Lucky, the subject of contention has long ceased to interest Vic;
Here, it's a matter of sporting interest for the president of the "discussion club":D
Of course, several simple questions arise.
Well, these are somewhat different things: talking about lags and when you can see on stream that these lags actually occur and prevent completing a turn.
I didn't quite understand how applying the standard rules of the game directly relates to resolving this situation.
As I understand it, the Appeals Committee (AK) is needed in principle for considering specific situations because if one always follows strictly "simple and clear" rules, then the AK is not needed at all. And judges aren't needed either.
And since the AK exists, its collegial decision becomes higher than the rules when addressing it.
By analogy with judicial practice, where there is a concept called "precedent." This particular situation arose. The AK considered it and made a decision, i.e., fulfilled its direct purpose.
I myself occasionally run Tournaments, and I am not at all happy to consider claims of the kind: "I had lag; please allow me to finish my turn." And the created precedent gives players the moral right to make similar requests and even argue them by saying that "the AK allowed it in a similar situation."
It's easier now, while the atmosphere is calm, to fix in public consciousness the idea that the AK's decision is not necessarily the only correct one, and therefore it should not be relied upon when resolving similar episodes.
