Posts from Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.

Usually, buggy passages occur due to cracks in rocks, shifts in mines, etc. An unpaved path looks quite adequate, just as an unpaved path should look, without any hint of bugs.

A bugged passage occurs when any traversable object is generated close to the edge of a zone, causing the array of trees or mountains to be deleted or shifted. In this case, the obelisk shifted the array of trees (it's a single unit, you can check it in the editor) towards the road, clearing a space for itself.

I don't quite understand. Kostya, are you saying that the path is bugged? And that there shouldn't be a road there in this case?

Obviously, when you used view, you already see where the opp's heroes are standing, so we get a contradiction with "does not see where the blue hero is standing", meaning that by attacking with growth, you are breaking the rules.

A question for the experts.
"2.1.2. The concept of a "red rush" is not applicable when the heroes of opposing players are on opposite sides of a Portal or Underground Gate during an attack, if the red player cannot see where the blue hero is standing."
If we use the "Air Vision" spell and attack the opponent's hero, not directly but only by using the spell (we see that he is on the other side of the map, for example), does this constitute a "red rush" in this case?
"b) on blue heroes or guarded mines, if the presence of a bonus can affect the outcome of the battle or losses in the battle for either player."
Since in this case it may turn out that there is an opponent's hero with a powerful bonus on the other side of the portal, I decided to clarify.

I think that viewing doesn't matter. Visibility should be physical, after all.

It is obvious that when you use the scouting ability, you already see where the opponent's heroes are, so this contradicts the statement that "you don't see where the blue hero is," meaning that by attacking with a reinforcement, you are violating the rules.

I am appealing to the Arbitration Committee (AK) to make a decision regarding this message from Sonic in connection with my second game against Miron in the SM-Masters tournament.
If I am wrong, I suggest openly stating what exactly I did incorrectly in this situation and punishing me.
If Sonic is wrong (I believe that this message is rude), then punish Sonic.
The severity of the punishment will be determined by the AK.

Description of the situation during the game and my logic behind my actions.

The game ended on a late save, 141, when I was attacking the opponent. Miron withdrew from two tournaments (1,2). In the Korovka tournament, there is a rule that a report can be written in such a situation if he (Korovka) reviews the save and, as a judge, decides whether it is possible to talk about an advantage, and the report will be confirmed.
This is what was done for this game. Another example where a report about a victory was not confirmed by the judge's decision is my save with RitoSaks.
All discussions, both with Miron and with me, took place in private messages; the essence is that a decision was made regarding this save – a report could be written, and it would be confirmed. I have these messages in my ICQ. At the moment, decisions have already been made; after the first review of the saves by Korovka, I understood from the words of the judge that Miron refused to continue playing again, after which the continuation of the game was canceled, and the saves were opened.

Today, Dirty closed all unconfirmed reports for all tournaments.
From the very beginning of the SM-Masters tournament, I performed all technical functions for Korovka: adding topics to the tournament, registering participants, confirming/canceling reports. Therefore, I paid attention to this and saw that Dirty missed my report.
I asked him on what basis he was closing reports? If based on information from Korovka, was there any specific information about this game? The answer is no. Why didn't he close it? Is there an appeal to the AK regarding this game that indicates some problems? No. He processed many reports and doesn't remember this one.

I did not see a reason not to confirm the report. Confirmation from the judge for this game that a report can be written and should be confirmed - existed.

(a) abuse, when someone repeatedly targets weak players and meticulously exploits them.
In general, the overall score will be used for forming the brackets. Feel free to abuse it.

I didn't see any reason not to approve the report. The judge for this match confirmed that a report could be written, and it should be approved - that was done.
Since I approved them in this tournament based on information from Korovka, I confirmed it.