Posts from Forum

- well, it just hasn't happened that people go to courts with requests for friendship /like "I want to be friends with my neighbor" ))/

That is why viewing the AC exclusively as a court (that is, a punitive body) contradicts the interests of the Heroes movement in general and ХВ in particular.

If you study social history, you will see that courts as separate bodies are formed only when a collective grows so large that spontaneous self-control stops being effective.

And if the collective is relatively small and everyone knows each other, then conflicts there are resolved by something like a "сходняк" (gathering) — the tribe meets and discusses the incident. Various same minor details are decided by appealing to elders, up to the chief. Moreover, these elders are not elected; they emerge naturally.

Furthermore, fully democratic management methods only start to play a role in a VERY large collective. In small and medium-sized collectives, there is at most local democracy, where elders gather and decide among themselves. Again, these elders are not elected; they either become so on their own or are appointed by other elders.

A situation where the votes of all members of the collective are equal does not occur in nature. Simply because members of a collective are not equal to each other in intelligence, strength, authority, etc. Accordingly, an attempt to introduce total democracy into a heterogeneous collective ends either in an obvious fail or a subtle one — when formally democracy is observed, but in reality, the elders still decide everything (this is how almost all modern democratic states are structured, for example).

I've drifted slightly off topic; let's return to courts. Well, so, in small collectives, judicial functions are usually performed by the same people who perform functions of developing the collective or maintaining its vital activities. That is, the head hunter distributes the prey not because he was elected as the head, but because he is the most experienced/strongest/bravest here, therefore he gets a lot of food, and therefore he is listened to during the hunt, and likewise in everyday life.

That is, there is that very balance of rights and duties I mentioned before. The right to judge others is earned not by voting, but by constant work for the benefit of the collective and a constant demonstration of superiority in qualification. Moreover, first comes the work, winning authority and respect, and only then does the collective bring judicial powers on a silver platter.

That is, judges usually become those who know the subject better than others, are more skilled in it than others, persuade people more effectively than others, etc. And not those who were pushed through in a vote for some reason.

By the way, a fresh example — Wlk777; as many as 6 people voted for him. If the public hadn't woken up or decided to support the joke, we would have had an obvious piece of trash in the AC. And this piece of trash would be a judge over us, think about that :).

This is a typical push of a puppet candidate, quite often used in various democracies up to the most developed ones. The most striking example is the current President of the EU; I don't even remember his name, such a petty person. Or, for example, George W. Bush.

And, by the way, the situation where many worthy people refuse judicial powers (and among direct and indirect refusers there would be 2 full compositions) says that things in the Kingdom of Denmark are going quite sadly. Because smart, proactive people usually willingly take up the improvement of the territory. And if they refuse — it means the territory is too heavily polluted.

So, I've gone off-topic again :). In the history of the Heroes movement, the principle I pointed out earlier was almost always observed. That is, the organizer of a site/tournament/event usually solved not only organizational problems but also "gave sisters their earrings" (put people in their place). And he received the right to do so precisely because he was the organizer (and often a player), meaning he does the most work, and the number and quality of players signing up for his tournaments serves as justification for the quality of his work.

As the collective grows, the founder begins to delegate some of his functions to other people. Which is understandable — there isn't enough time to keep track of everything. But if problems arise, he comes to settle everything himself as the final authority.

Now let's look at the current state of affairs in online-3 on ХВ. 26 people have taken part in the AC elections so far. Such a collective can gather around one table and discuss all its problems. Allocating a body of as many as 7 people here is obvious pretension.

Let's look at any tournament — usually a similar number of players sign up, from 10 to 30. To keep track of everything, one person is quite enough, well, maximum two — for backup. If there are more, the "Russian army" effect occurs, where there are more generals than soldiers. The significance of each specific general is then quite small.

That is, the system that naturally formed on almost all Heroes sites follows directly from the peculiarities of human psychology and is the most optimal.

Now let's consider a conflict situation. The opinion that 10 people will figure out an issue far better than one person is deeply mistaken. Anyone who has had experience in collective decision-making for serious matters will confirm that the decision for the collective is essentially made by the smartest or most powerful person, even if formally it is not so. Others are used as information providers and a support group.

That is, a collective of 10 mediocrities is far inferior to one experienced person in terms of making a difficult decision. Which is again clearly seen from human history — for example, in Rome, democracy existed only in peacetime, to play around and satisfy people's ambitions, but in wartime, when complex and responsible decisions were required, they chose a dictator.

If such an analogy is unclear, I will give an even simpler one — a collective of 10 first-category players will lose to a grandmaster by roughly the same score as one first-category player. A case where quantity very slowly turns into quality.

In the case of the AC, it's exactly this story — for the successful resolution of Alex's case, it would have been enough to add one sensible person there, and the help of others wouldn't even have been needed; the conflict would have been swept under the rug.

Who will be such a person in the current composition of the AC — I don't know. There is hope that Peterius; for the rest, there is no hope yet. In any case, time will tell.

I've written quite a lot already, time to wrap up. I repeat that the best solution for ХВ and Heroes is to simply dissolve the AC as unnecessary.

Or, as an option, transform it into something like a Board of Judges. That is, a consultative body consisting of people who organize tournaments. And whom both players and judges (including beginners) can turn to for help or with questions.

That is, the activity of this body would be recommendatory rather than directive, which immediately removes all tension, but at the same time does not prevent it from influencing events in tournaments. Let's say if the Board issues a statement "We believe player NNN is a cheater and we recommend refraining from games with him," then with a probability of slightly less than 100% he will leave the forum, and even if he doesn't, people will stop taking him into tournaments, which is essentially the same thing. But there won't be any coercion, which is what people are mostly complaining about. And tournament judges and season organizers can actually handle imposing specific sanctions.

And, of course, the composition of this body should not be elected at all, but appointed based on work results (successfully ran 2-3 tournaments — come in) or by recommendation of other Board members. And conversely — if you messed up and players stopped signing up for your tournaments — please vacate the spot.

These are the general outlines; details are open for discussion.

Democracy in such matters only adds unnecessary populism and contributes to fueling holy wars.

No... Catch's post is longer.

No... Catch's post is longer.

I shortened mine as much as I could to fit within the limit set by Cash :).

Wicc, you can burst, but nothing will change; I don't even feel like breaking down your post into quotes. Your opinion is far from the truth; believe me, you really forget about the facts again.

In other words, the activities of this body are advisory rather than directive, which immediately removes any tension, but at the same time does not prevent it from influencing events in Tournaments. For example, if the KS makes a statement: "We believe that player NNN is a cheater and recommend refraining from playing with him," then with a probability of slightly less than 100%, he will leave the forum, and even if he doesn't leave, he will stop being invited to Tournaments, which is essentially the same thing. But at the same time, there will be no coercion, which is what people are mainly complaining about. And the imposition of specific sanctions can be easily handled by the judges of the Tournaments and Seasons.

In essence, that's how it is, except for the badge next to the avatar that warns new players (but otherwise, no one prevents playing with the Champions in Seasons). There have been no controversial moments with the Champions except for one – regarding Vitalik – but then you were quite satisfied with that decision; you yourself vehemently proved his guilt – and then you had no complaints about the work of the AK, and the very idea of it did not raise any questions for you. But when a decision was made that you didn't like, you got upset and started writing kilometer-long posts criticizing the entire AK, the very idea of it, and specific members. Your opinion is simply biased, which I have now proven, and you won't change anything; people have their own minds, and they won't let you manipulate them. Just calm down.

By the way, since Ketch mentioned past events, I'll share my memories too. Few people know about these events, and they are being published in the open press for the first time. It happened at the League, about 2 years ago. Back then, they were holding online tournaments for fixed matches, but after the second tournament, a kind of vacuum formed - Horn refused to organize the third tournament, and so did mrc, so Chameleon started looking for a host. And at Horn's suggestion, he turned his attention to me. At that time, I had a completely empty record as a judge - I had only recently started playing Heroes, so the offer was quite unexpected. But during the negotiations, it turned out that Chameleon wanted something completely strange. In general, his proposal was as follows - he would be the main one, publishing the schedule and other organizational things, and I would run around, negotiate with the players, monitor deadlines, and deal with controversial moments myself first, and then submit them to him for approval. To which I rolled my eyes and said, "What are you talking about? Whoever guards, has it. That is, if I organize something, then I am responsible for it, but I also have the full power to make decisions. Accordingly, if everything goes well, I get the respect, and if I mess up, I get the backlash. And not in parts (like the current trend of privatizing profits and nationalizing losses)." Back then, Chameleon and I couldn't find common ground. I drew up the regulations, a list of maps, and that was the end of our communication. And Chameleon took on organizing the tournament himself. The subsequent events are already well known. From the very beginning, things went wrong. In the first round, there were arguments, during which me and Lord Dima were banned, and half of the discussion topic was deleted. In the ICQ, I don't remember any milder epithets in relation to Chameleon than "cretin." If that tournament hadn't been a qualifying round for the St. Petersburg championship, then most likely a number of people would have left it by then, at least I heard people talking about it. But still, they somehow managed to finish it, although in the 3rd round, Chameleon again did something strange - he arbitrarily awarded the result of the Horn-Vietnam match, even though they had already agreed on a different result. Another wave of protests arose, but it quickly subsided, as everyone understood that it was a lost cause. As a result, the St. Petersburg fixed match championships moved to Bai, regular online tournaments stopped, and only offline tournaments remained at the League. However, about a year later, when the noise died down, they still held the 4th online tournament, but this was more of a remnant of the former scale, based purely on Horn's enthusiasm, which is unlikely to continue. This is a somewhat sad, but very instructive story, showing what can happen when there is a poor understanding of the basic psychology of people. Added 7 minutes ago

There were no controversial moments with the CMCH except for one - regarding Vitalik - but at that time, that decision was perfectly acceptable to you, you yourself vehemently proved his guilt.

What would have changed if the CMCH hadn't been issued? Whoever wants to play with Vitalik, plays. Whoever doesn't want to, doesn't play. He and his regular partners don't care about the seasonal leagues. He doesn't even sign up for tournaments on his native HP, where no one issues him a CMCH. That is, the answer is - nothing.

at that time, that decision was perfectly acceptable to you, you yourself vehemently proved his guilt - then you also had no complaints about the work of the AC, and the very idea of it did not raise any questions for you, but when a decision was made that you did not like, then you got angry.

How else should it have been done? To ruin the idea of the AC right from the start? That would be stupid. And there is no factual material, as well as a clear confidence in one's own rightness. I said what I could at the time. History has shown that I was right. It will show this time too, where else can it go? In addition, if the decision is acceptable, why get angry? I'm not a telepath, I can't penetrate the minds of the AC members. If their actions correspond to my expectations, then there is hope that they think with the same criteria as I do. If it turns out that this is not the case, then the hopes are dispelled, and a bitter hangover sets in. I don't know what you call bias here... it's a perfectly adequate line.

Wicc's story is a good one, but according to your logic, HeroesWorld should be decaying by now, the number of tournaments should be decreasing, there should be mass exoduses to Bays and Portals — nothing of the sort, everything is quite the opposite (except for a mighty bunch who decided to spite the conductor and go on foot) — which once again proves the wrongness of your mile-long theories. Rein in your ambitions and finally calm down.

Wicc, the lecture on political science is informative but not groundbreaking. There are various forms of government, and if democracy doesn't appeal to you, I suggest you use your excellent rhetoric to enter politics and replace your puppet president with your authoritarian rule. However, history shows that this is clearly not beneficial for the people.

Wicc, the lecture on political science is informative but not new. There are various governance regimes; if democracy is not to your liking, then I suggest you take your fine eloquence into politics and replace your puppet president with your authoritarian rule. Only history shows that this clearly does not end well for the people.

Stupid greedy children (c) Goblin :)

The idea here is that the form of government should be chosen like clothing — so that it fits well, looks good, etc. And whether it's democracy or dictatorship doesn't matter; each is good in its own way in different situations.

It seemed obvious to me that this was the idea conveyed by the text. Turns out it only seemed that way, so now I'm spelling it out in simpler language...

Most Heroes players are well suited to so-called anarchic democracy — that is, it's like democracy, but everyone's vote carries a different weight. In fact, this is mostly what exists, and even AK occasionally feels its grip on his balls.

I understand that you and Vlk, as representatives of the local bottom of the hierarchical ladder, would like your voice to carry as much weight as the voice of more respected members of the Community. That's why you yap like little dogs, defending the system and thinking you're raising your own authority. I dare to assure you, that's not the case :cool:. Quality matters more than quantity here.

Nevertheless, I am grateful to you and Vlk for this spam. If not for it, the discussion would have died out long ago, and many thoughts would have had to be expressed later and perhaps in a less successful form. As it is, everything turned out compact and in the right mood. Moreover, it is addressed to you, not to AK — that is, there is no factor of directive pressure, which people tend to resist as a phenomenon.

Added after 24 minutes

Wicc — nice story, by your logic HeroesWorld should now be rotting, the number of tournaments should be decreasing, there should be mass exoduses to Bays and Portals — nothing of the sort is happening

You misunderstood my logic.

First, decline is just as diverse in its forms as growth. For instance, stagnation in SoD-dwelling and thus falling out of the trend of progressive development is also a form of decline.

Second, these processes are quite inertial — the effect only manifests over time. For example, when I wrote about the League during those events, few believed me. It really wasn't obvious; many (including such a smart person as Horn) thought they'd make some noise and stop, and things would go on as usual.

Third, nothing is lost yet; this is a period of power transition. There is a well-founded hope that AK of the second summoning will not repeat the mistakes of the first summoning, especially after everything has been laid out on the shelves.

So I won't venture to confidently predict the future of HeroesWorld — there are too many uncertainties. I am merely describing factors that might influence that future.

Plus, since I myself intend to do something for the development of the Heroes movement, you understand that making fatalistic predictions doesn't quite suit me.

And if, say, in a year or two at the next CIS championship, representatives of HeroesWorld earn half the spots and end up among the prize winners in more than just isolated numbers, that will mean the course was chosen correctly.

Nevertheless, I am grateful to you and vlk for this flood. If it weren't for it, the discussion would have ended long ago, and many thoughts would have had to be expressed later and perhaps in a less successful form. But now everything is concise and fits the mood. Moreover, it is addressed to you, not to AK, which means there is no factor of directive pressure, which people tend to resist as a phenomenon.

The main flood is your meaningless posts, which are not needed by anyone except you and do not lead to any specific result. You can continue to indulge your ambitions and promote ideas that are not needed by anyone except you, Catch, and a few other controversial comrades. Stop pretending to be a wise missionary among a tribe of ignorant savages; you are not an authority here, understand that.

Added 12 minutes later

will be among the winners in more than one instance,

You've started to talk a lot, winners are the top 3 places, should they occupy the entire podium, or will you start shouting - ah, I was right? I'll reveal a terrible secret to you: almost 100% of the players here just want to chat and play without stress. Your "heroic movement" is not needed by them, nor are the efforts to achieve some unattainable skill (I doubt it even exists; I've said it many times that the current situation depends much more on the composition and build, and the skill of many is approximately the same). Therefore, we will easily and casually cope with the loss of ATG@Company, believe me. There will always be someone who wants to find an approximately equal opponent with whom it will be interesting to play and have a pleasant conversation. We can easily do without guru-mentors like you if necessary, so "don't whine" (C) - Wicc :)

I trimmed mine as much as I could to fit within the limit set by Ketch :).

You didn't assign anything to me; don't lie :) I even checked my first post, and it's shorter.
In general, Vic's (and Ketch's) position is clear to me, and it's clear that they are trying to do something not in their own self-interest, but in the interest of ХВ, i.e., the heroic world. Well, that's enough for me to support them. Sometimes. The portyanki [presumably a reference to lengthy posts or discussions] were enjoyable :D

Let's stop reminiscing about the ATG story; it happened, and that's it. AK made a mistake... or maybe not... now it doesn't matter anymore. AK will exist, with almost an entirely new team. Let them start from scratch; there's hope that it will work out.

If Pasha isn't tired of analyzing saves (and I think they analyzed around a hundred various silly and not-so-silly situations over the year), let him continue; what's the problem? Someone has to do it. My vote can remain against; it changes things slightly, but I have somewhat reevaluated my opinion of Pavel. He will be more helpful than harmful as part of a team. I won't elaborate; it's probably obvious here.

The chairman of AK must definitely be appointed. And I already wrote this, and the current results of the poll seem to hint: Peterius should be the boss :) There are no votes against, only an overwhelming majority in favor... This outcome pleases me; everything is fine.

The composition is practically complete; the only thing that could change is if Vic decides to reconsider withdrawing and contribute to the common cause. "Nitsat," we'll support you :) Well, there will be 3-4 votes against; how can it be without that...? But I think we'll get through it. Think about it again, once more.

That's all for now; I don't have anything else to write about regarding portyanki [lengthy posts/discussions]. There is another important matter... but I might fall asleep while watching saves)) If not, I'll open up another interesting topic.

upd
Didn't fall asleep.
/topic/7083/

I didn't ask you anything, don't lie :D I even checked my first post; it's shorter.

Typo :). Meant Ketch.

Didn't work
/topic/7083/

The topic doesn't open.

Let my dissenting voice remain; it slightly alters things, but I've somewhat reconsidered my opinion about Pavel. He will ultimately bring more benefit than harm to the team. I won't elaborate; it's probably clear.

The AK must have a chairman. I've already written about it, and the current poll results seem to indicate that Peterius should be the boss. There are no votes against him, and the vast majority are in favor. I'm pleased with this outcome; everything is going as planned.

It's better if Pavel is the chairman. The votes against him exist only because he has already been working in the AK. Let Peterius work there, and there would be votes against him as well. And what harm could he possibly cause? I didn't think it was possible to see any harm in his activities... :confused:

The topic won't open for me either.

Well, it won't open for me either. I tried hard, spent almost an hour writing it... Never mind, it's not relevant anymore.

I'll try to make this post very short.

1) Who wants to play for fun, just for the enjoyment of the game?

2) Who wants to join a school for future Olympic champions in Heroes of Might and Magic?

For me, the first option will always be the best. Heroes is a source of emotional pleasure, a pleasant way to spend time, and a chance to meet interesting people. This game doesn't bring profit; I would even say it's the opposite, but why does no one give it up if they enjoy it? The excitement of the game, the uncertainty up to a certain point, the intrigue... and always a pleasant way to spend time.

P.S. Everyone can figure out for themselves what they find interesting.

How you scared the people :). They're already imagining all sorts of hidden schemes and multi-step combinations. In reality, everything is much simpler.

The main goal is the development of the Heroes movement. Development in breadth, development in depth. This goal is distant, abstract, and without specific benchmarks, which is actually what makes it convenient. With this goal in mind, I hold tournaments, write articles, communicate on the forum, refine TE/BT, etc.

Of course, you can't limit yourself to just constructive activity; sometimes you have to destroy what was created earlier or put down various inappropriate amateur initiatives. Moreover, while I introduced various features not always appropriately — there were mistakes and failed experiments — I tore down almost everything appropriately, at least the subsequent course of events convinced most that it was bound to happen.

As for the AC — this experiment seemed strange to me from the very beginning, and I wrote about it even then, though not particularly aggressively; after all, it was just an intuitive feeling, not a firm conviction.

I also laid out my reasoning back then, and it was roughly along the lines of "what's the point?" That is, what actual niche could this body fill? Going through the options, I realized it wasn't much of any — for reviewing disputed episodes, tournament judges are sufficient; for reviewing season games, 1-2 season judges are enough; reviewing cheating will be done by the whole forum anyway, etc.

That is, all the niches that the AC claims are already occupied, and have been for many years; certain traditions and understandings of how things are done here have developed. After all, Heroes has been around for over 10 years now.

Therefore, an attempt to intrude into this established ethical ecosystem with some clearly alien charter inevitably leads to an epic fail, as we have had the opportunity to clearly see. If it weren't for Alex's case, it would have been something else — historical inevitability.

When I participated in AC-accountable tournaments on HeroesWorld, I didn't bother my head with thoughts that the AC might strongly oppose me. I thought they'd have the sense not to throw themselves under the wheels, but instead take a wait-and-see position and let people sort things out themselves.

Actually, many people thought this way, so the initiator of such a conflict could have been a very wide range of players. Moreover, a serious accusation like cheating isn't even necessary here; the very fact of opposing bureaucracy to Cossack freedom is important, and the reason is secondary.

There is too much anarchic romance in the Heroes movement, a desire for freedom to choose one's own leaders and idols; imposing a bureaucratic system of "you elected them — now obey" is fraught with a mass of conflicts.

Therefore, no matter how you arrange it, avoiding conflicts with top players (some leave — new ones will rise) with such an AC charter is unreal. The matter can be mitigated by correctly selecting the AC's composition — if it includes older people, well-acquainted with the traditions of Heroes gatherings, with experience in resolving conflict situations in tournaments, then there's a chance to smooth over the sharp edges.

The previous AC composition was clearly youthful, without serious judging experience, without experience observing schisms and reunifications of communities. For many of them, HeroesWorld is apparently their first serious Heroes gathering. It's no surprise that many things obvious to me were a discovery for them.

Well, so — ideally, it's better that bodies like the AC don't exist at all, but if you really want to play with this toy (I understand the idea is appealing, many are drooling over it), then you should take precautions. For example, create a situation where mentions of the AC on the forum are kept to a minimum, and it's brought out like a machine gun from a closet — only when a serious brawl is underway.

For contrast — Dubrovin's regular phrases "the AC will consider your request" (uttered clearly not without pride) evoke a persistent association with pompous bureaucracy, not realizing that in principle they are servants of the people, not masters. Therefore, it's better if these phrases don't exist at all, or at the very least, if they are uttered not by Dubrovin; for others, it might not be such an eyesore. As a trial, you could add a clause to the AC charter roughly like this — AC members are forbidden from mentioning the name "AC" (and its synonyms) publicly, as well as using the word "we" in relation to the AC.

That's roughly my view of the issue ...

how does the AC bother you: you want to - you appeal to it, you want to - you kick it around..
the same applies to any opinion