Posts from Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments. Auto-translated

If it is impossible to resolve a controversial issue on their own, the judges may request assistance from the Arbitration Committee.

Well, if we follow the rules literally...
...then the appeal to the Arbitration Committee should come from the judge, not from the player...

Appellate Commission (AC)

Regulations:

• Any person registered on HeroesWorld has the right to appeal to the AC regarding any issue they have concerning the "Heroes 3 - ONLINE" section.

That's strange, as the first page states something different. And after reading the section, I see that all players do this – they independently submit requests to the Arbitration Committee (AK).

At that moment, neither Jelen117 nor I knew the exact interpretation of the rules.

At the same time, I asked Jelen several times in the chat if he wanted to take a restart, and each time I received a negative answer.

They can appeal, but the decision of the Arbitration Committee (AK) only has legal force in official tournaments or in tournaments where this is stated explicitly. In author-created tournaments, the AK can at most remove the game from the rating.

Appeal to the Appeals Committee regarding the second game of the BO3 series in the Blitz-Jebus Cross - 3 (Sod) tournament.
I will describe the disputed situation that arose in the game with player Jelen117:
1. Game: Jelen117 for Conflux, color red; kamukag3e for Dungeon, color blue.
2. On his turn 112, player Jelen117 writes to me in the game chat that he has no guard (ГО) on the road to the central treasure zone, and asks me if this is a technical restart. I answered that, in my opinion, it is not, but he can take a regular restart. At that time, neither Jelen117 nor I knew the exact interpretation of the rules, otherwise why would we need to discuss it in the chat. Therefore, Jelen117 said he would ask more experienced players about this situation. Meanwhile, I asked Jelen several times in the chat if he wanted to take a restart, and each time received a negative answer. (A video recording of the game is available from player NikoStar; if necessary, I can provide it; the correspondence in the game chat is visible on the recording).
3. Ultimately, Jelen117 skipped his turn 112 and I fully played my turn 112. Then followed a message from the tournament judge Ihromant asking to send the game save to check if there was a tech restart. At the same time, player Jelen117 left the game (either on my turn 112 or his turn 113 - can be seen in the video recording), without writing anything to me before leaving.
4. I immediately sent the save and password to the judge. After reviewing the saves, the judge determined it was a restart without immediately specifying which type of restart. After a brief correspondence in ICQ, the judge showed me a screenshot of the opponent's map. After that, I clarified that there is guard present, just not on the central road. The judge then sent me the rule clause, which stated that this is a restart at the player's discretion, and that he wishes to take a restart on turn 111. At that time, I did not argue with the judge, as I needed time to process the situation.
5. In my opinion, the judge made an incorrect decision regarding the game, as he did not investigate all the circumstances of the situation described above, namely section III, paragraph 3 of the rules states: a player has the right to a restart at the player's discretion if the player lacks a guard (ГО) in the passage through which the road to the central treasure zone passes. In this case, the restart is taken on the day this fact is discovered. Given the fact that (judging by the saves) player Jelen117 discovered the lack of a guard on his turn 112, he had the right to take a restart on turn 112, informing me of this, but did not do so, despite me asking him at least twice "do you want to take a restart"? Nothing prevented him from writing "restart" to me, and then sorting it out with me and with the judge's help clarifying whether it was a restart on turn 111 or 112, technical or at player's discretion.
I draw the attention of the AC (Appeals Committee) that this tournament is played with a shortened timer and very little time is allocated for all game moments, including taking a restart, so the player is initially in a situation where decisions must be made quickly and carefully. Which, in my opinion, player Jelen117 did by writing to me that he did not want to take a restart. Although there is always the opportunity to attack at the end of the turn, reset the timer in battle, but get a definitive answer to your question. The further intervention of the judge deprived me of the opportunity to play a winning game: on turn 111 I already had 155+80 (from Pandora's Box)=235 Troglodytes, in addition (as revealed by map exploration) near the castle, 50-99 Obsidian Gargoyles guarded a +6 Sword, another box with 60 Troglodytes, and a Griffin Conservatory with 3 Angels, along the road there was another Griffin Conservatory with 3 Angels and another single Griffin Conservatory, not to mention the Dragon Fly Hives, which were taken with Angels without losing Troglodytes. Having a stack of 300+ Troglodytes and 6-7 Angels by turn 121, I could confidently move into the center. Meanwhile, the opponent had only two Dragon Fly Hives with 6 Wyverns each at his respawn. And the Tavern hero in this game would have leveled up like a god; Earth magic came as the third skill, followed by Wisdom, Armorer, Logistics, Pathfinding.
I am ready to attach all necessary logs, ICQ correspondence, a video recording of my game; I think player Jelen117, who constantly streams, also has a recording of the game.
Additionally, I inform that at that time I submitted to the judge's decision and agreed to the restart on turn 111, after which we continued playing, but we have not finished the game yet. I also realize that I am not as strong a player as Jelen117 and my chances of winning the overall BO3 series are very low; I rate my skill level as slightly worse than SirDavos or sonic111, although I have won against these players.
But, despite this, based on the above, I ask the Appeals Committee to consider my complaint and make a decision to award player Jelen117 a technical loss in this game; accordingly, we should not continue the game after the unjustifiably assigned restart by the judge's decision, but should start a new third game with new bidding for castles.
Sincerely, Ivan (kamukag3e)

- Restarts at the player's discretion,
a) the player lacks a Griffin Conservatory in the passage through which the road to the central treasure zone goes;

Is Blitz Jebus Cross-3 an author's tournament?

2. The tournament is official and regular; it is held according to the Rules for Organizing, Conducting, and Participating in HOMM3 Online Tournaments.

1. The tournament is conducted according to the Rules for Organizing, Conducting, and Participating in Tournaments.
2. Players listed in the Blacklist and Penalty Bench are not allowed to participate in the tournament.

If it is impossible to resolve a controversial issue independently, the judges will seek help from the AK.

The host has the right, if necessary, to make any changes to the regulations and rules during the tournament.

Please register me for the tournament.

And what's the point of contacting the judge if I am trying to appeal his decision? I informed the judge beforehand and asked him to forgive me if I am wrong about this situation.

Let me comment. Jelen117 contacted me to check his save and see if there was a reason for a restart, and what it was. I was watching his stream, and it was clear that the road to the center was not guarded by a Guardian. However, the road led to the side, and there was no way to check if there was a Guardian on another road. Therefore, the players sent me the save, I looked at it, and saw what is in the screenshot that I am adding.
As I saw, the situation in the game fits the rule:

That's what I told Jelen117 and also told Ivan in ICQ. He then started asking me for Jelen's password so that he could personally check. Here, I admit that I made a mistake, but not in relation to Ivan, but in relation to Jelen117, for which he could have complained about me. I understood that I could not give him Jelen117's password, but I made a mistake. I took a screenshot and sent it to him. And then I realized that I had revealed the game. Because of this, Jelen was forced to take a restart at his own request. Well, in the future, I will keep in mind that I should not give in to persistent requests from players, thank you for the lesson.
Now, regarding Ivan's further comments. Jelen117 did everything according to the rules, took a restart at his own request, following the rules, and they started a new game. The player's claims seem unfounded, such as "because of his restart, I lost the respawn with chocolate."

a player has the right to take a rest on the day of discovery, if they wish.

it was clearly visible that the road to the center wasn't guarded by a Guard of Order. But the road went to the side, and there was no way to check if there was a Guard of Order on the other road.

Oh, what compromising information you found:
I knew all along that Lucky was a two-faced scoundrel :D

Well, 112 isn't the day of discovery, but the day suspicions arose:
In other words, Jelen117 could have continued playing for another week and only requested a tech reset after scouting the path to the end. This wouldn't be very sportsmanlike, but it wouldn't formally violate the rules.