Rules for Heroes of Might and Magic III online tournaments on HeroesWorld.

To ewgeniy. Huge thanks to you for what you did above.

It is already the end of May. I hope that by June: the Players' Council will hurry the organizers along with the tournament same deadlines.

I glanced through the current tournaments. Requests:
To Dirty_Player. I ask you to prepare full information on the progress of the Best of ХВ tournament: those in arrears with games and the deadlines set by Organizer ewgeniy for each round. Judging by Psyche_7' same table, the situation there is very poor. Also, inform the masses about the progress of the TK3 tournament.
To Alex_R. As a Participant in the "Seasons" tournament, please provide info on the progress of this tournament.
To Napalm - KobRa, vitalic-KobRa. Please hurry up with the final game. Respect the work of the Organizers! Do not make them wait and beg you.
In the team tournament, as I understand it, everything is fine.

So, what we have in the Rules (with amendments):

VII. Appeal Committee (AC)
1. The numerical composition of the AC is 7 people.
2. The AC is elected by general vote from among respected and qualified players for a term of 6 months. Additional requirements for AC members: ease of communication—frequent presence in ICQ, having a working e-mail, ability to receive private messages on the forum.
3. If any member of the AC wishes to resign their powers as an AC member for any reason, they must notify the forum users. In this case, a new player is elected to their place.
4. The AC is charged with the following duties:
a) consulting users on tournament rules;
b) monitoring the progress of tournaments, assisting Organizers;
c) reviewing disputed situations in tournament games;
d) making decisions in cases of unfair play;
e) submitting amendments to the current Rules of games and tournaments for a forum vote.
5. The AC may organize a discussion of any serious problem on the forum to ascertain the opinion of forum users and make a decision based on it. The AC may also organize a vote on a particular issue.
6. To make decisions in complex situations, it is necessary that 4 or more AC members participate in the discussion of the issue and the decision be made by a majority of votes from the total number of AC members (i.e., 4 or more).
AC decisions are recognized by all forum users, are final, and are not subject to discussion.

Questions on the organization of the AC.
1 Is a Chief—Chairman—or something else needed...?
2.

I would recommend Alex for the "prosecutor's office"

There is no dispute regarding a Prosecutor or Advocate. The qualities fully correspond. The main thing is not to put him in the role of Judge.

Alex_R recused himself and did not join the AC. The AC will involve him as an Accuser in cheating cases. He's unlikely to make a good Advocate)))
3.

Have ALL powers of the AC been fully defined, its work structure and actions regarding which cases and exactly when an AC decision must be issued + complex situations within the AC itself (let's say, out of 7 members, 3 are unavailable, 1 is for, 1 against, and 2 abstained. How to make a decision in such cases? This is just an example; there are many situations).

Decision deadlines will be determined separately for each issue. Agree—red-rushing and cheating are different things.
In the event of a tie between FOR and AGAINST, we will think further and wait or re-elect the absent AC member. Submit the issue for forum discussion. Involve additional experts; perhaps we will turn to you and Wicc for help. We also have lawyers on our forum. When there is a specific situation, we will look for a solution. Right now, we can only discuss typical problems. We have zero experience.
4.

In half a year—re-elections; a month before re-elections, the start of applications for the second council can be announced and a full, completely legitimate vote can be held there.

Absurd! Do not emulate politicians. Re-election should only happen if someone cannot/will not/cannot cope.

Considering the turnover of personnel (players leaving the forum), I think half a year is reasonable. There is no experience. It's unknown what will come of this venture. Maybe all this won't even be necessary.
5.

If a long-time forum member with whom you have friendly relations falls under suspicion—in the legal sphere, judges are required to recuse themselves in such cases, and the defendant must declare a challenge (if personal relations are hostile, etc.), justifying it...

It's terribly bad that many of us have friendly relations))) True, I'm not sure the opposite would be better. We'll have to solve this as we go. I hope fair, adult people were elected to the AC.

The accused must have the right to provide explanations on all points of accusation, and perhaps even bring a specific question for discussion in some cases

This is natural to me, so I didn't even discuss it. I will write the right to defense into the Rules.

6. As I understand it, the following suggestions concern issues of cheating.

Communication between the review group and other forum users should be minimal, i.e., through an intermediary...
If anyone in the review group has questions for any of the knowledgeable forum users—everything only anonymously through the intermediary.
The intermediary between the review group and the forum users must pass on their reports of unfair play within a period not exceeding a certain number of days.
The intermediary should have several deputies. There should be several people who can replace members of the review group who, for some reason, cannot deal with the forum in the current period.

I didn't fully grasp the thought. How is this all to be technically implemented? Who specifically should be the intermediary? Their deputies?
If it concerns suspicions toward someone from the AC, naturally, they will not judge themselves. And it's better to contact directly; there will be fewer misunderstandings.

None of the forum users should know how each group member voted individually, only the collective decision.

I agree with this.

The review group, if possible, should not know which forum user's case it is reviewing, only facts, saves, and ICQ logs.

Complex cheating cases cannot be solved based on a single game. A dossier will have to be compiled. How can the AC be kept in the dark here?

The resolution of disputed issues should not be dragged out.

Deadlines for decisions will be separate for each problem. Dragging it out is not in the AC's interest.

And probably some kind of oath for the AC members themselves is necessary, for the violation of which there should also be the strictest measures up to a ban.

If this is needed, I ask users to write this oath.

I draw everyone's attention once more:

VIII. Resolution of disputed situations in tournaments.
... 2. Disputed points during the tournament are decided by the Organizer.
3. If the Organizer is simultaneously a Participant in the tournament, then disputed situations occurring with their participation are decided by the Judge.
4. Also, upon occurrence of difficulties, both Participants and the Organizer and the Judge have the right to appeal to the AC.
5. A disputed point may be brought to the forum for discussion by all users.

Questions on the review of disputed situations.
1. What other tasks do we assign to the AC, besides those listed in VII.4?
2. Classification of our problems.
I see the following:
- non-confirmation of reports
- avoiding finishing games
- disputes over game rule violations
- disputes over interpretation of game rules
- ignoring opponents and the Organizer by a tournament Participant
- failure to meet tournament deadlines by a Participant
- failure to meet tournament deadlines by an Organizer
- rudeness on the forum, in ICQ, in-game
- unfair play (cheating, maphacking, cloning...)—should own unexplained disconnects be included here?
Provide examples from practice without getting personal.

For each problem, it must be decided:
1. Algorithm of player actions
2. Information necessary for the solution
3. Actions of the AC.
4. The decision is issued either as a resolution of the situation with the agreement of both parties, or a punishment.
5. Deadlines for resolving the issue.
6. Deadlines for initial appeal. Statutes of limitations

Here are approximate rules for the problem: "Non-confirmation of report".
1. A player writes a report. No more than ..?.. days are given for confirmation, depending on the tournament. If the report was not confirmed, the player should try to find out the reason independently. If the opponent did not explain the reasons for non-confirmation or they are disputed, the player has the right to appeal to any member of the AC.
2. A player requesting confirmation of a game report must provide daily saves of the game, the nickname of the non-confirmer on the ХВ forum, methods of contacting them, and if possible, ICQ logs, screenshots, and explanations from the non-confirmer.
3. The AC reviews the provided information and tries to contact the other party.
4. Possible decisions:
- a call to confirm the report (this decision must be supported by 4 or more AC members). If confirmation still does not follow, the punishment is defined in the Rules of seasonal games—all subsequent victories in the season for the non-confirmer are not counted. For non-confirmation of a report in a tournament—at the Organizer's discretion, up to disqualification from games. For repeated non-confirmations—a permanent signature under the avatar: "Does not confirm losses. AC" (this still needs to be discussed with the Administration). By decision of the AC, in this case, the victory is credited to the player without confirmation. If the signature "Does not confirm losses. AC" is present, complaints against this player are not considered.
- if the non-confirmer provides facts that the victory was achieved unfairly, by violating the Rules, etc., then this is already a different problem. Accordingly, we move to another point.
5. The decision on crediting the game is made within a week from the moment of appeal.
6. A player can first seek help during the season or one round of a tournament. And there it depends on what turn the case takes.

Request those interested to think about and write similar rules for other problems. Or at least come forward with suggestions for individual points.