Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
I won't argue anymore; I think it's pointless to talk to you. I didn't try to dig up anything on you. I just wrote why I didn't accept your surrender.
No one will ever convince me that an opponent CANNOT surrender a game without writing all sorts of false reports like: 111, was born in the rear, decided not to continue.
First, an opponent can surrender a game; I didn't say they couldn't. It's their right. Second, it's not a fact that you're giving an example of a false report. Maybe the game didn't work out, they weren't in the mood, or something else... It's not our business.
Marazhan did not surrender the game. Kaliostr surrendered, but I didn't accept it. I wrote why above.
Good luck in the offline tournament; I'm looking forward to the result you've been hyping up. If you don't even make it into the top ten, I'm afraid I won't have anything to talk to you about.
Added 11 minutes later loi
I believe a systemic problem has arisen in the organization of tournaments. Specifically, there is a tendency for organizers to abuse their authority, often believing that they have the right to change key provisions of the rules during the tournament, believing that they are almost the owners of the tournament, and if you don't like it, don't sign up. This is wrong; organizers are, let's say, "servants of the people." The community has placed its trust in them; they should act accordingly... For example: ... In a novice tournament, it is unacceptable for the organizer to interfere with the course of the tournament, acting according to their own notions of fairness—it is unacceptable (I won't put in tech points; this will pass, this won't pass—combat victories, non-combat victories... what is this?).
I suggest excluding such points from the rules and giving organizers a recommendation to adhere to the agreements, namely, to strictly follow the letter and spirit of the tournament.
No comments. I just posted this here to laugh :D And I, apparently, am a tyrant :D:D:D
I propose that in order to end such disputes, we establish unified rules for awarding technical results for all tournaments on HeroesWorld. For example — if both opponents offered to play at different times, but one or the other was unavailable, then a technical tie is given to both without question (it seems to me that at least if both players really wanted to play, they would definitely have found a way). A technical win can only be awarded when one of the players has not made a single game request during the entire tournament and there were challenges from their opponent that they did not respond to, or when they themselves refuse to play for any reason. And there should be no differences between newcomers and veterans. Of course, this is just my opinion.
I suggest that to end such squabbles, we establish unified rules for awarding technical results for all HeroesWorld tournaments. For example—if both opponents offered to play each other at different times, but one or the other couldn’t make it—a technical loss for both, no questions asked (it seems to me that if both players really wanted to play, they would have definitely found a way). A technical win should only be awarded when one of the players has not submitted a single game request throughout the entire tournament and has received challenges from their opponent that they did not respond to, or when they themselves refuse to play for any reason. And there should be no distinctions between newcomers and veterans. Of course, this is just my opinion.
Yes, I agree. Well, that’s roughly how it’s done. It’s just hard to fit every case into the confines of some rules. And giving organizers recommendations.. advice.. limiting their decisions... that’s all heading the wrong way. If I get boxed in by recommendations into a tight corner, I’ll just give up and stop running anything—screw this headache. Just brushing off those seeking justice is already tiresome, and now I’d also have to follow a bunch of recommendations... :)
Yes, I agree. That's pretty much how it's done. It's just difficult to fit all cases within the framework of certain rules. And to give organizers recommendations... advice... to limit them in their decision-making... that's not the way to go. If I'm constrained by recommendations within narrow limits, I'll just give up and won't organize anything; I don't need this hassle. Simply brushing off those seeking justice is already tiresome, and I still have to adhere to a bunch of recommendations... :)
On the contrary, then any tournament organizer will have fewer problems – for all questions, there's a rulebook. Although, if some organizers enjoy the freedom to interpret the rules and the constant disputes about it, then good for them =).
A top ten is ten. :D I'll be happy if you win a prize. Honestly. :) And I generally respect offline players for their hard work and perseverance, qualities I lack. I hope to see that you're worth something.
The word "AT LEAST" is very inappropriate. It creates the impression that you supposedly know my skill level, when in fact you DON'T know it AT ALL.
I can't know your skill level even approximately. You have one lost game for the entire time you've been on HeroesWorld. You refused my offers to play several times. Let's see your skill level then :) For now, the word "at least" is appropriate
I can't even estimate your skill level. You've only lost one game during your entire time on HvO.
2 lost games =). And his skill level is definitely not very low; on a map similar to TC3, he beat Leader1 twice and me once (out of three attempts). At least he fights quite intelligently; I won't comment on the rest, but usually, one thing goes with another.
Kash
