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)
The form of social organization is strongly tied to its size and the system of beliefs of its members. The desires of the people are secondary here; objective factors are primary.
Historical processes clearly demonstrate this. If you need to organize a million people living densely in a limited area, then a fairly strong dictatorship is required, one that suppresses local conflicts at the root. If, however, you need to organize a million nomads, then a different structure is required, something like a representative democracy.
The form of government does not depend on population density. First and foremost, it depends on resources. If the territory is rich in pastures and livestock, then each nomadic family lives separately from its neighbors, and individual freedom is considered more important than the goals of the nation. If, however, there are few pastures, then the consolidation of resources under one authority and tyrannical rule are simply a necessary measure for survival. Catch
Kostya, that guy broke the rules in one playthrough, and his result was annulled. Moreover, he broke the rules. Here, Alex behaved incorrectly in one game, and he was removed from the entire tournament. It's not quite a perfect match, don't you think? Moreover, he didn't formally break any rules. By the way, what about your words after the vote, that the best option would have been Techport in one game?
In a situation where you have to make a decision that will inevitably not please everyone, it is best to act decisively. That is, the punishment itself does not necessarily have to be severe, but it must be firmly enforced. If you give one player a break today, tomorrow HW will be overwhelmed by a wave of lawlessness.
A suggestion for the AC: I think it would be good to conduct post-game analyses on our forum, indicating the main nicknames of the participants. You can see that even this is being blamed on you (they say you are hiding everything from the people).
Kostya, someone violated the rules in one playthrough, and their result was annulled. Moreover, they actually violated the rules. Here, Alex behaved incorrectly in one match, and he was removed from the entire tournament. It's not quite a perfect comparison, don't you think? Moreover, he didn't formally violate the rules.
It just so happens that offline, one playthrough equals one tournament. Therefore, it's not worth comparing them.Catch
By the way, what about your words after the vote, that the best option would be a technical decision in one match? ;)
I stand by my words. I just want to convey to people the idea that being removed from the tournament is an adequate decision, even if they went a little too far.
I think it would be a good idea to have post-match analyses on our forum, with the main nicknames of the participants listed. You see, even this is being blamed on you (as if you're hiding everything from the public).
The blame isn't for that, but for the fact that before the matter was brought to public attention with altered nicknames, the administration failed to keep the matter secret. More than half of those discussing the incident knew who the parties involved were. In this situation, bringing the discussion to light and trying to make it a secret looked like a farce. Dirty_Player
It just so happens that in offline play, one playthrough equals one tournament. Therefore, it's not worth comparing them.
It just so happens that in offline play, the smallest indivisible unit is a playthrough, while in online play, it's a match. Tell me, if the match in question had simply taken place in a regular season, would Alex have been banned from all subsequent season games?
I'm not retracting my words. I just want to convey the idea that being removed from the tournament is an adequate decision, even if they went a little too far.
By the way, regarding adequacy and consistency. In that case, too, many respected members of the Heroes community directly stated that the player was a cheater. But unlike Alex, that player was a favorite of the developers, so those who are now vehemently denouncing Alex and calling him a cheater also vehemently denounced those who spoke of cheating back then. There were statements that everyone who said such blasphemy should be banned, etc. Now, let's calmly analyze these two situations. In both cases, violations were detected. Back then, it was documented, based on a recording of the battle, that there was interference with the game mechanics. Now, it has been documented that after the disconnection, there was partial access to the save file. Back then, the person said that he had unintentionally reset something, and everyone believed him, including me. I asked him several times on the forum and in ICQ, and he replied that he had acted unintentionally. And although it sounds absolutely absurd to me that a person who wrote several programs specifically for Heroes suddenly delves into a file that he knows affects the battle mechanics and disables all the parameters there, without even knowing what he's doing, I had to believe it because I had no evidence that he did it consciously. There was indirect evidence, but it couldn't be the basis for an accusation. Here, too, the fact of accessing the save file was established. But not the fact that it was Alex. Moreover, Cobra confirmed that it was him. We have the words of two people, not one. Nevertheless, the majority of forum users are shouting at the top of their lungs that Alex is a cheater, and no one even makes a remark to them. And the decision. In that case, annulling the save was the minimum possible punishment. Now, they have chosen what is essentially the maximum punishment. And after this, will anyone say that there is no bias or xenophobia in the judges' decisions? Perhaps that person could also explain his position. I remember that two years ago, when you, Kostya, asked me to investigate that tournament situation, and I did so as impartially as possible, I received so many attacks from "patriots" of the developers, and not only from ordinary users but also from representatives of the forum administration, that I even had to leave the forum. They blamed me even for the fact that I was in a similar situation when my save was annulled, and now I am supposedly supposed to support a fellow sufferer, not accuse him. Where are those who shouted so loudly now? Why don't they tell that player, "Why are you doing this?" You were in the same situation, why don't you remember what you felt when you were unfairly accused, and now you are accusing him in the same way, without having clear evidence?
Why not CMCH? Because no one has convinced me about who actually entered the codes.
What difference does it make who entered the codes? The main thing is, from which computer were they entered! If your dog attacks a person, who is to blame? Your dog?
What difference does it make who entered the codes? The main thing is, from which computer they were entered!!! If your dog attacks a person, who is to blame? Your dog?
Excellent, I'll go to a friend's house today with save files of all the postponed games and calmly study them: it's not my computer - I'm not a maphacker.
What difference does it make who entered the codes? The main thing is from which computer they were entered!!! If your dog attacks a person, who is to blame? Your dog?
A computer is an inanimate object. You have a car. You are driving and violate the rules, you will be fined. Someone else drives your car with a power of attorney and violates the rules, they will be fined. Someone steals your car and violates the rules, the responsibility lies with the thief.
Preds! On the Heroes of Might and Magic forum, there was a discussion about what you do while your opponent is taking their turn. One player joked that if the opponent takes too long, he has time to save the game, go to a friend's house, and watch a map. Catch! Let me give you some examples involving tactics: Example 1: You let me drive your car, and I crashed it into a truck at full speed. I'm at fault for the accident. Afterwards, I told you that I wouldn't pay for the damages. And you can't force me to repair your car through any court. Example 2: You let me drive your car again. I got drunk and drove. A traffic cop stops me. Afterwards, you lose your driver's license because you entrusted your car to someone who was intoxicated. I also lose my license, but it doesn't make things much easier for you. Example 3: Dreamcatcher came to my place and, in my name, said nasty things to you. Do you think I'm to blame?
Catch! Let me give you some examples involving technicalities: Example 1. You let me drive your car, and I crashed it into a KamAZ truck at full speed. I was at fault in the accident. Afterwards, I told you that I wouldn't compensate you for the damage. And you wouldn't be able to force me to repair your car through any court. Example 2. You let me drive your car again. I got drunk and drove. A traffic cop stops me. Afterwards, you lose your driving license because you entrusted your car to a person who was intoxicated. I, of course, also lose my license, but it doesn't make things much easier for you.
I doubt it.
Example 3. Dreamcatcher came to visit me and said nasty things to you in my name. Do you think I'm to blame?
It's unlikely that Dreamcatcher would say nasty things to me :) But in any case, you are not to blame.
If all the judges in our legal system thought like this: "It's impossible to prove cheating with 100% certainty, so we can't punish them severely, what if they're actually innocent?", then our prisons would be empty, and no criminal would be convicted. Or does anyone doubt that, given enough time and a good lawyer, it's possible to come up with a theoretical explanation that the defendant didn't commit the crime?
Therefore, equating the concept of "there is any explanation" with "not guilty" is only acceptable for ordinary people who are far removed from jurisprudence.
It's a different matter when there is a witness confirming an alibi. This is a strong argument that invalidates a number of indirect (if not all) pieces of evidence. Reading the threads about this incident, I haven't seen any strong statements from anyone that Alex was cheating. Everyone is more concerned about the appropriateness of the punishment for the "unsportsmanlike" (let's call it that) behavior of the Player, both in relation to what was happening on his computer and in relation to the investigation conducted by the AK (lack of clear and timely explanations from Player #1 and the witness). Personally, I am satisfied that Cobra vouched for Alex (took the blame for him :D), and my conscience is clear in giving an acquittal verdict regarding the cheating. And if Cobra deceived us (but it was not possible to prove this by comparing his testimony with the testimony of Peterius and the logs of the chat, although memory lapses gave the AK a reasonable basis to question such testimony, and if these lapses were caused only by the careless attitude of both participants in the incident towards the investigation – I am more inclined to this version), then let it be on his conscience, not ours. There is nothing we can do about it.
But to interpret situations where indirect evidence is dismissed solely by the explanations of the "offender" is a misconception that sometimes puts the person giving the justification in a comical situation, as in the video example above.
Example 4.
4.1. During lunchtime, citizen X entered the office of the Administration of city N. Fortunately for him, the employees of the Administration had left the room unattended. :confused:
4.2. Citizen X printed a letter on official letterhead with the seal of the Administration of city N, and in the name of the Administration, he sent a strongly worded message to V.V. Putin. :smile38:
4.3. V.V. Putin receives this letter. :smile29:
Now, a simple and direct question: who is to blame, and what will happen to the Head of the city after this? :confused: Please answer without hesitation! :)
I gave a power of attorney to a person when he was sober. Am I responsible for the fact that he drank and got behind the wheel? And regarding compensation for the damage to my car, I think there will be courts where I can force them to reimburse the damages. But of the three examples, the one about Dreamcatcher is the closest in meaning to the incident that occurred. So, I won't put Alessandro on ignore if someone says nasty things to me through his ICQ ;)
Added 3 minutes ago Erdem
Now a simple and specific question: who is to blame, and what will happen to the Mayor after this? :confused: Please answer without hesitation!
I am sure that V.V. Putin is a very reasonable person, and he will immediately understand that the Mayor will not send him such letters. He (the Mayor) will be reprimanded for negligence, but no one will send him to Kolyma, and he will not be removed from his position if he had no previous offenses.
In fact, the example with the nasty things from someone else's ICQ is practically identical to this.
Added 13 minutes ago Neoandy
However, equating the concept of "there is some explanation" = "not guilty" is permissible only for ordinary people who are far from jurisprudence.
I gave an example above of how, two years ago, in a similar situation, but in an offline tournament, it was documented with a video recording that a player violated the rules by changing the game mechanics. Then everyone believed him when he said that he did not do it intentionally. They simply annulled his save, but they did not ban him as a cheater. Now, the same person, in a similar situation (in my opinion, the depth of the act and the consequences are clearly less than the previous one), does not believe another person and votes for awarding him the "Champion of Cheating" title. Neo, agree that some consistency in decisions should be observed. Even if there is no precedent here. Otherwise, we believe one person on his word, but not the other. Or is it all because one is a representative of the administration, and the other is a visiting guest from another resource?
I gave a power of attorney to a person when he was sober. Am I responsible for the fact that he drank and got behind the wheel?
Yes, you are responsible. For your naivety. There's no need to give a power of attorney to someone who might act in such a way. And if you did, then be prepared to answer for it...
unbelievable flood :) in the thread "Is an AK rifle actually needed (poll)" - IMHO, it belongs in the "Tribune" section, friends... in the "Tribune"...
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
2Wicc: As always, you have very long and tedious posts that I can't be bothered to read. Every now and then, of course, there are smart thoughts, for example about placing responsibility on the organizer, but that's the bare minimum.
You have correctly grasped the central idea of all these long and tedious posts :).
They are so long and tedious because not everyone is quick-witted enough to immediately understand the correctness of the central idea; it requires justification.
There was a line flashing by about the AC being bullied by some authoritative players. :confused: I didn't notice anything. If they're bullying behind the scenes, that only speaks to the baseness and meanness of these so-called skilled players. Whoever bullies the AC, let them write about it not in the VT chat, but to me on ICQ. I'll find something to say back!
If you didn't notice, then why bother worrying? ;)
Regarding the decision that the AC supposedly got egg on its face, etc.... No, it didn't get egg on its face at all.
Well, what else can you call a decision that led to such consequences? That a mass of justified discontent appeared, that people are leaving the forum, that opposition to the AC is emerging, etc. None of this existed before.
But in fact, the main task of any court is quite the opposite—to smooth over conflicts in society, to give them a civilized character. So in this case, the AC not only failed in this task, but on the contrary, initiated the very processes that it should ideally have been fighting.
In global practice, a judge (sports-related or otherwise) who allows such a thing loses a significant part of their reputation and is highly likely to be removed from their position, temporarily or permanently.
Here, on the contrary, they demand not only to keep the AC, but also to keep it with its current composition (nonsense). Hence the natural conclusion—this is not a court at all, but merely an organization lobbying for the interests of some groups of people to the detriment of other groups.
And therefore, the attitude towards it is so polarized—those it protects consider it a benefactor of the fatherland, while those it oppresses consider it an enemy to be fought. Both are very far from the image a court should have in the eyes of the public.
In general, a court (and a judge) should be big, mean, and nasty to everyone—that's the kind of image it should have. But the current composition of the AC consists partly of fluffy elves, partly of charming schemers, and not a single true judge.
You can disagree with the decision, you can consider it too harsh (ideally, maybe just putting them on both sides would have been fine), but you cannot consider it inadequate! Why not a CM? Because no one convinced me who actually entered the codes. But whoever did it, I believe the punishment should be... let it be harsh, but it must be!
No argument about the punishment, it must be there. Many examples from various sports are given, and the conclusion is always the same—the punishment should only apply to the game in which the disciplinary violation occurred. What on earth makes this case different?
Avern
