Posts from Forum

to be honest, it will most likely lead to everyone figuring things out on their own, and not caring about your opinion :smile17:. Considering that the player selection is more or less adequate, it won't be difficult to implement.

I am all for any form of self-organization.

I am all for any form of self-organization.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xhsl6j6xOEM

The rule "point number zero" itself is absolutely correct. There is absolutely no need for such nonsense (by the way, a read-only account would be banned for 2-3 months for such words).
And this "point number zero" needs to be activated in practice precisely because of one game. The question is whether there is a good reason to activate it.

For example, the latest bugs in 1.40 – "Gelu in the tavern" and "rebuilding in the dungeon" – are force majeure, bugs, and these are valid reasons to apply this rule and make amendments to the tournament regulations as needed. Because they didn't announce the "dungeon" issue in time, we got the same problem again. And what do we do now? We sit and think. The problem objectively exists, it ruins games, and anyone can be affected.

But in Mirrors, it was a non-critical change in the rules that somehow interferes with the gameplay. Moreover, only Vicc seemed to see the "importance" of the problem, and opinions differed on whether to do something or not, and if so, what exactly. And even when everyone had their say, Vicc still somehow failed to read and understand what people were writing the first time. This is where the "public outrage" came from. Because almost everyone didn't understand why anything needed to be done at all, and the rest didn't understand why, if something had to be done, it had to be done in that particular way.
If this is abused again and again, the consequences will probably, sooner or later, be as Hell wrote.

The rule "number zero" itself is absolutely correct.

Let me explain what it means to change the rules in relation to a specific game:
1. Before the specific game, players followed the original, approved rules.
2. In the specific game, players follow the rules modified by the judge.
3. After that, players go back to following the originally approved rules.

If this arrangement suits you, then go ahead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xhsl6j6xOEM

Listened to "Picnic" again, remembered my youth, and got a little emotional, especially "Hieroglyph" really touched me. Thank you.

Let me explain what it means to change the rules in the context of a specific game:
1. Before the specific game, players followed the original, established rules.
2. During the specific game, players follow the rules modified by the judge.
3. After the specific game, players revert to the original, established rules.

If this arrangement suits you, then so be it.

I have the impression that you perceive the host as a troublemaker who needs to be protected from somehow :rolleyes:

That's not the case. The host is interested in a fair outcome of the game, perhaps even more than the players. Because for players, winning is usually the top priority, and other criteria come second. But for the host, if they are not biased towards one of the players, the primary criterion is the fairness of the outcome.

I would understand if the complaints were directed at the hosts of official tournaments, who are not the authors of the rules, but merely their enforcers. But in author-created tournaments, the rules are a sphere of the host's personal creativity, so there is no point in creating any mechanisms for protection.

So, repeating mirror maps is possible, right? Is that what I understood correctly from your answer? In that case, I'm out, good luck to the participants.

Have some decency, people voted for you!

Have some decency, people voted for you!

Hmm, and now am I supposed to bend over backward for Vic, who clearly doesn't really want me here? I was generally interested in this Tournaments, but I was also interested in the mirror matches, despite the mixed-up mt_diamond and the timer that wasn't really suitable for that. But what did Vic do? He simply, on a whim, ruined everything for no reason in the second half of the Tournaments. I don't know how else to call it. Moreover, during that Tournaments, this was already the 2nd attempt to spoil everything; we miraculously managed to fend off the first one, and the second one forced me to drop out of the Tournaments after spending time on 6 rounds played for some unclear reason. The discussion with Vic ended with a clear message from him that he doesn't care about anyone, and if I don't like it, I should stay away from his Tournaments, which I basically agreed to.
Now, regarding this Tournaments. Only because of the genuinely interesting lineup and the seemingly good starting rules and list of templates, plus the fact that people voted for me, did I have the desire to play it. I asked a specific question: would this Tournaments be conducted as befits a Tournaments with such a grand name, or would it be another "fun event and test polygon" for Vic? His answer turned out to be as vague as possible, but at the same time, it clearly indicated that a repeat of the mirror matches could easily happen.
Then, after I quoted him, he, as an experienced politician, decided to edit his message, frankly softening and changing its essence in many ways, while also managing to tell Reddit that it was time for them to register quickly:D
So, what kind of decency am I supposed to have? Thank you, of course, to everyone who voted for me and wanted to see my game, but unfortunately, the organizer in this Tournaments... (I couldn't find polite words to describe this individual).
Thank you all for your attention and good luck.

Perhaps I’ll write here instead of sending a personal message to Evgeny via ICQ. Regarding this specific tournament, Hellight correctly noted that there are no participants who might cause problems in agreeing on the rules before the game or who might want to cheat afterward by making “post-factum changes using point #0.” Personally, I don’t see such people among the participants; they are all long-time and reliable players. Therefore, in this specific case, we can easily ignore all of Vik’s love for long “Alfeev-style texts” and just enjoy the game. In essence, Vik is only nominally the organizer in this case, and he deserves respect for that, because the format is very interesting, and there don’t seem to be any other people willing to create a “Tournament of Tournament Winners” theme. In short, you should participate; you’ll regret it later, I know from experience.

Perhaps I should write here instead of sending a personal message to Evgeny on ICQ. Regarding this specific tournament, Hellight definitely noticed that there are no participants who might cause problems in agreeing on the rules before the game or who might want to cheat afterward by making "changes with Vik using point #0." Personally, I don't see such people among the participants; they are all old and reliable players. Therefore, in this specific case, we can easily ignore Vik's fondness for long "Alpheian texts" and just enjoy the game. In essence, Vik is only nominally the organizer in this case, and I respect him for that because the format is very interesting, and there are no other people on the horizon who want to create a "Tournament of Tournament Winners" theme. In short, you should participate; you'll regret it later, I know from experience.

Okay, I'll say it differently, Kostya. After all the nonsense that Vik arranged in the Mirrors, I promised that I wouldn't participate in his tournaments. I wanted to make an exception for the "All-Stars" tournament; Stinger can confirm that I discussed this with him. But I really didn't want Vik to perceive it as me giving in to him (he repeatedly emphasized this during the Mirrors conflict regarding various concessions). All that was required of him was to answer my question: that the tournament is not just another of his test grounds, but a serious event. However, he decided to make it clear that I'm not needed here. So, let him go to hell; it's not a big loss.
I apologize once again to everyone who voted for me, but unfortunately, it didn't work out. And I can play against almost any of the participants in this tournament, whether it's for stakes, for fun, or in a series.

PS I won't flood here anymore; I think I've answered all the questions and explained my position.

I don't know how old you are; judging by the photo, it seems like you’re not a schoolkid anymore. And I am curious – how come, having reached adulthood, you haven’t realized that communicating like this and like that is inappropriate with anyone, ever? When I saw these posts, my only reaction was deep bewilderment... "what was that?" ... I couldn't even get offended. I thought you were in an altered state of consciousness, which is why you responded accordingly. During my time on Heroes forums, I have heard many things directed at me, but this rhetoric went beyond just being rude; it hit rock bottom. The last time I heard something like this was in a WotLK-era World Tavern chat when Wlk777 was there. When I opened the poll, and votes started pouring in for you, one of the forum veterans messaged me privately and asked what I would do if Lucky made it into the top three. I replied that I expected him to apologize for his rhetoric, even if he didn't change his position on the substance of the argument. He explained to me that I had too high an opinion of people and that expecting any public gestures from Lucky was very naive of me. After discussing other options, we concluded that the most realistic thing to do would be to simply pretend nothing happened. We agreed that if Lucky silently signed up for the Tournaments, I wouldn’t bring up this topic again. I don't know if he talked to you about this. Apparently not. In my opinion, I showed great tolerance and diplomacy; 99% of the people you encounter in life will react much differently to such actions.

Are you expecting an apology?! One veteran said that you have too high an opinion of people?! More than ten veterans told me that you are a mentally ill jerk, and that I shouldn't pay attention to people who are unhappy with life. By the way, I'm not exaggerating.
Vic, you live in your own illusory world of forum arguments, a lover of politics and manipulation. And it's unclear to me how you've lived to your age without someone clearly explaining to you that you shouldn't behave like this. It's completely incomprehensible.

P.S. I suggest considering the possibility of removing Vic from the moderators. He clearly abuses the practice of moving messages to the "Tribunal" section in arguments that he himself started, when it becomes beneficial to him and to further provoke the opponents in the argument.

For some reason, it reminded me of... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qtj5z9XOihk

Finally, a decent flame war, it’s beautiful, where’s my popcorn?

The most amusing thing was the mysterious "one of the forum veterans" who immediately became curious about what would happen.))) Then he started giving advice on how to do it better.)))) I think I know who it is :D

Added 1 minute ago

Finally, a decent flame war, what a beauty, where's my popcorn?

Well, you're overestimating it a bit.))) Is this even a flame war? It doesn't even reach 2 points on the flame war scale.