Name a more iconic duo than ESLUK and changing rules - Pt 2.
Right then. This is a follow on from my previous tweet earlier in the week. What could ESLUK possibly do wrong (still?) In my opinion, a lot. Let me outline what has occurred in the past 2 weeks in UKCS: *Note ESL still haven't replied to me in over 5 days about some of this
1.) Found proof just before posting this live that our time was changed from 9pm -> 8pm in the schedule (see: https://gyazo.com/f298d4829678349a5b86a81c474214fb )
Rocky season meaning we aren't guaranteed playoffs unless we win this last game against Dizlown. We asked well in advance of a week (I think 2 weeks) to move our time slot for this match as we had agreed to play in a HLTV cup (which at the time did not conflict with the ESL Prem times until they changed the schedule without official notice - will expand on this).
We accepted an invitation to a cup at the start of February, which would be played before our last match of the season and, like normal for ESL Prem, we should be emailed any official changes to the season (key word being should). SO it turns out they changed the schedule and posted an announcement via discord, which wasn't seen as per the rules it's not where we should be looking, announcement page is actually empty at the time of writing this.
I brought this up to the Head admin (Mattja) and he sends me a NEW rulebook ( https://gyazo.com/02361caa9c45869e3cb677e69d86226a ) that was also posted on the discord which has been edited as of 18th February, 2 weeks after the schedules had been changed, quoting that Discord is the official communication method. I think it would be nice to get an email about that considering apparently everyone is using the "old" rule book which was the official rule book for the season sent on 25th Jan see: 1 - https://gyazo.com/7e06a3beb9a51aa5954f2593f0d543e3 2 - this is the rule https://gyazo.com/7e892b6cf00fcd8e15167cb9c2465926 3 - Email: https://gyazo.com/d175a308f7c04b1954880deedbfebde3 .
I think a schedule change would be deemed a significant announcement to some, and including what teams are affected would be a bonus. Even changing the rule book should deem a pre-requisite email to allow other participants to know the rules have changed and that they should be checking Discord for future announcements & Updates.
ESL responded to this, and said they would "ask other teams" if we could move slots even though previously they amended the change with no asking of any teams involved! I think every team was fine to change apart from Pensioners as they had 1 player practising even though I believe all the teams were asked between 22nd-24th feb (see: https://gyazo.com/e42b601a76f19265c06371ca637f733f ) Our best-of-3 starts at 6pm GMT so it's quite unfortunate that we will have to forfeit our Prem match if it goes to a third map!
2.) or 2.11.1 Roster Lock
This rule will crop up a bit in this part so here it is: ( https://gyazo.com/d9cb7fa870154ffeb36a25975cec8c97 )
ESL being ESL added this rule to ensure roster stability in the league. I have no issues with this rule at all, in fact it's a good rule. However, let me explain why I have a massive issue with this at the moment (and I did get a response from ESLUK / Mattja about this little situation).
Per the rules, teams are allowed 2 transfers maximum throughout the whole season. These transfers MUST be before 24 hours of a match or else you receive penalty points and a forfeit loss of that match. Apparently the rule is fine for people to break, and yet only receive half the punishment. Now I have no issue with anyone from Pensioners but a lot of this twitlonger revolves around them and ESLUK and you will find out why.
We underwent some roster changes early in the season and ended up using 2/2 transfers, Luzuh left our roster to join the Pensioners page. It turned out Impulse has WESG (in China) which overlaps the ESL Prem playoffs should we make it this season. I asked the admin team if we could add an emergency sub to our roster even in exchange for penalty points (see: https://gyazo.com/e8587e9e7717b5ce9d56273053ec9e8a )
Now this is where the issues begin, I would understand if ESL enforced their "strict" rule book across the board, but like every season, the rules are always twisted in favor of some teams over others. I asked whether Pensioners got the default loss (as said in the rulebook) as Luzuh was added to the page 1-2 hours before a match, instead of 24hours, and the response I got from the admin team was that they are allowed to change the rules at any point without notice (see: https://gyazo.com/0fbe0f68ded5991483a4c3ded29d60e0 ) and "not everything has to be word for word as it says in the rulebook". Obviously this does not apply to us for another ruling about the transfer limit, and I am suggested to close the topic (see: https://gyazo.com/da16a06355395a5086e4dd321bb795bb )
Apparently in this situation, breaking one rule is not the same as breaking another as seen below: https://gyazo.com/2d399f662cef493bd5dc390254d18278
**It's worth noting that if this rule was actually followed, Pensioners would be relegated at this point**
3.) So at this point I'm a little frustrated, as it appears again that some teams get favor over others like it always felt like in this league. I found another rule which Pensioners seem to be in breach of, and again, I have no problem with anyone from Pensioners but I do have a problem with ESL bending and shaping rules without any consistency or leniency for other teams.
As far as most are aware, Smooya is still contracted to BIG albeit on the bench. ESL Prem rules state this: ( https://gyazo.com/da91fc331ad6469bf9df621ae61b8803 ) and as such he is technically ineligible to play. Again, nobody is making a fuss over it but at this point I'm finding every case in which ESLUK either A. Don't follow their rules or B. Know they are in breach but won't do anything about it.
4.) I was asked kindly (or suggested that I should) close the case from point 2, which I did. I then opened a new case about the same rule (2.11.1 Roster lock - https://gyazo.com/a35b6b71b5e8f405561b2e8dfce42b55 ) Pensioners have failed to field a team of at least (3) three of whom must have played for the team that secured qualification. They played the relegation tournament last season with a majority roster (that is still on their page now) consisting of JAKEM, Shaney & Weber.
I think this majority roster only played 2 games, maybe 3 of ESL Premiership before an almost entirely new roster started playing. I got a reply from ESL for this one, which I can understand to a degree but at the same time, for me it doesn't make too much sense. https://gyazo.com/54217897e79ebe46c546567dd6e45bc0 . Vexed forfeited their spot after last season, so Pensioners were invited back to the league (after having played the relegation tournament to regain their spot). A majority roster was kept from the old season, so surely they at least thought that the rule still applied? So why shouldn't other teams think the rule is in effect for them.
Some key points that I want to mention:
- ESL Prem started 28th January
- Rulebook "change" supposedly happened 30th January (almost a week in) with no email notice
-Schedule change February 4th (after 2 weeks had been played)
-It wasn't just us that did not realise their match had changed, Dizlown had no idea as well!
- Discord "announcements" as of 3/3 9:05PM https://gyazo.com/1211c508ff7bf3f21672009167d511b8
-I just had a read through of this "new" rulebook and it appears to me the admin team is using half of one rule book and half of another.
- https://gyazo.com/c43a83d73957c4914fd17ba2fffb59d6 extract from the "new rule book", so which is it, pensioners were invited on the basis the rules did or did not apply to them? https://gyazo.com/54217897e79ebe46c546567dd6e45bc0
- https://gyazo.com/b09a9e1fc18ee13ecae567b61451e57f Pensioners week 2 roster
- https://gyazo.com/fbe89349874dce90deb0e2744bdae94d Pensioners week 5 roster
Alas my rant is over. Would just like to make it clear in that this is no way a rant about us trying to bend rules, but consistency across the season is what I would like to see. A new stricter rule book is probably welcomed by all the teams involved, but when the admin team can change rules based on their own opinion of the rule and other rules being "not in the same ball park" or not having to be carried out "word for word" then it just becomes a joke. Hopefully I can get a response from ESLUK regarding the points they have not yet addressed!
Will add further points in replies to this tweet or another longer post if I have failed to mention something, or something new arises.