CHALLENGE The_ CHAMPIONS LEAGUE, The_'s CHALLENGE CHAMPIONS LEAGUE

Well, these aren't all the details. I am explaining once again that for the tour, not only those 5 days when I was away are given, but another 8 days as well. The period was from the 9th to the 22nd! He didn't write to me until the 16th either. My point is that we could have basically not played from the 17th to the 20th inclusive! That's only 4 actual days of downtime since his attempt to get in touch! It's not always possible to accurately contact everyone and start playing immediately; many agree on a Saturday or Sunday back on Monday, there could be other reasons—for example, he could have played on the 17th, while I could play on the 18th and 19th, he only on the 20th, and in the end, our common date still could only have been January 21st. That is to say, a person is not at fault for being unable to play on certain dates when their opponent can! If Nitro had written earlier and I were stalling, that would be one thing, but it happened that he wrote when I had a force majeure.

The key point is that the opponent tried to contact you within reasonable timeframes, and you were absent for one reason or another. No one is immune to force majeures, but in the 21st century, if one wishes, it's always possible to warn the organizer or tournament judges; you didn't do this. Talking about how theoretically you could have played then-and-there is, at the very least, incorrect—those are just words, the facts remain the same. Until a certain time, neither you nor your opponent had coordinated between yourselves.
If you had written to Nitro even once regarding proposed game dates, the conversation and the reason for the technical defeat would be completely different.

The fact that I scribbled hl+u is not an argument at all; remove those templates then, don't point out that they cannot be chosen, or write in the rules that hl+u should not be chosen if you start a game 3 days before the deadline, for example.

I wrote my same-old imho, which by its nature cannot be an argument. Although I repeat, in my view, it is more than logical, given the tight deadlines, to scribble something small rather than risk playing roulette, taking into account the fact that you showed no activity or interest in the game until the last day. This has nothing to do with the reason for the technical result; it's just a side view of the situation.

Thirdly, during the game on the 3rd week, I misclicked and accidentally retreated my entire army—except for the skeletons left with the scout—against some sweaty mummies. The army was already decent there, and it all just vanished. We would have simply finished the game on the 4th week; auto-wins weren't given for obvious reasons, so I had to mass-produce skeletons and the game dragged on. This is to say that the game wouldn't have dragged on if not for the misclick, and therefore there's no need to talk about any miscalculations here either.

Who can be blamed in this situation? I didn't quite get the meaning of this paragraph in this context, but it would "fit perfectly" for a report.

Fourthly, as soon as we started playing, I tried my best to accommodate and fit within the deadline. All game saves until the subsequent date were on the opponent's side. At that pace, we could have played, say, on the 16th or 17th (when he first made contact), the 19th, the 21st, and still wouldn't have finished in time if I hadn't had a force majeure; therefore, in this situation, it is specifically your miscalculation in determining that I am the sole culprit for us not playing in time!

If that were the case, the conversation would be different. But again, these are theoretical explorations of what could have been. The facts haven't changed.

Regarding the so-called "proper mass-producing" - This is a wrong approach on your part; I advise you not to speak of such things for your own good, as you might burden yourself with extra organizational headaches. Yes, he probably could have not played, but according to you, he should have not played on the 21st and 22nd even if he could play on those days. By the way, on the 22nd he couldn't continue and try to fit within the deadline when I could continue. This smells fishy... So according to your logic, whoever wrote first is right? Regardless of whether his opponent can or cannot play. That's wrong.

Thanks for the advice. By my logic, it turns out that a person who appears 1.5 days before the deadline cannot a priori reproach an opponent for being unable/unwilling to play with them on the last day of the period.
You missed the point: not whoever wrote first, but whoever wrote anything at all and tried to play the game within the deadlines.

I advise you to introduce the following clause into the rules:

1. No later than 5 days after the start of each tour, players are required to contact their opponents and agree on a date and time to start the game between them.
- When postponing a match, agree on its resumption date.

But since it's not there yet, this is out of the question.

Good idea; as far as I know, the vast majority of the forum follows roughly these concepts, so I see no point in putting this into the rules. There are clear deadlines, there is an opponent—did you agree? Great, play. Can't agree? There are organizers and tournament judges—write to us, we are online almost every day; even if offline, nothing stops anyone from scribbling a couple of lines, and there will be no problems later.

You are awarding the win based on missed deadlines; I disagree with this, it's not true, and that is where my disagreement lies. If neither of us wrote to each other until the 16th, then from the 16th to the 20th he could play (hypothetically all days when I couldn't), and on the 21st and 22nd I could play (he had 3 hours, essentially he couldn't). It turns out he passes because hypothetically he could have played on a greater number of days. That's not how it's done; first and foremost, one must consider those days when both players could play. Moreover, there was a tour extension, and this is clearly also an official permission and call to games in the subsequent days, during which we spent another 2 sessions on January 24th and 25th! Total of 3 sessions and all within the deadline, because I repeat, the extension also provides days for the tour!

The beginning of the message is the same as the previous few paragraphs; my comments remain unchanged. Certainly, the tour extension is part of the tournament, but that doesn't cancel the fact that the game should have been played in time; if it wasn't played in time, I have two options:
- awarding based on saves
- technical result
The second option was chosen for the reasons I wrote in the first message, although I will summarize at the end of the post.

You should first and foremost consider all our 3 game dates that I wrote about above, showing that I strove to complete the game as much as possible! And now, when I spent almost a full day of pure time on the game, you write to me that I didn't fit within the deadline and I am solely to blame? What nonsense? Why the hell did we have to waste my time and the opponent's (he could have been in my place too, for example) if you now start recalling what happened before? This is again a wrong approach on your part.

Everything that I was truly required to do—I did; everything else is just your personal opinion and not my obligation.
Everyone decides for themselves how to spend their time; the fact that you spent a day is your choice as a tournament participant, as a free person, etc. The rest of the text consists of the same "what ifs."

Summary: I am not a clairvoyant, I cannot read other people's thoughts, there are many players in the tournament, it's impossible to baby each one; therefore, if you registered for a tournament that has rules and regulations, be so kind as to follow them, because by submitting an application, it is implied that you have familiarized yourself with the rules, and if any points remain unclear, you can always ask—as many did—and everyone received answers to their questions.
Now specifically, from the above, I can be guided by facts, not conjectures, presumed events, your opinion, feelings, and views; all this is too subjective and it's impossible to get to the truth (this line also applies to the match Redwhait_HP-alexey-omsk), and the facts are as follows:
- Nitro tried to make contact within reasonable timeframes, not a couple of days before the end of the tour.
- P55max showed no activity or interest in the game until the warning on the forum and personal conversation via ICQ, including before the technical problems with the computer.
- To accommodate P55max first and foremost, the deadlines were extended to provide an opportunity to play the game; he did not use it/was unable to use it/failed to use it.
- During the extension period, Nitro played through in two days—according to your claims, 24 hours of real time—meaning he was ready to play and remained in contact.
- After the match was left unfinished, I decided to award based on saves, which I informed P55max about and asked him to wait in ICQ until evening; half an hour later, he left without warning (a question of interest) on the day I was supposed to publish game results on the forum.

In connection with the above, the formulation of a technical result was adopted.

One could still reason for a long time about what would have happened and what I should do, but I suggest closing the discussion here; I am always available on ICQ if there are constructive comments and questions.