DISCUSSIONS on “Rules for online games in HoMM3 and formulas for calculating player rating.”

I wrote a lot, although there's a feeling that it might not have been necessary. Let's check it out. For convenience, I'll number everything you wrote so it's easier to refer to, in case you want to add something.

(1)

Oldboy, you're writing such nonsense.

This should be written at the end, when you've already convincingly proven everything, not at the beginning.

(2)

It's simple: you started a game, and something happened to you that's much more important than playing Heroes. You had to leave. And besides, your opponent is very eager for rating (or a newbie who really wants to win). And what now?
Is this how you lose? It's utter nonsense.

It's been written that you get two chances (there's the word "twice" there). The first time, you had a force majeure, you were unlucky, your opponent was probably upset – but there's no problem. The second time it happened – well, maybe you actually have some kind of mess in your life, and you should have politely informed your opponent about it before the match so that he would understand you?
I stand by the position that, yes, you should have warned about your life situation. As Ayman wrote in his signature – son, playing without a timer, hoping for understanding. And everything is clear, the opponent knows what he's getting into. Who would write a tech loss report against such a person? And even if they do – how many people do you think would want to look like an idiot? After all, you have the right to write a report, not the obligation.
And I'm writing a defense against the situation – you start a game, the person doesn't say anything, after two hours, "sorry, I have to go." A couple of days later, you contact him, start playing, after two hours, "hop-hop, sorry, I have to run." And it's not clear – is this how it will always be, or what's going on with him?

(3)

Or you were playing, saved the game. The person went somewhere on business. Maybe for work, maybe for a vacation, maybe visiting someone, or there was an emergency, maybe there's simply no internet. So, two weeks later, he comes back, and he's already been given a loss in the game that was played two months ago, where he had an advantage. Is that normal!

Again, if this was a surprise for the opponent – then yes. It's absolutely normal to get a tech loss for that! If you want understanding – warn before the game about your absences and vacations.
And if the opponent, knowing in advance that you're playing a game, and you leave after three days, and it drags on, and he still uses his right and gives you a tech loss – then the opponent's reputation will suffer. And who cares about the tech loss. We're not making a cult out of the rating, are we? But we've identified a jerk in a practical life situation.

(4)

And if 11 minutes have passed, and you started a game with someone, and the opponent demands a continuation, what about a tech loss? Do you have to prove that the clock on your computer shows a different time?

The opponent is still a jerk. And that will be clear. Only here, he won't be able to prove anything, first of all, if he starts complaining. And he won't get his tech win. And he'll ruin his reputation again.
I don't understand what your difficulty is, because I've never seen a situation where you can't understand who's being a jerk from the logs (and even more so from a stream recording).
Maybe there's a specific example of a conflicting situation where you can't figure it out from the logs?

(5)

And if you started a game, and you just didn't see the messages? Do you have to lose like that?

Is this related to what I'm suggesting? How exactly?
I have a feeling that you haven't fully described the situation, how it chronologically developed, and you missed something.

(6)

Or even more interesting, your opponent, with whom you are currently playing, will send you a game invitation, and that's how the argument will start!

Is this related to what I'm suggesting? How exactly?
I have a feeling that you haven't fully described the situation, how it chronologically developed, and you missed something.

(7)

Or even more interesting, your opponent, with whom you are currently playing, will send you a game invitation, and that's how the argument will start!

Is this related to what I'm suggesting? How exactly?
I have a feeling that you haven't fully described the situation, how it chronologically developed, and you missed something.

(8)
Everything else... It seems like conclusions. But I didn't find anything useful. If you missed something specific, point it out.