Connection ErrorBad RequestSession 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.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.
And when did he appeal to the judge? On his 112th turn or later?
I don't know that. I only know that the judge requested my save immediately after I finished my 112th turn. I need to watch the video to be sure. In principle, the judge was watching Jelen117's stream, so he might remember on which turn the appeal was made, and whether Jelen had reached his 112th turn at that point.
Some kind of insane cheating:smile04: On one hand, I don't really care, since I don't play Jebus Cross in principle and its special rules don't affect me much, but... why hasn't it been added to the rules yet that a road to the center without ГО is a tech reset in any case (without spending subjective ones!!!)? Not adding this is beyond absurd, because under the current rules, if there is no roadless exit yet — it either results in a guaranteed draw (one player cannot enter the center, and the other cannot come to the op's respawn and kill him) or a tech loss for the op who runs there, thinking that ГО was broken...:smile35:
Okay, I'll share my opinion, starting with the kamikaze situation.
We were playing a blitz game on Jebus, with a timer of 8:4:1.
I noticed that there was no Guard of Order (GO) on the road. I wrote to my opponent, saying that I thought it was a tech rest, but I wasn't entirely sure; maybe another road also leads to the center. I saved the game, but I finished my turn and passed because it was a blitz game. I figured the judge should decide whether it's a rest or not and whether we should continue playing and check the other road. So, what should I do? I decided to finish my turn and then, on my opponent's turn, I would contact the judge. I don't fully understand the H-rules; there are many different bugs that could potentially be applied under various rules, so my general policy is simple: if a situation is debatable, I save the game and contact the judges.
By the way, I'll immediately talk about the situation with Yaro, as it will also be discussed in this thread. In that game, I saw archers that might have been the GO (I didn't fully scout them; they might have been guarding something else), and it became clear that I might be going through a bugged passage. I thought that if it could be reasonably determined that the guard was destroyed, then it would be okay to continue. Since the opponent's road to the center led through a Cytosian zone, I thought that was enough. I moved 2-4 squares into the Cytosian zone, didn't take any actions in that zone, saw the archers, saved the game, and that's it. In my opinion, that was the most logical thing to do. As it turned out later, my opponent was killing the guard of the passage, so my logic was accurate (although I have to say it was very lucky). By the way, as Dirty mentioned earlier, I understand that you can almost always force a draw on Jebus by exploiting a tech rest, either by destroying the opponent's GO or by simply sitting on your own respawn point. If the opponent doesn't see us destroying the GO, which is often the case, then they can't enter our respawn point, right? :smile04: But if they don't go there, then it's a draw.
For the future – don’t do this. If there’s a reason to appeal to a judge, save the game and exit.
I agree, I made a mistake here. But to annul a game like this is absurd. We have 135 saves (!) and now the opponent thinks he’s somehow dissatisfied? The argument is just ridiculous – it’s clear that Jelen117 plays well, and I have little chance in a best-of-three, so give him a technical win, please – that’s the impression I get after his statement.
Wicc
8 years ago
Auto-translated
This is purely a theoretical question — was there a violation or not? Based on the discussion, it became clear that there actually was one.
But it's clear that no one would issue a technical loss in such a situation. I wouldn't have either.
Ideally, the HeroesWorld rules should be supplemented with a procedural code that specifies such matters. Or, for example, the ODD rules — different players also interpret them differently.
This is purely a theoretical question — was there a violation or not? Based on the discussion, it became clear that there was one.
But it's obvious that no one would assign a technical loss in such a situation. I wouldn't have either.
Ideally, the HeroesWorld rules should be supplemented with a procedural code that specifies such things. Or, for example, the ODD rules, which are also interpreted differently by different players.
What do you mean, what violation? I took a restart 111 when the judge said it was a technical restart and that I should take 111 if I wanted to take a res. What violation is there?
What kind of violation are you talking about? I took a restart on turn 111 when the judge said it was a technical restart, and in that case, I should take turn 111 if I want to request a restart. What violation are you referring to?
A technical restart is initiated at the moment the reason for it is discovered. If a player passes their turn, it is considered their agreement to continue the game.
The same applies to red rushes and running past shifted guards – if you see it, you either immediately stop the game and raise a complaint, or you continue the game as is and do not raise complaints after the game.
A tech-reset is initiated at the moment the reason for it is discovered. If the player passes their turn, it is interpreted as their agreement to continue the game.
The same applies to red-rushing and running past moved guards – if you see it, you either immediately stop the game and make a claim, or you continue the game as is and do not make any claims after the game.
The fact of red-rushing and running past moved guards may be revealed only after the game. Why not make claims in this case?
The fact that a player re-rolled dice or quickly moved past distracted guards might only become apparent after the game. Why not raise objections in that case?
Of course, the situation I had in mind was when a player directly witnesses these violations during the game. If an opponent violated the rules in a way that wasn't immediately obvious, then it's understandable that objections might be raised after the game.
I remember in one tournament, there was a "smart" player who tried to convince me that he thought 6 knights on level 121 were there because the opponent had 2 hidden knights. And also 2 hidden cruisers and a couple of native heroes in prisons :). I didn't believe him then and left the game result as is.
I've sent all the files (save files, video link) and screenshots via ICQ. I don't know how to insert a file in a private message. Please advise if such an option exists.
Jelen117
8 years ago
Auto-translated
I would also like to add that besides the letter of the law, there is also its spirit. In my opinion, this should also be taken into account when considering all these rule violations, which absolutely and undeniably did not change anything. But, of course, everyone tries to achieve their victories in the best way they can...
kamukag3e
8 years ago
Auto-translated
As a result of watching the video, I am clarifying the information: I had finished my turn 112, and when I was about to pass the turn, a judge messaged me, after which I missed my turn, and it turns out that on my turn 113, player Jelen117 left the game without writing me anything.
Added after 12 minutes Dirty_Player
To be fair, such generation must absolutely be restarted. Because you can just sit on the respawn and win the game when your opponent comes to you, thinking you have cleared the Guard Outpost. But according to the current rules, this is a restart at the player's discretion.
LuckyF
Some kind of extreme cheating :smile04: On one hand, I don't care, since I don't play Jebus Cross at all and its special rules barely concern me, but... why hasn't it been added to the rules yet that a road to the center without a Guard Outpost is a technical restart in any case (without spending subjective ones!!!)? Not adding this is beyond absurd, because under the current rules, if there is no roadless exit yet, it either results in a guaranteed draw (one player cannot enter the center, and the other cannot come to the opponent's respawn and kill them) or a technical loss for the opponent who runs over, thinking the Guard Outpost has been cleared... :smile35:
Overall, a strange conclusion has been drawn from the rules: section 2.6.7. It is allowed to pass by passage guards without destroying them, if - the player has already passed through this passage themselves (i.e., destroyed one of the guards); - the player saw the opponent destroy one of the guards or pass through this passage; - there is any other indisputable evidence that the guard was destroyed. The lack of information from the opponent that they have a road without a Guard Outpost, and the absence of the Guard Outpost itself, makes the evidence that the guard was destroyed indisputable. Otherwise, as Lucky absolutely correctly described a slightly different situation, it would be very easy to achieve a victory — clear the Guard Outpost, and if the opponent didn't see it (reveal it with air magic) without entering the center, just wait for the opponent to attack you and immediately claim a technical loss? Now that is definitely nonsense.
Grando
8 years ago
Auto-translated
After Helen's reply a little higher, the discussion definitely doesn't deserve any more attention; it didn’t from the start.
Kamikaze should receive a reprimand for his unwillingness to play fair and a warning that if he continues to write such nonsense in the AK, he will receive a preventive ban from all tournaments for several months. No problem, just need to think with your head when you are distracting people. Even in tennis, despite having an automatic system for determining whether the ball is in or out of bounds, players are only allowed three incorrect challenges. I think the AK can afford to be stricter and limit itself to two instances of dealing with blatant absurdity. This isn't professional work (for money) where they deal with these glitches.
The essence of the "complaint" lies in the fact that Kamikaze claims that the "date of discovery" for the reason for technical restart is day 112, but in reality, the "date of discovery" was when it became clear that the second path did not lead to GO, and this was certainly not day 112. And 112 is the day Helen informed the opponent that there might be a technical restart.
And if the date of discovery is not 112, but the game continued only until day 113? Then what is the "date of discovery"? Correct. Day 113. There are no other options. As of the end of turn 112, the question about the second path remained open. (This is for lovers of jurisprudence).
Is anyone discussing the fact that there is no GO on the road at all? No, they aren’t. There is no GO, and this is an obvious technical issue.
Is this some kind of complex arithmetic problem regarding the date of discovery? If someone wanted to think carefully about the given topic, they would figure it out themselves in 10-15 minutes and wouldn't distract everyone with their writing (this also applies to Vik). It would be okay if there was any meaning to it (like in my lengthy posts Kappa), but there isn't.
Kamikaze receives a warning. The matter is closed. Thank you all for your attention.
And if he starts arguing now, ask for that video, and if the video shows that Helen wrote to him that there was another unchecked path where there might be GO, then immediately ban him from all tournaments for 3 months. Whatever name you give the yacht...
In this case, Helen wasn't really wrong. For Blitz, he performed more or less close to perfectly.
I generally agree with Vikk. If you see that something is wrong with the map, don't overthink it and try to figure it out over several days – send the save to the judge, and save time for yourself and your opponent.
P.S.: I'll check the saves tomorrow.
