Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession 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.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
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.Auto-translated
In my opinion, it would be worth removing the resource penalty (RR) on all map templates (except maybe Medium-sized maps). Trading for color is quite sufficient.
In the specific game being discussed, Faria won the bid for color and chose blue, knowing that redrawing was prohibited. I'm sure that if redrawing were allowed, the bidding would have turned out differently.
In the specific game being discussed, Faria won the bid for the color and chose blue, knowing that redrawing was prohibited. I'm sure that if redrawing were allowed, the bidding would have turned out differently.
I think blue was chosen because of the possibility of taking the Companion first, and there were no thoughts about redrawing.
this game's outcome depends on the judges (as they decide), and I also think about a red rush – has anyone considered it? But for the future, something needs to be done about rapid reinforcements.
In general, I suggest that all those who played against the Bishop – and there were 4 such players, all of whom fortunately lost – somehow play against each other. Maybe Sanin will think about it and draw us into two pairs, we'll play, and then continue the tournament with four games. I also lost to him. (If one of us had won, I think the situation would have been completely unsolvable). However, it didn't occur to me to write to the Arbitration Committee, although of course it's frustrating. (I didn't have any ideas about how this situation could be resolved rationally).
How does removing Bishop actually differ from a regular withdrawal from a tournament at the player's own request? I don't remember the results of the withdrawn player's games being annulled. This essentially creates complete chaos in the tournament. If you play against each other now, two of you will get much easier points than if the OFB (Online Fighting Bracket) had been conducted initially without Bishop. And that would be unfair to the other players.
How does withdrawing Bishop differ from a regular withdrawal from a tournament at his own request?
The difference is that Bishop is currently one of the top players, possibly even the best (definitely in the top 3).
Regarding everything else you wrote, I have no objections. It's quite obvious, and I'm not insisting that the situation has a perfectly ideal solution. The point is that losing to the main contender for victory in the Factions Battle, who doesn't even need this selection process, is unpleasant and doesn't directly relate to the selection among the other contenders. And now he's going to ruin our odds because he won't finish the tournament. Is that a "fair selection"? :smile54:
I see the situation this way. At the start of the Fortress Battle, Bishop didn't have a spot in the Fortress Battle, meaning he had every right to play in the Open Fortress Battle. Since the tournament had already started, the player has the right to finish it. There is no rule stating that a player can be removed from the tournament.
When Bishop realized he had a spot in the Fortress Battle, he decided to withdraw to avoid hindering others. However, he could have chosen not to and played all 9 rounds. I don't see any problem with this at all, and I don't see any grounds for reviewing any results.
The removal of Bishop in the fourth round differs from the removal of Positiv in the second round only in that the reason for Bishop's removal was the clarification of the rules. These clarifications didn't really introduce anything new: they were based on the OFB-10 rules, which are already the basis of the OFB-12 rules, but before the clarifications, there simply wasn't time to address the issue of tiebreakers, and after Dave made it to the favorites' final, the need to address it became urgent. That's why I did everything exactly as I did.
Yes, usually players withdraw after losses, not after wins, but that didn't stop even Positiv, who withdrew after two wins without any tiebreaker situation in the OFB. And if we talk about Buchholz, Positiv's withdrawal had a greater impact on his opponents than Bishop's withdrawal on Bishop's opponents.
Otherwise, there's nothing to discuss: one participant lost to another and is now trying to get preferential treatment based on the fact that changes were made to the regulations that indirectly affected him. And by the way, even at the start of the tournament, it was stated in this section of the regulations that it would be clarified, so I didn't do anything wrong. Dark
So, I'm running a tournament...
By the way, it's about time :D
If the AK (presumably an organization) seriously considers all this and takes any action, then you have an excellent chance to finish running the OFB instead of me :smile30:
The only thing that could be criticized is that the finalist of "Favorites" (the player who took 2nd place) doesn't have access to Facebook.
10. The winner of the tournament receives the right to participate in the "Final Battle 12" tournament.
But to complain about the draws seems strange.
Dark
I'll add that if this had happened in rounds 1 or 2, or even in round 3 where I had at least 1 loss, I wouldn't have said a word. But it happened in round 4 where there were only about 12 people left who hadn't lost...
Yes, it's clear that if this hadn't affected you, you wouldn't have any complaints :D :D :D :D
The removal of Bishop in the fourth round differs from the removal of Positiv in the second round only in that the reason for Bishop's removal was the clarification of the rules. These clarifications didn't actually introduce anything new: they were based on the OFB-10 rules, which are already the basis for the OFB-12 rules, but there simply hadn't been time to clarify the rules regarding qualifying spots before, and after Dave made it to the favorites' final, the need to do so became urgent. That's why I did everything exactly as I did.
Yes, usually players withdraw after losses, not after wins, but that didn't stop even Positiv, who withdrew after two wins without any qualifying matches in the OFB. And if we're talking about Buchholz, Positiv's withdrawal hurt his rivals more than Bishop's withdrawal hurt Bishop's rivals.
There's nothing else to discuss: one participant lost to another and is now trying to get preferential treatment based on the fact that changes were made to the regulations that indirectly affected him. And by the way, it was stated in this section of the regulations at the start of the tournament that it would be clarified, so I didn't do anything wrong.
By the way, it's about time :D
If the AK seriously considers all this and takes any action, then you have an excellent chance to finish running the OFB instead of me :smile30:
Since I withdrew the appeal, I'll respond to a few of your complaints. First, I'm not begging. Second, the difference between the removal of Positiv and the removal of Bishop is fundamental, if you're not an idiot and don't understand. I'll explain it to you, but I don't think you are, and I won't have to.... Third, Bishop was already in the favorites' final a long time ago (before the start of the 4th round), and the decision to transfer (I emphasize, transfer, not remove) him to the final part of the OFB was made by "you" (see, I highlighted the word "you") only on September 16. Fourth, he objectively lost to one of the strongest players in the selection, and saying something like "pff, I don't see anything wrong with that, he lost and he lost" while immediately transferring him to the final part... that's probably a complete lack of reason. And fifth, there are no complaints about you as the person running this complex OFB tournament, except for this situation, and I will never volunteer to organize such a difficult tournament again, I hope.
In the OFB-12 tournament, during a game against Sector, the following situation arose:
With little time left on the timer, I attacked my opponent, hoping to cast a spell, but I didn't expect to see a "Cloak of Displacement" there. I hadn't encountered it before, and he hadn't given any hints, but my opponent allowed himself to be overly familiar during a crucial moment in the battle. Later, my opponent violated a rule by visiting an object without clearing its guard (this is clearly visible if you load the map). After I pointed this out, he wrote that there was no guard there, and then that he simply ran out of movement points. Instead of admitting his mistake, he started claiming that this moment was insignificant. Overall, I developed a negative opinion of the player during the game, and his comments about his mistake suggest that he doesn't see anything wrong with such tricks, which in itself is a gross violation of the rule of fair play.
A long time ago, in a game against dark (a very old story), my hero's report was canceled simply because I moved onto a utopia without clearing its guard (now this is allowed). At that time, I said that any mistakes on my part would not be forgiven by my opponent, since that's how I was treated. Of course, I don't resort to such tricks, but in this situation, my opponent's attitude towards the game, towards his opponent, and his blatant "cheating" leave me with no choice.
I will not continue this game with this opponent; the decision is up to the judges.
I am posting my save file and a link to the video on Twitch.
Today, my opponent started writing that he was targeting my troops. I don't know how he found that out; at the time of the save, he was outside their line of sight in the darkness, but in any case, I no longer want to deal with it.
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/315278570 is the stream of our game.
Password: rP0lh8L4VA@L>"bF
Wicc
