As you may know, IG and the 22nd were scheduled to have a match on the 30th July.
The 22nd did not show up to our match at the agreed upon time; at least not with the required minimum of eight players. Ten or so minutes after the game should have started some of our representatives and players joined a steam conversation with 22nd reps to determine the reason for the 22nds failure to show up. We were not willing to postpone the match as we had prepared quite arduously and cancelled appointments etcetera for the match.
Triakor makes a quite concise argument (in regards to an unrelated ENL-match) as to why waiting until after the match should have started and then postponing is annoying or even something he would never again do:
We were prepared to listen to the 22nd's problems during our conversation with them, in order to find a solution. They had agreed to play the match after the Week 5 deadline following a previous request from us1 and we felt that showing courtesy and being forthcoming would be in order. During the talks Plazek stated the match would not take place and the 22nd appeared to demand the postponement more than request it. They tried to pressure us into postponing by using our previous mutual agreement (an agreement made prior to the deadline) as an example: they insisted that because they agreed to play our match after the Week 5 deadline, we had to postpone. As stated, no conclusion was reached during our conversation with the 22nd and we gave no agreement to postpone. The 22nd reps abruptly left in the middle of discussions, so our team rep Lugh and other members felt that we were entitled to the default win as described in the rule:
Lugh posted a statement in the off-schedule results thread where he briefly described the situation and noted that we were considering the default win, to which sadnhappy replied with a quite oppositional post, asking "how dare" we think about accepting the default win. We are not prepared to be dictated that we have to postpone, nor will we accept facts being twisted to suit the 22nd. I made a reply to Sadnhappy's post, in which I stated that we were still discussing the matter internally, but that we were disappointed with the 22nds behaviour towards us. The only response or message I received from the 22nd after that was "Any suggestions for our 22nd vs. IG match date and time? - sadn", which completely disregarded our position and the fact that we had not agreed to postpone. The same can be said for sadnhappy's answers to Goker's question about what had happened to the match2 3.
We came to the conclusion that we did not want to play the match again under these conditions and decided to accept the default win in accordance with the rules and informed captainlust of that decision. Subsequently captainlust decided not to give us the default win. His reason being that during the steam conversation4, we did not explicitly say to the 22nd that they must play or lose by default. Captainlust furthermore saw a "reluctant agreement" (to postponing) in our reps comments, however we cannot find any evidence of this reluctant agreement in the chat log and this has not been expounded upon by captainlust.
Nonetheless, we responded to captainlust and argued that:
1. The rule is clearly formulated and the fact that we had ten players on the server 15 minutes into the game, while the 22nd did not have eight is likewise clear.
2. We are not required to remind the 22nd of the tournament rules, it is their business to know the rules and it is up to them to decide whether they want turn up to a match - we do not have to force them to play and neither do we have to inform them of possible consequences of them not playing.
3. The logs that captainlust uses for his argument show that the 22nd are aware that we did not agree to postpone the match. Their only options were to either play or lose by default. However, the 22nd left the discussion before an agreement to postpone was reached, and they did not appear on the server for the match. Hence the default win is the consequence.
In response to these points, captainlust labelled our argument as "tenuous" and refused to give us the default win.
Out of determination to reach an agreement and for the sake of the tournament, we proposed to postpone the match with a number of conditions. Our conditions were as follows:
1. We set the date for the next match and inform 22nd of that date, with sufficient time to prepare and organise themselves (four days).
2. The problem and consequences of failing to turn up to matches must be discussed with all ENL participants.
3. Those who have previously failed to show up to matches be formally reprimanded, thereby informing the ENL participants that such behaviour is unacceptable.
4. We wanted the agreement and decision to be made public (as well as all future decisions), in order to keep the league decision making process transparent.
We sent our conditional agreement to postpone to captainlust on the 17th August. Captainlust did not acknowledge receipt of this message until 23rd August, where he dismissed the conditions of our agreement. As the reasonable conditions of this agreement were not met, we revert back to the tournament rules.
The tournament rules make clear that we are to be awarded a default win for 22nd's failure to show up. Captainlust has refused to apply this tournament rule. This decision obviously goes against the rules of the tournament but can be made legitimate by one if the rules: "The event admins will have the final say. If a dispute does not fall in your favour or you are unhappy with a decision, you must accept it". This would then however mean that event admins can decide as they please and even contradict other tournament rules.
We see no point in playing in a league where the majority of rules can be disregarded at will by the organiser, especially when we (and other clans) make the effort to adhere to the rules. We therefore take our leave from this league.
For the most part it was fun and we wish good luck to the remaining clans. As always, we welcome challenges from any clan which can muster sufficient numbers to fight against us.
1 As I already stated here, we had not agreed a match-date then, would have had enough members to fight and had not violated any rules as sadnhappy seemed to have suggested in his post that my post is a reply to.
2 http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,182369.msg4482412.html#msg4482412
3 http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,182369.msg4487159.html#msg4487159 - the mentioned decision by lust was and still is unknown to me
4 We had sent a copy of the logs to lust
The 22nd did not show up to our match at the agreed upon time; at least not with the required minimum of eight players. Ten or so minutes after the game should have started some of our representatives and players joined a steam conversation with 22nd reps to determine the reason for the 22nds failure to show up. We were not willing to postpone the match as we had prepared quite arduously and cancelled appointments etcetera for the match.
Triakor makes a quite concise argument (in regards to an unrelated ENL-match) as to why waiting until after the match should have started and then postponing is annoying or even something he would never again do:
Triakor said:
We were prepared to listen to the 22nd's problems during our conversation with them, in order to find a solution. They had agreed to play the match after the Week 5 deadline following a previous request from us1 and we felt that showing courtesy and being forthcoming would be in order. During the talks Plazek stated the match would not take place and the 22nd appeared to demand the postponement more than request it. They tried to pressure us into postponing by using our previous mutual agreement (an agreement made prior to the deadline) as an example: they insisted that because they agreed to play our match after the Week 5 deadline, we had to postpone. As stated, no conclusion was reached during our conversation with the 22nd and we gave no agreement to postpone. The 22nd reps abruptly left in the middle of discussions, so our team rep Lugh and other members felt that we were entitled to the default win as described in the rule:
As we had shown up for the match with 10 players and as the 22nd had not, and, as we had not agreed to postpone the match, nor found any reason to accept the 22nd telling us what to do, we considered accepting the default win.
Lugh posted a statement in the off-schedule results thread where he briefly described the situation and noted that we were considering the default win, to which sadnhappy replied with a quite oppositional post, asking "how dare" we think about accepting the default win. We are not prepared to be dictated that we have to postpone, nor will we accept facts being twisted to suit the 22nd. I made a reply to Sadnhappy's post, in which I stated that we were still discussing the matter internally, but that we were disappointed with the 22nds behaviour towards us. The only response or message I received from the 22nd after that was "Any suggestions for our 22nd vs. IG match date and time? - sadn", which completely disregarded our position and the fact that we had not agreed to postpone. The same can be said for sadnhappy's answers to Goker's question about what had happened to the match2 3.
We came to the conclusion that we did not want to play the match again under these conditions and decided to accept the default win in accordance with the rules and informed captainlust of that decision. Subsequently captainlust decided not to give us the default win. His reason being that during the steam conversation4, we did not explicitly say to the 22nd that they must play or lose by default. Captainlust furthermore saw a "reluctant agreement" (to postponing) in our reps comments, however we cannot find any evidence of this reluctant agreement in the chat log and this has not been expounded upon by captainlust.
Nonetheless, we responded to captainlust and argued that:
1. The rule is clearly formulated and the fact that we had ten players on the server 15 minutes into the game, while the 22nd did not have eight is likewise clear.
2. We are not required to remind the 22nd of the tournament rules, it is their business to know the rules and it is up to them to decide whether they want turn up to a match - we do not have to force them to play and neither do we have to inform them of possible consequences of them not playing.
3. The logs that captainlust uses for his argument show that the 22nd are aware that we did not agree to postpone the match. Their only options were to either play or lose by default. However, the 22nd left the discussion before an agreement to postpone was reached, and they did not appear on the server for the match. Hence the default win is the consequence.
In response to these points, captainlust labelled our argument as "tenuous" and refused to give us the default win.
Out of determination to reach an agreement and for the sake of the tournament, we proposed to postpone the match with a number of conditions. Our conditions were as follows:
1. We set the date for the next match and inform 22nd of that date, with sufficient time to prepare and organise themselves (four days).
2. The problem and consequences of failing to turn up to matches must be discussed with all ENL participants.
3. Those who have previously failed to show up to matches be formally reprimanded, thereby informing the ENL participants that such behaviour is unacceptable.
4. We wanted the agreement and decision to be made public (as well as all future decisions), in order to keep the league decision making process transparent.
We sent our conditional agreement to postpone to captainlust on the 17th August. Captainlust did not acknowledge receipt of this message until 23rd August, where he dismissed the conditions of our agreement. As the reasonable conditions of this agreement were not met, we revert back to the tournament rules.
The tournament rules make clear that we are to be awarded a default win for 22nd's failure to show up. Captainlust has refused to apply this tournament rule. This decision obviously goes against the rules of the tournament but can be made legitimate by one if the rules: "The event admins will have the final say. If a dispute does not fall in your favour or you are unhappy with a decision, you must accept it". This would then however mean that event admins can decide as they please and even contradict other tournament rules.
We see no point in playing in a league where the majority of rules can be disregarded at will by the organiser, especially when we (and other clans) make the effort to adhere to the rules. We therefore take our leave from this league.
For the most part it was fun and we wish good luck to the remaining clans. As always, we welcome challenges from any clan which can muster sufficient numbers to fight against us.
1 As I already stated here, we had not agreed a match-date then, would have had enough members to fight and had not violated any rules as sadnhappy seemed to have suggested in his post that my post is a reply to.
2 http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,182369.msg4482412.html#msg4482412
3 http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,182369.msg4487159.html#msg4487159 - the mentioned decision by lust was and still is unknown to me
4 We had sent a copy of the logs to lust
