Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.

I was just kidding. But in this situation, I was making fun of the rules. Four years ago, when I was awarded a win in a stalemate situation, I wrote that the rule for stalemate situations was incorrect. Simply because it's not a victory (the "winner" didn't defeat anyone), but a technical fluke. I then suggested removing the terms "attacker" and "defender," and introducing the term "player creating a stalemate" (avoiding contact in battle). And I suggested that in such situations, the "player creating a stalemate" should offer a draw, and the second player should either agree to a draw or retreat. The community didn't support the idea. And, by the way, here I don't understand why the Archdevils should retreat. According to the rules, the attacker must win the battle or retreat. The skeletons attacked. Let them win. And in this case, I think the rules should include a clause specifying how many rounds the player claiming victory has to win the battle. Then it will be even more interesting to see how the skeletons will win. But I'm just suggesting this, and I'm not even going to argue – everyone can just write their opinion, like a sports prediction – and the AI will make the decision; we'll read it. But I'm ready to discuss my version of the rules.