Wicc
Auto-translated
Specific justifications for their decision were provided by the AK. In essence, no one would want to argue with that; arguing with people who don't want to listen is something I personally wouldn't do either.
1) Billy, a clone of Eddi (the same one who won the Moscow qualifier).
I had his game against SiL in the semi-final of some tournament. For it, I made a detailed analysis, where in many episodes I pointed out obvious signs of cheating.
In addition, it was proven (I don't remember how) that Billy is a clone of Eddi - who was repeatedly banned on Battle.net for cheating and creating clones.
The evidence base was many times more substantial than in the case of Alex. It would seem, what else is needed for a ban?
But despite this, SiL let Eddie into the final, and then even offered him to come to St. Petersburg to play the lost final with Mike live, and agreed to pay for the trip. Eddie refused at that time.
2) Light_out, another clone of Eddi.
The same situation - there was a game with SiL, I made a detailed analysis of it, indicating the places where information unavailable with a closed map was used.
But it was more difficult because it was not obvious that it was Eddi. To justify this, Samurai and I analyzed more than a hundred posts from different nicknames of this guy, and eventually proved the identity of the style.
I repeat - all this work was done to ban a player with a reputation as a notorious cheater.
AK, on the other hand, banned a person who repeatedly won the most difficult club tournaments in all versions of Heroes 3 and is generally considered one of the strongest Heroes players in the CIS (and possibly the world) on a much weaker basis.
Moreover, as grounds, 1) a video recording that does not contradict the defense's version, and 2) testimony from a witness who noticed "a similarity in the clicking style" and "a small pause" were offered. With such arguments, any self-respecting prosecutor would simply be ashamed to appear in a real court.
Where is the detailed analysis of the saves, which is mandatory in such situations? Is it absent because there is no compromising evidence there? Where is the collection of facts that this is a relapse? (as in the case of Vitalik). Where is the preparation of public opinion for the acceptance of this fact? Where is the damage control after the explosion of the verdict?
Even if Alex was cheating, the amount of work done to prove this deserves a rating of about 3 with a plus. And the presentation of this decision is a solid 2.
In fact, that's why so many people got angry:smile10:, because many know how such accusations should be substantiated and put into practice. And here, a handful of young guys in uniforms decided that they were the smartest here and could decide fates:smile17:. And the world turned out to be a little more complicated than it seemed at the entrance.
And yes, I almost forgot, the biggest pearl - the vote on cheating did not pass, but he was still kicked out of the tournament :). It's just funny...
