Posts from 2009 World Championship for Heroes IV Online.

Brennus Whiskey still can't figure out what to accuse us of. He says we're defending the Russians. If a Frenchman participates, it means we're favoring our friends. But even here, he's wrong; I, for example, don't even know Nadikus. Sorry for reacting to blatant trolling, but I couldn't help myself.

I'm just asking for equal rules. For example, regarding my application. I was notified twice. I also spoke with Zezuk; is this tournament only for a select few?

I'm just asking for fair rules. For example, regarding my application. I was told it was rejected twice. I also spoke with Zezuko; is this tournament only for selected players?

I'm ready to answer here because I've been following the events.
The first registration was deleted by you personally.
In the second attempt, you failed to follow several simple rules for completing the application. I'll add that ALL other players managed to do this.
If there were any difficulties in filling out the application, you could have contacted the judge or organizer with a POLITE request to register you for the championship.
You don't like to play. You like to accuse others of not letting you play. At least, that's how it looks.

The requests to cease the discussion on the forum have been repeatedly ignored. Both from me and from the forum moderator.

:smile07: I couldn't find in the Rules of the 2009 Championship that the tournament organizer has the right to prohibit participants from expressing their opinions on this forum. Could you quote the relevant clause? In my opinion, forums are designed for people to express their views! And I have followed the moderator Pandora's requests (not to repeat myself, not to escalate the situation, etc.) (and I will always follow them), which is proven by the fact that none of my posts have been deleted, unlike, for example, yours :D The complaint is rejected. Is there anything else? I doubt it... And why are you constantly trying to decide for the moderator? :) Fortunately, he (she?) has his own head on his shoulders.

Long before the publication of the official decision. If you don't feel the difference, then I have nothing to add.

Decisions always come into effect only after publication (ratification)! It's strange that you don't know this.

I see that you don't like my questions and statements of fact, but I firmly refer to the Rules or statements of the judges, and you invent new rules on the fly in order to somehow justify your and the judges' mistakes. I sincerely feel sorry for you that you cannot overcome yourself and stop defending your people, even though they are wrong. Perhaps (I don't know him), Brennus Whiskey is indeed behaving badly, but he is 100% right that this is not a World Championship for everyone, but just an ordinary local competition, disguised with a pompous title.

I have no desire to play in such a local competition (especially since my next potential opponent is the judge DJN, but if he is not my opponent, then in the next round I will face the organizer oxygen_hl), and I am not going to listen to false accusations for the second time. Therefore, I officially declare that I am withdrawing from this mess. I have already notified my opponent by email. This should please you, as this story has finally come to an end, which you have so diligently sought "by all means" ;)

I couldn't find in the 2009 Championship Rules that the tournament organizer has the right to prohibit participants from expressing their opinions on this forum. Could you quote the relevant clause? In my opinion, forums are designed for people to express their views! And I have followed the moderator Pandora's requirements (not to repeat myself, not to escalate the situation, etc.) (and I will always follow them), which is proven by the fact that none of my posts have been deleted, unlike, for example, yours. The claim is rejected. Is there anything else? I doubt it... And why are you constantly trying to decide for the moderator? He (or she?) has a brain of his (her) own, thank goodness.

Do you feel the difference between regulations and rules, organizers and judges? If not, let me explain. Rules exist to describe how the game should be played, while regulations describe how the tournament is conducted. Here's an example: if the organizer of an event says, "Don't make noise, behave quietly, or security will escort you out" – for example, at a theater. You wouldn't argue, would you? But here, for some reason, it turns out that you can. :)

Decisions always come into force only after publication (ratification)! It's strange that you don't know this.

First, it would be good to read what ratification is, so as not to make a fool of yourself. :) And you shouldn't confuse warm with soft (read jurisprudence with sports). I've never heard of printing something first and then allowing people to hit the ball. :)

I am withdrawing from this mess.

And with that, I suggest we end this. Let us play our little backyard game in peace. Don't torture yourself if it's so unpleasant. :)

P.S. Amazing things are happening.

Do you feel the difference between regulations and rules, organizers and judges?

Didn't I mention on the previous page that I consider the document WC_09_Regulation_Rules_rus.pdf to be the Rules of this tournament? These Rules include both the regulations and the rules of the game (there are no other regulatory documents). The difference between a judge and an organizer is also clearly stated in this very document. Let me clarify for you that it is not the organizer's job to resolve contentious situations, i.e., you are regularly engaging in tasks that are not your responsibility. Is this what you wanted to hear?

"Don't make noise, be quiet, or security will escort you out" - like in a theater, for example. Surely you won't argue with that. But here, for some reason, it turns out that it is allowed. :)

Firstly, thank goodness this isn't a theater. Secondly, I'm not making noise; I'm just calmly communicating, i.e., doing what one is supposed to do on a forum. Or do you not see the difference between a theater and a forum? :)

Let us play our friendly game in peace. Don't force yourself if it's so unpleasant :)

I confess, before submitting the application, I didn't even imagine that I would end up in this backyard instead of an international tournament arena :) As soon as it became clear, I left.

I've never heard of them printing the rules first and then allowing people to kick the ball.

This explains a lot :) I didn't expect that there are still people who think that football players first play the Russian Championship and then learn how to play? :) Or here's another example. In the 2008 Russian Championship, FC Moscow received one technical defeat. The decision on this came into effect after it was announced, and not after, for example, a representative of Zenit made an agreement with the members of the appeals committee in a restaurant 8)

P.S. I'm just in shock at the organization :smile18:

Let me clarify that resolving disputes is not part of the organizer's duties, meaning you are regularly engaging in tasks that are not your responsibility. Is this what you wanted to hear?

The judges resolved the dispute. I simply conveyed the judges' opinion to the public and also maintain order.

Firstly, thank goodness this isn't a theater. Secondly, I'm not making a fuss; I'm communicating quite calmly, i.e., I'm doing what one should be doing on a forum. Or do you not see the difference between a theater and a forum?

No need for sophistry. Judging by your evasiveness, the argument is quite clear to you, and you have nothing to say in response. I hope the others will draw the appropriate conclusions.

This explains a lot. I didn't expect there were still people who think that football players first play in the Russian Championship and then learn how to play?...In the 2008 Russian Championship, FC Moscow received one technical defeat.

This is certainly a very interesting topic. However, in our case, we are talking about refusing to comply with the judge's instructions during a match.

The first post has been updated. As a reminder, the final day for the Round of 32 games in both WC and CW is October 9th. Hosts must notify the judges of the game status by October 5th.

A brief explanation regarding the movement of players Irisblue and Udefix59. The game start between LordZezuk and Irisblue was successful, but the turn transfer from Irisblue to LordZezuk was not working. They tried different connection servers and waited hours for the turn, but nothing helped. LordZezuk asked to replace him with players he knew to see if the turn transfer from Irisblue would work for them. The save from the Frenchman did not reach some players, while it did reach others. It was impossible to identify the problem, and thus impossible to solve it. The judges suggested that the players of this pair try to agree with players from the other half of the bracket to swap opponents. Irisblue reached an agreement with Udefix the fastest. All 4 players from pairs 8 and 14 of the Round of 32 playoffs gave their consent. We sincerely hope the opponents of these players in subsequent rounds will be understanding.

Now, a few words regarding the discussion of disputed points on the forum. Discussing disputes on the forum is not a simple matter, as it is difficult to know how accurate the information in the posts is, and in my opinion, it is not always clear to the moderators what is worthy of publication and what should be deleted. I am not trying to criticize anyone, but I propose answering one question.

Should the discussion of disputed points be allowed on the forum?

The answer must be either "yes" or "no". Otherwise, without a concrete agreement, the situation can always spiral out of control.

Suppose we want to answer "no". Indeed, why discuss disputes publicly when there are judges entrusted to do this work according to the regulations? Again, judges are appointed to resolve game disputes. Then why try to have the public perform the judges' work based on condensed and, therefore, incomplete data? The incompleteness of the data is obvious, as either party posts only the information necessary for their side on the forum. And even if a full three-way conversation between the players and judges were presented on the forum—even if everyone saw every word in the disputes being discussed—the question arises again: What is the value of the judges when the level of trust in their work is zero? And while there may be more experienced players and people with more life experience who want to voice their opinion on the situation, let us not forget there was a period for judge appointments. Applications were expected from any registered player. In this regard, my position is clear: unconditional acceptance of judicial decisions. These judges were approved before the start of the tournament. Let them work.

Now, suppose the answer is "yes". Suppose someone disagrees with the above, does not understand it, or simply does not care and wants to discuss any dispute without burdening themselves with judicial duties. Or perhaps some experienced and honest players simply, for whatever reason, felt they would not have enough time for judging when submitting applications. But now that time has become available, and they want to help resolve a dispute. This is indeed very useful. And such a player is more valuable than a player who indifferently watches all the unnecessary fuss. But are judges needed then? The answer is no. In reality, only organizers are needed—those who will invite players, make publications, provide technical support, etc., etc., etc. In other words, organizers facilitate the completion of the tournament, and they are indispensable. As for everything concerning disputes, let us leave it to the participants. Simply put, every question is discussed publicly with equal voting weight. We set the initial conditions for the discussion: copies of correspondence. We set additional conditions: saves, save passwords, screenshots. In short, we figure out how to organize public discussions. Then the moderators won't have to rack their brains, and the truth will be easier to find.

It seems to me that banning public discussions and placing the responsibility on the judges is more convenient. This is not necessarily "better" than public analyses; it is simply more convenient and easier to implement.

Let's answer this main question. Or at least think about it. Better yet—think about it and answer. The answer will be very useful in future tournaments.

Everyone who registered for the tournament acknowledged the legitimacy of the judges and their decisions. So, there's no need for further discussion. However, I would like to see which decisions were made for which matches. Just as a digest. And preferably with an explanation. Not just "A won against B," but "in the match between A and B, victory was awarded to A due to their advantage in the game and the impossibility of finishing the game within the allotted time." Or something along those lines.

I'll ask. What solution is needed for this problem? One player is offline for the entire duration of the round. Two days before the end, he appears, but the game cannot be finished because his opponent is offline only during those two days. Who should win?

Let me ask. What solution is needed for this problem? One player is offline for the entire duration of the round. Two days before the end, he appears, but the game cannot be finished because his opponent is offline only during those two days. Who should win?

The same question, but with a duration of not 2 days, but say, a week.

The same question, but with a deadline of not 2 days, but, say, a week.

From the regulations:
"The responsibility for starting and completing the game lies with the host (the first player in the pair, the top player in the Playoff bracket). If a player is absent or the game does not start, the host must inform the judges in advance (5 days before the end of the round). If the host does not provide an explanation for the missed match, they will be awarded a technical defeat. A technical defeat will also be awarded to the host for using maps that are not on the list of tournament maps, and for using modified tournament maps without prior agreement with the judges (modifications to maps that aim to improve gameplay and fix bugs should be agreed upon with the judges – for example, a dwelling is generated in such a way that it cannot be claimed, but this was not noticed before). In the event of a controversial situation (discrepancy in timing, mutual absence of two participants for a valid reason, reported to the judges 5 days before the end of the round), the judges will decide on the outcome of the match by a majority vote."

Okay, but why are the judges silent? Do they need a lawyer? Maybe a bison or someone else needs to be a judge?
Each proposal should be open, while also revealing who voted.

Brennus_Whiskey, what don't you like about the Wanderer's answer? O_o Actually, I didn't quite understand this part...

In case of a controversial situation (discrepancy in time, mutual absence of two participants for a valid reason, reported to the judges 5 days before the end of the round), the judges will decide the outcome of the match by a majority vote.

Voting based on what? I mean, what are the criteria?

To be honest, I didn't quite understand this part.

If both players fail to start a game within the first 15 days of the round, or if they start a game but are unlikely to finish it within the last 6 days of the round, the host informs the judges. The judges have several options for resolving this situation, and some of these options may be more appealing than actually playing the game. To avoid temptation and intentional avoidance of games, we don't disclose these options. This applies only if both players fail to meet the round's deadlines.

If both players fail to start a game within the first 15 days of the round, or if they start but are unlikely to finish within the last 6 days, the host informs the judges.

But what if the situation is that they didn't play within the first 15 days due to the absence of one of the players? In this case, they could easily play a game within the remaining 6 days. Even 2-3 games could be played if they wanted to. But what if the other player suddenly has some problems, and as a result?