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.
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 particularly 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, and pick out only what they like from your speech, etc.
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 (completely crushing someone is also not good).
And AK was indeed "trying," as you rightly noted. Unfortunately, it didn't work out. Moreover, all the battle-hardened forum debaters turned out to be on the side of the opposition. Why this happened is also a question.
On the same Bay, Alex is by no means revered; many are happy to criticize him (and regularly do so in one form or another). And there's no particular nepotism; kicking each other on someone else's territory is considered normal. But here, a rare unanimity occurred. Think about why.
Wicc wrote:
“Against - DubrovinPoll. Here, they are asking for justification... The main idea is roughly this:
“As can be seen from his public activities - when everything is going well, he moderates every comma, but when things start to get heated, he hides in the bushes. Plus, his initiatives are mostly flawed and шаблонные - a bunch of unnecessary polls, a topic about withdrawals that doesn't fit the context, etc. His attempts to discuss controversial issues turn into either monotonous repetition of April's theses or into some vague formulations with a bunch of logical or axiomatic errors.
But despite this, he constantly strives for power, carefully emphasizing that he wants equality (yeah, "catch the thief"). As they rightly say in politics, "those who reach for power should not be given power, but should be restrained." And good leaders usually become those whom the public asks for (often a little against their will), as well as those who take on difficult tasks in a difficult situation when all the ambitious people are sitting in the corners (NumWan had a good post on this in the topic about withdrawals).
Plus, he has a strange view of the role of the Arbitration Committee (AK) - like "the AK is always right." That is, there is no understanding that working in the AK is not about resting on the laurels of public trust, but about constantly working to justify this trust, and in the eyes of everyone, not just his own electorate.”
_________________________________________________________________
I will express my opinion on these justifications directed at me:
1. Regarding hiding in the bushes.
I am confident in the correctness of my decision to transfer the handling of the controversial game between Alex and Numon to the AK of Vold. This is my opinion. Vold has an AK, and ideally, I would like all controversial situations in games to be handled by the AK, and not by one person. As they say, two heads are better than one.
2. Regarding flawed initiatives.
There is no accounting for taste.
3. Regarding attempts to discuss controversial issues.
As far as I understand, this is your reaction to my defense of the AK.
I am explaining. I am defending my point of view - you are defending yours. I only see the point of the AK when the AK is delegated the right to handle controversial issues and the right to decide whether to put the controversial match to a general vote or not. Your opinion is that ultimately the Players should decide. If we have different opinions, it doesn't mean that you are right by expressing your opinion. Everyone has their own truth, which they defend. The vote on "whether or not to have an AK" has already been held, and you still can't calm down.
4. Regarding the desire for power.
I don't understand what power I am striving for. Please be more specific.
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).
Specific justifications for their decision were given by AK; no one would have wanted to argue about the substance of the matter. Personally, I wouldn't argue with people who don't want to listen to you.
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.
If someone had said recently that I would be defending Alex on the World forum, I would have laughed for a long time :) But it's amazing how, with one decision, AK undermined its own reputation. Dubrovin Pavel
I will express my opinion regarding these justifications directed at me:
It was a mistake. The responses didn't turn out well. Sorry.
It's simply amazing how one decision by AK undermined its reputation.
It didn't undermine anything, except perhaps in the eyes of a few people who are either not active players at all, or are personal friends of Alex. I don't think I'll be wrong if I say that 70-80% or more of the active players (whose opinion matters much more than that of inactive players) have retained their previous trust in AK as a whole and in each of its members in particular, despite the impression that may be created by systematic posts of this kind from a few people.
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.
Just for fun, bring up topics about catching cheaters on Battle.net. They are good examples of how it should be done. I'll tell you about two episodes I was involved in:
1) Billy, a clone of Eddi (the same one who won the Moscow qualifier).
I had his game against SiL in the semi-final of some tournament. For it, I made a detailed analysis, where in many episodes I pointed out obvious signs of cheating.
In addition, it was proven (I don't remember how) that Billy is a clone of Eddi - who was repeatedly banned on Battle.net for cheating and creating clones.
The evidence base was many times more substantial than in the case of Alex. It would seem, what else is needed for a ban?
But despite this, SiL let Eddie into the final, and then even offered him to come to St. Petersburg to play the lost final with Mike live, and agreed to pay for the trip. Eddie refused at that time.
2) Light_out, another clone of Eddi.
The same situation - there was a game with SiL, I made a detailed analysis of it, indicating the places where information unavailable with a closed map was used.
But it was more difficult because it was not obvious that it was Eddi. To justify this, Samurai and I analyzed more than a hundred posts from different nicknames of this guy, and eventually proved the identity of the style.
I repeat - all this work was done to ban a player with a reputation as a notorious cheater.
AK, on the other hand, banned a person who repeatedly won the most difficult club tournaments in all versions of Heroes 3 and is generally considered one of the strongest Heroes players in the CIS (and possibly the world) on a much weaker basis.
Moreover, 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 the clicking style" and "a small pause" were offered. With such arguments, any self-respecting prosecutor would simply be ashamed to appear in a real court.
Where is the detailed analysis of the saves, which is mandatory in such situations? Is it absent because there is no compromising evidence there? Where is the collection of facts that this is a relapse? (as in the case of Vitalik). Where is the preparation of public opinion for the acceptance of this fact? Where is the damage control after the explosion of the verdict?
Even if Alex was cheating, the amount of work done to prove this deserves a rating of about 3 with a plus. And the presentation of this decision is a solid 2.
In fact, that's why so many people got angry:smile10:, because many know how such accusations should be substantiated and put into practice. And here, a handful of young guys in uniforms decided that they were the smartest here and could decide fates:smile17:. And the world turned out to be a little more complicated than it seemed at the entrance.
And yes, I almost forgot, the biggest pearl - the vote on cheating did not pass, but he was still kicked out of the tournament :). It's just funny...
It's simply amazing how one decision by the AK undermined their reputation.
Frankly, since then, no one has convinced me why the AK's decision was INAPPROPRIATE? :confused: In the thread about stepping down from Forrest, in my first post in that thread, I fully explained my position, which has not changed to this day!
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.
It may be harsh for some, it may be lenient, 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 in person in Michurinsk.
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. ...
The "no need" argument came later, when the arguments began. Here's an example of the latest review of a case by Pasha: Dubrovin Pavel
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.
All conclusions are based on the analysis of saves. Please, point out something similar in Alex's case. I only remember in one of the posts, I think it was Pete's, the thought was: yes, there are no traces of map hacking in the game, he probably just opened the map out of curiosity. Dirty_Player
... 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.
Come on over, we'll find something to do, even without discussing this long-ago stale case.
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, in a pinch, might climb onto the computer while dad is in the bathroom and press something. Should we ban everyone from the tournament for this?
There was a specific case like this in my game with wowa. It would be interesting to see the reaction of the viewers on Mikogo if he were broadcasting it.
Before Mikogo, we "broadcasted" many of our games by sending current save files to viewers. Should we ban everyone for that?
Besides, we're not talking about you right now, but about Dubrovin, who voted for CMCH.
Wicc, you are completely incorrectly comparing the two situations. Eddie's situation is comparable to Vitalik's, where he had to do some reviews, analyze games, etc.
Alex's situation is comparable to Loser's. But in the first case, the question of cheating is no longer relevant, since the game was postponed, and anyone could do anything. So let's assume it's clean. Let's believe Cobra.
And Alex wasn't banned! He was excluded from the tournament. If someone thinks that such nonsense shouldn't have been punished, then they need to see a therapist. Perhaps the punishment was harsh, but that's how they decided.
Added 5 minutes later Wicc
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?
If it led to some kind of unclear situation, then of course.
Well, the kids played with dad-policeman's official weapon, so what, they fired a couple of times in the yard. No big deal :D
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 as well, and the video recording CONTRADICTS the defense's version and Cobra's version; it's strange that you don't understand this (or didn't read Pete's post about Cobra saying he came, looked, and left - and after half an hour, similar actions started again - WHO was doing them?) - I don't want to answer such things. My personal opinion is that Alex was looking at the map not because he couldn't win without it, but out of ordinary contempt and disrespect for his opponent, which he demonstrates every day. That's why he was removed from the tournament.
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.
You should read the logs of the discussions between me, Cobra, and Vladimir regarding our unfinished RPG game. Cobra can spout any nonsense, that's his normal state - he thinks one thing, then thinks another, then remembers a third, etc. He doesn't bother to remember facts that he considers insignificant. All this is a minus for him, but not a fatal one.
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.
This version is not completely absurd, unlike the claims of some people that there is obvious cheating here and that Alex only wins because he looks at the map. I voiced this to people in Kyiv as a possible explanation.
But in any case, I didn't see any convincing evidence of this, so here I have to rely on faith, which, as you understand, is not a significant factor in legal proceedings.
Added after 3 minutes Dirty_Player
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
You have some strange associations... in this case, there are irreversible consequences, an intervention in the course of events. But in the case of the kids pressing buttons, you just take the car, and the course of the game doesn't change.
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?
AK avoided this debate - I don't quite agree with that; the defense was simply not conducted very correctly.
Do you really think that the way the decision was presented cannot be fundamentally improved? - I completely agree with that; one should try to present it in a more detailed and accessible way - explaining what it is and why, and why it cannot be done differently, not like A.S. Pushkin ((... But one shouldn't crawl on one's knees in such cases, begging to talk to the judge. Wicc
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.
it's just that we shouldn't offend the captain )) ... (not out of malice) put yourself or me or someone else with experience/I'll consider myself to have it/ in the role of "lawyer" in that case...
