Enite, I'm afraid you have no right to disqualify us, Deceptive. The MCGamer Global Clan Battle Rules (
http://www.mcgamer.net/threads/mcgamer-global-clan-rules-2015.220841/) state that a DQ will only take place after the third offence. We have not committed three offences. You claim that we teamed with a random, which we did not. This "evidence" of yours may seem to prove that, but who's to say you (or someone else) didn't get CaptainCabbage12 to say "I'm with deception" so you could try and DQ us? We have had no affiliation with the aforementioned CaptainCabbage12, and there would be no way that they would have known who we were, let alone that we in a CB, unless somebody told them. We did not tell them, so unless you had spread the news to others I'm afraid it seems like you're clan is in the wrong here (Plus they spelled our clan name incorrectly). Also, you said that one of our "three offences" was that we ate a sponsored cake. The cake was not sponsored directly to us, we simply found it on the ground. There are no rules in the thread linked above about eating or using
other player's sponsored items, only against using unfair
map items like the Master Sword in Demon's Breeze etc:
- Use of any of the illegal weapons or items found in a map will cause an instant disqualification... ...No using OP items, such as potions, items from dispensers, etc.
Lastly, our apparent third offence is invalid too. The fact that we used and had that ender-pearl sponsored to us is not against the rules, as the rules state that spectating is on by default and it says nothing about sponsoring:
- By default, spectating is allowed.
It only says that sponsoring is disallowed if both clans agree on the "no spectating" rule:
- If both clans make an agreement that spectating is not allowed: once someone has died, that person must leave the game. That person is not allowed to tell where anyone is or sponsor whilst dead and in the game.
We were sponsored withing the first
five to ten minutes of the
first game, and we only decided on the no spectating and no sponsoring rule halfway through that first game, rendering that previous sponsorship allowed as it was before the decision. Now, the evidence that you provided us with was taken by a spectator in the
second game. Second comes after first, does it not? This means that you had an active spectator
after the decision was made on whether or not spectating would be allowed, meaning that you should be the ones with the strike against your name, not us. I have included your screenshots as proof of this.
