Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.

No, the fact that you deduced your opinion about the "decision based solely on the moral component" — well, those are your perception issues. There's nothing to comment on either. Good job, you figured it out, you can take off your feathered hat now.
What I'm wondering is what books you and your generation smoke to come out with pearls like this:


Maybe give me a scale for a change, I'd like to see how you "strongly vary" "generally accepted moral values."

With all due respect (and that's not just a formality).
What surprises me, Petya, is that instead of looking at the essence and trying to understand what I'm trying to say, you nitpick ordinary phrases meant to complement the post's meaning, but are in no way its foundation.
I'll explain, if you truly don't understand this figure of speech. I'll explain quite commonly, even.
Generally accepted moral values are what a particular group of people has agreed to consider as moral values accepted within that group. These values have developed throughout all of human life and continue to change to this day.
However, different groups — peoples, religions, ages, professions — have different moral values. They are not just different, but sometimes directly contradict each other.
Examples for clarity:
- walking around without clothes is immoral. However, a 20-year-old girl with a bare navel, bra straps showing under her top, and a miniskirt would cause extreme indignation and incomprehension in some grandmother in a sheepskin coat and headscarf, and vice versa. That's regarding one region. If we look at this example across countries, in Africa/Australia (in the least developed states and remote villages far from the center), going topless is quite common, regardless of gender. Examples regarding appearance could be given endlessly.
- the same picture in sports: someone kicks the ball out when they see an opponent lying on the grass; someone else thinks he's clearly faking it or doesn't want to ruin a promising attack and continues playing, rightly believing there's a referee on the field, and if he didn't stop the game, it means it's okay to play.
Similar examples can be given from all areas of life, but I think the point has become clearer. That's what I was trying to convey with the aforementioned phrase.

- my post was driven by the AC's decision, which was unclear to me — the AC provided neither arguments nor explanations (at least in the thread) for its decision.
- the misunderstanding is caused by the following things — there are simple facts that the AC should ideally have been guided by:
a) Nitro and Redwite both knew about the Admiral's Hat. They were on equal footing! What I'm most curious about is whether the AC took this factor into account? And why does everyone who supports the AC's decision for a rematch or even awarding Red a loss keep overlooking it?
b) Precedents for this exploit have already occurred and were discussed on the forum. Our AC doesn't live in the taiga, and I think if not all AC members saw that thread, then at least a large part definitely did.
c) I don't know about you, but personally, I haven't noticed any sadomasochistic tendencies in Nitro, or an acceptance of life through self-flagellation and the like.
He himself, weighing all the pros and cons, wrote that he accepts the defeat. And I suspect it was oh so difficult to do that — after all, it wasn't a fun game, but a match to advance from the group stage of a serious tournament, and the AC even kindly offered a rematch on a silver platter. Who better than the participant of that very game to judge the fairness/unfairness of the AC's decision, and he made his choice.

Thirdly — I'm not pressuring, I'm responding to attacks, and often provocative ones at that. When someone repeats for the umpteenth time that morality is nonsense, Redwite won, the rules weren't broken...

Nevertheless, for some reason you decide that my generation and I smoke books. Of course, I could be wrong, but we're the same generation, you and I :). Besides, I've never smoked books and don't plan to in the foreseeable future ;)
Again, I'm not touching the moral aspect of the issue, I haven't even expressed my opinion on what I think about it within the framework of morality, because here it doesn't affect the essence, and accordingly I never said that morality is nonsense :confused: Morality is everything! :smile13:

I didn't know about this bug, which is to say almost everyone knew!?

Sorry, darkellych, I completely forgot that you are at least 80% of the community, so it turns out yes, almost no one knew.

Knowing about it, I would never have used it knowing it's not fair play!!?

Too many "woulds," and besides, we'll never know. What's that about?

Let me give you some food for thought: what if such an action in an official tournament was committed, for example, not by Red, but by some newcomer or someone currently under the AC's supervision?! I think people's reaction would be completely different, as would, in principle, the AC's decision!

I have no idea about the AC's reaction, but my position would be unchanged, whether it was Red, you, or anyone else. Facts — it's hard to go against them, although on the internet it's much easier to do so — no argument there.

By the way, I'd just like to know The_'s opinion on the following situation. Let's say the AC, reviewing Nitro's request, came to the following conclusion:
Leave the result unchanged, since at the time of using the "BUG" (it's just ridiculous already) it was not prohibited by the rules. From now on, this "BUG" (that's enough ... damn it) is added to the HeroesWorld world rules!
Is that better? Wouldn't the AC be laughed at?

Not sure I understood the full meaning of "that's enough ... damn it." But if you mean that the AC would have decided the result was valid and would have submitted a ban on the Admiral's Hat for the future, then in my opinion, that would have been the most correct. As they say, the wolves are fed and the sheep are whole. (Even if there was a vote, the majority would support this idea, although that is of course a completely non-essential point).