Forum

Great ... anyway:

This is really my first post when, during the tournament, Vic had a "wonderful" idea for the first time instead of changing the rules approved in the tournament...
1
2
3
4
Here, somehow, Vic backed down and the rule was not introduced.

Vic doesn't come up with ideas to change the rules just for the sake of changes. Each change pursues a specific goal, for which Vic believes that intervention in the regulations is justified.

Lucky tried to push through, based on his "authority," the idea that the rules cannot be changed during the tournament in principle. He didn't succeed, nor could he have succeeded, because there are no arguments either for or against this position; it's purely personal taste.

But then something "miraculous" happened - several players provided reasonable (in Vic's opinion) arguments as to why the goal that Vic outlined for the proposed changes would actually not be achieved by these changes.

It seems that Lucky at that moment did not understand the genesis of this "miracle" and decided that it was his arguments that had an effect. Perhaps this explains his persistence later on.

Then Vic, with his "many years of experience and organizing tournaments," makes a mistake in understanding the Swiss system itself, failing to realize how it should actually work when there is an odd number of players. In an attempt to "fix" it, he introduces an additional game between Deluxe and Lizard, without paying attention to the fact that this will not fix anything, but rather make things worse. Because of his own mistake, he complicates the progress in the playoffs for 2 players who shouldn't have had subsequent games with other favorites. Here, he can no longer be convinced.

Unfortunately, I haven't had a single qualifying Swiss tournament with many participants advancing to the next stage in all my years of experience. You live and learn. I acknowledged the mistake back then and remembered not to do it again.

As for the decision, there was a choice - either lower the chances of Lizard/Deluxe or lower the chances of the group of pursuers. That is, there was no option in nature that would satisfy everyone at once; someone had to be given preference.

After thinking about it, I decided that both Lizard and Deluxe would most likely get into the playoffs anyway, so I opted for the extra game. As a result, they both got through, although Lizard did so in a convoluted way.

That is, this error did not affect the course of the tournament. This is precisely the criterion I use when analyzing situations not covered by the rules - minimizing the impact on the outcome of the tournament compared to its normal course.

A predictable result occurs - a draw, due to the mutual destruction of two pawns. And a new round of "wonderful" changes to the regulations begins. A new round of "wonderful" changes to the regulations begins.
Here's my first rude post, according to Vic
The second one

Yes, exactly.

Teasing, if it's not from me, then it doesn't bother me

Dirty is a cute girl, and she even has a pink nickname, so she can get away with it :rolleyes:

Here, Vic assesses the general mental abilities of our community as a whole and its opponents in the discussion in particular

Yes, "The Empire Strikes Back."

Here, nerves are slowly starting to fray, but I still don't receive answers to the questions asked

It started too early; the discussion was just heating up...

Vic's favorite trick is to pull out small pieces of phrases out of context when the overall meaning of the messages was completely different. And only messages from 2 people out of more than ten who decided to express their opinion are given, because only they at least partially supported his initiative.

Vic "pulled out" exactly the essence of the problem, moving the dialogue away from unproductive directions like "can or cannot rules be changed" and "why I don't like this change" towards constructive solutions: "there is a problem, we need to solve it."

And the fact that only 2 out of 10 who spoke understood my thought correctly - that's not my problem.

Here, I have already lost even a hint of respect for a person who allows himself to treat other people's opinions so dismissively while ruining a tournament on which a considerable amount of time has been spent(this was one of the two of my posts mentioned, which, in Vic's opinion, set a new low in his many years of practice on Hero forums :D)
This is the second message that sets a new low

Do you really think you acted correctly? Is this how you should demonstrate disagreement with other people?

A great position, don't you think? That is, a person who hasn't had any gaming experience for a long time thinks that he should be given arguments.

Yes, exactly. The tournament organizer is the boss within the framework of this tournament, and the players are subordinates.

This is precisely the essence of our conflict - you believe that top players are higher in the hierarchy of decision-making than the organizer.

I, however, believe the opposite - that there should be no authorities for the organizer; all players are equal, and the organizer is slightly above them.

Hence the problem of rudeness - it is, after all, nonverbal demonstration of a higher position in the hierarchy. Therefore, the most common reaction to "rudeness from below" is an even more rude response. And if both believe that they are "on top," then the conflict escalates with each turn.