Posts from Forum

Wikk-AK tried to explain the reasons for her decision; it's a pity you didn't notice.

Have you ever tried to present your project to greedy investors? Or proposals to your boss that he doesn't really like?

If you try, you'll see that it's the same thing – everyone has their own thoughts, desires, they try to interrupt you, lead you astray, pick out only what they like from your speech, and so on.

Therefore, you need to express your point of view in such a way that everyone hears it, and so that no one can find anything to object to, or at least limit themselves to some vague mumbling (it's also not good to completely crush someone).

And AK was indeed "trying," as you rightly pointed out. Unfortunately, it didn't work out. Moreover, all the seasoned debaters turned out to be on the side of the opposition. Why this happened is also a question.

I will express my opinion regarding these justifications directed at me:

You were wrong. The answers didn't turn out well. Sorry.

Pasha, you didn't pour enough water!!:smile04:

It's simply amazing how one decision by AK undermined its reputation.

Specific justifications for their decision were provided by the AK. In essence, no one would want to argue with that; arguing with people who don't want to listen is something I personally wouldn't do either.

It's simply amazing how one decision by the AK undermined their reputation.

I voted against CMCH and for the disqualification. Why? Because I admit the possibility that it was Cobra who did it, and in this case, the presumption of innocence applies. And if it did happen and they were caught, then be kind enough to take responsibility for the mess that's happening on your computer, if it ended up being broadcast.

Wikk-AK tried to explain the reasons for his decision, it's a pity you didn't notice, but none of the defenders of the AT wanted to listen; all their arguments boiled down to the fact that he didn't need to cheat, there were obvious contradictions in Cobra's testimony (which was the basis for the decision), and that this was due to a lack of seriousness in handling the case, etc. It's a matter of perspective; some consider the prosecution's arguments to be more convincing, while others think the opposite, but at least both sides were expressed, let's stick to the facts.
...

Regarding this game (bijho-Castiel), the decision is as follows.
Castiel did not violate the rules of the game.

Justification.

On turn 146, Castiel attacks bijho, and bijho retreats. During the attack, Castiel could have assessed bijho's army and the presence of a tactic that he himself did not have.

Then, on turn 215, Castiel (according to bijho's save) attacks bijho with 7 Angels (although Loshk had the rest of his army and it wasn't small), and bijho has 1 Angel. After Castiel forces bijho with 1 Angel to retreat using a tactic, Castiel has enough mana left to teleport anywhere. However, Castiel, for some reason, visits the Obelisk instead and becomes within reach of bijho. On turn 216, Kirr (Castiel) dies at the hands of Craig (bijho), although Castiel could have bribed him or retreated.

Therefore, the conclusion is: it is obvious that turns 214 and 215 were not made by a human (Castiel), but by the computer.

As a judge of the Seasonal Rating, I consider it inappropriate to review this situation by the AK.
Those who want to see the saves, please contact me: 482-071-082

And one more thing.
I am addressing Castiel.
If you wish, this match will be recorded as your win by awarding (Army, Parameters, Teleport, etc.).
Please reply here about this.

I am addressing bijho.
In the future, please don't act rashly.

...
It may be harsh for some, it may be gentle, it may be incomprehensible for some... But it is completely adequate, personally for me. Anyone who wants to argue about this is welcome to discuss it with me in person in Michurinsk.

I voted against CMCH and for disqualification. Why? Because I admit the possibility that Cobra did it, and in that case, the presumption of innocence applies. And if it did happen and it was discovered, then be so kind as to take responsibility for the mess that's happening on your computer, especially since it ended up being broadcast.

Here, half of the Heroes players have young children who, if anything, can sneak onto the computer while dad is in the bathroom and press something. Should we ban everyone from the tournament for this?

Moreover, the following were proposed as grounds: 1) a video recording that does not contradict the defense's version, and 2) testimony from a witness who noticed a "similarity in clicking style" and a "small pause between clicks." With such arguments, any self-respecting prosecutor would be too embarrassed to present them in a real court.
.

There were other justifications, and the video recording CONTRADICTS the defense's version and Cobra's, it's strange that you don't understand this (didn't you read Pete's post about Cobra saying - he came, looked, left - and after half an hour similar actions started again - WHO was doing them) - I don't want to answer you about this kind of thing.

My personal opinion is this: Alex looked at the map not because he couldn't win without it, but out of ordinary disregard and disrespect for his opponent.

Well, the kids played with their dad's service weapon, so what if they fired a couple of shots in the yard. It's no big deal :D

The point is not whether it is soft or harsh. The point is how it is presented to the public.

The AK brand is far from being a symbol of infallibility for everyone (as Dubrovin tries to portray), and one must defend one's point of view in an open debate. AK avoided this debate, and this is one of the reasons for such a reaction.

Do you really think that the way the decision was presented, which AK chose (to announce the verdict and lock itself in its office, dismissing it with standard phrases), cannot be fundamentally improved?

Whether to believe it or not is your right. It is better to believe it and try to figure out how it could have been done. If you figure it out, you will grow a lot. A small hint - reread all the materials on Vitalik's case; it turned out to be simpler, but the principles are similar.