Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.

Convento, please explain why you suggested that your opponent not use Armageddon and warn him in advance about attacking the main heroes. What was the reason for this?

Hmm... When you have a clear advantage in terms of hero and troop strength, asking your opponent NOT to use Armageddon is childish and disrespectful.

It's obvious that Armageddon is crucial for the Shadow, as his troops are weaker, and he sacrificed many units in Utopia to prepare for it. He couldn't possibly agree to give up Armageddon.

Therefore, purely from a neutral and unbiased perspective... I DON'T BELIEVE that in this situation, (1) Convento actually suggested not using Armageddon, only to be ridiculed and treated like a child. But even if that's true, (2) I DON'T BELIEVE that the Shadow would agree to not use Armageddon afterward, for the reasons mentioned above.

The fact that Convento is LYING about agreeing with the Shadow not to use Armageddon is further supported by the initial posts in the conversation! After the Shadow used Armageddon, there were surprised questions like "What was that?" "Why didn't your troops die?" etc., and NOT A SINGLE WORD about the agreement not to use Armageddon! If there had been such an agreement, the first thing he would have said is, "HOW could you, we agreed not to use Armageddon!"

No offense to Convento, but my opinion is that HE IS LYING SOMEWHERE. And liars who lie to the appeals committee should be punished the most.

PS Convento, my advice is to change your nickname; after this, many players will refuse to play with you and consider you an inadequate player. If you're a beginner, you have nothing to lose, and you can clean up your profile. :)