bolotnik
Auto-translated
Yeah...
If all these discussions led to something, but as it is, there seems to be a subject of dispute, but it's almost non-existent....
No one will change or cancel anything anymore.
In my opinion, victory should be fair and deserved, otherwise it's not a victory, but just... is there any personal moral satisfaction from such a victory? (Who knows...., but most likely not, because the victory here is formal)
Imagine a situation: a game in a chess championship to reach the final (I don't know what other competition to use as an example, where you can see a clear advantage in position for one of the players), where one player clearly has an advantage and wins the game, i.e., the outcome is a matter of time, and after a break/tea-coffee/smoking and chatting - bam! the losing player wins the game and reaches the final, and is this really fair, just, deserved, and should such a victory be recognized?
And it seems that all the participants are skilled players, whose streams are interesting and informative to watch, friends who have met more than once, but it turns out to be some kind of betrayal.....
So, it turns out that no one is to blame - the players can agree on a draw, a player can surrender, withdraw from the tournament, etc. There is no formal control over the fairness of the game; the players themselves observe it; the referee in this situation only records the result that both players recognize.
After the battle, they don't wave their fists... no one will change or replay anything, i.e., everything remains as it is.... (whether it's good or bad is again difficult to say)
I'm sorry, but what is this nonsense about the idea of forcing other players to commit a violation of the main rule of fair play (they bought/sold the game, so these should also...)?
We can leave the moral and ethical aspect aside (everyone has their own views on all this; for some, winning is a matter of honor; for others, a decent, honest defeat is better than a bought victory; and for others, it's not so important). The point is not entirely in this. For example, in football, there is the concept of a "prestige goal" - to lose the match, but to fight and try, and if you lose, then in a decent and fair confrontation, not 0, not a clean sheet....
There is a rule, which, by the way, is adopted and recorded here on HW - respect for the opponent and adherence to fair play (there is a ban, but there is no punishment for violating it... for example, if a player uses a bug or something that is not allowed in a regular tournament game, the opponent wins, the result is annulled due to a violation of the rules, and there is also a possible disqualification from participating in the next tournaments, because it is unfair and is a sign of disrespect to the opponent/opponents, so why is there no annulment, no disqualification, or other sanctions for violating the rules of fair play here??; and most likely there will be nothing)
What is the difference between selling a game and cheating/bug using/hacking and all other unfair things??? (and if the second player says, yes, use bugs/cheats, I don't mind, - should this affect the result?)
Regarding the control over the absence of match-fixing - it is certainly necessary if this happens, and the best means for this is a stream, a good, high-quality stream from each player; almost all of those who were in the CIS are the strongest players in HW, who often stream their games, and it will be more difficult to lose/sell a winning game in front of the audience (although, of course, you can somehow inadvertently put yourself in a position or intentionally give up and give an advantage to your opponent, but still), as well as responsibility for violations (disqualification, annulment of results, etc.)
In general, it's sad to read such discussions, to see how respected players in HW insult each other, arrange a whole holy war, which will only split everyone into several groups, but will not lead to a solution to the problem (and whether there is still a problem and what exactly it is is also a question)
It's just somehow sad and depressing (if I may say so) to see and read about this.
Well, I want to end with a phrase from Leopold the Cat, but alas...
P.S. yes, of course, you can answer all this - who is this noob, he wasn't even there, what nonsense is he talking about, let him go far away and into the deep Siberian forest, but all this is just my opinion, that something should be done and applied to the violators, but I also understand that most likely nothing will be done, and everything will be left as it is and without consequences, like it will burn out, fade away, and then it will be as if nothing happened........
If all these discussions led to something, but as it is, there seems to be a subject of dispute, but it's almost non-existent....
No one will change or cancel anything anymore.
In my opinion, victory should be fair and deserved, otherwise it's not a victory, but just... is there any personal moral satisfaction from such a victory? (Who knows...., but most likely not, because the victory here is formal)
Imagine a situation: a game in a chess championship to reach the final (I don't know what other competition to use as an example, where you can see a clear advantage in position for one of the players), where one player clearly has an advantage and wins the game, i.e., the outcome is a matter of time, and after a break/tea-coffee/smoking and chatting - bam! the losing player wins the game and reaches the final, and is this really fair, just, deserved, and should such a victory be recognized?
And it seems that all the participants are skilled players, whose streams are interesting and informative to watch, friends who have met more than once, but it turns out to be some kind of betrayal.....
So, it turns out that no one is to blame - the players can agree on a draw, a player can surrender, withdraw from the tournament, etc. There is no formal control over the fairness of the game; the players themselves observe it; the referee in this situation only records the result that both players recognize.
After the battle, they don't wave their fists... no one will change or replay anything, i.e., everything remains as it is.... (whether it's good or bad is again difficult to say)
I'm sorry, but what is this nonsense about the idea of forcing other players to commit a violation of the main rule of fair play (they bought/sold the game, so these should also...)?
We can leave the moral and ethical aspect aside (everyone has their own views on all this; for some, winning is a matter of honor; for others, a decent, honest defeat is better than a bought victory; and for others, it's not so important). The point is not entirely in this. For example, in football, there is the concept of a "prestige goal" - to lose the match, but to fight and try, and if you lose, then in a decent and fair confrontation, not 0, not a clean sheet....
There is a rule, which, by the way, is adopted and recorded here on HW - respect for the opponent and adherence to fair play (there is a ban, but there is no punishment for violating it... for example, if a player uses a bug or something that is not allowed in a regular tournament game, the opponent wins, the result is annulled due to a violation of the rules, and there is also a possible disqualification from participating in the next tournaments, because it is unfair and is a sign of disrespect to the opponent/opponents, so why is there no annulment, no disqualification, or other sanctions for violating the rules of fair play here??; and most likely there will be nothing)
What is the difference between selling a game and cheating/bug using/hacking and all other unfair things??? (and if the second player says, yes, use bugs/cheats, I don't mind, - should this affect the result?)
Regarding the control over the absence of match-fixing - it is certainly necessary if this happens, and the best means for this is a stream, a good, high-quality stream from each player; almost all of those who were in the CIS are the strongest players in HW, who often stream their games, and it will be more difficult to lose/sell a winning game in front of the audience (although, of course, you can somehow inadvertently put yourself in a position or intentionally give up and give an advantage to your opponent, but still), as well as responsibility for violations (disqualification, annulment of results, etc.)
In general, it's sad to read such discussions, to see how respected players in HW insult each other, arrange a whole holy war, which will only split everyone into several groups, but will not lead to a solution to the problem (and whether there is still a problem and what exactly it is is also a question)
It's just somehow sad and depressing (if I may say so) to see and read about this.
Well, I want to end with a phrase from Leopold the Cat, but alas...
P.S. yes, of course, you can answer all this - who is this noob, he wasn't even there, what nonsense is he talking about, let him go far away and into the deep Siberian forest, but all this is just my opinion, that something should be done and applied to the violators, but I also understand that most likely nothing will be done, and everything will be left as it is and without consequences, like it will burn out, fade away, and then it will be as if nothing happened........