Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.

Regarding the "complaint" about positivity. The Arbitration Committee (AK) has repeatedly explained what actions should be taken in case of a strange situation, but time and again, players ignore these recommendations. Instead of following the tournament regulations and postponing the game until the judges review it (although he himself wanted to do so, judging by the quote from the rules), Positiv agreed to continue the game from an autosave, thereby deciding to trust his opponent. The game was played, doubts arose, and once again, instead of quietly submitting the saves and a description of what happened to the judges, he does the opposite, posting everything on the forum... Do you seriously think that a well-considered decision can be made based on just one strange incident? For this, there needs to be a whole series of oddities so that conclusions can be drawn based on their totality. Personally, I don't remember any complaints regarding Yarick with suspicions from players; judging by the silence of the other members of the AK, they don't have such information either... Now let's look at the facts: in the battles that Mullich fought, it is impossible to lose (I would also have cleared the magma to the left of the dwarf, since there was enough mana for 2 slows); it is impossible to prove that before the disconnection, Mullich attacked that magma and fought poorly. What kind of technical win are we even talking about?
A little history, read this:
/topic/11680/
The decisions regarding Gunnar and Rasim were made precisely because of numerous reports from players about disconnections; note that no results of games were reviewed even then. And here, suddenly, it seemed strange to me that there was a disconnection; give me the win retroactively :D. In my personal opinion, Positiv filed an unfounded complaint, simply trying to get something out of it, hoping for some benefit, and deserves criticism, but not a technical win.