Posts from Forum

I just gave some advice for the future regarding the rules – and many people jumped at me, as if I were to blame for something. It’s important to understand. I DO NOT THINK that I should play in the playoffs with these rules and this outcome. So, there’s no need to blame me for anything. But perhaps, if the rules were such that there weren’t 2 zeros for both players, but technical wins, there might be fewer instances of players avoiding matches and more wins. And fewer dissatisfied people.

I’ll comment on this part as well.
With this outcome (0 wins, 0 draws, 1 loss), you shouldn’t qualify for the playoffs under ANY rules, and it’s good if you understand that.
Now, understand the following:
If I follow your advice, then with this outcome, a player WILL be able to qualify for the playoffs, and that simply cannot be allowed.

The second example is the Maxlewis-Yenik game.
It was simply impossible to award a technical win to anyone so that no one would be dissatisfied and have an unpleasant feeling that I might have made a mistake.

The third example is the Maxlewis-Marazhan game.
All deadlines have passed. Neither player agrees to acknowledge defeat. Maxlewis doesn’t provide save files for review but insists that “he’s really upset.” Marazhan only agrees to a draw. Both players failed to show up on different days. What should be done in this situation? Your advice puts me in a difficult position. My rules give me the opportunity to award technical wins to both, “so that no one is offended.”

And finally, you’re completely wrong to put the Xel-KillerVampire game in the same category. The latter clearly wrote, in the thread and to me personally, that he is withdrawing from the tournament, i.e., he acknowledges his defeat and confirmed this with documentation. What questions could there be? I asked Xel to talk to KillerVampire himself, because I trust him a priori. I hope KillerVampire will change his mind and play, because it’s a pity to lose a good player.

And finally: of all the newcomers, only two have been dissatisfied throughout the entire time: you and Maxim. There are many more who are satisfied. In any case, I will make a choice in favor of the majority. :)

The train leaves at 8, there are 3 hours left to sleep... That’s terrible)
I’ll probably oversleep

If everything is as described in Sergey's logs, then he deserves the right to play in the playoffs.

SergeyY deserves to advance to the playoffs.

I agree with the previous speakers.

Here's another interesting feature: the player's skill and reputation influence the judges' decisions (even if they are impartial).

For example, if a match between Stinger and UnknownPlayer doesn't take place for some unclear reason, there's a high probability that Stinger will be declared the winner.

And if the match between UnknownPlayer1 and UnknownPlayer2 is delayed, there's a strong desire to award both players with zero points.

This is based on observations of the judges' behavior in various tournaments on different platforms. And it's not just in Heroes; it's the same in other games.

Added 2 minutes later

I'll comment on this part as well.
With this result (0 wins, 0 draws, 1 loss), you shouldn't qualify for the playoffs under ANY rules, and it's good if you understand that.

I agree.

In general, if there is very low activity in a particular group, it makes sense not to determine the playoff participants based on technical criteria, but to take them from another, more active group. I would probably do that...

Here, almost everyone started criticizing the organizer, forgetting two short legal axioms: "The law is harsh, but it is the law" and "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." And all sorts of lame excuses like "people in Russia don't read the rules" are just ridiculous:cool:. Although, I'll say this: in essence, Viktor is neither entirely **right** nor entirely **wrong** (what a statement!:smile20: :D). The rule is indeed strange, and something definitely needs to be changed about it 100%. Here's a suggestion: when playing a system without technical support, but with zeros, both players should receive a score of "-1" for an in-game loss, instead of "0". I'm not very good at analytics, but it seems to me that this is the solution;).

Sorry, but this is even worse than with Cash – it creates even more incentives to avoid playing unfavorable matches and just ignore them.

And here I'm addressing the respected organizers: if a player behaves inappropriately once in a tournament, don't include them in future ones (give them some kind of probationary period, for example).

Firstly, there are many valid reasons for not being able to continue a game – a power supply failure, New Year's holidays, etc. Secondly, I think it's a weak consolation for a player who was ready and wanted to play, could have won the match and advanced further, but ended up losing out. IMHO.

You can also portray yourself as a victim...

The round-robin system may seem convenient, allowing players to play in any order. But in reality, each player faces a complex logistical challenge: Player A can only play on weekends and after 8 PM, Player B can play any day, but only at night, Player C agreed to play today but is already an hour late, and so on. In my opinion, a round-robin system is feasible if: 1. Players have already played online extensively. 2. Players know each other and are aware of each other's usual playing times. The single-elimination bracket is simpler; a player only needs to coordinate with one opponent, and it's easier for the organizer to monitor who is avoiding playing. The only issue is when both opponents are stalling, but still claim to be ready to play. But this can happen with any system. :) Regarding the situation with SergeyY: Two players dropped out of his group according to the rules, and two dropped out due to actual gameplay. I understand that Kash decided not to allow a third player to join due to technical reasons, in order not to prolong the tournament. This is a reasonable decision. If I were SergeyY, I would have signed up for another tournament long ago and stopped bothering everyone. P.S. I wouldn't count on such a situation repeating in another tournament. The Horde forum has principled players who won't avoid playing anyone.

By the way, it's interesting to know what happened to the three players from my group... These are RiMpel2, marajan, and Kaliostr.

BA/IEHOK (Blue, Swamp, Tazar, Tazar) def RiMpel2 (Red, Inferno, Marusya, Marusya) 2cm4d3 111. RiMpel2: I ran out of rests, and I was born in the rear. My opponent offered a rest, but I didn't take it. Serg™ (Blue, Castle, Valeska, Valeska) def marajan (Red, Swamp, Tazar, Tazar) 2cm4d3 117 marajan: I confirm, I accidentally clicked the wrong button - my hand trembled... I decided not to continue. Kaliostr - maxlewis Kaliostr: In the last of the additional days, maxlewis is not available, and it is clearly impossible to finish our match. Thank you, Kashy, for organizing the tournament, and good luck to everyone in the tournament!

(I decided to combine them into one QUOTE)

If I follow your advice, then with this result, the player WILL be able to advance to the playoffs, and this simply cannot be allowed.

You can make exceptions for such cases and not allow players that you don't like. This is not a reason to give a player a zero if the opponent SURRENDERS THE MATCH! He has the right to do so without writing all sorts of false reports to satisfy the inquisitive body. And even more than that, it is impossible to allow people to avoid unfavorable matches, and their opponents receive a zero, which is what they need, because it suits them. Because this can lead to a situation where their group does not advance, and Stinger does.

all sorts of lame excuses like "people in Russia don't read the rules" are just funny.

There is NOTHING about this in the rules. You can check. I didn't find this out on the first page of the tournament thread, but at a completely different time and in a different place, when I read how Kash wrote "I don't penalize for technical issues." And a person who registers for the tournament should read that if the opponent decides to surrender, he will still receive a zero - IMMEDIATELY. On the first page. And not search the forum for it. Added after 3 minutes Is it really difficult to think of a tournament system? You can come up with anything and write it in the tournament rules. For example, if a person has no wins, even if EVERYONE in the group refused to play with him, he doesn't advance. BUT! Those who refused to play, i.e., those who both received a zero with the opponent, also receive penalty bonuses. For example,

if there is very low activity in a group, then it makes sense to... take them from another, more active group.

More precisely, allow more from another group into the playoffs and fewer from this one. You can come up with a lot of things!

More precisely, allow more players from another group to qualify for the playoffs and fewer from this group.
There are many other things that can be thought of!

Everything has been thought of long ago (for example, in 2010). Instead of engaging in pointless debate, let's just play Heroes.

to SergeyY Want to play a game?

toSergeyY Wanna play?

Right now, I'm completely absorbed in an offline tournament
/topic/6773/

There, you need to complete a map in the minimum number of days. So, let's play, but not today. I'm going home now, and for some reasons, I don't have internet access there... :( I can only play offline right now.

I suggest placing this picture in the first post, and many should think about its meaning:

Since I promised, I've found the time to explain the situation with Sergey.
This will be a long post, but if you want to keep trying to prove me wrong, please take the trouble to read the whole thing.

I'll start by quoting the tournament rules:

Attention: for all games not played on time, technical results will be issued.

Note that there isn't a single word about "zeros for both" or anything regarding tech-wins. Yes, the wording is vague. And there was no initial intention to give zeros to everyone who didn't play. I treat all participants equally and consider each match individually, if you haven't noticed. If there are reasons to award a tech-win, I will. If there are reasons for two zeros, there will be two zeros. I believe I am objective and judge the tournament conscientiously. Furthermore, in life, I spit on all rules and break all laws if I consider them unfair. That is, if three people in my group have two battle points each, I will never let a participant into the playoffs who has no wins and one loss. IMHO, this is fair. Even if it meant I had to overlook that Sergey (I admit) could have been granted 1-2 tech-wins with some difficulty in the final days.

Where did the opinion come from that I fundamentally give zeros to both?
On 28.12, I first voiced this specifically to Kaliostr:
"I'm sorry, but there will be no technical defeats."
So Kaliostr could not have known about this peculiarity and offered a tech-loss quite sincerely.
On 29.12, I had to repeat it three times to maxlewis:
"I will not award techs"
Again, this only concerned his match.
On 30.12, Wlk777 generalized without understanding the situation:
"..as an organizer he is not entirely right about awarding techs to both non-players in any case.."
I responded with a long post where I analyzed two examples of when giving zeros to both was appropriate (I recommend reading it, especially under number 3):
/topic/at/327343/

Back to Sergey.
When he joined the group replacing Vegtam, most games had already been played. marajan and Kaliostr were one foot in the playoffs, and for Sergey to advance, he needed to beat them both. I think it's clear who needed to hustle more? Van came to mind. Last season he entered the tournament just like SergeyY did this time. He played (and won!) ALL games except the last one. Because he wanted to play.
By the way, RiMpel2 needed a win over Sergey to cling to third place—he played him and won.
If I had noticed any "hustle" from the aggrieved party, I might not have been so categorical.
I'm reading only December 28:

No, unfortunately it's still not working out for me today, the 28th... Overloaded with work. Regarding "agreed" — Kaliostr and I agreed back on the 15th to play on the 22nd or 23rd, there are ICQ logs. After that, from the 15th to the 27th, I could have played, but Kaliostr wasn't on ICQ, and it was impossible to agree. He couldn't make it over 12 days, and I can't make it during the New Year's same-day period, after the 28th. This is just so people don't think that I'm the only one at fault for not being able to play during the New Year holidays. With marajan, there are different problems — no connection since December 21, we tried playing all these days, but it didn't work. I will still try to find time to play after the 28th, but I already doubt it will happen.

One thing I ask of you, marajan — let's finish our unfinished match in any case, so Kash doesn't enter it into the table; if we don't make it on time, we'll finish it later as a NON-TOURNAMENT game. That is, I suggest not opening the saves and finishing it regardless.

Honestly, I started thinking after that post..
Lest I actually have to give Kaliostr a tech-loss, which I didn't want. A tech-loss for Kaliostr would logically be followed by a tech-loss for Marajan, and Sergey would emerge in first place without winning a single game. I couldn't allow this, and providing a clear justification... I didn't need that kind of headache before the New Year (especially with Maxlewis dropping on my head at the same time), so I just dug in and gave everyone zeros.

In theory, we can end it here by me taking the blame.
But this line "agreed back on the 15th" bugs me. Why not the 8th? What's with the week-long delay? Damn, if I want to win, why should the organizer have to push me toward it?

Here is the chronology, just facts:

In group D, Vegtam has technical problems; I've replaced him with SergeyY (ICQ 233860451). Sergey, study the first post of the thread and the rules, and you're ready for battle. Good luck

SergeyY - you can play now, get started already

On 11.12, a message from Sergey appears in the "Agreeing" thread saying he'll play with someone (if I recall correctly, an 8mm6 template), meaning it was intended as a non-tournament match. I continue to baby him, even exceeding moderator powers — I move the post to the tournament thread and edit it slightly. Then I ping him myself and request authorization (no, I have 40 people in the tournament, of course I need all this, not them!)
First conversation:

Kash (21:15:22 11/12/2009)
Hi, are you playing?

SergeyY (21:33:19 11/12/2009)
already started with another one :-)

Kash (21:33:25 11/12/2009)
With whom?

SergeyY (21:33:44 11/12/2009)
Rimpel2

Kash (21:34:17 11/12/2009)
are you playing a tournament match?

SergeyY (21:34:21 11/12/2009)
yes

Kash (21:34:28 11/12/2009)
ok, well done. good luck

SergeyY (21:34:48 11/12/2009)
thanks

Kash (21:34:55 11/12/2009)
I moved your message from the "agreeing" thread to the "Новичок" thread, you don't mind?

SergeyY (21:35:29 11/12/2009)
no, I don't mind

To close our group, only games with SergeyY are left — he was brought in instead of Vegtam, but he isn't playing. Maybe there's someone else?

Kash (21:09:25 14/12/2009)
Hi

Kash (21:09:40 14/12/2009)
how's the game with Rimpel? Played anyone else?

SergeyY (12:01:36 15/12/2009)
haven't finished with rimpel yet, so we postponed the match

Kash (12:02:56 15/12/2009)
only your games are left in your group, guys are already complaining that you aren't playing =)

SergeyY (12:06:09 15/12/2009)
but few games have been played in other groups

Kash (12:06:23 15/12/2009)
and you've played none

SergeyY (12:06:34 15/12/2009)
well I signed up when games in my group were already played

SergeyY (12:06:54 15/12/2009)
what are the regulations?

SergeyY (12:07:06 15/12/2009)
when should games in the group be finished?

Kash (12:07:12 15/12/2009)
don't worry about other groups, I'll handle it =) just tell me when you'll play

SergeyY (12:08:08 15/12/2009)
I played Friday, agreed on the 18th, then he said only after 22:00. Played until 1 AM, didn't finish and postponed the match for today or another day this week

Kash (12:08:33 15/12/2009)
and with others? did you agree?

SergeyY (12:09:21 15/12/2009)
I haven't agreed with others yet since this match isn't finished. I think I can manage another 3 games in about 2 weeks

Kash (12:10:05 15/12/2009)
talk to the guys, agree roughly so they don't worry

Kash (12:10:34 15/12/2009)
everyone can have things to do before the new year

SergeyY (12:11:01 15/12/2009)
yes, I'll agree today-tomorrow. And according to regulations, are we required to play out groups by the new year, or can it be in January?

Kash (12:11:11 15/12/2009)
by the new year

SergeyY (12:11:36 15/12/2009)
that's kind of fleeting... then a whole 2 months for playoffs

There are plenty of candidates, but I won't replace anyone else; that's enough.
I also won't ping everyone and ask: Why aren't you playing?
Now it's up to you.. Everyone promised they'd start playing any moment. If you don't keep your promise — then don't be surprised if in the last days of December opponents who have played all their games refuse to play with you. And I will be on their side

On 24.12, at 17:50 — the only message from Sergey in the tournament thread, in which he offers to play:

I'll play a game tomorrow. write me.

Why should I have decided that specifically Kaliostr and Marajan should get technical defeats, since it came to that? It felt like Sergey was the one dragging his feet until the end, and his opponents were just unlucky to have technical glitches at the wrong time.
I knew that Marajan and Sergey couldn't connect.
But I didn't know the problem was on Marajan's side. Because Marajan had played all other participants.

And one last thing.
A win over Quell would have brought Sergey nothing.
Perhaps that's why he doesn't insist on a technical result in this case :) I'll end with the dialogue with Quell:

Quell (15:53:16 30/12/2009)
so what should I do? i'm ready to play and he isn't.

Kash (15:53:30 30/12/2009)
and what should I do?

Quell (15:53:57 30/12/2009)
waited for them to finish with marajan .they didn't finish. in the end i'm out because he couldn't? it's kind of wrong.

Kash (15:54:36 30/12/2009)
you are all so interesting... you can't agree and play, and on the last day there are complaints to me. well how can I help?

Kash (15:54:53 30/12/2009)
sorry, i need to step away

Quell (15:55:28 30/12/2009)
ok. everything is great damn. i was ready to play every day .he wasn't. i even play in the season league. and here ..well it's up to you. just not fair...

Now tell me, why the hell do I need all this?
It's one thing to keep it in your head and know that you're right.
It's a whole other damn thing to sit here at five in the morning and justify myself to you.

But what bothers me is the line "we agreed on the 15th." Why not the 8th? What's the point of delaying it by a week? Come on, if I want to win, why should the organizer discourage me from doing so?

Why should I immediately, after signing up for the tournament on the 8th, start arranging games with everyone? I think I arranged a game with Rimple right away, from the 8th to the 12th. And then it was postponed to the 15th. It's a normal situation when there's about a week between games. After playing with Rimple, after the 15th, I started arranging games again, but for obvious reasons, first with Marazhan and Kaliostro. I couldn't arrange a game with them, and after December 22nd, I didn't see Quell online in ICQ even once, until December 30th.

Quell: ok. everything is great. I was ready to play every day. He wasn't.

That's not true! Although he did offer to play until the 20th, I already had two arrangements for games with Kaliostro and Marazhan. I can't arrange a bunch of games at the same time. No one does that. Now I've been waiting for the final for more than a week - there's no progress.

Sergei posted a message in the "Arranging Games" thread saying that he would play with someone (if I'm not mistaken, it was 8mm6), i.e., a non-tournament match was planned.

And I couldn't arrange a tournament match that day, although I wanted to. It's simple.

Sergei was the one who delayed things until the last moment.

Once again. Two absolute facts that are beyond doubt. 1. Kaliostro was unavailable and couldn't play from December 15th until almost the new year. 2. Marazhan couldn't play from December 20th until the new year due to computer problems. HOW COULD I DELAY ANYTHING HERE??

December 24, 17:50 - the only message from Sergei in the tournament thread.

Because I usually arrange games in ICQ. And when I see that people are offline in ICQ, I decided to write in the thread, maybe they'll see it there.

But it's bad when there are 5 days between games. In tournaments, you should plan more time, especially for cases where people disappear and for various reasons. I see that there's more time for games in the playoffs.

Kash, why are you trying to dig up something to make it seem like I'm also to blame? No one will ever convince me that an opponent CAN'T play their match without writing all sorts of false reports like: 111, I was born in my butt and decided not to continue.

I do exactly that – I immediately try to negotiate with everyone; that’s what it means to stay in touch, and I almost always succeed. And if you can’t do something, or you’re stubborn as hell, that’s definitely not the organization’s problem. Why is there more time for the playoffs? Try to use your brain – maybe you’ll figure it out...

SpiriTT

I was always available. The game allows for 5 days, or a week. If a person is busy, they don't play every day. So, I arrange a game with someone for the next 5 days, let's say in 4 days, and with another person, for example, in 8-9 days. Do I also need to arrange a game with a third person for a day that will be in half a month? Many people don't even know what their schedule will be like on that day. So, having 2 arrangements to play is normal, even more than enough.