The course-wide rules for late work, extensions, academic integrity and getting help.

Policies and support#

Rank is not evidence#

Assessments in this course are marked on the argument and the game-state evidence behind it, never on the marker’s or the student’s account rank, role, or general reputation. “I’m Diamond, so this is correct” earns nothing on its own, and a lower-ranked account with a well-evidenced argument is marked no differently to a higher-ranked one with the same argument. If a claim needs a rank to back it up, it needs a moment in the match instead.

This cuts both ways: a marker disagreeing with a submission’s conclusion is not sufficient grounds for a lower mark either. The question is always whether the evidence in front of both of you supports the claim being made.

Submitting match evidence#

Assessments that ask you to analyse a match (Solo Queue Autopsy, the Invisible Jungler exercise, Draft to Game Plan, Match Autopsy) ask for timestamps, screenshots or clips of the moments your argument depends on — never for account credentials, full match history exports, or anything beyond what’s needed to check the specific decision you’re describing. Redact or crop out other players’ names from screenshots where you reasonably can. You are not required to disclose your rank, your full account history, or any other identifying account information to complete an assessment, and none of it is requested on a marking rubric.

Late work and extensions#

Work submitted after its due date loses 5% of the available mark per day late, up to five days, after which it is not accepted without an approved extension. Extensions are granted for illness, misadventure or other circumstances outside your control — email the convenor before the due date where possible, or as soon as you reasonably can afterward. A short, specific request is enough; you do not need to over-explain.

Academic integrity#

The analysis you submit — the decisions you identify, the reasoning that connects them, the argument you make — must be your own. You may discuss matches and ideas with classmates, and the weekly sessions are built around exactly that kind of discussion, but the written submission is expected to be independently reasoned and independently written. Citing a classmate’s observation (“X pointed out the frozen wave here”) is normal practice and not a penalty; presenting someone else’s analysis as your own is a breach of the university’s academic integrity policy and is treated accordingly.

Getting help#

For a question about a specific piece of feedback or a mark, start with the weekly session — it’s faster than email and the person who marked the work is usually in the room. For anything that can’t wait until the next session, see the People page for who to email and what each person handles. For anything outside the course itself (extensions on genuinely short notice, a concern about how a policy on this page was applied), the convenor is the first point of contact.