitiveness at it's peak.
And I stand my opinion that it should be hardly punished and if it repeats by the same coalition, it should be just disqualified from the current cw season.



Also important thing,
compensating the Elo to the winning coalition is not a punishment to the cheating coalition. It is the MUST. It is what belongs to them and shouldn't even be discussed.
The punishment can be in taking off a bigger amount of Elo or even more reasonable way is to reset the current Elo for the cheating coalition, possibly with several days off prohibition to cw.
In case of repeating the same, cheating coalition should be disqualified from the current cw season.

With implementing the above mentioned, I 100% responsibly say that you will solve the problem of cheating forever.
Very simply and profitably.


In conclusion,
An absolute YES to a harder punishment, everyone MUST bear the consequences of cheating and such a disrespectful and non-competitive behaviour towards others.
In case of repeating, YES to a disqualification.


From the current case with mentioned coalition which did cheating yesterday; there are some talks that they've already done a same thing in certain cw against currently shutted down coalition 'Aristokrats' ; so I let this case to the mods and admins to decide if they will punish them harder or maybe disqualify them.

I am not a jugdge, but I am repeating, at least a harder punishment is what cheating coalitions deserve (as a coalition, not as individuals), but this time I let staff to decide what of those 2 options they are going to do with the latest case.

Thank you.

Written by brianwl, 05.10.2019 at 19:40

Written by Guest, 05.10.2019 at 19:32

....

I have to say this is the first time my thoughts are exactly aligned with Waffel's
...

Having thoughts aligned with Waffel is a clear sign you have reached a level of sophistication and conscious awareness few ever achieve in their lifetime.

Welcome to enlightenment. ♥

Lmaao xaxa

1) Yes mods should be punish but be consintent and not biased

2) Variety is always nice but forcing it is bad. How hard is it to play 1 cw with some clans settings and other with others.

3) Yes because some certain pick combinations have clearly advanta like Ukraine Turkey. Some this UK Turk Spain is also "op" but i dont think so anyway yes when the disadvantage is too clear.

4) Leaving turn 2 is reasonable because someone could as you pointed out wf or play dirty. If someone leaves for a different reason screenshot it and report it punishment gets applied and we all happy. No need to punish whole community by changing rules for some individuals players/clans. Just be strict and when there are clear evidence someone did one of those punish him.

U might implement all the regulations in the world, when the spirit of good behavior and fairplay is gone there is no turning back.

The duel season and CW system have been abused for too long (elo feeding etc...), better turn it off and implement something new.

Written by Croat, 05.10.2019 at 20:05

All you've stated above would have been good if you haven't based it all on false premises. You built each and every point based on your misinterpretation of my clan's actions, which I've already demistified in many of the previous threads you've made. On top of that, you want to use the points only when they suit you, which is a clear sign of hypocrisy.

Why don't you add the fifth point about playing (read: farming) lower level coalitions?

1) You supported your own dodging this winter and Illyria's dodging this summer, but keep claiming my clan (which played the most CWs last 2 seasons and almost the most in the 2 before) is dodging someone. Not only the most, but the most by far. Pure nonsense. We played more than enough CWs vs all top coalitions.

2) Again nonsense. We played you more than 50% of the times on EU+, and in more than enough games. Funny thing is your win rate is better if you play us outside EU+.

3) Even more nonsense. A stupid way to punish any disconnect, which in 90% of the cases is due to connection problems.

You used a screenshot of me saying I couldn't click to make your point. Just think how stupid it is. I was supposed to pick Turkey and Huarck said it was mine, while Mecoy picked it and claimed we wanted Huarck to pick it. Nonsense and more nonsense.

4) I asked Mecoy after that game if he would actually tie that game. The answer was clear no. I left the CW for automatic tie, but you can keep misintepreting the actions as you want.
The point of your cries was to earn easy 17 elo over only 1 move made. If anyone is elo hoarding, camping or farming there, then it's your coalition.

What's even the point of those demands? Pillory of my coalition, nit-picking of the rules to sanction us and personal hate towards us (or me).
Whole idea is built upon hypocrisy and personal greed, not sincere concern for the game. I'm sorry brianwl and others, but if this whole thing is based on Croat's fabricated lies, I have to say it has to go down.

Why it has to go down? Because things that have worked as features for years (choosing different settings, repicking, automatical tie over connection issues) on the game are presented as something bad for the game. They are presented as problems, but only when using them makes Croat lose. The only bad thing there is dodging, which is not concern of my coalition, but of many others which I already mentioned.

** One extra point for those educated in social sciences: almost all studies conclusively say harder punishments do not reduce the crime. Good luck with the idea of

Written by Croat, 05.10.2019 at 20:05

An absolute YES to a harder punishment, everyone MUST bear the consequences of cheating and such a disrespectful and non-competitive behaviour towards others.
In case of repeating, YES to a disqualification.

Let me remind you all that most of the players involved in this game do not (actively) visit forums. If you are wondering who and what they do support, you can check the thread "Cold death of the competitive scene" which shows it clearly.

All points mentioned in this thread of no concern for them. What they want is fix for real issues of this game. If you want to make the game go forward, you should stop listening to cries over hurt ego such as this one, and start listening to what the community wants.

Bonus point: all the pillory, insults and punishments surrounding those points are directed towards players that contributed to this game the most. Good luck with that.

Written by brianwl, 05.10.2019 at 18:38

1) What are the roles of moderators when Clans 'dodge' or avoid games in order to maintain their elo standing? Should clans be punished or disqualified if they do this?

Nothing. Unless there are some black and white rules in place which even a computer can follow, it's not going to be fair

Written by brianwl, 05.10.2019 at 18:38

2) When a clan requests terms for their game, which is generally accepted, is there a point where this goes against the spirit of competitiveness, particularly when those demands are so restrictive that no other clan would agree to them?

No. If you don't like it don't cw them.

Written by brianwl, 05.10.2019 at 18:38

3) Once picking begins, should a clan be able to leave when they don't get the countries they want?

No.

Written by brianwl, 05.10.2019 at 18:38

4) Is leaving T2 when a players first moves fail or are anticipated by the other clan cheating?

If fail means disconnecting, definitely no.

This will be difficult to verify though.

I suggest not implementing this at all, until the bugs are mostly fixed (which is gonna be some time, considering the number the game currently has)

You can't leave a duel t2 so why should you be able to leave a clan war t2? Just doesn't make sense. It's a bug in the system. It's never been properly implemented.

Also, yes we got 2 of the clan wars deleted. But not because of you, because of moderators. They thought we deserved the win. They already made their decision that the win belongs to us.

Lastly you guys did break a rule. Leaving turn 2 in a clan war to force a tie is indeed a bug in the system. EC exploited it and tried avoid a loss, but moderators clearly deemed our game a 'win'. Which means a bug in the system was abused to gain an unfair advantage.

Rule
1.2 Exploiting any bug to gain an unfair advantage(cosmetic or not) in the game and/or communicating the existence of any such bug (either directly or through public posting) to any other user is not permitted. Players caught abusing bugs or glitches in a competitive game, similar to clan wars and/or duels, face the risk of removal of any/all rewards earned.

Guideline
Don't abuse bugs in the game. We work really hard to make sure there are no bugs in the game. However a few bugs do slip by everyone now and then. Player are forbidden from abusing these bugs to gain an upper hand against their opponents. Player caught doing may be banned with little to no warning. If you are unsure if something is a bug feel free to ask a moderator or someone experience with the game.

We really aren't nit-picking. We just want fair play and would like to avoid situations like this in the future.

Written by PleaseMe, 06.10.2019 at 07:31

You can't leave a duel t2 so why should you be able to leave a clan war t2? Just doesn't make sense. It's a bug in the system. It's never been properly implemented.

Also, yes we got 2 of the clan wars deleted. But not because of you, because of moderators. They thought we deserved the win. They already made their decision that the win belongs to us.

Lastly you guys did break a rule. Leaving turn 2 in a clan war to force a tie is indeed a bug in the system. EC exploited it and tried avoid a loss, but moderators clearly deemed our game a 'win'. Which means a bug in the system was abused to gain an unfair advantage.

Rule
1.2 Exploiting any bug to gain an unfair advantage(cosmetic or not) in the game and/or communicating the existence of any such bug (either directly or through public posting) to any other user is not permitted. Players caught abusing bugs or glitches in a competitive game, similar to clan wars and/or duels, face the risk of removal of any/all rewards earned.

Guideline
Don't abuse bugs in the game. We work really hard to make sure there are no bugs in the game. However a few bugs do slip by everyone now and then. Player are forbidden from abusing these bugs to gain an upper hand against their opponents. Player caught doing may be banned with little to no warning. If you are unsure if something is a bug feel free to ask a moderator or someone experience with the game.

We really aren't nit-picking. We just want fair play and would like to avoid situations like this in the future.

Turn 2 leaving is there for last 4 years, and everyone used it, stop.

Another thing: who allows anyone to speak as an authority in the competitive field? Using words like "must", "have to", "obligation" etc is pretentious and not even Dave should use them, let alone some self-proclaimed-important players.

And yet another thing: who allows anyone to hold whole mod team hostage over personal issues? When I made a post that was supported by 100+ users, no mods even tried to help on any of the issues. Now all out of sudden we have public discussion, involvement of whole competitive, supporter and moderator communities. Over someone's hurt ego, again.

This non-problem was made a problem by one single user who cannot feel any guilt. Stop this already and start working on real issues.

Written by PleaseMe, 06.10.2019 at 07:31

Also, yes we got 2 of the clan wars deleted. But not because of you, because of moderators. They thought we deserved the win. They already made their decision that the win belongs to us.

Mods do not have the power over that, as rules do not allow them to do it. It's similar to mods giving elo to their preferred side if the other one refuses to tie in an already going game.

You (or Croat, or some other witness) also lied to moderators by saying Huarck DCed T2, and thus making an unnecessary fuss again. You know he DCed T1, you even told me that in pr. The only way to check when he DCed is to ask Dave for server log, which again is just wasting his time.

Not only you want to do something against the rules, but you also want to support it with lies.

Remove CW would be more easy

Again some of the supporters keep behaving and expressing themselves againt the supporter code of conduct and against the rules; cannot talk politely without being too direct, without pointing out and insulting, all towards 1 player; and this was already our 2nd chance to talk normally. Even this huge font 30 letters are being so cancerious in discussing, which tells me just one thing:

From now on, I think the majority of thoughts were pointed out. The rest are just bunch of non-sense pushing comments.
Certain players are questioning some irrelevant questions in case to move the focus from this discussion, to the discussion about how can another player make moderators try to resolve the cheating and the rest of negative things in competitive scene lol ... I guess the answer is obvious: we had 0 cws in last day since the cheating happened at competitive scene. It's on you to see the action of certain clan and reaction of competitive community.

This went too far away. You know it when Peaky Blinders were accused for camping elo (?!?!?!?! don't know if I should laugh on that or what) in some of above comments.

For the end, as conclusion which doesn't need text; I will just write down two screenshots which are splitting highly subjective thoughts supported by forcing members of just 1 coalition to get upovtes and make staff be in fallacy. Certain coalition went that far away to 'farm' upvoting support even through alternative accounts, the same way certain individuals from that coalition farmed reputation points FROM the objective reallity support of the majority of competitive community coming from various coalitions and even individuals who belong to non of the mentioned two coalitions:



The above mentioned comment is supported by active members of following coalitions which shows the objective reality of what is supported by competitive community:
1. Illyria
2. Peaky Blinders
3. Orca
4. Ship of theasus
5. Ghost Division
6. Tengers
7. Sons of Mars
8. I talk to much
9. Individuals without coalition




The above mentioned comment is supported by active, inactive members of 1 single coalition, including their alternative accounts which shows the fallacy subjectivity which needs to be splitted from objective competitive community thoughts:
1. Epic clan (with their alts and non-competitive lowranks forced to put an upvote support)
2. Of others: there is 1 from Ship of theasus and Waffel.



I think no words are needed to be added in this discussion. Mods should feel free to lock this thread since certain players from certain coalition went too far away from theme, by using an 'aggressive' language, over-fonted letters and few insults towards indivudual; and decide about the punishment for cheating. Hope something of this will help them in their final decision.
Also, to help you with that, I attach the agreement of their own main leader who agrees on punishment and who's actually also an admin of this game.
Thanks to him for a polite discussion in chat room, being objective, rational and reasonable. There is nothing to be added on this case.

Written by Guest, 06.10.2019 at 06:59

If you are wondering who and what they do support, you can check the thread "Cold death of the competitive scene" which shows it clearly.

Daaamn, ain't that narcissism. Back to that non-related thread.

Don't derail the topic njab.

As the above post shows, there is a stark disconnect between the mods' viewpoint on competitive affairs and the competitive community's opinion(s) on the moderation team. Simply put: Every mod (Sans Safari and Madara, how could anyone ever hate them?) receives mountains of hate for their actions. They have to be members of the community that hold little relationships with other people so they can remain as unbiased as possible. In certain cases though, they act human like the rest of us and say things like what Cold Case has. Delegating punishment for CW exploitation should be reserved for moderators, but I believe defining what is CW exploitation is up to the competitive community, with official channels being enforced by Supporters.

Speaking of which: It would make a difference if more Competitive players wanted to be Supporters rather than just bashing us for putting in thirty hours a week to help the game out in any capacity. Perhaps then, we could have dedicated Supporters for enforcing Competitive rulesets if the conversation is ever had.

Written by Croat, 06.10.2019 at 09:31

Aand again you want to come out of as the good guy. Nice try at being nice and professional. You have spent last 30 days constantly insulting my coalition and its members in game, in CWs, on forums. There have been at least 5 similar threads to this. You've written over 10 thousand words just because you hate someone. That's what you are.

You can claim whatever you want, but your history speaks against you. Having a constant need to attack my coalition (even in your last reply) just shows what your real intentions are. And you are right, this thread should be locked just like any other you initiated with intent to publicly shame someone.

** Extra point: 6 coalitions you mentioned (actually not whole 6 except for yours, but let's say it is) have less members and less competitive members combined than my coalition does. Their support is democratically no more valuable than support from my coalition's members.