Wicc
Auto-translated
At first, I thought about writing this post in the World Championship thread, but then I figured the information is important enough, so I created a separate topic. Let it stay here for now, and once it dies down, it can be moved to the Tribune or wherever else.
Remember, a couple of years ago there were two high-profile cheating cases. One went smoothly, but the second was like a bomb going off in a toilet. It seemed like clear material on how to do things and how not to, but not everyone learned the lesson. However, this issue has already been chewed over; I have some thoughts on it, but I don't think they are relevant for the players themselves—it's more for the judges and organizers.
Therefore, let's discuss the behavior of players and their fans... there are many complaints here, and they've been accumulating for a long time, and now they've just been released in a concentrated burst. Besides, this is a fresh question that hasn't been discussed in years.
First, a basic question—what is a judge for anyway? Maintaining the tournament bracket, drawing lots for players, recording results—even schoolchildren can handle that, and in some cases, players are capable of solving such issues through self-organization. So, the primary function of a judge is to resolve disputed episodes; this is exactly where maximum qualification is required, both in making the decision and in how it is presented. Furthermore, disputed episodes are called "disputed" because the players are unable to resolve them on their own. In other words, regardless of the decision, there will be dissatisfied people. Yes, in some cases a compromise is possible, but in severe cases involving technical losses or even bans, compromise options simply do not exist.
I'm explaining this in such detail not because these are non-trivial things—everyone knows them—but because it seems they aren't fully internalized, and a number of important consequences aren't being drawn. Specifically—how should the participants of the dispute and their fans react to various decisions made by judges?
Imagine a situation—a judge bans player N for cheating; half of the tournament participants agree, half disagree. And the disagreeing part begins to give the judge ultimatums—"if you ban the 'cool guy' N, we'll all withdraw from the tournament." The judge scratches his head and says—fine, we'll unban him. But then the second half of the players chime in—"either you ban N or we'll withdraw from the tournament; we refuse to play with a cheater." A stalemate.
The question is—who is to blame for this? For the most part, the tournament participants, though for different reasons, believe the judge is to blame. Although objectively, it is the participants who are to blame—due to their non-constructive behavior. Because no matter what decision is made here, there will be many dissatisfied people.
Theoretically, of course, there is a possibility for the judge to conduct preliminary preparation of public opinion, win over some of the dissenters, bring in a media resource in the form of outside agitators (relative to the tournament), and then morally crush the remaining dissenters with the number of those who agree. Only this process is complex and unpredictable; it requires talent and a certain amount of luck. Moreover, in any case, some players will drop out; argumentation of the type "N is a cool guy and that's that" does not imply the existence of counter-arguments.
So—judging by the intensity of the passions, the described situation only didn't happen at the World Championship because mostly foreign participants remained there, who don't care much about Rebel. If it had been mostly Runet players, a series of tournament withdrawals would have been inevitable, and from both sides. In fact, 2 out of 3 Runet players + the judge bailed.
The logical question—is such a situation normal?
Imho, not really. After all, we aren't dealing with toxic youth or hysterical ladies here, but adult men, often married, with children, etc. This implies an ability to find a consensus, both individually and socially. Moreover, unlike game regulations, it is not possible here to compile a set of rules and administrative penalties for their violation. That is, one must act through the creation of moral norms—ideas of what is ethical and what is not.
How it looks to me:
1) Criticizing the judge, expressing one's imho, etc.—is normal for both the affected player and their support group.
2) Resorting to personal attacks, threatening, issuing ultimatums, etc.—is unethical.
3) Withdrawing from the tournament, ignoring future tournaments organized by this judge or their like-minded associates—is normal (and logical) for the affected player.
4) Withdrawing from the tournament with wording like "out of solidarity" or "tired of the bickering" or similar—is unethical for the other participants (regardless of their position on the disputed episode).
5) For a judge to close an active tournament with such wording—is doubly unethical.
6) Engaging in anti-PR for future tournaments organized by this judge or their like-minded associates, demonstratively refusing to participate in them, or making any demands—is unethical for everyone. If you don't like the personality of the organizer—quietly ignore their tournaments; there's no need to stir up dirt again.
That's roughly the set of points. I think observing or at least cultivating these will heal the psychological atmosphere in the Heroes community, improve mutual understanding, and organize relationships between participants both within individual tournaments and during the off-season.
A "Wall of Fame" for those who particularly distinguished themselves during the events of recent days:
1) StickyFingaz - point 5
2) Pit for LM - point 4
3) CJIOHuK - point 6 oh-oh-oh ... (at the bottom of the page)
4) ... many others fell under point 2, but I'm too lazy to search for them now
The aforementioned citizens, imho, deserve public condemnation. It doesn't force them to reverse decisions, repent, admit they were wrong, etc. What's done is done. But taking note that one shouldn't do this anymore—is more than worth it.
Thank you for your attention :rolleyes:
P.S. Especially vindictive people might say that I myself violated the above points in the past. Yes, I did. That doesn't mean I acted correctly back then.
Remember, a couple of years ago there were two high-profile cheating cases. One went smoothly, but the second was like a bomb going off in a toilet. It seemed like clear material on how to do things and how not to, but not everyone learned the lesson. However, this issue has already been chewed over; I have some thoughts on it, but I don't think they are relevant for the players themselves—it's more for the judges and organizers.
Therefore, let's discuss the behavior of players and their fans... there are many complaints here, and they've been accumulating for a long time, and now they've just been released in a concentrated burst. Besides, this is a fresh question that hasn't been discussed in years.
First, a basic question—what is a judge for anyway? Maintaining the tournament bracket, drawing lots for players, recording results—even schoolchildren can handle that, and in some cases, players are capable of solving such issues through self-organization. So, the primary function of a judge is to resolve disputed episodes; this is exactly where maximum qualification is required, both in making the decision and in how it is presented. Furthermore, disputed episodes are called "disputed" because the players are unable to resolve them on their own. In other words, regardless of the decision, there will be dissatisfied people. Yes, in some cases a compromise is possible, but in severe cases involving technical losses or even bans, compromise options simply do not exist.
I'm explaining this in such detail not because these are non-trivial things—everyone knows them—but because it seems they aren't fully internalized, and a number of important consequences aren't being drawn. Specifically—how should the participants of the dispute and their fans react to various decisions made by judges?
Imagine a situation—a judge bans player N for cheating; half of the tournament participants agree, half disagree. And the disagreeing part begins to give the judge ultimatums—"if you ban the 'cool guy' N, we'll all withdraw from the tournament." The judge scratches his head and says—fine, we'll unban him. But then the second half of the players chime in—"either you ban N or we'll withdraw from the tournament; we refuse to play with a cheater." A stalemate.
The question is—who is to blame for this? For the most part, the tournament participants, though for different reasons, believe the judge is to blame. Although objectively, it is the participants who are to blame—due to their non-constructive behavior. Because no matter what decision is made here, there will be many dissatisfied people.
Theoretically, of course, there is a possibility for the judge to conduct preliminary preparation of public opinion, win over some of the dissenters, bring in a media resource in the form of outside agitators (relative to the tournament), and then morally crush the remaining dissenters with the number of those who agree. Only this process is complex and unpredictable; it requires talent and a certain amount of luck. Moreover, in any case, some players will drop out; argumentation of the type "N is a cool guy and that's that" does not imply the existence of counter-arguments.
So—judging by the intensity of the passions, the described situation only didn't happen at the World Championship because mostly foreign participants remained there, who don't care much about Rebel. If it had been mostly Runet players, a series of tournament withdrawals would have been inevitable, and from both sides. In fact, 2 out of 3 Runet players + the judge bailed.
The logical question—is such a situation normal?
Imho, not really. After all, we aren't dealing with toxic youth or hysterical ladies here, but adult men, often married, with children, etc. This implies an ability to find a consensus, both individually and socially. Moreover, unlike game regulations, it is not possible here to compile a set of rules and administrative penalties for their violation. That is, one must act through the creation of moral norms—ideas of what is ethical and what is not.
How it looks to me:
1) Criticizing the judge, expressing one's imho, etc.—is normal for both the affected player and their support group.
2) Resorting to personal attacks, threatening, issuing ultimatums, etc.—is unethical.
3) Withdrawing from the tournament, ignoring future tournaments organized by this judge or their like-minded associates—is normal (and logical) for the affected player.
4) Withdrawing from the tournament with wording like "out of solidarity" or "tired of the bickering" or similar—is unethical for the other participants (regardless of their position on the disputed episode).
5) For a judge to close an active tournament with such wording—is doubly unethical.
6) Engaging in anti-PR for future tournaments organized by this judge or their like-minded associates, demonstratively refusing to participate in them, or making any demands—is unethical for everyone. If you don't like the personality of the organizer—quietly ignore their tournaments; there's no need to stir up dirt again.
That's roughly the set of points. I think observing or at least cultivating these will heal the psychological atmosphere in the Heroes community, improve mutual understanding, and organize relationships between participants both within individual tournaments and during the off-season.
A "Wall of Fame" for those who particularly distinguished themselves during the events of recent days:
1) StickyFingaz - point 5
2) Pit for LM - point 4
3) CJIOHuK - point 6 oh-oh-oh ... (at the bottom of the page)
4) ... many others fell under point 2, but I'm too lazy to search for them now
The aforementioned citizens, imho, deserve public condemnation. It doesn't force them to reverse decisions, repent, admit they were wrong, etc. What's done is done. But taking note that one shouldn't do this anymore—is more than worth it.
Thank you for your attention :rolleyes:
P.S. Especially vindictive people might say that I myself violated the above points in the past. Yes, I did. That doesn't mean I acted correctly back then.
