Excluding Tournament Players Discussion

[Night Strike]

----
There are no written rules about this issue and we, the Tournament Directors look at it on a case-by-case basis and then only if abuse is suspected or if a player, who was denied entry in a tournament, complains. Since this does not come up often, we don't plan on coming up with a whole set of written rules any time soon.

I can give a few pointers and answer some questions though:

• Contrary to what some people seem to think: TOs cannot exclude people from their tournament for any reason they like.
  
• Let's just say that there has to be a valid reason. I realize that that can be subjective, but denying entry in a tournament to a player because the TO does not like the player's avatar, username, signature, etc., is not considered a valid reason.
  
• If a TO thinks an avatar (for example) does not follow the guidelines of Conquer Club he/she can report that through the proper channels.
  
• Using the foe list as a tool to deny players entry in your tournament is not acceptable. You cannot add a player to your foe list with the purpose of excluding that player from your tournament. In other words, there has to be another reason that the player is on your foe list.
  
• A TO can use prerequisites for entering in his/her tournament, as long as they are not overly exclusive. I'm talking about setting a point minimum or a minimum rating for example.
  
• If a TO posts in his tournament thread: "I reserve the right to deny entry to this tournament to any player", it doesn't mean that he/she can actually do that without a good reason.

If you think you were denied entry unfairly by a TO, or a TO has prerequisites for entering in his/her tournament that seem overly exclusive, feel free to file a complaint to the Tournament Department. As mentioned above, we will look at it on a case-by-case basis.

I hope this clears up things a little.

Lx

The previous standard, as communicated to TOs throughout CC history has been that TOs can exclude players for whatever reason. Owen, Natty etc may not like this but that's what had previously been communicated to the TOs. Now, Lindax says this isn't the case which is a clear change in CC policy which should be communicated to the TOs and not hidden over here in a GD thread of course but I'd like to know where the standard is?

1. Can we exclude dead beaters? (most would say OK here I think)

2. Can we exclude our own foe list?

3. Can we exclude people who are joining just to cause trouble? (I have excluded one player once who I was in the middle of an argument with and who tried to join one of my tournaments for what I believed to be troublemaking purposes (either deadbeating or simply not joining-mostly to be a pain in the ass for the TO)

4. Can we exclude those we find annoying? Optimus Prime used to exclude Blitz from his tournaments for this reason.

5. Can we exclude those who consistently berate others in game chat? It may be allowed in CC but part of the duty of a TO is to provide an enjoyable experience for players?

6. Can we exclude those with offensive names and/or avatars? Which is the crux of this particular complaint of course and there are potential reasons to do so since the avatars are going to be seen in the tournament threads and the names will be in games.

7. can we exclude people for having Ginger colored hair?

It sounds like the line is somewhere between 5 and 5. But really where is the line Lindax? Are TOs obligated to take every player who isn't on their foe list and should this mean that as a TO I need to work at increasing my own foe list just so I could exclude people? I'd have a perfectly valid reason for putting someone on foe of course but I dont use it much as things usually aren't that big a deal.

[Night Strike]

Alright, my above post has the two relevant posts from the discussion in the GD forum. Let's talk about the actual issues contained in those two posts.

[Bones2484]

I have no problems with not allowing players in tournaments. If someone didn't want to let me into a tournament, I probably don't want to play in their tournament anyways.

Though, on a slightly related note, I appreciate that the TPA is set up with a no-exclusion policy.

[barterer2002]

Here's the thing. It has always been the case that TOs can exclude players for any reason. Its never been an issue because its never been abused but this policy was established by the first TD and has been handed down ever since. Now, clearly if there are situations where a TO would use the exclusions to provide a tournament access for a clan war that would be a different situation but its never happened that way.

The TDs and I disagree on the historical rights of the TOs here for exclusion. Lets be honest here, if changes are made then they need to be made clear but to say that this has never been the case is just wrong.

[Lindax]

Here's the thing. It has always been the case that TOs can exclude players for any reason. Its never been an issue because its never been abused but this policy was established by the first TD and has been handed down ever since. Now, clearly if there are situations where a TO would use the exclusions to provide a tournament access for a clan war that would be a different situation but its never happened that way.

The TDs and I disagree on the historical rights of the TOs here for exclusion. Lets be honest here, if changes are made then they need to be made clear but to say that this has never been the case is just wrong.

Whether or not it is a historic right of the TO: it is contradictory to the 50% open to the public rule.

As you stated, this could lead to abuse by TOs that exclude everybody but their friends or clan mates and if we allow TOs to exclude any player for any reason there is nothing we can do about that abuse.

Now, if you want to create a policy where abuse is something we can deal with as TDs, what is abuse?

To me, refusing entry to a player because of something that will have no influence on the tournament (not liking an avatar for example) would definitely fall under abuse.

Oh, and I agree. If changes are made in any policy they should be announced and explained.

Lx

[Optimus Prime]

Whether or not it is a historic right of the TO: it is contradictory to the 50% open to the public rule.

This is incorrect. It is only contradictory to the 50% open to the public rule if an organizer decides to exclude enough individuals to equal more than 50% of the total slots in their tournament. I think we can all agree that the chances of such a thing happening are quite literally non-existent. Regardless of the 50% rule, it always has been the historic right of organizers to do so, and quite frankly there is no reason to change it now.

As you stated, this could lead to abuse by TOs that exclude everybody but their friends or clan mates and if we allow TOs to exclude any player for any reason there is nothing we can do about that abuse.

If you think that this situation will lead to rampant (or even miniscule) abuse by tournament organizers, I think you are getting way ahead of yourself. As far as I'm aware, and I'm aware of an awful lot given my past with the position of Tournament Director and Admin, this is only the second case of someone being excluded by an organizer on purpose. The first incident was myself, as I do not allow Blitzaholic into my tournaments any longer because I hate him, which is to say the least, an even less legit reason than the one which has brought up all this discussion.

Oh, and I agree. If changes are made in any policy they should be announced and explained.

The creation of any policy about this stuff that goes beyond "Tournament Organizers reserve the right to exclude or deny entrance of any individual into their tournament with reasonable explanation," is taking things way too far, and getting into the area of creating rules just to create rules. And, to further clarify, "reasonable explanation," means that Tournament Directors give the organizers benefit of the doubt unless some concrete evidence can be brought forth in some fashion that shows malicious intent of some sort.

[Optimus Prime]

----
There are no written rules about this issue and we, the Tournament Directors look at it on a case-by-case basis and then only if abuse is suspected or if a player, who was denied entry in a tournament, complains. Since this does not come up often, we don't plan on coming up with a whole set of written rules any time soon.

I can give a few pointers and answer some questions though:

• Contrary to what some people seem to think: TOs cannot exclude people from their tournament for any reason they like. Always been allowed.
  
• Let's just say that there has to be a valid reason. I realize that that can be subjective, but denying entry in a tournament to a player because the TO does not like the player's avatar, username, signature, etc., is not considered a valid reason. Yes it is. TDs have no right to say otherwise unless malicious intent can be proven.
  
• If a TO thinks an avatar (for example) does not follow the guidelines of Conquer Club he/she can report that through the proper channels.
  
• Using the foe list as a tool to deny players entry in your tournament is not acceptable. You cannot add a player to your foe list with the purpose of excluding that player from your tournament. In other words, there has to be another reason that the player is on your foe list.
  
• A TO can use prerequisites for entering in his/her tournament, as long as they are not overly exclusive. I'm talking about setting a point minimum or a minimum rating for example.
  
• If a TO posts in his tournament thread: "I reserve the right to deny entry to this tournament to any player", it doesn't mean that he/she can actually do that without a good reason. If the organizer states that up front there is nothing you can do about it to be honest.

If you think you were denied entry unfairly by a TO, or a TO has prerequisites for entering in his/her tournament that seem overly exclusive, feel free to file a complaint to the Tournament Department. As mentioned above, we will look at it on a case-by-case basis.

I hope this clears up things a little.

Lx

[Lindax]

However much I respect you and your opinion, I disagree with you OP.

Just because it is an "historic right" to exclude any player from your tournament is no argument. Not that long ago having slaves was considered an historic right in the USA.

Just because you came up with this historic right as the "founder of the tournament department" on CC does not make it correct, nor does it mean that it cannot be changed.

Denying a player entry to a tournament because "you hate him" or "don't like his avatar" is just plain wrong in my opinion.

Oh, and when I posted what you so kindly corrected above, I had been told that the specific "historic right" did not exist.

Lx

PS: I don't know why you go on about creating rules. I thought I made it clear that we were NOT planning to come up with a whole set of new rules, but would look it this issue on a case-by-case basis, almost exactly as you describe.

[Victor Sullivan]

I've commented on Lx's points in his quote, like OP, except I used magenta

----
There are no written rules about this issue and we, the Tournament Directors look at it on a case-by-case basis and then only if abuse is suspected or if a player, who was denied entry in a tournament, complains. Since this does not come up often, we don't plan on coming up with a whole set of written rules any time soon.

I can give a few pointers and answer some questions though:

• Contrary to what some people seem to think: TOs cannot exclude people from their tournament for any reason they like.
  I agree.
• Let's just say that there has to be a valid reason. I realize that that can be subjective, but denying entry in a tournament to a player because the TO does not like the player's avatar, username, signature, etc., is not considered a valid reason.
  Again, I agree.
• If a TO thinks an avatar (for example) does not follow the guidelines of Conquer Club he/she can report that through the proper channels.
  Again, I agree, BUT I believe that if any person's avatar or sig is in violation of the rules, the TO reserves the right to exclude them until the case has been resolved. Then once the case is resolved and the player has removed his offensive media, the TO must put him back as a first-in-line reserve. This does present some problems, as in the case of VioIet, she could have potentially filed a report even though his avatar didn't actually violate the rules. Something to think about.
• Using the foe list as a tool to deny players entry in your tournament is not acceptable. You cannot add a player to your foe list with the purpose of excluding that player from your tournament. In other words, there has to be another reason that the player is on your foe list.
  Alright, sure. But this is also hard to enforce, as who's to know if someone foed someone else today or 5 months ago?
• A TO can use prerequisites for entering in his/her tournament, as long as they are not overly exclusive. I'm talking about setting a point minimum or a minimum rating for example.
  Okay, but again, the boundaries are not clear.
• If a TO posts in his tournament thread: "I reserve the right to deny entry to this tournament to any player", it doesn't mean that he/she can actually do that without a good reason.

Eh, I disagree. I think if the TO gives a warning, it's fine. If the TO did not give a good reason though, the person booted can appeal to a TD.
If you think you were denied entry unfairly by a TO, or a TO has prerequisites for entering in his/her tournament that seem overly exclusive, feel free to file a complaint to the Tournament Department. As mentioned above, we will look at it on a case-by-case basis.

I hope this clears up things a little.

Lx

[Lindax]

Whether or not it is a historic right of the TO: it is contradictory to the 50% open to the public rule.

This is incorrect. It is only contradictory to the 50% open to the public rule if an organizer decides to exclude enough individuals to equal more than 50% of the total slots in their tournament. I think we can all agree that the chances of such a thing happening are quite literally non-existent. Regardless of the 50% rule, it always has been the historic right of organizers to do so, and quite frankly there is no reason to change it now.

Well, I think there are thousands of people on this site that did not know about the TO's historic right, but now many of them do.

What's to stop somebody to create a tournament, declare it open to everyone, and simply deny players who don't have a score over 3000 points?

The chances of this happening were slim until now. After all this coming out in the open I'm not so sure.

Let's take the avatar example: How many people would even think of denying somebody entry in their tournament on the basis of "not liking your avatar"? Very few I bet. Now they all know they can do that because of an historic right (assuming that will stand) how many more TOs do you think will suddenly exclude players from their tournament for all kinds of irrelevant reasons?

Lx

[barterer2002]

Well if you want to use the analogy of slave holdings, and I'm not saying it was a good one, even that wasn't changed without notice. Or, truth be told, a rather bloody war. I'd rather not come to that point here.

Here's the thing. Lindax is working on faulty information. He has been told that it has not been the historic right to exclude players from tournaments. I contend and I believe OP agrees that this is faulty information. There are several TOs that can be named that have chosen to exclude in the past without having to justify it. OP has excluded Blitz, I have excluded Colton, JR cherry picked from his sign ups (stated in the first post of every one of this threads). I can name other TOs that have excluded for a variety of reasons.

If the premise that a TO cannot exclude for whatever reason is not valid then there is a change within the tournament rules. Whether you believe that to be something that happened 3 years ago or yesterday its a change and one that has never been either announced or discussed. To me that is a problem.

The argument that we're not having 50% open sign ups is faulty, the sign ups are still open, the slots aren't held for specific players. Lets put it this way, if Manny or Max or lanyards came back and bought a premium would I be required to allow them into my tournaments knowing that they would be joining for the purposes of mayhem? Knowing that they have a history of cheating? Am I required to justify every exclusion that I make. What happens in the case of an honest mistake where I miss a player's sign up?

[Lindax]

Well if you want to use the analogy of slave holdings, and I'm not saying it was a good one, even that wasn't changed without notice. Or, truth be told, a rather bloody war. I'd rather not come to that point here.

Here's the thing. Lindax is working on faulty information. He has been told that it has not been the historic right to exclude players from tournaments. I contend and I believe OP agrees that this is faulty information. There are several TOs that can be named that have chosen to exclude in the past without having to justify it. OP has excluded Blitz, I have excluded Colton, JR cherry picked from his sign ups (stated in the first post of every one of this threads). I can name other TOs that have excluded for a variety of reasons.

If the premise that a TO cannot exclude for whatever reason is not valid then there is a change within the tournament rules. Whether you believe that to be something that happened 3 years ago or yesterday its a change and one that has never been either announced or discussed. To me that is a problem.

Let's make one thing clear. I still don't know for a fact that I was working on false information and thus still don't know if my post changed anything. And I certainly can't find that historic right as a rule anywhere.

Assuming that the historic right exists: see my first answer to OP's post.

The argument that we're not having 50% open sign ups is faulty, the sign ups are still open, the slots aren't held for specific players. Lets put it this way, if Manny or Max or lanyards came back and bought a premium would I be required to allow them into my tournaments knowing that they would be joining for the purposes of mayhem? Knowing that they have a history of cheating? Am I required to justify every exclusion that I make. What happens in the case of an honest mistake where I miss a player's sign up?

Hence the statement that I have now repeated too many times:

There are no written rules about this issue and we, the Tournament Directors look at it on a case-by-case basis and then only if abuse is suspected or if a player, who was denied entry in a tournament, complains.

Lx

[Night Strike]

There are several TOs that can be named that have chosen to exclude in the past without having to justify it. OP has excluded Blitz, I have excluded Colton, JR cherry picked from his sign ups (stated in the first post of every one of this threads). I can name other TOs that have excluded for a variety of reasons.

Except that those first two cases are based on specific issues that festered between the members for some time. OP got downright fed op with Blitz since Blitz took OP's tournament assistance to spam the forums with the most basic of tournaments. If I remember correctly, you were blocking colton due to his racist or homophobic comments that were made on the site. I'm pretty sure JR's hand-picking was stopped when it was discovered (although I could be wrong). However, those first two instances were not based on facetious whims of the organizer: they all revolved around repeated troubles between the organizer and the player. I strongly believe that organizers should rarely if not never keep people out of their tournaments for issues that are not game related, and if a player feels that they are being unfairly left out, then they have the right to ask a TD for assistance. And I do not feel that keeping someone out of the tournament for an avatar or signature that is within the site's rules is a justified decision.

[Bones2484]

Reading through the first post, I don't understand how it can be argued that exclusion lists cannot be used but restricting based on points can.

Lindax, if you are such a stickler for the "50% open" rule, then how can you possibly be in favor of tournaments that require, say, a minimum of 2000 points to register? That clearly cancels out way more than 50% of the overall population of CC.

[Night Strike]

Reading through the first post, I don't understand how it can be argued that exclusion lists cannot be used but restricting based on points can.

So you're saying we can't have two different criteria that are based on completely different facets of the site?

[Lindax]

Lindax, if you are such a stickler for the "50% open" rule, then how can you possibly be in favor of tournaments that require, say, a minimum of 2000 points to register? That clearly cancels out way more than 50% of the overall population of CC.

I don't understand the "stickler" comment, but the 50% rule does not mean that a tournament has to be open to 50% of the CC community. It means that you can reserve 50% of the player spots for certain players, the rest should be open to the public.

Requirements like a minimum of 2000 points to register are a different issue altogether.

Lx

[barterer2002]

OK

Premise: There was a point in time that the accepted standard within the TD community was that TOs could exclude players for any reason they felt like.

Proof:

1. The position of Tournament Director started in August 2006 when HighBorn became TD viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4780&start=0

2. AK Iceman joined HighBorn making for 2 TDs in September 2006
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6983

3. In December Hugh G Rection became the 3rd TD
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10619&start=0

4. In July 2007 Steelhorse became TD, HighBorn, Hugh G Rection and AK Iceman all fell by the wayside and in October OP became TD joining Steelhorse as a two man team
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=38488&start=0
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=32382&start=0

Thus By the end of 2007 our TDs were Optimus Prime and Steelhorse.

5. Optimus Prime has weighed in on this discussion in the GD thread viewtopic.php?f=6&t=132533&start=120#p2908475

Unless something has changed, and I damn well hope not, then tournament organizers have always been allowed to refuse entrance into their tournaments at any time at their own discretion.

6. It is clear that as of the end of 2007, the TDs were under the impression that TOS were allowed to refuse entrance to any participant at will.

7. Thus, there was a point in time in CC where the accepted standard within the TD community was that TOs could exclude players for any reason they felt like.

[Night Strike]

7. Thus, there was a point in time in CC where the accepted standard within the TD community was that TOs could exclude players for any reason they felt like.

Any instances brought before the Directors were upheld at those times, but I don't think that automatically means every single instance will be upheld. As far as I'm concerned, if someone is excluded from a tournament but then doesn't challenge it, then there's nowhere for me to step in. It's only when someone complains about it that we step in. Past instances may have been upheld, but the instance that sparked this discussion did not seem justified in my mind, hence the decision.

[Lindax]

If you posted this because I stated the following:

Let's make one thing clear. I still don't know for a fact that I was working on false information and thus still don't know if my post changed anything. And I certainly can't find that historic right as a rule anywhere.

I appreciate the history lesson, but I still don't know (see text in red):

OK

Premise: There was a point in time that the accepted standard within the TD community was that TOs could exclude players for any reason they felt like.

Proof:

1. The position of Tournament Director started in August 2006 when HighBorn became TD viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4780&start=0
This does not proof your premise


2. AK Iceman joined HighBorn making for 2 TDs in September 2006
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6983
This does not proof your premise

3. In December Hugh G Rection became the 3rd TD
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10619&start=0
This does not proof your premise

4. In July 2007 Steelhorse became TD, HighBorn, Hugh G Rection and AK Iceman all fell by the wayside and in October OP became TD joining Steelhorse as a two man team
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=38488&start=0
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=32382&start=0

Thus By the end of 2007 our TDs were Optimus Prime and Steelhorse.
This does not proof your premise

5. Optimus Prime has weighed in on this discussion in the GD thread viewtopic.php?f=6&t=132533&start=120#p2908475

Unless something has changed, and I damn well hope not, then tournament organizers have always been allowed to refuse entrance into their tournaments at any time at their own discretion.

This statement was made today, December 9, 2010 and does not proof your premise

6. It is clear that as of the end of 2007, the TDs were under the impression that TOS were allowed to refuse entrance to any participant at will.
This is a statement based on assumption and does not proof your premise

7. Thus, there was a point in time in CC where the accepted standard within the TD community was that TOs could exclude players for any reason they felt like.
If you forget the thus, I'm willing to accept the fact that OP thinks today, December 9, 2010, that there was a point in time when he believed it was an accepted standard that TOs could exclude players for any reason they felt like. This does not proof your premise

If this is what you base your argument on that we are talking about an historic right, I'm afraid your case is extremely weak or even non-existent.

Lx

[Incandenza]

So let me see if I've got this straight...

TO's cannot:
Set minimum points above 2000
Create intra-clan tourneys
(hell, we couldn't get game creation privs for inter-clan tourneys until a couple months ago after years of begging)
Generally reserve all spots
Run a smaller tourney than the guidelines state

TO's can:
Exclude people based on personal whim

And apparently former admins can threaten the system if their personal opinions are not upheld:

And yes, I will start a rampage of horror if I find that tournament organizer rights are being trod upon in an unfair manner. I'm not joking.

Have I misstated anything?

Oh, and this:

Because if lackattack can force users to change their avatars because he is personally offended by them (reason for offense is of no matter, let's make that clear), and threaten them with suspended use of the forums, then if a tournament organizer is truly offended, they have the right to refuse entry into their tournament.

is a terrible argument, because owner of the website > some wanker that starts a tourney, in every single way that makes any kind of difference whatsoever.

[Gypsys Kiss]

I can understand why people get excluded from tournaments, but to give someone carte blanche on who to exclude seems pretty draconian.

If a player deadbeats or causes trouble in a tournament, or indeed been found guilty of breaking any site rule, then yes exclude them. But to exclude a player for a personal dislike of their name, avatar, signature or political/religous ideology seems, to me at least, rather petty and intolerant.

I have nothing against any TO, and have enjoyed nearly every tournament I have been apart of, and for the most part they are extremely well run. But because of something I may have written(maybe what is above) I could be excluded from a tourney. Well, I dont find that very fair, sorry.

[HighlanderAttack]

On a lighter note--can I exclude myself from my own tourneys?


Heck NO--that would be:

blasphemy

[barterer2002]

Lindax

I know that the appointment of past TDs isn't proof of anything however its necessary to set the background.

The TO community from the early days was told that organizers could exclude from tournaments for any reason. OP has re-stated that stance this week and its the easiest quote to find but it was also stated by him during the period when he was the TD. Or are you saying that you think that his opinion has changed? I will admit that I have not done an exhaustive search to find the quote from OP where he expressed this view in his position as TD but they were there at the time. After all, is it likely that he would come back to weigh in on this issue as a change in policy if it wasn't a change in policy?

The fact is that this was the policy as expressed by the TDs in 2007 and 2008. The changes that Night Strike may have made in the 2 years since he took over have never been communicated and are a change in policy. They may be a policy that is good for CC, they may be a policy that newer organizers assume to be the case but that does not make it any less of a change that should have been communicated.

[Night Strike]

The fact is that this was the policy as expressed by the TDs in 2007 and 2008. The changes that Night Strike may have made in the 2 years since he took over have never been communicated and are a change in policy. They may be a policy that is good for CC, they may be a policy that newer organizers assume to be the case but that does not make it any less of a change that should have been communicated.

As far as I know, even the past decision that organizers could exclude anyone for any reason was subject to challenge by the person being excluded. Just because the organizer passed the challenge in the past doesn't mean they always will. As far as I'm concerned, there was no change in policy: an organizer lost the argument when challenged by a player.

[Lindax]

Lindax

I know that the appointment of past TDs isn't proof of anything however its necessary to set the background.

The TO community from the early days was told that organizers could exclude from tournaments for any reason. OP has re-stated that stance this week and its the easiest quote to find but it was also stated by him during the period when he was the TD. Or are you saying that you think that his opinion has changed? I will admit that I have not done an exhaustive search to find the quote from OP where he expressed this view in his position as TD but they were there at the time.

Bart,

When I read "Premise" and "Proof" and didn't really find proof, I simply wanted to make clear you didn't proof anything. I could have done that less aggressively.

This is not to say that I don't believe that there was a policy, only that I could not find anything on it, nor was I aware of an "historic right".

Anyway, I think we can all agree that the right to exclude a player from a tournament should not be abused.

Lx