Posts from Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.

Functions:

• Monitoring compliance with the rules of the "Heroes 3 - ONLINE" section.
• Resolving controversial situations in ranked games.
• Maintaining the "Blacklist" section.
• Providing advice to players on individual issues.

Composition of the AC as of July 14, 2015:

• Dirty_Player (408722873)
• Pit for LM (471401475)
• Nitro (627769385)
• Mizrael (27384379)
• Redwhait HP (658339987)
• злой_романтик (296524052)
• Amiloo (388281368)

The current composition is formed from experienced and respected players registered on HeroesWorld who are involved in the "Heroes 3" section.
Inclusion in the AC is decided by the current members of the AC. Anyone wishing to join the AC can submit an application, provided they are registered on HeroesWorld (to do this, write to any person from the list above; the application will be considered as soon as possible, and the applicant will receive a response).
Exclusion from the AC occurs at the individual's request (withdrawal), or by a unanimous decision of the other members of the AC.

Regulations:

• Any person registered on HeroesWorld has the right to contact the AC with questions regarding the "Heroes 3 - ONLINE" section. Questions should be sent via ICQ or private message to any member of the current AC.
• If a member of the AC to whom you have turned cannot resolve the issue independently, then this issue is brought up for general discussion, which takes place in a specially created closed section of the AC.
• The AC reviews the issue, if necessary contacting other parties involved in the issue and requesting materials (saves, ICQ logs, etc.) that may help in making a decision.
• Within one month, the AC makes a decision on the matter and notifies the forum about it. If necessary, sanctions are applied to the guilty party (if there is one).
• In the event that one of the members of the AC is directly related to the issue (is an interested party), he/she does not participate in the discussion and decision-making process.

Powers:

• If, during the discussion, the AC finds one or more people guilty of violating the rules of the tournament/forum, sanctions will be applied to them.
• Sanctions depend on the severity of the offense and range from a warning to a permanent ban on the forum.
• For these purposes, a "Blacklist" section has been created, where all violators of the "Heroes 3 - ONLINE" section are constantly monitored, as well as violations and corresponding sanctions are recorded.

Recommendations:

• Organizers should form a judging panel for their tournaments from experienced and reputable players: at least 2 people (priority should be given to people who are not involved in the current composition of the AC). This panel is created to resolve controversial issues arising in the tournament. In case the judges cannot come to a common decision, the issue is referred to the AC.
• It is recommended that organizers do not include little-known, unverified players in the tournament. First, the player must prove himself by demonstrating his adequacy on the forum and in the game.
• If you suspect someone of cheating, under no circumstances bring this up on the forum! Write a report about the victory/defeat in the game in question, attach saves to the report, then personally talk to the person you suspect. If his answer does not satisfy you and suspicions do not disappear, write to any member of the AC with a request to investigate the situation. Be prepared to provide all available materials (saves, logs, screenshots, etc.) that may help in considering the matter. All accusations of cheating without coordination with the AC will be deleted by moderators, and sanctions may be applied to the accusers.

------------------------------
Appellate Commission (AC) - the highest judicial body of the Heroes 3 Tournament section - Tournaments for the 3rd Heroes - ONLINE.

I'm actually surprised that Djede doesn't have this tag yet, while poor shadowmen has 2 of them. :)
And I think it should only be given for clear and deliberate violations of the rules, i.e., not to newcomers who accidentally clicked in the wrong place, but to those who, for example, were clearly caught cheating. This tag should be permanent.
And for disrespectful behavior, such as: consistently ignoring reports, repeatedly missing tournament deadlines without a valid reason, using profanity, etc., we could create some kind of "gray" tag that would remain for the entire subsequent season. :)
And the decisions on assigning and removing it would be made strictly by the AC (Administration Committee).

1. Black mark - not critical, but since it's already been drawn, it can be awarded. 2. Number of unconfirmed reports - it's better to solve the problem as Dreamcatcher did - ignore the next games of this player until he confirms at least one game. Delay in deadlines - this is up to the judges - if they are stricter, it won't affect them. 3. It would be good to add IP addresses of cheaters to the Wall of Shame. These cheaters may play under different nicknames and not only on the world server. This makes it easier to catch them. Otherwise, I can mark them in my personal list, but sharing this information with everyone about a specific cheater...

It would be a good idea to also add IP addresses of cheaters to the Wall of Shame.

Dynamic IP addresses are common now, and sometimes several thousand people use the same IP address in certain networks. This won't work.

Black badges should be awarded:smile01:! and not just to Djede, but remember, at the same time, some Archangel was playing, in a game with Britva, who "conjured" 1000 skeletons for himself in 1 day:D - so why should he be excluded in that case?

numOne's idea about a gray badge for the season - I liked it.

Fortunately, I haven't been in any controversial situations yet:) - I guess I'm just lucky:rolleyes:.

I'm actually surprised that Djede doesn't have this badge yet...

Thank you for reminding me. I hope it will appear in her profile soon. :)

Black badges should be awarded:smile01:! And not only to Djede, but also to that Archangel who played at the same time and "conjured" 1000 skeletons for himself in one day in a game with Britva:D - why should he be overlooked?

I would be very grateful if you could find the exact link to that report.

Good luck.

I suggest that members of the Arbitration Committee (AC) should be dismissed in the same way they are elected: by a general vote. That is, if an AC member wants to resign, the forum should first find a replacement for them or temporarily ban the resigning member from participating in tournaments. In other words, joining the AC should be a well-considered decision, and it shouldn't be possible to simply quit. Regarding physical punishments: imagine the reaction of a player who receives a gray mark, let's say for not confirming reports. "Who's been messing with my profile? What are these marks? Go to hell, all of you! Pirates, damn it." In sports, there is a system of disciplinary measures; perhaps we could borrow from it? 1. Warning 2. Reprimand for unsportsmanlike conduct 3. Temporary ban from competitions 4. Disqualification But first and foremost, we need to ask ourselves: what do we want to achieve – protect honest players from dishonest ones, or try to help those who have strayed? Because if we get carried away with punishments, we might not notice that we've ended up in 1937 or during the Time of Troubles. Maybe we should use some positive methods instead of just relying on punishment? For example, in Genghis Khan's army, there was a certain law. In particular, if a soldier fell asleep in the saddle during a campaign and lost his weapon, the soldier behind him had to pick up the weapon. And if he didn't, he was the one who was punished. Could any of the forum's respected members vouch for the offender and take the mark instead of him? Temporarily, of course, until he improves. I propose considering a "Code of Honor": Point 1: Fair Play – I undertake to play only with permitted means, to comply with the Forum Rules and the tournament regulations, and to comply with the decisions of the judges. Point 2: Sacrifice yourself, but save your comrade – when I encounter a dishonest player, I will try not to see him as an enemy and will help him with all available means to return him to the Path of the Honest Fighter, sparing no effort or time. Two points seem to be enough.

Regarding physical punishments: imagine the reaction of a player who receives a gray mark, let's say for not confirming reports.
"Who's been snooping in my profile? What are these marks? Go to hell!"

That's why awarding this "award" should be well-considered and not just a simple punishment – didn't confirm, you get it. It should only be given for systematic violations of the rules of decency and disrespect towards players, organizers, and judges. And, of course, explanatory conversations about the reasons should be held first, with a warning and, as Avern says, guidance towards the right path. If the player still doesn't listen to reason, then "you get what you deserve."
In any case, I'm sure this won't be a frequent occurrence, as the people here are quite polite and friendly. And for newcomers, it will be a kind of warning – "this person is not in a good state of mind." :smile48:

if you find an exact link to this report.

Please.
/topic/at/221862/

And here’s even proof that the game exists: /topic/at/221863/

1. A case of cheating (deliberate violation of the rules) has been recorded – the player should be awarded a "cheater's black mark."

2. For unconfirmed matches, where no explanation has been provided, or if an explanation is given but is not objective, the player should be awarded a "black mark for violating the game confirmation rule." This can be awarded after 3 unconfirmed matches.

3. It's hard to remember, but I recall having contacted support about this.

Thank you, Kyle, for awarding our cheaters:
Djede and CelestialArchangell

The poll is still ongoing, and there is no need to answer questions about these users anymore.

Why was our moderator banned? :eek:

Why was our moderator banned??? :eek:

Are you talking about AlexR?
If so, both AlexR and Wlk777 were banned for 10 days for using abusive language and arguing with each other.

Good luck.

Important! All players are requested to read carefully!
These are the rules for resolving disputed situations when cheating is suspected. Adopted unanimously by the AC members after discussion.

Suspicion of unfair play in HOMM3 games.
1. All accusations of unfair play without strict evidence on the HeroesWorld forum are inadmissible and will be removed by moderators. If doubts arise about an opponent's honesty after a game, try to find out the motives for their actions from them directly. If you find their explanations unsatisfactory, post a win/loss report on HeroesWorld with save files attached and contact any AC member. No additional discussion of the game on the forum is permitted until the Appeals Committee has made a decision on the game.

2. Also, any HeroesWorld user (not necessarily a participant in the game) may contact the AC (any of its members) with suspicions of cheating, if the game/games were played on any other resource in any online HOMM3 tournament between HOMM3 players registered on HeroesWorld.

3. Any HeroesWorld user also has the right to contact the AC (any of its members) with a request for protection from accusations of cheating – whether public or private. The review of such cases is conducted similarly to the review of cheating suspicions (see sections 4-8).

4. It is necessary to provide: per-day saves of the entire game (highly desirable – from the first to the last day, including restarts), made on YOUR OWN (not the opponent's) turn, and a link to the game report on any resource in any tournament. If it is necessary to examine a battle situation, provide as accurate a description as possible, preferably with screenshots. If possible, provide ICQ logs, screenshots, and other materials that may clarify the situation. The accuser must substantiate their suspicions, i.e., indicate specific places in the game where, in their opinion, unfair play occurred. If they discussed the game with the opponent, provide the explanations the opponent gave regarding the disputed points. The accuser must also provide possible means of quick contact - ICQ number, e-mail, etc.
In cases of defense against accusations of unfair play, the defending party provides, where possible, any available evidence of their fair play. Information is simultaneously requested from the accusing party.

5. The AC member to whom the suspicious materials were presented analyzes the disputed moment. If, from their point of view, there was no unfair play, they attempt to convince the accusing party of this. If they succeed and the accusations were made privately, the matter is dropped. If unsuccessful, or if they believe the suspicions are justified, they forward all materials to the other AC members for discussion.

6. The AC members analyze the saves, discuss the evidence, and decide whether to bring the issue to a general discussion. If the evidence is unfounded or insufficient, the issue is not brought up for public discussion.

7. If the AC members consider the accusations justified, a publicly accessible topic is created on a resource independent of HeroesWorld, where all materials presented by the accusing party are posted, edited so that the nicknames of the suspect and the accuser do not appear anywhere. This topic is created to provide a complete and objective picture – accusations, defense, involvement of independent experts, and public discussion. A link to the topic is sent to the interested parties and all those who wish.

8. Upon conclusion of the general discussion, the AC members hold a secret vote. The decision is made based on a simple majority of votes. Currently, there are 7 members in the AC. I.e., for a decision to be made, a consensus of opinion among 4 AC members is necessary and sufficient.

9. Possible outcomes of the vote:
- Recognition of fair play, accusations unfounded, the accused's nickname is not disclosed, the topic is closed.
- Accusations justified, the accused is recognized as a dishonest player, the topic is closed, a detailed summary of the matter is posted on HeroesWorld, and a decision on punishment is made in coordination with the administration. If the player is given a Cheater's Black Mark, the AC will no longer review the cases of this user. The presence of a Black Mark under the user's avatar denies them access to all tournaments organized by the TC.
- Insufficient information to make a decision (votes are equally divided or a majority of AC members abstain from a decision), the case is postponed until additional materials are provided, the topic remains open.

If the accusations were made publicly on the HeroesWorld forum, regardless of the outcome of the case, the AC posts information about the progress and results of the investigation on the HeroesWorld forum.

The AC's decision is recognized by all participants of the HeroesWorld forum, is final, and is not subject to appeal. A request for reconsideration of the decision may only be submitted if new materials and substantial evidence emerge.

Ask about anything unclear, make reasonable additions. If everything is fine, I'll wait a bit and post these Rules in the first post. The AC will be guided by them.