Posts from Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments. Auto-translated

so, did they add anyone or not?? show us the saves!!
and in general, before accusing anyone of anything, you should first contact the AK (Arbitration Committee) and not just rant on the forum:smile29:

fine the opponent 5000 USD.

accepted, for the benefit of AK development
transfer here WMZ25456... :D

I'm not blaming anyone! It's my opponent who, instead of listening to me, started complaining about me here on the forum.
I want to be friends with everyone:smile23: ))

I'm addressing everyone.
My post contains no accusations, only facts. And I'm asking the Arbitration Committee to evaluate them. I'm not accusing my opponent of anything. If the Arbitration Committee decides that the map can be revealed and then a decision can be made whether to continue playing or surrender, it will be useful for everyone on the forum in the future.
The post about me violating the rules arrived at the same time as my refusal to play the next day (this only concerned the next day), which means the map had already been revealed.
In my opinion, it's impossible to add nomads without diplomacy on this template. And it seems pointless to prove that a wyvern took over the nests (it's a pity there wasn't an angel guardian).
What's the point of having an Arbitration Committee and a thread on the forum if you can't publicly ask its members a question and get an answer? Why do you have to communicate via instant messengers and private messages? Is someone afraid of something? Any decision by the Arbitration Committee will be acceptable to me. I think that the following situation is unpleasant not only for me but also for other players on the forum: you play for 3 hours, your opponent leaves the game without warning, says they will finish it tomorrow, reveals the map, and then decides whether to continue the game or surrender.
And finally, about the "strictly formal" violation of the rules. The rules either exist or they don't. How else can it be?
With sincere respect.

But please, don't blatantly LIE! Firstly, regarding the fact that we played without any results, it's your fault because, instead of listening to me in ICQ about me surrendering, you rushed here to continue playing. I repeat once again, I opened the map not to see if "the map can be opened and then decide whether to continue playing or surrender," but to make sure you were playing fairly. You yourself understand that you are wrong in everything you wrote and are trying to convince the forum users with facts like: "
The post about me violating the rules came in the same minute as my refusal to play the next day (this only concerned the next day), which means the map was already opened." Dear sir, A MINUTE is 60 seconds. In that time, I managed to read your message, open the map, and see your hero with a bunch of griffins! (I was stunned:smile07: and didn't even have time to examine the hives.) That's why I made an unjustified claim against you! And finally, regarding the strict formal rules – you should have listened to me in ICQ instead of starting with such a slogan as "I am rushing to inform the forum users" – that's how you talk about cheaters!

Dear Sir, in ONE MINUTE there are 60 seconds, and in that time I managed to read your message, open the map, and see your hero with a bunch of wyverns!

But this seems doubtful to me – to read, load the save, examine it, and reply, all in less than 60 seconds :confused: By the way, at the same minute, there was also a reply from the opponent, which further reduces the time....

A message arrives, taking 2 seconds to read. Collapsed heroes are opened - 1 second. The game is found in 5 seconds. It loads in 3 seconds. The code nwcwhatisthematrix is entered - 4 seconds. The main enemy hero is located - 10 seconds. The army is viewed - 3 seconds. A response to an unfounded claim is written - 5 seconds. 2+1+5+3+4+10+3+5=33 seconds => the opponent has 60-33=27 seconds to respond. And his response isn't complicated. Everything adds up. MOREOVER, the abrupt transition to 27 minutes and 28 seconds proves this (i.e., that it was already the end of the minute). 496616750 (23:27): Hey, you broke the rules. Stasya (23:27): Did you even save before exiting? What rules did I break? 496616750 (23:28): You added wyverns. Stasya (23:28): What makes you say that?

The guys just got carried away.
To Vladimir Verwolfovich, it would have been better to first inform the opponent about surrendering the game, and then check the save files. And based on the results of the review, confirm or deny the report. Or better yet, just ask the opponent directly, but in a polite manner.
Instead of:
"Hey, you broke the rules. You added wyverns."
Ask neutrally:
"You had vivs and nomads, where did they come from?"
And when HeadHunter explained, load the save and try to do the same. I'm sure, after such a check, there would be no questions.
And in general, reviewing and replaying save files is very useful.

To HeadHunter, don't escalate the conflict, because you were playing with a new player, and it's quite understandable and forgivable that he was surprised, even if in such a harsh way.

People are prone to arguing. But those who remember that we are not here forever will immediately stop all disputes.

The Arbitration Committee spoke with the participants in the dispute, reviewed the ICQ logs, and reached the following conclusion. A rule of online games was violated:

6. Fair Play
The most important point: players must play fairly and respect each other. It is forbidden to use cheat codes and all kinds of "bugs." Also, it is not allowed to open saves or reveal the map in the editor before the end of the game. The game is considered finished when one player has completely destroyed the other or one of them has surrendered, which they must confirm via ICQ. Only after this is it permissible to open saves.

specifically: player Skuns opened the save without confirming his defeat, which he immediately admitted to his opponent. Given the complete lack of experience and incompetence in online games on the part of player Skuns, the absence of saves for both players, and the inability of the disputing parties to communicate in ICQ, the Arbitration Committee made the following decision: 1. Require player Skuns to memorize the rules of online games /topic/3515/. 2. Warn everyone about the need to strictly observe the Rule of Fair Play. Non-compliance with this Rule is the most serious offense on our forum. 3. Warn player Skuns that if similar actions are repeated, he will be given a Black Mark as a Cheater, and his participation in tournaments will be questionable. 4. The Arbitration Committee also points out the need to make daily saves.

Considering the complete and utter noobishness of player Skuns...

You guys are so respectful towards people here on AK...

Added after 2 minutes

1. Require player Skuns to memorize the rules of online games /topic/3515/.

What nonsense!

Writing an unfounded complaint takes 5 seconds.

This is what made me happy :D
Why did you make such a stern face?
The guy is 16 years old, or something like that. He says he understands everything and has realized his mistake.
Well, he got a light scolding, and he'll probably be fine now :)

To lighten the mood.
I played with him once, and something funny happened.
He took Inferno to play, but that's not the point).
So, here's the situation. Mullich attacks him with 4 archers and ten "pokemons" against my horse with one harpy. I target the archers, and we start methodically taking out the pokemons. At some point, two morale boosts come in a row, so the harpy gets to attack the poor pokemons four times in a row. I found it funny, but after the game, it turned out that I was cheating because my harpies attack four times :)

Leave the guy alone, let him play.

I'll chime in too:

Leave the guy alone, let him play.

But no one even touched him, you could say... I think AK made a wise decision. The rules were broken (the opening was before the end of the game - one of the most serious violations, and everyone should understand this) - there should be a punishment. Considering the mitigating circumstances, the punishment is mild; they almost just scolded him...
And "leaving him alone," meaning not punishing him at all, is a direct encouragement of violations and harms both the violator and all of us. I'll be the first to criticize AK if they start turning a blind eye and "leaving things alone." But as it is, I also want to be nice to everyone...

P.S. Absolutely nothing personal, guys :) - I would express myself in exactly the same way, no matter who the violator was...

A question for everyone: which player could be harmed by learning the rules?
I'm going to study them now. Not like Bushido, but still.
AK made a good decision. It's the optimal one.

P.S. If Skunk knocks and offers to play, I'll definitely play.

The fact that Skuns is called a newbie is not a sign of disrespect. It is the only justification for his behavior. And it was his complete inexperience in online gaming that was taken into account. If this action had been committed by a more experienced player, then, obviously, other measures would have to be taken.
And studying the rules of the game will not hurt anyone. Perhaps the esteemed Samurai will remember something from his own experience?

Studying the rules of the game doesn't hurt anyone.

Golden words!
However, making decisions about whether someone should memorize your rules by heart is not within the competence of the AC. Who do you think you are to

oblige

someone to do that?

And about noob-bashing, it has always been and still is a direct belittling of a player. Especially in the formulations

dremuchiy (clumsy)

and

polniy (full)

A considerate person would never belittle a weaker player in this way, and I consider it unworthy to behave in this way as the head of the appeals committee.

The fact that Skuns is called a newbie is not a sign of disrespect. It is the only justification for his behavior. And it is precisely his complete inexperience in online gaming that was taken into account. If this action had been committed by a more experienced player, then, obviously, other measures would have to be taken.
And studying the rules of the game doesn't hurt anyone. Perhaps the esteemed Samurai will remember something from his own experience?

If there was anything incorrect, it was most likely due to Peter's unrealistic workload. Every day, dealing with situations and finding the right solution, 100% and so that everyone agrees with him, is impossible. Therefore, a huge thank you to Peter for dealing with these kinds of problems...:smile01: