Posts from Forum Auto-translated

This fact is easily explained by the fact that people are mostly ungrateful.

He has always been like that; I now perceive it as normal. This is a common trait of human psychology – “but once you’ve slept with a sheep…” (s)

The problem lies elsewhere: over the past couple of years, the culture of communication on ХВ has somewhat degraded. Perhaps due to the influence of streams, where morals are initially more relaxed. Or perhaps for some other reason.

This led to the emergence of the phenomenon that I call "spoiled daddies" - people who believe that their status as strong players automatically gives them greater rights than others. For example, the right to communicate in an impudent manner with hosts and other participants in tournaments. These guys have gotten too big for their boots…

Examples from Faer's recent "Creation":
/post/1081183/
/post/915847/

Hell also had plenty of similar posts; I can't be bothered to look for them.

And Lucky's "Creation," for example, was just awful; I won't even quote it again; here’s a brief summary:


I am fine with the fact that people may have different views on the game version, templates, timer, tournament regulations, etc.; there is no accounting for taste. But I strongly dislike the boorish way of expressing one's thoughts towards anyone. Therefore, I isolate those who exhibit this behavior from my own Tournaments.

own tournaments.

:(

The problem lies elsewhere – the culture of communication on the Heroes forums has somewhat deteriorated over the past couple of years.

I agree; it's strange how this happened. Such a game as Heroes has become a platform for uncouth behavior. Sometimes I want some intellectual discussions, something new and interesting, but I mostly have to read reports about games played and rare uncouth posts like the one above. Where can I find intellectual people, Wicc? Maybe you can suggest something?

Now, regarding how I envision the interaction between players and organizers during a tournament: 1) The organizer has the right to establish any rules of the game and any tournament regulations. If someone disagrees, they can go to other organizers. 2) If a player disagrees, they have the right to challenge a particular decision made by the organizer. However, they must do so politely – without being arrogant, stomping their feet, insulting anyone, or issuing ultimatums, etc. Ideally, the player should first write their complaint to the organizer in a private message. This also has the advantage that they can express their thoughts more freely in a private message. If a consensus cannot be reached in a private message, the discussion can continue publicly, but the key is that the rhetoric (from both sides) should be respectful, with an analysis of the reasons and motivations, without resorting to personal attacks. Before writing phrases like "As a 5-time CIS champion and a player with a rating of 3000+, I believe that..." one should consider whether the second part of the phrase will be convincing even without the first part. If not, it is better to rephrase it somehow. Because a good argument is convincing in itself, and without it, the value of an opinion simply because of the existence of that opinion is not very great. 3) A demonstrative withdrawal from the tournament in protest is a very unfriendly gesture, and it gives the organizer the right to "in protest" remove this player from all of their other tournaments. If the degree of disagreement with the organizer's decision is such that the player does not want to continue participating in the tournament, they should do so in a politically correct manner, without provoking a chain reaction ("everyone ran, and I ran too"). For example, inform the organizer in a private message about their decision, so that the organizer can choose the time to announce this fact. Those who follow big politics know that high-ranking officials usually leave their posts quietly – they write a statement "resigning due to health reasons." This allows both sides to save face and maintain prospects for further cooperation. But if someone leaves their post with a scandal, they usually have no way back into big politics, even if it later turns out that they were right. This is not just for show...

However, the points contradict each other, and there is no prospect of cooperation. There is a prospect of submission.
There is a boss and there are subordinates. Even if the subordinates want to "go to another leader," they can do so in words, but in reality, it's only on the boss's terms.
And God forbid they do something that the boss doesn't like – they face the threat of "eternal damnation," "excommunication from the church," and so on.

Politicians are politicians. They turn everything into a problem.
Either it's my way, or it's eternal war – that's a fitting image, especially for tournaments in Heroes, which are supposed to be for fun.

Here's an idea that I've only recently come to understand: there are many people in the Heroes community who believe that there are no intermediate states between anarchy and slavery – in their understanding, it's either "do whatever you want" or "march in step and fart on command." You're not the only one who thinks this way; several other people have expressed similar sentiments earlier in this thread. In reality, that's not the case. There are other options, such as normal working relationships based on mutual respect and equal rights and responsibilities. Regarding this parity – the tradition of Heroes tournaments is that the organizer has quite a few responsibilities. They have to clean up messes, have soul-searching conversations, remind people ("Vasya, take out the trash, it's May"), and do many other things. I remember when I started organizing tournaments, there were constant situations where the tournament would end, and there would be no news from either player. I had to knock on their ICQ doors, send messages on social media, and sometimes even call them on their mobile phones to find out where they had disappeared to. Lately, thanks to the strict policy of "no information = technical loss," this has become somewhat less of an issue, but it still happens from time to time. However, another chronic problem has emerged: many players are unable to agree on a time to play, and I have to schedule several ODDs (Overdue Duel Dates) for each round. Moreover, some players react to posts like "when can you play?" with such a delay that there are simply no opportunities left to choose a suitable time. And then there's the long list of "non-players." That is, people who cannot be paired with each other during the draw because they had a falling out and have not spoken to each other since. But sometimes they have to be paired, as there are no other options, and then the mutual brain-fucking begins: "I won't play with him! Remove him from the tournament!" And then there are the discussions about controversial situations, and in 90% of cases, I just want to tell the players: "Guys, have you even read the Heroes rules? What's controversial here? The interpretation is obvious." But I have to spend time on this, and it's time in the evening (I don't play Heroes at work), and I have very little of it. And then there are the flame wars in the tournament threads and in the Forum. Of course, you can avoid them, but in the end, it will cost you more. I understand that all of this is not visible from the outside, because the organizers try not to bring this mess to the surface, but it exists. So, since organizers have more responsibilities than players, they should have more rights accordingly, and a certain degree of authoritarianism is quite adequate to the current realities of Heroes. If you want more rights, take on more responsibilities. A recent example: Xocenk actively advocated for including people in the IP (Initial Pairing) that I didn't want to include. In the end, we agreed that he would organize a tournament where he could include/exclude whoever he wanted. It's not that such moves will be repeated in the future, but the principle itself illustrates this.

We've reached the end. :smile44:
I'm definitely not going to discuss 12 paragraphs, of which I only agree with the wording of the third. :smile11:

And, just to reiterate, the third point is purely theoretical. In words, everything sounds nice about respect, but in reality, questions arise.
And isn't it obvious why they arise?
For example. If a subject (let's call him W) considers it important that there is no aggressive language, he will focus on this in the first place. But for the second subject (let's call him L), the semantic content is the most important thing. And so, W and L communicate. And if W ignores the semantic content that L is trying to convey, again and again, then no matter how politely W expresses himself, L will still feel that W does not consider him a person (does not respect him). And even if W has not received aggressive language from L for some time before this, he will soon receive it, and he may even think that the problem is only with L, because W has been doing everything "correctly" (politely). This is also true in reverse (only not about meanings, but about "being polite").
In the end, in theory, everything sounds nice about respect, but in practice, due to different values, it still turns out like this: :smile35:

Actually, a huge fuss has been made out of something minor. All Viku had to do was say: "I won't change the rules during the tournament anymore," and the whole discussion would have ended immediately.

In reality, a huge fuss has been made out of a minor issue. If Vika had simply said: "I won't change the rules during the tournament," the discussion would have ended immediately.

This is too restrictive, and I'm not willing to comply. In many of my tournaments, the rules are written right before the tournament begins, so sometimes there are loopholes that need to be addressed quickly.

It reminded me of this. https://youtu.be/a4OSTDVAR6c?t=4

For example. If a subject (let's call him W) considers it important that there is no aggressive language, he will focus on this first. But for the second subject (let's call him L), the semantic content is the most important thing. And so, W and L communicate. And if W ignores the semantic content that L is trying to convey, again and again, no matter how politely W expresses himself, L will still feel that W does not consider him a person (does not respect him). And even if W has not received aggressive language from L for some time before this, he will soon receive it, and he may even think that the problem is only with L, because W did everything "correctly" (politely). This is also true in reverse (only not about meanings, but about "being polite").

Here, look - if you come to negotiations in a suit and tie, this only guarantees that you will be heard. Whether your proposal will be accepted depends on the proposal itself. But if you come in ripped jeans and a stained T-shirt, it is unlikely that the negotiations will even take place, no matter what proposal you bring.

The same applies here - a polite tone only guarantees that the person you are talking to will listen to your proposal and give a polite answer. Whether it will be accepted depends on what you are proposing.

I think it's much more important that Freddie Mercury and Elton John were talented musicians than how they enjoyed themselves and with whom.
And psychological problems in communication stemming from the habit of being (according to some internal, subjective beliefs) a step above others is a minor personal problem that hardly needs to be addressed or treated here.
Take Michelangelo, for example – he dissected human corpses under the cover of night and secrecy to understand the structure of the human body and improve his skills. On the one hand, he committed a terrible sacrilege, and for that, the church would have destroyed him, at least for the entire century following that. On the other hand, the world received masterpieces, most of which are unsurpassed. The question of whether he could have acted this way is no longer relevant. Barbarism, from the point of view of a certain ideology and the papacy, was justified.
The growth of one's ego and the number of crowns over time can lead to a period when there will not be enough souls considered "worthy" to feed this ego.

Moobot: Wicc respects dads on a scale of 3 out of 10.

The problem is something else - over the past couple of years, the culture of communication on HeroesWorld has somewhat degraded. Possibly under the influence of streams, where the manners are initially more informal. Possibly for some other reason.

A couple of hours later, I started communicating by sending memes, truly degrading, gentlemen :D