This statement was the last in the discussion and put a logical end to it.

If you want to practice sophistry, I can keep you company. Believe me, it will be interesting... :) But I don't think everyone else needs it.

"A fat period," which has nothing to do with the rules at the start of the tournament, was added during its course... Some saves had already been sent by that time, and confirmation of their receipt was indicated according to the rules...

And if you are calling for logic, I can point out gaps in your understanding of this term. Please, do not take my position as a desire to organize an argument, even if it seems so at first glance... :) I don't want to argue, but simply refer you again to my post #117, where it is stated that there is no prohibition because by default, buying out enemy heroes is allowed.

1. General rules for tournaments have priority - I hope you won't argue with that.
2. The general rules allow buying out another player's hero.
3. If a specific tournament involves restrictions on the general rules, this must be clearly stated in the form of a ban. There also doesn't seem to be anything contradicting logic in my statement.
4. The tournament rules contain a quote from the general rules, which does not change them. The fact that the current tournament rules do not say "You can buy out another player's hero who died in battle" is not grounds for prohibiting this item of the general rules. Because in this case, we would have every right to consider all other general rules, which are not specified in the rules of the current tournament, as canceled.

All points not indicated in the rules of the current tournament, but specified in the general rules, continue to apply by definition. This applies to the question of logic.

I hope you will find it easy to understand these four points and at least acknowledge that my position has the right to exist because it is quite justified. There is no prohibition on buying out another player's hero.

I don't deny your position. But: there is a conflict in the interpretation of the rules. And I pointed this out. Formally, both positions do not exclude each other, but complement each other - any behavior (buying/not buying) does not contradict the rules. That's what I mean... :)