CHALLENGE The_ CHAMPIONS LEAGUE, The_'s CHALLENGE CHAMPIONS LEAGUE

To The_:

Do you know what our problem is? It's that you justify your decision, you justify yourself, instead of looking at the situation as a whole. You don't allow for the possibility that there's a flaw in your decision, a flaw that, in my opinion, shouldn't be repeated in the future.

The essence of my disagreement isn't that I lost, but rather the very interpretation of awarding the loss, and, consequently, your perspective, which needs to be adjusted, as you put it, in a SIGNIFICANT way. In principle, awarding losses in this manner is incorrect.

I initially wrote a lengthy message for the AK, but out of solidarity with you, I decided to delete it. I won't burden them with an analysis in a case where the fault lies in the wording of the loss and a lack of foresight. However, I can't let this case go, so that such wording doesn't happen with others, and also because of your one-sided perception of information (you accept what's easier to understand). Just answer a few questions...

1. You're stretching completely innocent actions. For example, you simply don't like the cherk because your opponent chose a long strategy that I was heading towards, even though I wasn't actually heading towards it. The essence of the game and all actions in it are aimed at gaining an advantage; the cherk is also part of the game. In my opinion, this is again a choice between two players, not just me, and choosing a weaker cherk to please your opponent is stupid. You might as well not start the game and not register for the tournament.

QUESTION:

- I assume that no one has taken away anyone's right to cherk in any way, and there are no restrictions in the rules, even if you cherk on HL+U on the last day. Does this point of discussion relate to the matter? If not, why are you bringing it up when there are no restrictions on the cherk and its timing? If this is your gaming ethics, then include it in your future tournaments, if you agree with me...

2. Furthermore. Since you're trying to reason logically, you should understand that, in addition to simply writing a message, you also need to consider the players' desire to play and their desire to finish the game.
You say that I left, then Nitro appeared, and that you couldn't award the win based on the save because of me.
- First, you didn't ask, you didn't say anything specific. You said you would consult with the judges. But when will you do that, and when will you write to me? Maybe the next day, or will you wait until our game, when we agreed to finish it? I don't have the gift of clairvoyance either; I don't know what you have in mind. Well, Nitro appeared online, I wasn't there, so why did you decide to blame me, when I was there and explained everything to you, and you didn't say anything meaningful? Why didn't you take into account the fact that during replays, the reason for the delays was short sessions due to the opponent's inability to play?

QUESTION:

- If my game had started on January 16 (on the day of Nitro's connection), then it was postponed, continued on the 19th, postponed, then on the 22nd, postponed again, and all postponements were at Nitro's initiative, then who is to blame? Who would get the win? I'm interested in how you think, so I know what to expect in the future...

Here's a related question:

- If an opponent wrote a message to arrange a game in the middle of the deadline, how many days does the respondent have to reply to the message?

Also,

- If an opponent wrote on the 16th, and his opponent was online, and they both agreed immediately on the 21st. Who is to blame if the game is not finished? How will the decision be made?

Please answer all questions in a question-answer format. This isn't some abstract thing; it's a real case, and it's important for me to know what would have happened in one case or another, so that I'm not caught off guard in the future.

Approximately anticipating the answer, a second question arises from this topic:

- If (taking our case and our deadlines for the tournament as an example), I write to my opponent, let's play, and he remains silent. How many days are allowed to wait? The 16th, when I write to my opponent, is already the middle, i.e., we're not in a hurry. After how many days will the response from my opponent be illegitimate? When can I be sure that it's no longer necessary to finish the game? And will the last two dates of the game always be taken into account when determining who is to blame? I'm just interested in the rule of "mooshnenie" (a made-up word, likely meaning "being harsh" or "being strict"), when can you give up on your opponent, on the dates of replays!

First, you asked for saves, I wrote to you that Nitro had an advantage. Why didn't you award the win based on the save? I wouldn't have said anything. But you came up with some kind of formulation-nonsense. You need to understand with your own head that it's absurd to give a deadline for a replay and award a win because someone was less active BEFORE the replay, even though from the 21st to the end of the replay deadline, the activity was simply hyper! Why isn't this taken into account? Explain.