Forum

:smile35:
I don't even understand why I'm still responding to you, but I will anyway.

Wicc doesn't come up with ideas to change the rules just for the sake of changing them. Every change has a specific goal, and Wicc believes that interfering with the regulations is justified for that goal.

Lucky tried to push the idea, "based on his authority," that the rules should not be changed during the tournament. He didn't succeed, and couldn't have, because there are no arguments for or against this position, it's purely a matter of personal taste.

But then a "miracle" happened - several players provided reasonable (in Wicc's opinion) arguments as to why the goal that Wicc had in mind for the proposed changes would not actually be achieved by those changes.

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

It's interesting where you got the idea that I considered it my achievement that the rule wasn't implemented. Everyone spoke out against it (except for the one who decided to get high on Reddit). And regarding "Wicc doesn't come up with ideas to change the rules just for the sake of changing them," you yourself wrote that you just saw on a stream how Lizard and someone else accidentally set up fast roads, noticed it late, and it just seemed interesting to you, so you decided why not experiment with the participants right now?

As for the decision, there was a choice - either lower the chances of Lizard/DeLux, or lower the chances of the group of pursuers. That is, there was no option that would satisfy all parties, it was necessary to give preference to someone.

After thinking about it, I decided that Lizard and DeLux would probably make it to the playoffs anyway, so I opted for the option of an extra game. In the end, they both made it, although Lizard did so in a convoluted way.

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

I'll start with the last statement. Lizard made it to the playoffs after your decision only because I withdrew after arguing with you... Don't you think that smells, if not of outright lying, then of a decent distortion of the truth?
Furthermore, in such situations, when neither option corrects the situation, no sane person will go back and, instead of cutting off one head, cut off another. Because you didn't even come close to finding an adequate solution, and you actually confirm this yourself. You're just so used to twisting the rules during tournaments that you decided why not do what's most interesting to you.

The essence of our conflict is this - you believe that top players are higher in the hierarchy of decision-making than the host.

It seems you only see what you want to see. I believe that all players should be protected from the host's arbitrary changes to the rules at his whim. What does top or not top have to do with it? If I pointed out the influence of "topness" anywhere, it was only in analyzing arguments about gameplay. Where I tried to get through to you that it's wrong to think that you, who have not had any gaming experience for a very long time, think that you understand better and can not really argue it. But the opinion of current strong players should be well-argued, and in such a way that you like it.

And I repeat, run your tournaments however you want. Make any rules, as in Urf Juice or any other experimental tournament, I won't say a word about your experiments. These rules are initially written, and people have a choice to register for them or not. But to spoil tournaments in the process, ignoring the opinion of the majority of participants - THAT'S A DISGRACE! And no matter how you play with words, it will remain a disgrace.