Post-tournament analysis and discussion of the CIS Tournament Regulations.

Once, I read a book about shaping the agenda (and I can even cite Dyakov E. G. and Trakhtenberg A. D., "Establishing the Agenda: Theory and Technology," Yekaterinburg, 2005), where the authors, among other things, showed how the perception of facts differs between event-based and analytical presentations. In the first case, the reader will hold the participant of the events responsible for what happened, while in the second case, they will blame the system. That's why analysts conclude that the system left Lizard with no choice, and the invisible hand of the market pushed Redwait to sell the game.
And Lizard, in general, performed a champion-like act by buying the game, while Hell did not perform a champion-like act – and therefore did not become a champion. It all seems logical.
Requesting that for the next CIS tournament, we use the famous chant about Lizard, who bought everything.