Oelm
Auto-translated
I see the heavy artillery has joined the fray.
First, heroes aren't like the mafia. Many people know who Vic is in the context of heroes. But who is Vic in the mafia? What's the point of that question? In the mafia, there's very little objective information; in most cases, a person always has a chance to talk their way out of it, even if they're spouting nonsense on, say, the "first day." Second, the process of playing mafia heavily depends on the group. In a certain company, the arguments might be at the level of "this person seems suspicious to me, therefore they need to be eliminated, just in case."
So, Vic, here are your arguments regarding the psychological profile: "let's eliminate Rebel," "just in case." He's not acting right. He's more nervous than the others, he used the wrong words, and he didn't use the right punctuation. Therefore, "execute him." This, by the way, is the portrait of a self-satisfied executioner. There were such people during the Inquisition, and even in more recent times, when they demanded "a cleansing of the ranks."
I would, of course, like to hear the opinion of a hero master about the "gameplay," but the maestro is too lazy to study it himself. So, I'll share some of my own thoughts.
1. The whole process was rushed. It happened quickly. This usually happens when a decision has already been made, and it's necessary to create the illusion of a "public" discussion.
2. Due to a lack of arguments, they included completely "harmless" saves in the selection, presumably just to add to the pile. This is also a familiar tactic.
3. An attempt to shift responsibility onto unknown characters without making a fuss. Who is Spill, Tiamath, who else is Redwait, or maybe the "prince of the Portal Kingdom"? And do StickyFingaz and Pete want to be seen as completely innocent? Sure...
4. Neoendi, who is known for finding a maphack in Pavel Dubrovin's saves, honestly reported it. There's only one suspicious point!
5. Despite the colossal work of the investigative department, only ONE suspicious point was found, but who will care about that when the decision has already been made?
6. If you take off the glasses with the strong lenses, it becomes clear that everyone who made the decisions about the saves is SIGNIFICANTLY weaker than Rebellius in terms of level and understanding of the game.
7. The bottom line, gentlemen, who are involved in the ban of Rebellius (by the way, my ideological opponent), you are not just judges. You have all gotten yourselves into a mess. Cheating by Rebellius was exposed! This is the main news on the tournament website, and all comments on it are carefully moderated.
P.S. Vic, regarding your "list" (where did Thinkeer come from??). It's an interesting thing, but it's only for internal use. You wouldn't claim that everyone on your list is a maphacker, would you? So, the coincidence flatters your ego, but it has zero practical value.
First, heroes aren't like the mafia. Many people know who Vic is in the context of heroes. But who is Vic in the mafia? What's the point of that question? In the mafia, there's very little objective information; in most cases, a person always has a chance to talk their way out of it, even if they're spouting nonsense on, say, the "first day." Second, the process of playing mafia heavily depends on the group. In a certain company, the arguments might be at the level of "this person seems suspicious to me, therefore they need to be eliminated, just in case."
So, Vic, here are your arguments regarding the psychological profile: "let's eliminate Rebel," "just in case." He's not acting right. He's more nervous than the others, he used the wrong words, and he didn't use the right punctuation. Therefore, "execute him." This, by the way, is the portrait of a self-satisfied executioner. There were such people during the Inquisition, and even in more recent times, when they demanded "a cleansing of the ranks."
I would, of course, like to hear the opinion of a hero master about the "gameplay," but the maestro is too lazy to study it himself. So, I'll share some of my own thoughts.
1. The whole process was rushed. It happened quickly. This usually happens when a decision has already been made, and it's necessary to create the illusion of a "public" discussion.
2. Due to a lack of arguments, they included completely "harmless" saves in the selection, presumably just to add to the pile. This is also a familiar tactic.
3. An attempt to shift responsibility onto unknown characters without making a fuss. Who is Spill, Tiamath, who else is Redwait, or maybe the "prince of the Portal Kingdom"? And do StickyFingaz and Pete want to be seen as completely innocent? Sure...
4. Neoendi, who is known for finding a maphack in Pavel Dubrovin's saves, honestly reported it. There's only one suspicious point!
5. Despite the colossal work of the investigative department, only ONE suspicious point was found, but who will care about that when the decision has already been made?
6. If you take off the glasses with the strong lenses, it becomes clear that everyone who made the decisions about the saves is SIGNIFICANTLY weaker than Rebellius in terms of level and understanding of the game.
7. The bottom line, gentlemen, who are involved in the ban of Rebellius (by the way, my ideological opponent), you are not just judges. You have all gotten yourselves into a mess. Cheating by Rebellius was exposed! This is the main news on the tournament website, and all comments on it are carefully moderated.
P.S. Vic, regarding your "list" (where did Thinkeer come from??). It's an interesting thing, but it's only for internal use. You wouldn't claim that everyone on your list is a maphacker, would you? So, the coincidence flatters your ego, but it has zero practical value.
Земля нуля.
Все в ней нулево и кукольно.
Все в ней нулево и кукольно.