Sanin
Auto-translated
Well, since it has now become definitively clear that this match is decisive, I will allow myself to express my opinion.
I could also write that our entire team watched Derbent's game and is ready to unequivocally confirm everything he said, but this cannot be proven, which means that evidence from directly interested parties can safely be disregarded.
Now, to the point. As I understand it from Vova Derbent's post, he is accused of unfair play based on the fact that he remained active in the chat after disconnecting, as well as due to the absence of a save before the battle.
Let's start with the save. The rules clearly require players to make daily saves; there is nothing in the rules about saves before battles. Yes, I agree that this is a convenient feature and it should be enabled, but the rules do not regulate this in any way. Accusing someone of unfair play based on the absence of this save is absolutely unfounded from the point of view of the rules. If we set aside the rules, then, of course, it is a mistake not to enable autosave before the battle when it could have been enabled, but this is a mistake that is not punishable in any case. And, as mentioned above, there was a time when we played without password-protected saves, and nothing terrible happened. I immediately remember the game with JustObserver in HoMM2, where a disconnect occurred during the final due to my fault, and I had to completely repeat a very difficult move, but for some reason my opponent did not write to the admins about the disconnect, but calmly let me continue, and then we repeated the mana and troop losses in the battle.
Regarding the ping in the chat. I am not an expert here, but if the presence of ping in the chat is enough to accuse a player of unfair play, then I ask knowledgeable people to explain why and on what basis. The fact is that if this alone is enough to accuse someone of malicious cheating, then this means that Derbent faces not only a technical defeat in this match, but also a yellow card and disqualification from all tournaments. But all this, of course, makes sense if the plaintiffs have something to confirm their words about the ping in the chat.
If, however, there is nothing to confirm, and/or the ping in the chat is not enough to accuse someone of unfair play, then there are no grounds to stop the match.
Regarding the option of awarding the victory, there is an obvious bias here. As far as I know, in this particular situation, awarding the victory in the match will most likely be in favor of the Dark faction. I would like to cite a recent example of awarding a victory: a game in HotA against Jaris, in which I was losing strategically and had no desire to play it, but the organizer told me that the beginning of the second month was too early for awarding the victory, he scheduled an odd game twice, and only on turn 247 agreed to award the victory. Why force players to play until the third month in one tournament, and award the victory at the end of the first in another?
Now, briefly:
The absence of a save does not indicate anything and does not obligate anyone to anything.
The presence of ping in the chat, if there is something to confirm, is either a technical defeat, a yellow card, and other unpleasant things, or again, it does not indicate anything.
There are no grounds for awarding the victory.
As a captain, I have finished, now as an organizer. There was an arbitration decision on this situation - to continue the match with a repeat of the turn. I ask someone from the admins to express their opinion here or inform me personally whether the admins will consider the situation and, if so, within what time frame.
I could also write that our entire team watched Derbent's game and is ready to unequivocally confirm everything he said, but this cannot be proven, which means that evidence from directly interested parties can safely be disregarded.
Now, to the point. As I understand it from Vova Derbent's post, he is accused of unfair play based on the fact that he remained active in the chat after disconnecting, as well as due to the absence of a save before the battle.
Let's start with the save. The rules clearly require players to make daily saves; there is nothing in the rules about saves before battles. Yes, I agree that this is a convenient feature and it should be enabled, but the rules do not regulate this in any way. Accusing someone of unfair play based on the absence of this save is absolutely unfounded from the point of view of the rules. If we set aside the rules, then, of course, it is a mistake not to enable autosave before the battle when it could have been enabled, but this is a mistake that is not punishable in any case. And, as mentioned above, there was a time when we played without password-protected saves, and nothing terrible happened. I immediately remember the game with JustObserver in HoMM2, where a disconnect occurred during the final due to my fault, and I had to completely repeat a very difficult move, but for some reason my opponent did not write to the admins about the disconnect, but calmly let me continue, and then we repeated the mana and troop losses in the battle.
Regarding the ping in the chat. I am not an expert here, but if the presence of ping in the chat is enough to accuse a player of unfair play, then I ask knowledgeable people to explain why and on what basis. The fact is that if this alone is enough to accuse someone of malicious cheating, then this means that Derbent faces not only a technical defeat in this match, but also a yellow card and disqualification from all tournaments. But all this, of course, makes sense if the plaintiffs have something to confirm their words about the ping in the chat.
If, however, there is nothing to confirm, and/or the ping in the chat is not enough to accuse someone of unfair play, then there are no grounds to stop the match.
Regarding the option of awarding the victory, there is an obvious bias here. As far as I know, in this particular situation, awarding the victory in the match will most likely be in favor of the Dark faction. I would like to cite a recent example of awarding a victory: a game in HotA against Jaris, in which I was losing strategically and had no desire to play it, but the organizer told me that the beginning of the second month was too early for awarding the victory, he scheduled an odd game twice, and only on turn 247 agreed to award the victory. Why force players to play until the third month in one tournament, and award the victory at the end of the first in another?
Now, briefly:
The absence of a save does not indicate anything and does not obligate anyone to anything.
The presence of ping in the chat, if there is something to confirm, is either a technical defeat, a yellow card, and other unpleasant things, or again, it does not indicate anything.
There are no grounds for awarding the victory.
As a captain, I have finished, now as an organizer. There was an arbitration decision on this situation - to continue the match with a repeat of the turn. I ask someone from the admins to express their opinion here or inform me personally whether the admins will consider the situation and, if so, within what time frame.
ICQ 423164784
