Is an AK (assault rifle) necessary or not in principle? (poll) — Tournament History

Registered: 11/27/2007

Posts: 5,092

#31 4/14/2010 11:41 AM UTC

Auto-translated

numOne

You seem fixated on tournaments. I'll repeat:
1) Not everyone has enough experience to competently resolve in-game disputes (especially when the situation requires a comprehensive review).

Those who don't have the experience shouldn't organize them. Or they can take on the responsibility at their own risk to gain that experience. Not every cook needs to know how to run a country.

2) Many disputes arise during the season, often involving newcomers. Who will spend time reviewing, providing guidance, and again, communicating the information to the public?

I don't see this as a major problem; the season is mainly for entertainment and practice. The resolution of seasonal issues can be delegated to the people who maintain the rankings. In the past, when seasons were still relevant, this is how it was done on Bay – Balaмут maintained the ranking and decided how many points to award to each player. However, in controversial situations, people didn't strongly object.

And do you really think that a judge, by disqualifying a player from a tournament based solely on their own perception of the situation, won't cause even more disputes?

1) It's easier to influence a single judge with public (and in some situations, personal) opinion than it is to influence a group of 7 people who are pointing fingers at each other, saying "it's him!".

Plus, the concept of being accountable for what you say – a person is more aware of and protects their own reputation than the reputation of some faceless body.

For example, I have a good opinion of most of the members of the Arbitration Committee (AK) as individuals, but as a group and in that role, they look dissonant.

2) If a judge is incompetent, you can simply not sign up for their next tournament. We can "vote with our feet."

It's much more difficult to re-elect the AK in a similar situation. You'll either have to "vote with your feet" by leaving the forum, which you may not always want to do, or only participate in offshore tournaments that are not under the jurisdiction of the AK. This is what I intend to do in the future. For example, I signed up for Navukh's tournament, where this point is stated in the regulations.

And how can we avoid the so-called "fraternization," where well-known players and personal acquaintances of the judge are treated more leniently than others?

Just fraternize yourselves :).

I don't remember the situations you describe. Public opinion is always vigilant, and nepotism is strongly condemned by the public.

In any case, the course of action is the same as in the case of a judge's incompetence – we criticize them in posts and "vote with our feet." This usually helps.

And, by the way, regarding the AK, if you've noticed, the accusation being made is the opposite – the deliberate suppression of a competitor. That is, Pit is allegedly settling personal scores under the guise of the AK brand. And that's much worse.

Registered: 11/23/2007

Posts: 1,249

#32 4/14/2010 11:43 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Let me give an example from my personal experience. I played in a tournament on the Heroes League for the second time... There was one judge and his assistant... A controversial situation arose: My opponent attacked me on the 1st day of the week with a red rush and reinforcements. It also turned out that my opponent ran around after fleeing – this is possible in the 2nd game – a redeemed hero has a full turn... like always 2000 mana points (if we're talking in the language of Heroes 3). And these very controversial situations were considered by two people... who, as it seemed to me, were very biased. The result, I think everyone knows – I left the League (although I was a champion there :)) and the tournaments there stopped, the league died... Of course, one can argue with my words, but the conclusion can be drawn – it is better when, if something is very controversial, as many people as possible judge. It is possible to argue against a couple of judges, but it is more difficult to argue against the whole group – it's like with Forrest – he left society, and who suffered more? It's clear – not society, but the loner. The same with Alex... they made a decision, and there's nothing to argue about.

Дипломатия - искусство говорить собаке "хорошая собачка" до тех пор пока не найдешь подходящую палку.

Registered: 1/19/2007

Posts: 519

#33 4/14/2010 12:01 PM UTC

Auto-translated

I played in a Tournaments competition on the Heroes League for the second time...
There was one judge and an assistant...

A controversial situation arose:
my opponent attacked me on the 1st day of the week with a brood-red rush.
It also turned out that my opponent, after retreating, could take a full turn – this is possible in the second game – a redeemed hero has a full turn... like always having 2000 mana points (if we use the language of Heroes 3).
And these very controversial situations were being considered by two people... who, as it seemed to me, were very biased.
The result, I think everyone knows – I left the League (although I was a champion there) and the Tournaments there stopped, the league died...

I apologize for interrupting. But since the conversation has turned to my area of expertise, I will speak up. And it doesn't seem like it's off-topic.

Captain, this is all due to a lack of understanding of the structure. The League has always had a three-tiered controlling body:
1. Tournament judge (no more than two or three people per version)
2. Chief judge (usually highly competent in analysis and very experienced, one for all versions)
3. Coordinating Council (10-15 fairly experienced members)
That is, you could appeal at least twice. The only thing that is not encouraged is a public discussion. Vic is absolutely right – rallies in the main square of the city are always a circus.

But I agree that there was no way to find out about the appeal options, the information is poorly presented.

Something like that.

Я в мечеть не за праведным словом пришёл.
Не стремясь приобщиться к основам пришёл.
В прошлый раз утащил я молитвенный коврик,
Он истерся до дыр, - я за новым пришёл.
© О. Хайям

In reply to Captain

Registered: 11/18/2007

Posts: 595

#34 4/14/2010 12:03 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Captain

Let me give an example from my personal experience...

Everyone talks about different things, but Navukh is talking about Dungeon or something else :D
The fact that both judges, as well as all participants, decided that Captain's defeat was correctly counted in this situation, doesn't seem to bother Captain. And by the way, it's not forbidden to move with a fleeing hero; it's forbidden to attack enemy heroes with him ;)
And the words that Navukh left Dungeon, and Dungeon fell apart, almost made me die laughing :D
Seriously, what would we do without you? :D

Школа начального мастерства по Вторым Героям.

http://offtop.ru/heroes2school/

In reply to Piterius

Registered: 11/27/2007

Posts: 5,092

#35 4/14/2010 12:18 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Piterius

Vik, you should go into politics.

I'm still too young for politics.

What you're doing now is called a revolution.

More like a counter-revolution. Because I'm proposing a model that existed for many years before this.

When the AK was just being created, I had a vague feeling that something was amiss, and I didn't embrace the idea with much enthusiasm. I even expressed some thoughts on the subject (I can't find the topic). But without any clear arguments, I didn't want to stir things up, thinking that maybe it would work out.

It didn't work out, and arguments have emerged, so now I can express everything I think about it.

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 the AK, then their decisions (whether it's exclusion from the tournament, a ban, or a blacklist) will also be supported by the majority, including what you call "a blatant sham." Well, maybe there will be 10 of you in opposition in this case, instead of 5, but that's not even an opposition, just a pathetic minority with disproportionate ambitions.

If everyone thought like that, humanity would still be living in caves.

Yes, my opinion on the issue at hand differs from the opinion of the majority. Since when has that become a negative thing? On the contrary, it's a reason to spread my point of view.

In reply to Wicc

Registered: 11/29/2007

Posts: 216

#36 4/14/2010 12:51 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Wicc

Had a good time, now it's time to earn some more. So, why isn't the Academy needed? Let's start by understanding what it's for:

And its opponents (the Academy), mostly skilled and authoritative Heroes players, openly criticize it, and provide extensive evidence to support their claims.

Wicc, look around! You've gone too far, to the point where its physical properties of elasticity might start to show themselves ;)

What evidence base are we talking about? - I'm just tired of being silent :smile51:

In reply to Wicc

Registered: 12/16/2007

Posts: 815

#37 4/14/2010 1:03 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Wicc

If everyone thought like that, humanity would still be living in caves.

Yes, my opinion on the topic at hand differs from the opinion of the majority. Since when has that become a negative? On the contrary, it's a reason to spread one's point of view.

Better to be in a cave than under slogans and in the atmosphere of your wave. Your opinion may be interesting, but it is not promising. This is not a lie; you can't draw a parallel or impose an analogy here. Frankly, the forum is dying because of the prevalence of opinions and approaches of such arrogant guys like Vic and Samurai. On the forum, everyone has been poking those who don't agree with them, and now we come here to poke them.
But it's not so bad here; there's more humanity, understanding, and respect. Even if something needs to be changed, it's definitely not according to your logic and principles. Personally, I think your proposal about "only tournament judges" is absolutely primitive, and so what? The community has created its own playground, elected the AK, and supports it, but you want to change everything because a few people think its decision is wrong... Isn't that crazy? Completely. Difficult decisions will always be made, and there will always be dissatisfied people. I think that if the opposite decision were made, there would be many more dissatisfied people than there are now.

So, you can, of course, spread your point of view; no one forbids it. I don't think it's a negative; why do you think so? I'm even interested in watching your efforts to promote yourself, based on the situation with the AK's decision. As they say, there's a hook, let's create a wave. It's a normal approach, but it won't be effective.

The AK will remain, at least for another year. And I give them credit for continuing to work selflessly in silence, rather than shouting from all corners about how bad and wrong everything is.

Added after 7 minutes

Neoandy

What kind of evidence base are we talking about? - I'm just tired of being silent :smile51:

It's like the 25th frame effect. Just post it relentlessly a little more, and everyone will get used to the idea that this "base" actually exists somewhere...

Хаос - это порядок, которым сложнее управлять.

icq: 407907277
skype: piterius_i

In reply to Piterius

Registered: 11/14/2007

Posts: 1,493

#38 4/14/2010 1:17 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Piterius

..........

If people like Yura didn't try to impose/push/force their point of view, we would still be playing only 2sm4d(3) and SoD everywhere, except in the forum. Fortunately, public opinion was changed in that situation.
Whether it will work this time – we'll see.:)

Added 10 minutes later

P.S. What a prophet:

Wicc

The Arbitration Committee has chosen a very smart position of a gray cardinal :). That is, there is some activity, but it is not visible.

The main thing in this matter is that the next case does not go beyond the Arbitration Committee due to the efforts of those dissatisfied with its decision.

(post from 04.12.09)

By the way, unlike Vik, I believe that the Arbitration Committee is needed and generally evaluate its activities positively. Although I consider the decision on Alex to be wrong. But I agree with him that Wlk777 deserves an unban this time much more than last time.:)

In reply to Piterius

Registered: 11/27/2007

Posts: 5,092

#39 4/14/2010 1:51 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Piterius

I'd rather be in a cave than surrounded by slogans and the atmosphere of your "wave."

Are the emotions overwhelming you? :)

Your opinion might be interesting, but it's a dead end. You can't draw parallels or force analogies here. Honestly, the forum is dying because of the prevalence of opinions and approaches from these self-important guys, like Vic and Samurai. Everyone is constantly criticizing each other, and now we're all here to do the same.

I don't understand anything. Who is poking whom and where?

In my view of the world, people are poking each other the least on the forum – the moderation is purely symbolic, the formal hierarchy is practically non-existent, and there are all the conditions for self-realization.

But it's not quite like that here; there's more humanity, understanding, and respect.

Where do you see humanity, understanding, and respect here? I see a lot of hypocrisy.

On the forum, if I think someone is an idiot, I can openly tell them and explain why. It might be unpleasant for them, but at least they'll know that's what I think, and that my opinion is based on something. Or if it's not based on anything, they can say the same to me.

And, by the way, this doesn't prevent people from becoming friends later. There have been many examples of this – they start by swearing at each other, then they drink together and play on the same team.

Here, with all these procedural subtleties and overly sensitive moderation, it's even difficult to express your opinion. Everything is polished on the surface, but underneath, as the results of private discussions and the logs that occasionally appear on the forum show, there are many hidden conflicts.

Personally, I think your suggestion about "only tournament judges" is absolutely primitive, and so what?

The form of social organization is strongly tied to its size and the system of views of its members. People's desires are secondary; objective factors are primary.

Historical processes clearly demonstrate this. If you need to organize a million people living in a limited area, you need a strong dictatorship that suppresses local conflicts. If you need to organize a million nomads, you need a different structure, something like a representative democracy.

If you choose the wrong form, it can work, but it will be uncomfortable and, in some places, even break. The events of the last few weeks have shown an example of this. Yes, you can pretend that this is how it was planned, that ripped jeans are now fashionable, and that beauty requires sacrifice.

But history has a quality: it can judge disputing parties over time. And my personal experience shows that I am more often right in these matters than wrong.

The people created their own playground, elected AK, and support him, and you want to change everything because a few people think his decision is wrong... Isn't that crazy? Absolutely.

It's not crazy. Entire nations manage to make mistakes in presidential or leading party elections. And they do it with remarkable regularity – as soon as the old problems are solved, they immediately start looking for new adventures.

Difficult decisions will always be made, and there will always be dissatisfied people. I think there would be many more dissatisfied people if the opposite decision had been made.

You're thinking in black and white. There aren't just two solutions; there's a wide range of them. AK had many options that wouldn't have led to this mess. It's even surprising that they managed to find this particular option; I was a little shocked when, in the middle of the discussion, this particular verdict appeared. They could be nominated for a Darwin Award.

In reply to Piterius

Registered: 11/23/2007

Posts: 1,249

#40 4/14/2010 1:54 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Piterius

It's like the 25th frame effect. Just keep posting relentlessly, and everyone will get used to the idea that this "base" actually exists somewhere...

+100

I haven't been reading Ketch for a long time – what is he writing? And I also stopped reading Vika (or rather, I try to read a couple of paragraphs, but if the post is long, then...).
They just talk and talk, but what's the point?

PREDSu: As for the CM, it seems like it wasn't him who came up with playing on different templates. The whole world plays on anything, and we are playing along with the world ;)

Дипломатия - искусство говорить собаке "хорошая собачка" до тех пор пока не найдешь подходящую палку.

In reply to Captain

Registered: 11/27/2007

Posts: 5,092

#41 4/14/2010 2:07 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Captain

I haven't been reading Ketch's posts for a long time – what is he writing about? And Vika has also stopped reading him (or rather, I try to read a couple of paragraphs, but if the post is long, then...).
They just talk and talk... but what's the point?

Come on, don't pretend. It's clear that you read everything carefully and remember all the posts so that you can bring them up later if needed.

In reply to Wicc

Registered: 4/29/2007

Posts: 11,704

#42 4/14/2010 4:24 PM UTC

Auto-translated

2Wicc: As always, your posts are very long and tedious, and I'm too lazy to read them. Every now and then, of course, there are smart thoughts, for example about placing responsibility on the organizer, but that's the bare minimum.

Well, her opponents (AK), represented mainly by skilled and authoritative Heroes players, are openly trashing her, and backing it up with quite extensive evidence.

A line flashed by about some authoritative players trashing AK. :confused: I haven't noticed anything. If they're trashing behind her back, that only speaks to the baseness and meanness of these so-called skilled players. Anyone who trashes AK should write about it not in the VT chat, but to me in ICQ. I'll find something to say in response to that!

Regarding the decision that AK supposedly ended up in a puddle and so on... No, she didn't end up in anything. You can disagree with the decision, you can consider it too harsh (maybe it would have been ideal to give both a technical loss and that's it), but you can't consider it inadequate! Why not a World Cup? Because no one convinced me who actually entered the codes. But whoever did it, I believe there should be a punishment... it may be harsh, but it must exist!

2Catch: Oleg! You compared this situation to a similar one in an offline tournament, and how the organizer of that tournament disqualified a player for editing a text file. Well, that organizer was me, and that decision was very difficult for me, just like this one. But just like in that case, there was no cheater label (ban from subsequent tournaments)! So here I am as consistent as ever!

2SergeyY: :D :D :D At least you cheered me up!! :smile54:

In reply to Dirty_Player

Registered: 11/18/2007

Posts: 595

#43 4/14/2010 4:44 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Dirty_Player

2Catch: Oleg! You compared this situation to a similar one in an offline tournament and how the organizer of that tournament banned a player for editing a text file. Well, that organizer was me, and that decision was very difficult for me, just like this one. But, as in that case, there were no "cheater marks" (bans from future tournaments)! So, I am consistent as ever!

Kostya, the equivalent of that punishment is a technical loss in the match.

Школа начального мастерства по Вторым Героям.

http://offtop.ru/heroes2school/

In reply to Catch

Registered: 4/29/2007

Posts: 11,704

#44 4/14/2010 4:48 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Catch

Kostya, this is analogous to a timeout in a game.

In both cases, the player stops competing for victory. That's the analogy.

In reply to Dirty_Player

Registered: 11/18/2007

Posts: 595

#45 4/14/2010 4:52 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Dirty_Player

In both cases, the player stops competing for victory. That's the analogy.

Kostya, in that case, the player violated the rules in one playthrough, and it was annulled. Moreover, he violated the rules. Here, Alex behaved incorrectly in one match, and he was removed from the entire tournament. It's not a complete match, don't you think? Moreover, he didn't formally violate any rules.
By the way, what about your words after the vote, that the best option would have been a technical win in one match? ;)

Школа начального мастерства по Вторым Героям.

http://offtop.ru/heroes2school/