Season 4 Administrative Decisions

Not open for further replies.

Cathadora Sellback - The Sharks have petitioned to sell back Cathadora due to inactivity. Because another post-deadline sellback took place already, and because inactivity sellbacks need not be voted on, the Sharks will be given their 3k credits immediately.
Alaka Trade - The Raiders previously sold Alaka for 3k sellback credits; however, LonelyNess now wants to reverse this sell back and trade 5.5k credits to the Raiders in order to obtain him. Purely money-wise, this is effectively the same as LN trading 2.5k credits to the Raiders right now. Since the Raiders have consented to this trade, I see no reason to disallow it.

UPDATE: A veto has been called on this trade on the basis that this unfairly affects other teams' bidding/drafting plans. Objections were also raised regarding the fact that this was a mistake, and mistakes such as these should not be reversed. Managers, please submit your votes regarding this trade within 12 hours. Standard veto rules apply.
The results of the veto vote are as follows:
Veto - Sharks, Tigers
No veto - Cryonicles, Classiest, BIGS,
Abstain - Scooters
Did not vote - Ruiners, Wolfpack

With the Scooters' abstention, a supermajority of 5 vetos from the remaining 7 teams was required to veto our original ruling. This is no longer possible; the original ruling and the trade between the Raiders and the Frogs will be upheld.
Trade Deadline

The deadline for making trades was initially the beginning of Week 5, at the conclusion of the midseason auction. tennisace has made an appeal to push the deadline back by a week so that teams may have more time to conduct trades involving midseason pickups. The trade deadline was initially implemented so that out-of-contention teams could not conduct unfair trades with teams still competing; because all teams are still in contention, we see no reason that the deadline cannot be pushed back.

Thus, the trade deadline will be at the beginning of Week 6. Once Week 6 begins, no more trades may be conducted.


Private messages are the best way to reach me
is a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
B-Lulz vs. BKC

BKC disconnected during his match and was unable to reconnect. However, BKC appears to have a path to victory and thus will be allowed to recreate the situation immediately preceding the disconnection and continue playing the battle from there.
We are removing the rule that grants teams the right to remove from a match spectators who are not from either team, reasoning being that it is too difficult to enforce, and the culture has shifted to a point where it is commonplace for most battles to be announced over IRC. Teams still have the right to request that overly obnoxious spectators either leave or cease their obnoxious behavior, and failure to comply may result in a sportmanship infraction and/or a week suspension.
Stop Being a Dick Rule

Any agreement made between two parties is expected to be upheld by both parties even if not explicitly approved by the host. Examples: agreeing to no timer, agreeing to playing Little Cup instead of BW OU, etc. Violators of this rule are subject to a sportsmanship infraction at the very least, possibly more. Exceptions will only be granted through direct appeals to one of the hosts.

Andrew's Amendment

A player has the right to violate any previous agreement pertaining to the state of the timer should his/her opponent take more than five minutes on a single move or should the match's duration have exceeded thirty minutes. This would mean activating the timer on PS, or waiting another five minutes and then claiming the win on PO. The timer should be activated on the same turn.

Please just don't agree to any bullshit timer rules and play with the timer OR don't abuse no timer clause so you can avoid this stupidly complicated rule.

Snunch's Proposition

Any player found to be lying about availability will be subject to a suspension of a week or more, with additional punishment at the hosts' discretion.
Week 7 - Malekith vs. MMF

MMF missed his time with Malekith, and Malekith made an activity post stating such in addition to the time he would next be online. When Malekith next logged on, no substitute was made, and Malekith made a second activity post as he left. Only then did the Scooters make a substitution. The match was never completed, and given that Malekith gave them ample warning, it is only fair that he be granted the activity win.
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)