The_
Auto-translated
Let's get straight to the point.
Why compare doping, red cards issued after a match, and similar examples? There's no analogy here, and there can't be, for very obvious reasons: doping is prohibited, and it's not always possible to detect it before the competition begins through initial tests, which is why gold medals and other awards are revoked afterward. The same goes for red cards; any rough play or disrespectful behavior towards players/fans is prohibited, but the referee may not always be able to identify the violation (human factor), and such red cards serve as a warning to others, so they don't think they can get away with it. In any case, all these actions are PROHIBITED, and penalties are предусмотрены for them. So, what analogies can be drawn with the Redwhite-Nitro match?
Let's leave the moral aspect of this abuse aside, as moral norms and boundaries differ among individuals and can vary greatly, even within the context of "generally accepted moral values." Making an official decision based solely on this is, at the very least, inappropriate.
It's amusing how some people in this situation have decided to put on a feathered hat and act as noble knights guarding goodness, in contrast to other "bad, dishonest players with no morals" – yeah, right.
No one wants to consider two simple facts:
- If not everyone, then many knew about the bug, and most importantly, both Nitro and Redwhite knew about it, meaning they were in equal conditions. One of them had the opportunity to use the bug and won; the other didn't have that opportunity and lost – that's it.
- Such a victory doesn't differ in any way from a loss due to a bad draw against a strong opponent or a defeat on the first day, considering the rules and conditions under which both players were competing on the date of the game.
However, discussions about whether the victory was "worthy," "fair," or "sporting" from a moral point of view are a different matter, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But it shouldn't have influenced the official decision of the administration.
Nitro deserves huge respect for finding the strength to admit defeat and not using the opportunity for a rematch that the administration offered him. In my opinion, this is the ultimate example of honesty and fairness in this situation. Also, for raising this issue and ensuring that the necessary amendments were made to the rules. I repeat, he's simply great – respect and kudos, no doubt.
Why compare doping, red cards issued after a match, and similar examples? There's no analogy here, and there can't be, for very obvious reasons: doping is prohibited, and it's not always possible to detect it before the competition begins through initial tests, which is why gold medals and other awards are revoked afterward. The same goes for red cards; any rough play or disrespectful behavior towards players/fans is prohibited, but the referee may not always be able to identify the violation (human factor), and such red cards serve as a warning to others, so they don't think they can get away with it. In any case, all these actions are PROHIBITED, and penalties are предусмотрены for them. So, what analogies can be drawn with the Redwhite-Nitro match?
Let's leave the moral aspect of this abuse aside, as moral norms and boundaries differ among individuals and can vary greatly, even within the context of "generally accepted moral values." Making an official decision based solely on this is, at the very least, inappropriate.
It's amusing how some people in this situation have decided to put on a feathered hat and act as noble knights guarding goodness, in contrast to other "bad, dishonest players with no morals" – yeah, right.
No one wants to consider two simple facts:
- If not everyone, then many knew about the bug, and most importantly, both Nitro and Redwhite knew about it, meaning they were in equal conditions. One of them had the opportunity to use the bug and won; the other didn't have that opportunity and lost – that's it.
- Such a victory doesn't differ in any way from a loss due to a bad draw against a strong opponent or a defeat on the first day, considering the rules and conditions under which both players were competing on the date of the game.
However, discussions about whether the victory was "worthy," "fair," or "sporting" from a moral point of view are a different matter, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But it shouldn't have influenced the official decision of the administration.
Nitro deserves huge respect for finding the strength to admit defeat and not using the opportunity for a rematch that the administration offered him. In my opinion, this is the ultimate example of honesty and fairness in this situation. Also, for raising this issue and ensuring that the necessary amendments were made to the rules. I repeat, he's simply great – respect and kudos, no doubt.
241-568-808