Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.

okay. Why would he be compensated?

I'll repeat the question. If the player was less experienced, would they also be compensated for the time?
I highly doubt it, and then it turns out that the decision is too subjective.

Or, to rephrase the question. If it wasn't Hell, could he claim compensation?

I'll also state my position.
I don't care who wins/who loses. Last time, I was for fair play, and this time too. As a viewer, I'm not interested in watching a game where certain people are constantly being favored.
Such a game starts to lose its appeal.
I have no bias towards either player. As proof, I can provide my post from the previous situation, where my position was that everything was within the rules of the game, and there was no reason to replay.
Here, there are even fewer reasons to replay/continue the game. But for some reason, the opposite decision was made.
I would like to understand why?!
Why, in a situation where the gameplay was significantly changed, the decision not to replay was made, but in a situation where the gameplay only slightly lagged, a replay is provided?

ok
I'm also for dirtyfair play
and I'll state my position, sorry for the repetition :smile43:

The player's personality is both important and not important here...
In the sense that the fact that he appealed to the administration is important! Hell appealed, but another player might not have, because he would have blamed his weak video card, the resource consumption of the stream, and other subjective factors.
And the status of the game is also important: in a regular game, it's unlikely that anyone would bother the administration because of something like this - well, you lose, you lose, we'll get over it somehow...
But here, there were appeals, including an episode from the previous game with the same final status.
And the decisions in these cases turned out to be in favor of the same player.
But if you look at it from the outside, it might seem biased, but only without delving into the essence of the issues.
The essence is that the_ couldn't have known in advance about the features of the software that led to the first controversial situation! Including during the auction for the color ;) That's one.
Secondly, when he realized what was happening, he tried to continue the game, instead of stopping it immediately.
Hell, on the other hand, didn't know, like the other players, about the newly introduced lags, and secondly, he stopped the game immediately, instead of deciding to "let me try to fight it off first."
If someone else had been in his place, providing the same evidence base, aka the stream, I can't even imagine a different decision.
The only unclear point is whether Hell's reputation as a Dota player, i.e., his known lack of skill, influenced the decision in the second episode?
(The fact that he messed up the attack is not about his hands, but about his brain after hours of intense play, and then there was still time to block the passage if there hadn't been lags).
But for me personally, even this is not important, since the lags have been proven, and they were practically unknown until you encounter them