War #6 - Rules

[Jenkar]

Rules slightly updated to reflect the removal of starting support team member. Only wordings were touched.

[Helston]

A clarification:

-The General of a team cannot be changed without the current general being removed from the team and thus War.

[willng3]

Can you please give an example of where a major penalty being issued would be applicable?

[Jenkar]

Repetition of severe flaming, for example. Or trying to set up any kind of backroom deal. All the kinds of actions i can think of that would warrant such a penalty would probably have much bigger consequences on the person(s) that caused it.

[majofa]

Repetition of severe flaming, for example. Or trying to set up any kind of backroom deal. All the kinds of actions i can think of that would warrant such a penalty would probably have much bigger consequences on the person(s) that caused it.

Can I have an example of a backroom deal?

[willng3]

Repetition of severe flaming, for example. Or trying to set up any kind of backroom deal. All the kinds of actions i can think of that would warrant such a penalty would probably have much bigger consequences on the person(s) that caused it.

Does blatantly defying organizer rulings fit in there anywhere?

[deuce22]

I would imagine any sharing of information or coordination with other teams would be considered a back room deal. Can't think of a loophole to this as it is a pretty broad statement.

[Jenkar]

Repetition of severe flaming, for example. Or trying to set up any kind of backroom deal. All the kinds of actions i can think of that would warrant such a penalty would probably have much bigger consequences on the person(s) that caused it.

Can I have an example of a backroom deal?

Anything that involves sharing information that should not be available to one side of the "share". For the same reason as the "no talk about exploits" in chat rule (not giivng people ideas), that shall remain that vague.
Deuce is a ninja. So yeah, look at post above.

Repetition of severe flaming, for example. Or trying to set up any kind of backroom deal. All the kinds of actions i can think of that would warrant such a penalty would probably have much bigger consequences on the person(s) that caused it.

Does blatantly defying organizer rulings fit in there anywhere?

In a repeated flaming manner, yes (which is what i believe you mean by blatantly defying). We are not perfect and might make profoundly wrong rulings, and for the possibility of this case discussion should be allowed to happen.

[willng3]

Repetition of severe flaming, for example. Or trying to set up any kind of backroom deal. All the kinds of actions i can think of that would warrant such a penalty would probably have much bigger consequences on the person(s) that caused it.

Does blatantly defying organizer rulings fit in there anywhere?

In a repeated flaming manner, yes (which is what i believe you mean by blatantly defying). We are not perfect and might make profoundly wrong rulings, and for the possibility of this case discussion should be allowed to happen.

Well, discussion I can understand, but, for example, I don't see how declaring that I refuse to pay a penalty for an illegal deck because I disagree with it would be permissible or without harsh consequences.

[Helston]

Disagreeing with or commenting on a ruling in a thought out and sensible manner is perfectly acceptable, and it's really good to see constructive criticism in the suggestions and feedback thread (well, the fact you disagree isn't good, but nobody's perfect). Blatantly refusing to follow a ruling will result in a penalty, unless the ruling is reviewed and altered. Note that the refusal to follow a ruling has no more influence than a polite comment stating that you disagree with it.

[mrpaper]

Well then I politely say I disagree with the ruling or absence of in my case.

[Jenkar]

Rules have been modified to indicate that you can face a team once in support and once out of it.