Pinned The Team League Official Rulebook

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Mandurah wrote:

      This is to inform everyone rules have been changed.

      There was a matter presented to Players Council regarding a team disqualification.

      The team in question won the vote 5/8.

      The rule book states on page 15.

      For an appeal to be UPHELD there must be a TWO THIRDS MAJORITY vote by the Council of Leaders (CoL). [...] For your reference, these are the voting requirements per number of teams in a match:
      8 Teams - 5 out of 8 votes
      We never got to vote (Untouchable), also about the matter it wasn't presented to all leaders, I still don't know what happened. Guess someone tried a nap ?

      Glad it is solved, next time probably we should be added to the Player Council, since our vote has a meaning. Have great battles further on.
    • i would like to suggest to make the 3 first months without forcing the rule book by the word, its too big and some points are not very clear, it will be easier for every1 to explore how it will work and how to apply all the appeals and the rules, these months can be as a training for all the teams and the MODS in order to achieve a full tournament by the rulebook. for example even the mods need to practice it, after our example the mods would have acted otherwise concerning our case, 1 they wouldnt go to the votes, 2 they changed the voting requirement to win a vote, and without the vote we would have joined map2 without fighting to remain in map1 as the vote gave us hope and we believed we will stay in map1. I hear some players currently in maps 1 and 2 are having trouble with the rulebook so i hope from MODS to take this suggestion and try to come up with something similar to what im suggesting.
      We are here to have fun, no1 wants the drama either for him or for the others, and all the teams were looking for such event from a long time so i believe we all want this event to work.
    • MarkAchkar wrote:

      i would like to suggest

      Suggestions are always welcome.


      MarkAchkar wrote:

      3 first months without forcing the rule book by the word

      Then why bother to have a rulebook?

      No, the rulebook must be followed from day 1 to the end of the match.


      MarkAchkar wrote:

      its too big and some points are not very clear

      There are many teams in game 1 who probably felt as you in game, my own team as well. You wold be surprised how some of those teams have not only adapted to the rules, they're starting to use them to their advantage to get ahead.

      The system that is the TTL is working as conceived. And everyone in here is looking over their shoulder for which direction the next attack is going to come from. We went to great lengths to help explain the rules to the players. At some point it's either sink or swim. Those who adapt find wonderful new strategies open to them, as was meant to be.


      MarkAchkar wrote:

      months can be as a training for all the teams

      Sorry, that one is impossible to accommodate you with.

      Event scheduling demands meant this had to start this month. Since the rules are what govern this tournament they must be followed from day one of each match. The other teams in here are putting it together now and claiming their rewards. The system is working for them, that's the whole point.


      MarkAchkar wrote:

      they changed the voting requirement to win a vote, and without the vote we would have joined map

      And here we are back at the start. Rinse and repeat.. over and over.

      The rules have been posted and explained. Your argument are for arguments sake only and honestly I've more than demonstrated good faith in trying to explain to you why you were disqualified. I even offered you a replacement spot in Game 2, the same one AE2 were in. You should have accepted that offer in the spirit it was given.

      Please, just read and understand the rules. If you have legitimate questions I will be happy to answer them. However this months games need to be run and I can no longer rehash the same arguments interminably.

      Good day to you Mark
      "Flesh grows weak. Steel becomes brittle. But the will is indomitable." - the RIDDLE OF STEEL
    • Look I thought we said we were going to chill and not have any more drama.

      I feel like I can explain both sides, the AE side is saying that if they had broken the rules that was stated in the rulebook why was there a vote. They should have been disqualified without a doubt but since it was given up to a vote and then AE got the required amount of votes the decision of the COL should have been valid. I also feel that Mark and his team took this horribly and that they are in the wrong. Their conflict is not with the Disqualification but the Mods giving the COL a Vote and then changing the rules.


      But from the Mods perspective I can understand where they are coming from too due to the fact that AE broke the rules that was stated in the Terms and Conditions.

      We arent arguing about the idea of the disqualifications we are arguing about how the vote was suddenly Null even though the COL voted on it. I may be a bit biased but I personally feel like it is a bit on the Game 1 Mods fault due to the fact that it was sent to a vote and then the rules were "changed". The Vote never should have happened PERIOD. This is what we are fighting about.


      In the end lets all be mature and forget it and chill out in the end both parties are at fault and lets bury the hatchet.

      Peace out,
      Bobishunting
    • Bobishunting[AE2] wrote:

      They should have been disqualified without a doubt but since it was given up to a vote and then AE got the required amount of votes the decision of the COL should have been valid.
      As a bystander I do not really get this at all. If players broke the rules what is there to vote about?

      The rules were quite the long read, personally I did not really understand the scoring system at all. However, the things that you were not allowed to do were pretty obvious. From what I understand NAP negotiations were attempted. Well, thats obviously against the rules. If you had not read about this than you could have figured, NAP making breaks the game. Especially in a goldless format.

      If you need a way to figure the rules allow me introduce you to a little check. Ask yourself ''Does this give me an unfair advantage and/or break the fairness (in terms of equality) of the game?'' If the answer is yes, probably against the rules.

      I have not seen a single player make any objections to the rule book before any map started. Granted, they were not made public in advance a long time, but still, everyone agreed to the rules. Now after decisions have been made about things, suddenly trouble arises. Than why did you agree to the rules I wonder?? Since it is quite obvious some of you do not agree to them.

      Its not that hard guys. And yes, all the comments pretending to be polite whilst still attempting to appeal the ruling on your break of rules does not make you guys look good. Neither does playing the victim card. Just saying.

      Kind regards,

      Edepedable
    • The court, or council of Leaders is designed to ensure that the moderator acted properly and with proper evidence. The court does not have the authority to suspend or change the rules at any point.

      When a player wishes to appeal a moderator decision a player can appeal to the council of leaders for that particular game.

      For example there may be cases where evidence can be presented by the player that the moderator did not follow the rules, or acted improperly, or interpreted evidence improperly. In these cases a 2/3 majority vote of the court can overturn a moderator decision.

      The court does not have the authority to modify the rules during the tournament.
      War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill



      VorlonFCW
      Main Administrator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<
    • VorlonFCW wrote:

      The court, or council of Leaders is designed to ensure that the moderator acted properly and with proper evidence. The court does not have the authority to suspend or change the rules at any point.

      When a player wishes to appeal a moderator decision a player can appeal to the council of leaders for that particular game.

      For example there may be cases where evidence can be presented by the player that the moderator did not follow the rules, or acted improperly, or interpreted evidence improperly. In these cases a 2/3 majority vote of the court can overturn a moderator decision.

      The court does not have the authority to modify the rules during the tournament.
      And the court are are the team leaders in the map itself?

      In the map I am playing one of my team mates is also a moderator. I can imagine that this might make opponents a bit uneasy... That way a team leader and moderator can be the same person it seems.

      I find the 2/3 majority a bit weird. There are not that many, why not just a majority?

      Also, is voting always needed? I mean, in most cases breaking a rule or not is not really something that (to me) needs to be evidence for that requires voting. Either there is evidence or there is not right?

      I get the attempt at honouring the trias politica, but that might not be the ideal system for a world this small. Since there are a lot of people playing double roles in this. I mean in the map I am playing one of my team mates is also a moderator. I know him to be capable of being objective in even his own rulings, but I can imagine that this might make opponents a bit uneasy... A team leader and moderator can be and often is the same person it seems.
    • That is why it is posted in the COL. So all the team leaders can see the what and why of the issue. Allowing this keeps the Mod honest so to speak. As stated in the rules, when the issue brought forth is crystal clear then there is no vote but should the issue (or Mod's actions) be questionable then that is where the voting comes into play.
    • Please find proposed updates to the rules from AE/AE2 community.

      COUNCIL OF LEADERS
      Update COL voting to qualified majority rounded up to the nearest whole number. This is to give more power to COL. Mods have already extensive powers. 2/3 majority in case of a biased mod decision is too restrictive. It can be very hard to overturn given the same mod or his team can participate in the game and is going to vote against overturning.

      3 Teams 2 out of 3 votes (no change)
      4 Teams 3 out of 4 votes (no change)
      5 Teams 3 out of 5 votes (no change)
      6 Teams 4 out of 6 votes (no change)
      7 Teams 4 out of 7 votes (no change)
      8 Teams 5 out of 8 votes (no change)
      9 Teams 5 out of 9 votes

      ENFORCEABLE ISSUES & ASSOCIATED PENALTIES:
      4. Arguing with the MOD or Disobeying a ruling [...]

      Add the following:
      [...] after the COL appeal process is completed. Presenting arguments in a professional manner to support a case for the COL appeal process is a standard allowed practice.

      This is to clarify players can speak up to present arguments supporting their case for COL and cannot be be disqualified for this. Once the COL process is completed the COL ruling stands and needs to be adhered to.

      5. Wolfpacking
      Add the following: [...] provided there is hard, direct written evidence. Cases based on circumstantial evidence need to be submitted to COL.

      This is to prevent abuse of this rule and unfair disqualification based on circumstantial evidence bypassing the COL appeal process.

      6. Reported attempt at NAP
      Add the following:... provided there is hard, direct written evidence. Cases based on circumstantial evidence need to be submitted to COL.

      Same idea as for point #5 above.

      SOLE AUTHORITY:
      The MOD is the sole and final authority on all issues in the game. Any ruling from the MOD must be respected and,

      Add the following:
      [...] after the COL appeal process is completed, [...]
      End of addition.
      immediately adhered to without reply. Any violation of this from any player can result in immediate disqualification at the MOD’s discretion.
      Add the following:
      Presenting arguments in a professional manner to support a case for the COL appeal process is a standard allowed practice.

      This is to clarify players can speak up to present arguments supporting their case for COL and cannot be be disqualified for this. Once the COL process is completed the COL ruling stands and needs to be adhered to.
    • Mandurah wrote:

      Update COL voting to qualified majority rounded up to the nearest whole number.

      We are unsure yet about the rounding of numbers for voting purposes in the CoL. However we will take this point up for consideration.


      Mandurah wrote:

      This is to give more power to COL. Mods have already extensive powers.

      We will not be giving more power to the CoL. The MOD's authority as Bytro game staff to run a fair and honest game is absolute and final. Nothing will be allowed to interfere in that model.


      Mandurah wrote:

      It can be very hard to overturn given the same mod or his team can participate in the game and is going to vote against overturning.

      The MOD has no vote on the CoL. Each case will be considered by the entire CoL on it's own merits. That's the good part of this process, and I'm sure the TL's will do what they feel is in the best interest of their own needs as well. As it was intended.

      The CoL is NOT A CHECK on the powers or authority of the MOD who has a fiduciary responsibility to every player to run a honest and fair game. This is the key to the success of TTL and will in no way be modified. Suggestions for improvements will always be listened to.


      Mandurah wrote:

      ENFORCEABLE ISSUES & ASSOCIATED PENALTIES:
      4. Arguing with the MOD or Disobeying a ruling [...]

      Add the following:
      [...] after the COL appeal process is completed. Presenting arguments in a professional manner to support a case for the COL appeal process is a standard allowed practice.

      This one will not be changing either. MODs are not to be argued with period. You can make your point for the purposes of 1) why a claim should be awarded, 2) why you are appealing a ruling, or 3) in front of the CoL where applicable. At no time EVER are you to argue with the MOD.

      The simple truth is the MOD just doesn't have time for your arguing. MODs have too much to get done and we all have lives outside of this game as well. To spend endless periods of time arguing a point just isn't going to happen.


      Mandurah wrote:

      This is to clarify players can speak up to present arguments supporting their case for COL and cannot be be disqualified for this.

      You can't argue in front of the CoL anyway. The process for the CoL is very simple:
      1. The MOD makes a ruling for which there is ambiguity of authority
      2. Since the MOD's authority is ambiguous the team appeals the decision
      3. In the correct forum conversation the MOD states clearly what the ruling was and why it was made.
      4. The appealing team makes a SINGLE post to argue why the MODs ruling should be overturned.
      5. Every other team leader then makes a single post to announce their vote and WHY they voted
      6. Votes are tallied and final judgement is made for or against the appeal
      7. End of process: No further discussion is allowed



      Mandurah wrote:

      Once the COL process is completed the COL ruling stands and needs to be adhered to.

      We are also taking out the automatic appeal process for disqualifications, which was put in for transparency purposes only. Instead the MOD from now on will simply be informing the CoL of a disqualification without arguments or a vote. This was originally conceived of as a generosity to the players to promote openness and total transparency. It was immediately abused however, and prevent future disagreements of written rule we eliminated it.

      From now on anytime a disqualification is called for under the rules and the MOD's right is absolute, it will simply be presented to the CoL for informational purposes only. There are extremely few instances when this may be necessary. I am passionate about keeping it a very short list. We want you to play the game for the sake of the game.

      TTL is and has always been a TEAM LEVEL BRAWL. We are trying to eliminate all other considerations other than just go beat the other guys up. MAXIMUM use of the client outside of all other distractions.


      Mandurah wrote:

      5. Wolfpacking
      Add the following: [...] provided there is hard, direct written evidence. Cases based on circumstantial evidence need to be submitted to COL.

      This is to prevent abuse of this rule and unfair disqualification based on circumstantial evidence bypassing the COL appeal process.

      The issue of Wolfpacking can not be negotiated. All game staff take their marching orders from Bytro, and as game staff we will enforce the rule as it is written. You can find that information below. ↓↓↓↓↓↓

      Map/In-Game Rules wrote:

      Wolf-Packing:


      Wolf-Packing can be defined by the following events and is in violation of the rules:



      If a player or a group of players follows another player around games with the purpose of harming his gaming experience due to personal motivations, will be considered Wolfpacking.


      Players that violate this rule will be removed from the respective games.

      Account-Pushing:


      Account-Pushing can be defined by the following events:


      • Should Player X ask/invite other players into a game with just the sole intent to aid in killing off / kamikaze into his enemy, will be considered account pushing.
      • Should Player X ask/invite other player with the intent to have them trade Land/Resources/Troops to Player X, will be considered account pushing.
      • Should players join a game with the intent to influence the outcome and aid Player X will be considered account pushing.
      Note: Contrary to the past account pushing does not apply to a certain date of joining, and is defined as solely joining to aid another user not to play the game.



      Players that violate this rule will be removed from the respective games.


      Capital farming:


      It is not allowed to exercise capital farming, which is the act of recruiting other players with the purpose of harvesting capital cities with the intention to receive cash and/or morale boost.


      Players that violate this rule will be removed from the respective games.


      You can find the entire Game Rules here by clicking this link.


      Mandurah wrote:

      6. Reported attempt at NAP
      Add the following:... provided there is hard, direct written evidence. Cases based on circumstantial evidence need to be submitted to COL.

      We are updating our rules to make it an automatic disqualification for NAP after a certain amount of time. Every team will have at least one if not two borders (luck of the draw) depending on their team's starting block position. The incentive will be strong to ensure you make war equally against all teams at all times, and that will also be absolute.

      Evidence of a reported NAP will be given its due weight, and if a NAP is suspected then game staff will discuss the matter to ensure the ruling is correct. This process will remain closed to all non-game staff. The EN server team meets throughout the day to discuss this event and all other things about the games we deal with.

      However, when clear evidence is provided (such as in-game private messages clearly requesting a NAP) the issue for game staff then becomes how best to try and re-balance the match after the team responsible is banned. It creates problems in a match and that is unfair to all involved.

      One idea for a future rulebook for which you may comment on now is adding an MP "bounty" bonus to the "Backstab" provision. We have yet to discuss it so I don't think it will make it into August matches. However, if you want to register your comments now about any ideas how we can implement this, please do so quickly. My own thought was to add a +5 MP bonus for the responsible team who reported the NAP attempt. Again no thoughts for the August rulebook since so much to work on already.


      TTL RB PG 9 wrote:

      SOLE AUTHORITY:

      The MOD is the sole and final authority on all issues in the game. Any ruling from the MOD must
      be respected and immediately adhered to without reply. Any violation of this from any player
      can result in immediate disqualification at the MOD’s discretion.

      That's just never going to change. As long as there is a Bytro provided Gold reward and TTL is a sanctioned game event, the authority of the MOD in any match is beyond question. If the MOD does something wrong there is a clear path to resolve any issues which includes an established hierarchy of senior game staff members.


      Mandurah wrote:

      immediately adhered to without reply. Any violation of this from any player can result in immediate disqualification at the MOD’s discretion.


      Add the following:


      Presenting arguments in a professional manner to support a case for the COL appeal process is a standard allowed practice.

      There will never be any arguing allowed in TTL. Players want a gold free experience that is isn't rigged, open and fair to everyone involved, without drama or other nonsense that detracts away from the pure love of the game. Simply put if you are trying to ruin the game experience for others by "acting up" and agitating because you are displeased the MOD has the duty to correct the situation. If that means booting a player or a team to do so than so be it.

      There is a very simple solution to the above.. read the rules and follow the rules. As long as you are doing that you have nothing to worry about.


      Thank you for the suggestions. We will see if they can help us as we try to create a better event for everyone. :thumbup:


      Cheers! :beer:
      "Flesh grows weak. Steel becomes brittle. But the will is indomitable." - the RIDDLE OF STEEL
    • ChaosWarlord wrote:

      That's just never going to change. As long as there is a Bytro provided Gold reward and TTL is a sanctioned game event, the authority of the MOD in any match is beyond question. If the MOD does something wrong there is a clear path to resolve any issues which includes an established hierarchy of senior game staff members.
      Does the above mean a team or player appealing an immediate disqualification decision, believed to be biased because of questionable evidence or unfair interpretation of unclear rules, via the Bytro hierarchy complaint process is not disqualified and continues the game until the complaint process is concluded?

      Thanks
    • Mandurah wrote:

      Does the above mean a team or player appealing an immediate disqualification decision, believed to be biased because of questionable evidence or unfair interpretation of unclear rules, via the Bytro hierarchy complaint process is not disqualified and continues the game until the complaint process is concluded?

      No, it does not. The complaint part of the process would come after being disqualified and removed from the round. Any disqualification is discussed among the game staff so they would also be aware of the details. Once a disqualification happens the player/team would be banned from the game. At that point the CoL will be notified of whom it was and why it was done.

      Once the disqualification process is complete the player(s) involved could file a complaint against the MOD if they believed they were treated unfairly or the rules were not equally applied. That would happen outside of the game.

      Cheers! :beer:
      "Flesh grows weak. Steel becomes brittle. But the will is indomitable." - the RIDDLE OF STEEL
    • Mandurah wrote:

      Is involving more than one Bytro staff member a formal TTL process followed for making every immediate disqualification decision?

      Well yes and no. No in that it is the MOD's judgment based on the rules that drives the DQ process. We then go and confer with each other to confirm that we have made the right decision. If opinions differ I'm sure we'll discuss it and come to the right conclusion. That hasn't happened yet in either game as both disqualifications have been pretty clear.
      "Flesh grows weak. Steel becomes brittle. But the will is indomitable." - the RIDDLE OF STEEL
    • ChaosWarlord wrote:

      We then go and confer with each other to confirm that we have made the right decision. If opinions differ I'm sure we'll discuss it and come to the right conclusion.
      Understanding that Bytro brings more people to the disqualification decision making process provides reassurance to all teams the disqualification decisions are scrutinized before the fact and improves decisions quality.

      A one man show without any scrutiny before the fact was a major concern. It's not the case though. Thank you for the clarification.

      It might be worthwhile adding the above clarification to the rulebook so that players not following this thread can read this in the rule book. I'm leaving this suggestion with you to decide. I'm fine with the explanation in this thread.
    • Mandurah wrote:

      I'm leaving this suggestion with you to decide.

      A worthwhile suggestion.. thank you I will include that for August. It would serve the dual purposes of clarification and assurance of oversight. That I can promise you is the truth and this will be added.

      Cheers! :beer:
      "Flesh grows weak. Steel becomes brittle. But the will is indomitable." - the RIDDLE OF STEEL
    • Mandurah wrote:

      COUNCIL OF LEADERS
      Update COL voting to qualified majority rounded up to the nearest whole number. This is to give more power to COL. Mods have already extensive powers. 2/3 majority in case of a biased mod decision is too restrictive. It can be very hard to overturn given the same mod or his team can participate in the game and is going to vote against overturning.
      it is not neccearily true that the mod will vote against overturning
      we can be impartial and we can be persuaded
    • ChaosWarlord wrote:

      The simple truth is the MOD just doesn't have time for your arguing.

      @Mandurah

      One aspect of that "team of game staff working on TTL" I mentioned earlier is that we are also able to watch each others backs. We are human after all and regardless of how good we are we can't catch everything. Case in point is this one sentence in my earlier post. One game staff member took exception to this line and I must agree with him. In retrospect it sounds a lot harsher than I ever intended it to sound.

      What I should have said instead was: "I meant to say that we don't have time to listen to endless arguments. Each MOD is free to listen to as much as they want from the players but at some point we have to A) do other things B) play in our own games and C) keep up with life on the outside as well."

      That I quoted directly from my own TTL game staff chatroom comments.

      One of the other game staff members mentioned to me that it may have sounded like we weren't going to listen to the players. That is the very last thing we want any player to think. We ARE listening and we are doing our best to create a fun event for you.
      "Flesh grows weak. Steel becomes brittle. But the will is indomitable." - the RIDDLE OF STEEL