Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
What, haven't I commented yet? That's strange... considering all the food... :smile04:
Of all the opinions expressed, I find Dirty's point of view to be the closest to my own. Perhaps because he looked at the situation from the perspective of a judge, and I look at it the same way. Namely, when considering different options, I first assess their feasibility.
And this perspective immediately dismisses any attempts to control match-fixing. Because those who want to make a deal will make a deal, and if they have the sense not to blab about it, no one will find out, and even if they do find out, they won't be able to prove it.
In other words, an infraction that cannot be controlled is best not considered an infraction. This saves time and nerves.
However, this does not mean that players have the moral right to talk about it openly. If they've been caught, they should deal with the consequences. Therefore, I believe that public condemnation is perfectly justified, but administrative actions such as banning or expulsion are not.
I remember having my own experience of selling a tournament game at a club tournament. True, it was a bit of a joke, because I sold a losing game, what an expert in diplomacy I am! But everyone was aware of it, the judge was too, and no one objected.
And yes, in my opinion, the main mistake was made in the last round - after Aive's victory, he should have been explained the political necessity of selling the game to Hell. It is unlikely to be reasonable to expect him to figure this out on his own, but the judges and organizers could have easily figured it out, they've been doing this for years.
The idea here is not too complicated - since the negative fallout has already begun, it would have been necessary to minimize its size as much as possible and restore justice, at least partially. Then the champion would have been more legitimate, and less mess would have been created. Yes, there would still be some mess, but less. However, they didn't sense the moment...
P.S. In the nomination "why did Vic create this poll," Redwhite and Dust won: smile54: