rebellious
Auto-translated
Of course, several simple questions arise.
And where is the causal link between the bug and the fact that someone spent a long time on their turn? Did anyone who was involved reproduce the situation in real conditions – on Hell’s computer, and on a comparative control? No. On what basis was the decision in his favor made then? Did they simply believe him on his word? Ah, or maybe the time was lost not exactly at that moment, but in previous turns – where the player, say, scratched himself or yawned.
And further. And this is very important.
The bug affected both players. This means they were in equal conditions. This means that if one player believes that he suffered especially, and the other was not affected, then this case still shows that Hell’s hardware, software, and he himself were simply not ready to compete in certain conditions.
At the same time, a paradox arises. In this case, the commission does not come to a fair decision, but to obtaining a benefit for one side. But the bug affected both players. Then where is the adequate benefit for the second player? And there is no need to say that the second player did not complain. The situation should be analyzed on its merits and be fair to both. Since there are no guilty parties, no one should suffer. If a foolish judge awarded an incorrect penalty in one direction, then let him award a penalty in the other direction as well.
And here is another question, why did Dirty decide on his own to escalate the problem to the AK, since, according to his own statement, this case should not have been sent to them?
And where is the causal link between the bug and the fact that someone spent a long time on their turn? Did anyone who was involved reproduce the situation in real conditions – on Hell’s computer, and on a comparative control? No. On what basis was the decision in his favor made then? Did they simply believe him on his word? Ah, or maybe the time was lost not exactly at that moment, but in previous turns – where the player, say, scratched himself or yawned.
And further. And this is very important.
The bug affected both players. This means they were in equal conditions. This means that if one player believes that he suffered especially, and the other was not affected, then this case still shows that Hell’s hardware, software, and he himself were simply not ready to compete in certain conditions.
At the same time, a paradox arises. In this case, the commission does not come to a fair decision, but to obtaining a benefit for one side. But the bug affected both players. Then where is the adequate benefit for the second player? And there is no need to say that the second player did not complain. The situation should be analyzed on its merits and be fair to both. Since there are no guilty parties, no one should suffer. If a foolish judge awarded an incorrect penalty in one direction, then let him award a penalty in the other direction as well.
And here is another question, why did Dirty decide on his own to escalate the problem to the AK, since, according to his own statement, this case should not have been sent to them?
