Discussions, post-mortems, analysis, inflated egos, and all that jazz.

There was certainly no criminal intent on BoLo's part. Otherwise, the game wouldn't have continued. What's strange is that the player who made the claims in a transparent game situation turned out to be a playing judge in the same tournament. Then, this same playing judge (who had previously tried to "smurf" in that game) suddenly portrayed himself as a victim of smurfing, posting incomplete information on the forum.

So, the first time, Dima Surmay stopped the game, and the reasons weren't stated, which is equal to smurfing? Damn, all the judges and the administration are urging us to do only one thing: if an unclear situation occurs in the game, don't continue playing, save the game or exit and write to the judges, don't let the situation escalate to an unsolvable problem. Can a playing judge, considering an unclear situation only from his perspective as a player, understand it as well as a judge who reviews saves from both sides?