Connection ErrorBad RequestSession 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.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from Is an AK (assault rifle) necessary or not in principle? (poll)
voted "needed" because it proves its worth in typical situations
in complex, unique situations, I wish for more mental resilience ;)
ps: the poll somehow reminds me of Soviet-style "democracy," i.e., a substitution of concepts :( unconditional "yes" does not provide immunity for past, albeit few, but serious mistakes; instead, it should imply increased responsibility so that the mistakes are not repeated.
"...the personal strengths and weaknesses of a leader are no true indication of the merits of his cause"
An unconditional “yes” does not provide immunity for past mistakes, even if they were few, but significant; instead, it should entail increased responsibility to ensure that such mistakes are not repeated.
Question: is an arbitration committee (AK) needed? Is a court needed? My answer: yes, it is needed, but some members can be replaced. Another question: who would want to take their place? Imagine yourself in the AK’s position. You are good at resolving controversial situations. You are not paid for this. A controversial situation arises. Some believe that player X is right, others believe that player Y is right. And as soon as you make a decision, the supporters of one of the wrong parties announce that they are leaving the site and start slandering you. I remember a case in football. Shirko, who was playing for Spartak at the time, violated a rule and was sent off. After the match, the head coach of Spartak, Georgy Yartsev, was interviewed, and he was asked: "Did the referee do the right thing by sending off Shirko?" To which Yartsev replied: "Yes, he did. It's just that the referee's job is to be criticized."
An anti-cheat system is definitely needed for the forum. :)
Honestly, there have been a couple of cases where I was playing online, and after the game, the opponent wrote that it was his brother or uncle playing, it doesn't matter... :)
Therefore, to avoid controversial situations and disagreements, I suggest adding a clause to the rules of online games: "All actions performed from the Player's computer are recognized as his conscious actions, and the Player is responsible for them."
P.S. If you've already started playing online, respect your opponent; if you need to leave, turn off the game and don't be rude. Isn't that logical? :)
Question: Is an Appeals Committee (AK) needed? Is a court needed? ....... It's just that a judge's job is to be criticized.
The difference between a football referee on the field and a court is that the referee has almost no time to make decisions – it must be instantaneous. In courts, the main criterion is the accuracy of the decision, which is why they hold sessions: ideally, refereeing errors during sessions should be completely eliminated. By the way, football also has an Appeals Committee that deals with exceptional cases, much like cassation appeals in court (i.e., the possibility of errors and the ability to correct them later are built into the systems). In our case, the AK is both the only and the highest instance. This necessitates high standards of responsibility and maturity from the members of the AK. However, in cases that are truly exceptional, it might be worth considering a vote or referendum among the AK members – they didn't even hesitate to create this topic. Discussion: The public hearings (which, as practice has shown, deputies from the outside world usually ignore and still push their own agenda) demonstrated its complete inadequacy.
*) But the Machiavellian framing of the question – is an AK needed or not? – still deserves attention. In my opinion, the answer is clear. However, at the right moment, no one bothered to put the notorious, glaring, and pressing case to a vote, which had become tiresome and caused a lot of trouble. Because the result would have been far from unambiguous, or even completely different from the decision that was made... I'm starting to doubt whether it was a mistake and leaning towards the idea that it was a deliberate removal...
"...the personal strengths and weaknesses of a leader are no true indication of the merits of his cause"
The waters weren't muddied. It's just that a player who won 5 games in 5 matches turned out to be a dangerous competitor, and they removed him.
There's no smoke without fire. I think everything has already been said, and everyone has taken something useful away from it. :smile16:
Added after 51 seconds Erdem
Therefore, to avoid controversial situations and disagreements, I suggest adding a clause to the rules of online games: "All actions performed on the Player's computer are recognized as his conscious actions, and the Player is responsible for them."
I completely agree!
Пусть мой враг будет силен и страшен. Если я поборю его, то не буду чувствовать стыда.
Took a break from my ban, time to earn a new one :). So, why the Arbitration Committee (AC) is not needed. Let's first try to understand what it's needed for:
1) To help judges make decisions.
Actually, this is a disservice, primarily to those very judges. If a judge has no support, they weigh their words and decisions much more carefully. If they get into a bind, they engage their brain much more actively to find a way out.
Responsibility greatly contributes to the quality of work and overall personal development. If a judge constantly has "audience help" in mind, and has the opportunity to pass the buck if needed, this does not contribute to either the quality of their work or their authority.
2) To review complex cases like cheating.
Let's not dwell on the sad stuff... in the time I've been present in Heroes communities, cheating issues have been reviewed more than once, with various outcomes. But it has never led to such toxic disputes and schisms within the group.
The AC, however, in essentially its first serious case of cheating (if we don't consider fly-by-night newcomers), fell flat on its face. As has been noted repeatedly above, even awarding the Win (W) without much deliberation would have been a more adequate decision than the tearful mess that actually happened.
3) To serve as a kind of benchmark for players, a supreme authority.
God forbid such benchmarks. Quite the opposite, it's an example of what not to be, neither in Heroes nor in life. There's a group of... hmm... comrades (the correct term wouldn't pass censorship), each of whom either doesn't know what to do or knows but is afraid to take responsibility.
This is not a case where collective intelligence is better than individual intelligence. A herd of sheep, no matter how large it grows, will not become a pride of lions. One conscientious, authoritative person who understands the game, the structure of relationships within the group, and knows how to convey their thoughts to the group is quite enough to review contentious episodes.
The situation with the supreme authority is even sadder. This entire hysterical flash mob in support of the AC demonstrates that even its supporters feel its weakness, understanding that if they don't support it now, the structure might start to fall apart.
And its opponents, represented mainly by skilled and authoritative Heroes players, openly humiliate it, and underpin this with quite an extensive body of evidence.
What authority can be spoken of here? In politics, after such screw-ups, people usually resign on their own, without waiting to be asked.
4) To monitor compliance with various norms, regulations, etc.
If you look at people who have achieved recognition in organizational activities in Heroes, you'll notice that they all couldn't care less about the regulations. That is, changing the rules during a tournament or even a specific game was normal for them. Because what's the point of a rule if it has lost its relevance to the situation?
Horn, for instance, had it written in plain text in his tournament rules: "the judge has the right to change the rules during the tournament both in general and as applied to specific games." And he regularly used that right.
Starik (Old Man) acted similarly, for example. He had a good post somewhere, unfortunately I can't find it, with roughly the following content: "the rules are formulated in my head in a concise form, they are based on common sense and fairness; when analyzing a specific situation, I simply apply them to that situation and get the right answer."
And for a final treat, I'll quote my own post from the AC forum:
Various kinds of committees are needed in a large, diverse group - to bring everyone to a common denominator. That is, if we had like 2000 players, with about 500 of them active, then yes, an AC would be necessary.
But when there aren't that many people, most know each other, and rumors spread instantly, resolving important issues by any method other than the 'Cossack circle' method risks being disputed or sabotaged. And the composition of the Cossack circle is a delicate thing - it's extremely difficult to influence, even though it itself changes quite a bit under the influence of various factors.
So the current composition of the AC in this Cossack circle holds mainly in the second or third row. Mostly Pit tries to justify things, less often Dirty, and even that isn't always convincing. The rest generally sit mostly in silence.
Hence the difficulties in implementing any significant decisions. The people don't feel a firm hand, they don't see the AC's confidence in its own rightness. That group of screeching monkeys who are flash mobbing on HeroesWorld in favor of the AC are doing it mainly out of dislike for Alex, not for any other reasons.
...That group of macaques who are staging a flash mob on the forums in support of the Academy...
One could respond in a similar tone to such an attack (quote one's own post cleverly :)), as well as respond to the entire, generally quite biased post, which is almost entirely based on hearsay... But, understanding the emotions and state after being banned, I won't stoop to retaliating, and I wouldn't advise others to do so either. What's the point? :)
Стратегия - искусство возможного.
Первое правило форума : "Хвалу и клевету приемли равнодушно И не оспаривай глупца" (с)
Новичкам: ВНИМАТЕЛЬНО перечитайте ВЕСЬ первый пост по нижеприведенной ссылке и 90% ваших вопросов отпадут( на остальные 10% с удовольствием отвечу): Правила онлайн игр
The fun is over, it's time to earn some new respect :). So, why isn't the Arbitration Committee (AC) needed? Let's start by understanding what it's supposed to do:
1) Help judges make decisions.
Actually, this is more of a disservice, especially to the judges themselves. If a judge doesn't have support, they carefully consider their words and decisions. If they get into trouble, they actively use their brains to find a solution.
Responsibility greatly contributes to the quality of work and overall personal development. If a judge constantly keeps in mind the "support of the community" and has the option to shift responsibility if something goes wrong, it doesn't contribute to the quality of their work or their authority.
2) Resolve complex cases, such as cheating.
Let's not talk about unpleasant things... during the time I've been in the Heroes community, cheating issues have been addressed multiple times, with different outcomes. But it never led to such arguments and divisions within the community.
The AC, in its first serious cheating case (excluding newcomers), completely failed. As many have pointed out, even issuing a ban without thorough investigation would have been a more adequate solution than the mess that actually happened.
3) Be a kind of guide for players, a supreme authority.
God save us from such guides. Quite the opposite, it's an example of what not to be, neither in Heroes nor in life. There's a group of... hmm... people (I won't use the correct term, as it might be censored), each of whom either doesn't know what to do or knows but is afraid to take responsibility.
This is not a case where collective intelligence is better than individual intelligence. A herd of sheep, no matter how large, will never become a pride of lions. One conscious, authoritative person who understands the game, the structure of relationships within the community, and can convey their thoughts to the community is enough to resolve controversial episodes.
The situation with the supreme authority is even sadder. This hysterical flash mob in support of the AC shows that even its supporters feel its weakness and understand that if they don't support it now, the structure may collapse.
And its opponents, mostly skilled and authoritative Heroes players, openly criticize it, and they have a lot of evidence to support their claims.
How can we talk about authority in this case? In politics, after such mistakes, people usually resign on their own, without waiting to be asked.
4) Monitor compliance with various rules and regulations, etc.
If you look at the people who have achieved recognition for their organizational activities in Heroes, you'll notice that they all ignored the regulations. That is, changing the rules during a tournament or even a specific game was normal for them. Because why have a rule if it has lost its relevance to the situation?
Horn's tournament rules explicitly stated that "the judge has the right to change the rules during the tournament, both in general and in relation to specific matches." And he regularly used this right.
Similarly, for example, Old Man did. Somewhere he had a good post, unfortunately, I can't find it, with approximately the following content: "the rules are formulated in my head in a concise form, they are based on common sense and fairness, when resolving a specific situation, I simply apply them to this situation and get the correct answer."
And finally, I'll quote my post from the AC forum:
47 chattering monkeys are looking disapprovingly at the "log in your eye":smile01:
Пусть мой враг будет силен и страшен. Если я поборю его, то не буду чувствовать стыда.
What's the point of arguing? Everyone will stick to their own opinion anyway. I'll ask you a direct question. Are you willing to take responsibility for resolving controversial situations, acting as a kind of third party? (The Heroic movement is developing slowly but surely, more people are joining, and disputes are inevitable, so someone has to resolve them). If yes, how do you plan to maintain objectivity? (For example, in the situation with Alex, your interest is clearly visible, no matter how much you deny it). If not, can you share your vision for how things will develop? A proposal regarding the replacement/improvement of the Arbitration Committee and at least a rough idea of how the new body would function. (Not all organizers are "Horns" or "Old-timers," and disputes often occur outside of tournaments). As they say, "if you reject, offer an alternative."
Frankly, there isn't a gram of constructiveness in your writings; it looks more like trolling, and the further it goes, the more banal it becomes. This is just my personal opinion.
Пусть мой враг будет силен и страшен. Если я поборю его, то не буду чувствовать стыда.
Are you ready to take responsibility for resolving controversial situations, acting as a kind of third party? (The Heroic movement is developing slowly but surely, people are arriving, disputes are inevitable, and someone has to resolve them).
But what do you think I do within the framework of those Tournaments that I organize myself?
If so, how do you plan to maintain objectivity? (In the situation with Alex, for example, your interest is clearly visible, no matter how much you deny it).
In the situation with Alex, I have an opinion on how to proceed. And I am defending it. Of course, I am interested in the decision that I consider to be correct.
If you mean that I am biased because of my friendly relationship with Alex, then this is not the case. If I caught Alex cheating, I would be among the first to accuse him. But since the matter is clearly fabricated, I have taken a position closer to my vision of the situation, acting as an advocate.
If not, I would like to know your vision of how things will develop. A proposal regarding the replacement/improvement of the Arbitration Committee and at least a rough idea of how the new body will function. (Not all organizers are "Horns" or "Old-timers," and disputes often occur outside of Tournaments).
My proposal is to dissolve the Arbitration Committee and transfer responsibility for decision-making to the organizers of specific Tournaments. Good organizers are not born, they become good through experience.
What do you think I do within the framework of the tournaments that I organize myself?
In the situation with Alex, I have an opinion on how to proceed. And I stand by it. Of course, I am interested in ensuring that the decision I consider to be correct is made.
If you mean that I am biased because I have friendly relations with Alex, that is not the case. If I caught Alex cheating, I would be among the first to accuse him. But since the case is clearly fabricated, I have taken a position closer to my view of the situation, acting as an advocate.
My suggestion is to dissolve the AC and transfer the responsibility for making decisions to the organizers of specific tournaments. Good organizers are not born, they become good through experience and learning from mistakes.
You seem to be fixated on tournaments. I will repeat myself: 1) Not everyone has enough experience to competently resolve game disputes (especially when the situation requires a comprehensive review). 2) Many disputes arise during the season, often concerning newcomers. Who will spend time reviewing, advising, and again, communicating the information to the public?
And do you really think that a person (judge) who removes one player or another from a tournament, based solely on their own view of the situation, will not cause even more disputes? And how can we avoid the so-called "fraternization," where well-known players and personal acquaintances of the judge are treated more leniently than the rest?
Пусть мой враг будет силен и страшен. Если я поборю его, то не буду чувствовать стыда.
Vik, you should go into politics. You have no business being here among this flock of sheep/swarm of flies.
You're practically managing to impose your opinion, relying on your knowledge, intelligence, and erudition, with such image-makers at your disposal as Vova and Ketch. But to achieve something, a thousand isn't enough; you need tens or hundreds of thousands, then fifty, not just five, flies will side with you.
What you're doing now is called a revolution, but as you can see, the local people don't want it. So, I don't think it's worth wasting time and energy. If 90% of respondents supported AK, then their decisions (whether it's exclusion from the tournament, a ban, or a black mark) will also be supported by the majority, including what you call "a blatant fabrication." Well, maybe there will be 10 of you in the opposition in that case, but that's not even an opposition; it's just a pathetic minority with disproportionate ambitions.
wowa
