Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.

For some reason, I feel, or rather, I sincerely hope, that all defenders of the bug and Red understand that using a bug is not fair, but due to alleged discrepancies in the rules, they believe Red is right. It's a real problem if someone thinks it's okay and even necessary to use it. I would like to clarify this and am even willing to organize a poll to identify all members of the "great winners" sect.

There can be different types of unfair victories: an unplayable situation for the opponent, exploiting loopholes in the rules in a losing situation, some kind of cheating using shrines in a situation where cheating is pitted against control, and so on. Not all victories are fair, especially in tournament games, where the result is more important.

Speaking for myself: I don't think using a bug is normal, and it's good that it was banned. But since in November, there was a case of using a bug, and some members of the Arbitration Committee commented that everything was legal and correct, to be consistent, we need to either acknowledge Redwait's victory or admit that they overlooked it in November and deduct points from or annul the result of the game between Maydak and Svarog. The absence of an official appeal from the "affected" party should not bother anyone; the members of the Arbitration Committee are still aware of the situation. After all, if one player openly cheats/watches the opponent's replay and writes a report about it on the forum, and another confirms it, surely, in this case, the Arbitration Committee, knowing about the situation, will not remain inactive until the "affected" player files a complaint?

And most importantly, regarding the rules. I believe that the most important meaning of any law is that everyone should be equal before it. The decisions of specific judges may vary from situation to situation, may be unfair to someone, etc. Judges are also people. But the rules must be the same for everyone. And the purpose of the rules is to minimize the intervention of judges in game situations and, conversely, to regulate most situations through the rules, so that there are fewer appeals to the Arbitration Committee. In the end, it is less offensive to be a hostage to common rules for everyone than to be a hostage to an individual judge's decision, which, as we see, may not be based on the rules but may take into account some mythical "common sense."

If we use the current version of the rules, then prohibited bugs and "what is not prohibited is allowed" are stated in the rules, and what is allowed is in the comments. It seems logical that the legal weight of the rules is greater than that of a comment on them, right? I am only talking about the formal side of the issue. From this point of view, Redwait did not violate anything. The only question that Nitro initially raised remains: was the rule of fair play violated? There is no answer yet.