Posts from Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.

What can I say...
I admit that I violated the rules with the Angel Wings. IT'S MY FAULT that I didn't read this section carefully:
5.13. It is forbidden to take Pandora's Boxes, scrolls, artifacts, or visit various locations while bypassing the guards without defeating them. It is not allowed to visit locations or take Pandora's Boxes, scrolls, or artifacts using the "Flight" or "Dimension Door" spells, or with the help of Angel Wings, without defeating the corresponding guards. It is allowed to take chests, campfires, and resources using the aforementioned spells and wings, or by bypassing the guards!
I don't deny this! At that time, I thought it was okay because I had acquired them, and that's what they were for! Sorry, I apologize if I was wrong!
A technical defeat is the penalty for violating the rules! Yes, yes, I agree!
But... the point for me isn't the ranking; it's about the opponent's fairness!
And as the person above wrote, an agreement is an agreement, no matter what it is. And that's what fairness means. And I'm telling you, as a decent guy, THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT!
What was he writing about leaving all his troops in Utopia? What a clown! He took Utopia with 3 castles on day 211, and I took it with one castle on day 141! And he's talking about some kind of calculation! He should learn how to play!

Moderated: INSULT in the message

Thank you!

Convento, please explain why you suggested that your opponent not use Armageddon and warn them in advance about an attack on the main heroes. What was the reason for this?

Convento, please explain why you suggested that your opponent not use Armageddon and warn him in advance about attacking the main heroes. What was the reason for this?

Hmm... When you have a clear advantage in terms of hero and troop strength, asking your opponent NOT to use Armageddon is childish and disrespectful.

It's obvious that Armageddon is crucial for the Shadow, as his troops are weaker, and he sacrificed many units in Utopia to prepare for it. He couldn't possibly agree to give up Armageddon.

Therefore, purely from a neutral and unbiased perspective... I DON'T BELIEVE that in this situation, (1) Convento actually suggested not using Armageddon, only to be ridiculed and treated like a child. But even if that's true, (2) I DON'T BELIEVE that the Shadow would agree to not use Armageddon afterward, for the reasons mentioned above.

The fact that Convento is LYING about agreeing with the Shadow not to use Armageddon is further supported by the initial posts in the conversation! After the Shadow used Armageddon, there were surprised questions like "What was that?" "Why didn't your troops die?" etc., and NOT A SINGLE WORD about the agreement not to use Armageddon! If there had been such an agreement, the first thing he would have said is, "HOW could you, we agreed not to use Armageddon!"

No offense to Convento, but my opinion is that HE IS LYING SOMEWHERE. And liars who lie to the appeals committee should be punished the most.

PS Convento, my advice is to change your nickname; after this, many players will refuse to play with you and consider you an inadequate player. If you're a beginner, you have nothing to lose, and you can clean up your profile. :)

Enough! That’s it! I’ve admitted my mistake, and that’s enough! I’m tired of writing about the game, proving things, and making excuses!
As a smart person here said, just play with trusted people next time, not with some scammers!

Moderated: INSULT in the message

As for the fact that no one will play with me – believe me, I have good friends who will! And besides, there are other games! And + I

Moderated: OBSCENE LANGUAGE in the message

about all these games! Believe me, there are other things besides GAMES! There is REALITY!
I’ve said everything! Thank you!

I've closed the thread; it's time to calm down. I will reread everything tonight and assign points for violations – please read the forum rules of conduct: http://forum.heroesworld.ru/faq.php?faq=hw_help#faq_hw_help_rules
and also here is a detailed explanation clarifying what penalties apply for what offenses: /topic/at/334927/
The Arbitration Committee should sort out the situation; I believe we can handle this without the kind assistance of the entire forum.

I have opened the thread regarding the game situation:
Homeless Shadow vs. Convento
We will discuss it in the Arbitration Committee. Please refrain from posting anything about this game for now.

Regarding the match OUTLAW vs temofey, the Arbitration Committee (AK) unanimously made the following decisions (6 people participated in the vote):
1. The result of the match OUTLAW vs temofey is recorded as 0-1
/tech defeat for OUTLAW due to violation of rule 6 /topic/at/281142/; AK submits a report to the season organizers/
2. All players are warned that such actions will not be tolerated in the future. Opening save files of an unfinished match and awarding oneself victory cannot be justified by anything.

The AK calls on players to treat each other with respect and tolerance.
A code of conduct for such cases is under discussion.

Since our regular referee and tournament host, vbn, currently has limited time, please contact any other member of the AK with any problems arising during ranked matches. You can do this via ICQ or send a Private Message on the forum.
I edited the first post of the seasonal tournament and added additional information there.

1. In my opinion, this is the right decision. I am sure that Igor (OUTLAW) will accept this decision adequately and positively; I myself sometimes react incorrectly to the not always correct behavior of opponents in the game. 2. I believe that a systemic problem has arisen regarding the organization of tournaments. Specifically, there is a tendency for organizers to exceed their authority, often believing that they have the right to change key provisions of the regulations during the tournament. They think they are almost the owners of the tournament, and if you don't like it, then don't sign up. This is wrong; organizers are, one might say, "servants of the people." The community has placed its trust in them; they should act accordingly. Here is an example: Example 1:

FB-3. Qualifying round
The organizers have the right to make any changes to the regulations and rules during the tournament.

I know and respect the organizers of this tournament, but this is wrong – to have the legal right to change the rules during the tournament. The rules should be constant for the duration of the tournament, uniform for everyone, for both good and bad players. The rules of the tournament are an agreement, and an agreement is more valuable than money. Example 2: In a novice tournament, it is unacceptable for the organizer to interfere in the course of the tournament, guided by their own notions of fairness (I won't schedule this player, this player will advance, this player won't advance – combat victories, non-combat victories – what is this?). I suggest excluding such clauses (as in Example 1) from the regulations and giving organizers a strict recommendation to adhere to the agreements, namely, to strictly follow the letter and spirit of the tournament. P.S. This post is not for debate; there is no need to respond and engage in discussion here; this is information for reflection. Regarding individuals, I absolutely respect ALL organizers on HW and highly value their work; I hope they will all take any criticism positively. :)

Dear AK participants, I would like to ask you the following question: let's say that in a game, I have a clear advantage in troops, stats, and magic over my opponent, and because of this, I become complacent and attack him with a red rush (although, in reality, the increase doesn't really matter). What decision would you make if my opponent protested (today, there was a similar situation, but fortunately, my opponent was gracious enough to forgive me).

Dear members of the Arbitration Committee, I would like to ask you the following question: let's say that in a game, I have a clear advantage in troops, stats, and magic over my opponent, and because of this, I relax and attack him with a red rush (although, in reality, the increase doesn't really matter). What decision would you make in the event of a protest from my opponent (because today, a similar situation actually occurred, but fortunately, my opponent showed enough nobility to forgive me).

What do we have in the Rules:

5.5. The so-called "red rush" is prohibited, that is, a player playing with the red color does not have the right to attack on the first day of the week with an increase purchased on that day:

a) on the blue Castle (even if the Castle is not guarded).
b) on the blue heroes or guarded mines, if the presence of the increase can affect the outcome of the battle or losses in the battle for either player.

In case of disagreement, the Arbitration Committee may decide the outcome of the game (i.e., whether or not the increase affected the outcome of the battle and the losses incurred).

Dear Heroes fans! All HOMM3 players are invited to visit and register on the new AK forum: http://www.homm3.flyfolder.ru and participate in discussions on controversial issues. The topic "Discussion One" is on the agenda in the "Discussions" section.

Dear Heroes fans!

All HOMM3 players are invited to visit and register on the new AK forum - http://www.homm3.flyfolder.ru
and participate in discussing controversial issues.

The topic of the day is "Discussion One" in the "Debates" section.

Participating in a discussion without seeing the save files is idiotic.

Participating in a discussion without seeing the save files is idiotic.

What save files are needed to discuss the question of whether the "Tribunal" is needed on HotA?

I think they're discussing something else there. It's a story about a guest who didn't have a good experience.

I think they're discussing something else over there))
The story of an ill-timed guest

Regarding which there is testimony from the guest and the player, as well as from those who observed and later reported (possibly more than one person).
As for me, for example, I want to compare the quality of play in the first week and the difficulty of taking the Griffin Conservatory, which nearly resulted in a wipe. The extreme cases:
a) a well-played first week and a fairly easy Griffin Conservatory, whose capture ended with unjustifiably heavy losses;
b) playing the entire week poorly and the battle at the Griffin Conservatory fully matching the gameplay of the first week — with intermediate variants possible.
To assess the position that arose at this very 121 in the end.

At least based on this, conclusions can be drawn about the plausibility of the explanations.
And without this, discussing anything is nonsense! You were chosen — so you make the decision, rather than looking for an excuse for the future, like: it wasn't us, you voted that way yourselves.:mad:

I couldn't quite grasp the arguments of the accusation. They are very vague and ambiguous. We need logs, save files, and witness testimonies. Without that, unfortunately, it's just a case of "puffing up the hat." Based on what's presented, I don't see any contradictions with the version: "a Guest arrived, Player 1 stepped away, the Guest looked at the map." Moreover, it seems strange to me that Player 1, who launched the game, would brazenly start looking at the map. From my own experience, I know that the fact of the stream puts pressure on your mind, plus there's communication with viewers on ICQ, so it's impossible to forget about this fact. And in general, why stream a game if you're going to cheat? But the Guest didn't know that a stream was in progress, so he could have looked at the map. Furthermore, it's written that Player 1 created the game. Why would he need to enter the codes once, then load the game and enter them again? It's easier to just look at everything in the editor right away, from the start. But the Guest, who didn't know who was hosting and didn't want to rummage through the map folder, could have looked at it in this way. P.S. Pasha, please be more careful with the argumentation in such matters. Ideally, it should be in the style of a police report - verbatim witness statements + objective facts that contradict the statements. In the presented text, everything is too vague and allows for many different interpretations. Plus, the tone is biased, which is also not good; an objective tone is optimal.