Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession 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.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from Poll regarding changes to the AK regulations.
The World Championship medal itself means a lot. Even without any additional rules, it's clear that these players are effectively barred from participating in tournaments. This is the basis of my position. Pasha, don't forget that any opponent of a player with a World Championship medal can easily request to play with a stream, for example. And many other things. And in a seasonal tournament, let them play if an opponent is found, and even for ranking points.
I see that the vast majority of Tournament Organizers are against this amendment because it would require them not to accept (or remove) a player with a "Champion of Champions" title from their tournament, and they believe it would restrict their freedom.
I will explain what this could lead to (one of the negative consequences).
The "Final Battle" is considered an Official Tournament organized by the "Tournament Committee of Volda."
In the Final Battle, 5 players from the previous Final Battle participate, and 5 players are selected based on the results of tournaments held on Volda.
According to the current rules, any Tournament Organizer hosting a tournament under the auspices of the Tournament Committee is not allowed to include a player with a "Champion of Champions" title in their tournament.
However, one Tournament Organizer (in a real-life situation) includes a player with a "Champion of Champions" title in their tournament. The player with the "Champion of Champions" title wins the tournament, meaning they qualify for the Final Battle.
Meanwhile, another Tournament Organizer (for the Final Battle) would not allow a player with a "Champion of Champions" title to participate.
As the organizer of the Final Battle, I would naturally not allow a player with a "Champion of Champions" title to participate.
So, would that be a normal situation?
Therefore, adopting this amendment, among other things, will help prevent the contradictions I have mentioned from arising.
The Champion of Champions medal itself means a lot. Even without any additional rules, it's clear that these players are barred from participating in Tournaments.
Nothing like that.Oelm
That's what my position is based on.
That's how you should have voted, not the other way around. :) Oelm
Pasha, don't forget that any opponent of a player with the Champion of Champions title can easily demand that the game be played with a stream, for example. And many other things.
I can demand to eradicate corruption in one day, make salaries in Russia as high as in Japan, and install beer taps in apartments. :D
Added 2 minutes ago Dubrovin Pavel
I see that the vast majority of Tournament Organizers are against this amendment because it would obligate them not to include (or remove) a player with the Champion of Champions title from their tournament, and they believe it would restrict their freedom.
I'll explain what this could lead to (one of the negative consequences).
The Facebook group refers to an Official Tournament organized by the TC Vold.
In the Final Battle, 5 players from the previous Final Battle and 5 players are selected based on the results of the tournaments held on Vold.
Any Tournament organizer, hosting a tournament under the auspices of the TC (according to the current rules), is not allowed to include a player with the Champion of Champions title in the tournament.
One Tournament Organizer (a real situation) includes a player with the Champion of Champions title in the tournament. The player with the Champion of Champions title wins the tournament. That is, they qualify for the Final Battle. Whereas, another Tournament Organizer (of the Final Battle) will not allow a player with the Champion of Champions title. As the host of the Final Battle, I naturally would not allow a player with the Champion of Champions title.
And would that be a normal situation?
This is a bad example; players with the Champion of Champions title are not selected for the Final Battle according to the regulations.
Added 2 minutes ago [/U] This is a bad example; according to the rules, a player with Champion of Champions cannot be selected for the Factions Battle.
Quite the contrary, it's a normal example. Instead of letting things escalate to a point where a player with Champion of Champions wins the Qualifying Tournament in Factions Battle, and then being told, "Sorry, but you won't be allowed in the Factions Battle," it's better to immediately prevent the conflict (which, in my opinion, is inevitable in the scenario I described).
Experience shows that even the potential awarding of the "Champion of Mapmaking" title leads to a person leaving the forum. Therefore, the described situation seems illusory.
Furthermore, even if we accept the amendment, the occurrence of the described situation will only lead to another round of disputes between the Administration Committee (AK) and the opposition, with a difficult-to-predict outcome.
In other words, adopting this amendment will not help much in resolving such a situation. If the "Champion of Mapmaking" has a strong support group, including tournament organizers, there is a good chance that they will be able to get him into the tournament despite the AK's wishes, whether with or without the amendment.
Not everyone is inclined to humbly submit to laws and hierarchy. Many believe that the most important thing is common sense, and laws exist only as a kind of guideline + additional weight to certain actions, that is, not as an absolute authority.
... a question about the wording—who organized the OFB4 tournament? The TC, the AC, or does it have some kind of official status?...
A great question from a member of the Tournament Committee who has been an Org for an official tournament for over a year now... Dubrovin Pavel
... sometimes it's hard to determine whether a particular tournament was organized under the aegis of the TC or not...
It's not hard, just ask me...
History.
After the birth of our forum and the formation of its sections, an organizational structure gradually began to take shape. Since the main focus of the forum is the game Heroes, issues regarding the development of the game were addressed first. From simple communication and offline meetups, it moved first toward rating tournaments, and then to serious themed online tournaments. Draft Tournament Rules were developed. Adelaide started working on this. Cheating, whether you like it or not, is prohibited on our resource (for those unaware, everything is permitted on some gaming resources). And 2 years ago, the question of whether a cheater would play in a tournament simply couldn't arise. It was taken for granted that cheating meant immediate removal from the tournament and a ban. Additionally, in each section (Heroes version), a tournament Curator was appointed/elected from among the most active and competent users. In our section, Evgeny became the curator. He organized several successfully completed tournaments. A year and a half ago, he began running 3 tournaments, which circumstances of real life did not allow him to finish.
At that time, the tournament movement was developing very successfully on HP. I was playing in 8-10 tournaments simultaneously across three resources. And then our tournaments started to die. Since personally it seems to me that playing tournaments is more interesting than just playing for rating, I took over finishing Zhenya's tournaments. And almost automatically, this title—Curator of Tournaments for the third game—passed to me by inheritance.
Tournaments are already sporting events, and sport is a combination of strict discipline, excellent organization, and qualified officiating.
Therefore, I saw and still see my duties as curator as follows:
- attracting new orgs from guys who love HW, not Новичок, who have a non-zero skill level, are fair and respect other players, as well as helping them in unusual situations. I don't interfere in other orgs' tournaments unless help is requested. I have never placed obstacles in the way of other proactive guys conducting small tournaments. To run even one tournament well requires quite a lot of time. Therefore, the idea to create a collective of like-minded tournament orgs seemed good to me, so that 5-10 tournaments could run simultaneously and players would have an interesting choice. We discussed this on the forum and conventionally named such a collective the Tournament Committee (TC). This is an informal association of all those who participate in organizing tournaments. Some leave, temporarily or permanently, new orgs appear, so I don't keep a strict list. General issues are handled by sending PMs to the active orgs at that time.
- creating an approximate tournament schedule, so it doesn't happen that there is either nothing at all or way too much
- developing Tournament Rules, gauging the forum's opinion on regularly recurring disputed issues—this is to make it easier for orgs to resolve disputes
- creating a kind of independent staff of judges from among the most respected and qualified players to assist orgs in matters they cannot resolve independently or due to their own participation in the tournament. During discussions, the AC—the Appeals Commission, simply put, the judges—was formed. Any player or org can turn to them—to any one of them or all at once—if they cannot handle a situation themselves.
- communication with the Forum Administration Let's not forget where we are. This forum is private property; money is paid for its maintenance, note that annoying ads are absent here, changes happen constantly, and additional software is written. None of us participate in these organizational forum matters or contribute our own labor. "Users" is a very accurate word (even if I don't like it)—we only use the results of other people's work. We are guests here and are obliged to follow the rules introduced by the owners. Official tournaments are tournaments whose conduct has been coordinated with the Creator. I also coordinate every medal award under an avatar with the Creator. Currently, official ones include—FB, OFB, Favorites, Rating, TC-3, Seasons, Новичок, 3 Nominations, Best Report Contest... (maybe I forgot something). Just a few days ago, I coordinated official status for team tournaments with the Creator. Also, on an individual basis, awards in Roman's tournaments—at Jebus Cross and 2010—were coordinated. Permission was also obtained for the World Championship tournament, the use of the HW logo in its branding, and our team's official participation in it. There were negotiations with Loi regarding the official status of his "Sergeant" tournament; Valery thought about it and declined. The creation of the Tournament Committee and the Appeals Commission was also coordinated with the Creator and received official approval and official status.
- and the most unpleasant part—bringing to a close tournaments abandoned by orgs. Fortunately, this is not a common occurrence now. Thanks to Viktor for seeing the Team tournament through to the end.
If the forum considers my work as tournament curator poor, let's elect another Curator. But someone must do all this work. Kash
... Leave Jed alone. It's quite doubtful they banned without investigation and gave awards; calm down at least about that...
Vit, is this trolling or profound ignorance? Probably the loudest scandal in the entire history of our forum, nearly hundreds of pages written, discussions in at least 3 threads, three of our respected players ended up banned, some practically disappeared after the scandal, and one of the coordinators left the forum—this is "without investigation"? What then do you consider an investigation? Doubtful? 100% proof of cheating was presented to the entire forum; Jed admitted their save and even tried to explain something incoherent. If that's doubtful to you, how do you judge your own tournaments? Dirty_Player
... if I disagree with the decision on a Black Mark, why should I remove a participant?
All Black Marks given to players in our section were issued with the approval of our entire forum. Moreover, half of the cheating cases that ended in a Black Mark were handled before the creation of the AC. Including a cheater in a tournament where those who are sure of their dishonest play are competing is the height of disrespect to the tournament participants. The result is obvious—players withdrawing and the org's reputation falling.
In general, there is a clear correlation between how the forum votes and what decision the AC makes. Therefore, an issued Black Mark is the attitude of the forum as a whole toward this player, not just the opinion of the AC or a single organizer.
/Apparently, the procedure for handling cheating cases needs to be changed slightly. I would suggest this: First, the AC filters out unfounded claims, and there are quite a few of those. Then it posts them for general discussion. After the discussion, a mandatory vote is held on the forum (a "threshold" must be determined), and based on this vote, the AC then confirms or denies the issuance of a Black Mark. Knowing the loyalty of our judges, one can say with certainty that an innocent person will not suffer. A rehabilitation mechanism also needs to be thought through. I don't know how to handle that here; maybe organizing some matches.../
In accordance with all the above, current Tournament Rules, AC regulations, and forum rules, no tournament in which a Black Mark holder plays can have official status. There can be no official awards or other carrots.
Regarding the current situation. Kostya informed me that he wants to hold a tournament for everyone who played for rating in the spring and asked if he could promise the winner a spot in FB. In the spring, there were no Black Mark holders in the rating. Since the tournament was expected to be large, I didn't mind. Including a player with a Black Mark in a tournament—which I found out about later—contradicts existing rules, makes the tournament unofficial, and automatically leads to the cancellation of this promise.
This all refers to what existed before the start of this discussion and what exists now.
I've finally reached the question under discussion. I'm tired of writing, and there's still a lot more... I'll continue when I have time...
You are absolutely right. However, the debate isn't about that. The argument is about the form, not the content.
You intuitively understand the right way to present your will to public opinion – writing long, structured posts, persuading with words, etc. In other words, making the public agree with you, rather than submit to you.
Dubrovin, on the other hand, adheres to a different point of view – minimal constructive dialogue, the decisions of the party and the government are correct simply because they are the decisions of the party and the government. And if someone disagrees, that's their problem. With an elegant formulation of dismissal: "you can vote for other candidates in the next elections."
Therefore, his proposal caused such a reaction – the organizers are being asked to be not an object of persuasion by the AK (Arbitration Committee), but an object of submission to the AK's decision. This is not ideal for many reasons (which have already been stated).
It is clear that the organizers wouldn't take a player who has clearly violated the rules into the Tournaments, whether it's the World Championship or not. The AK's decision isn't even necessary here; public approval/disapproval is enough.
Therefore, the proposed amendment won't provide any particular advantages, but it will remove one of the safeguards against the AK's arbitrariness (whether accidental or intentional). For the stable development of the community, the existence of such safeguards is a necessary condition.
- communication with the Forum Administration We are guests here and must follow the rules established by the hosts. Official tournaments are tournaments whose organization has been approved by the Creator. Each medal award under the avatar I also coordinate with the Creator.
Fortunately, all users have the ability to contact the administration. When I summarized the survey results regarding Vitalik, I wrote a letter to the Creator about removing the ChMC. He was surprised by such a strong reaction from players to the ChMC, and he decided to reconsider the mechanism for awarding tags. Unfortunately, he does not have enough real time for this... I will not post excerpts from his letters, but he made it clear that the situation surrounding the ChMC does not suit him. Pit for LM
Probably the biggest scandal in the history of our forum, nearly hundreds of pages written, discussion in at least 3 topics, three of our respected players got banned, after the scandal some practically disappeared, one of the coordinators left the forum - is that "no investigation"? What do you consider an investigation then?
This scandal, for example, surprised me greatly. The situation through my eyes: "Some noob found a heroes site, registered, and started playing online. Without taking the game, the forum, or the people seriously, he begins to blatantly cheat. And serious people, adults, respected individuals who have achieved something in real life, snapped like dogs and started trashing each other, leaving the forum, quitting heroes, etc." Although it was enough to just be patient a little and understand what was what. It turned out that some random little cheater, who doesn't care about anything, nearly destroyed what had been built over years. And the cause of it all was the inadequate behavior on the part of the so-called "victims" — Loi, invisible, etc. Pit for LM
- Including a cheater in a tournament where those who are sure of his dishonest play are playing is the height of disrespect towards the tournament participants. The result is clear - players withdrawing and a drop in the organizer's reputation.
Really? How is "certainty of honest play" measured? My survey: /topic/7053/ showed that 80% of players are willing to give Vitalik a second chance. Another survey: /topic/7143/ showed that only 56.76% trust the player bRitvo4kA. The remaining 43.24% are certain of dishonesty. So now, including Andrey in a tournament is disrespect towards these 43%? Which of these players should I refuse registration to so that my reputation doesn't drop? Pit for LM
/Apparently, the procedure for reviewing cheating cases needs to be somewhat changed. I would suggest this: First, the AC filters out unfounded claims, and there are quite a few of those. Then, it is put up for general discussion. After the discussion, a mandatory vote is held on the forum (a "threshold" needs to be determined), and based on this vote, the AC confirms or denies the awarding of the ChMC. Knowing the loyalty of our judges, we can say with confidence that an innocent person will not suffer. Also, a rehabilitation mechanism needs to be thought out. I don't know how to handle that here, maybe organizing some matches.../
Completely agree. The filtering mechanism especially needs to be worked out. When the AC was formed, complaints started pouring in like: "My opponent took a crypt with impossible losses. Look at the saves and punish him. I won't play with him anymore." or my favorite and common one "Player X accused me of cheating, look at my saves and tell him he's wrong" :D And also rehabilitation. People do change after all. Pit for LM
In accordance with all the above, the current Tournament Rules, the AC operating regulations, and the forum rules, a tournament in which a holder of the ChMC plays cannot have any official status. There can be no official awards or other carrots.
But hasn't it been the case that the ChMC doesn't prohibit anything, only warns? Or has that already been canceled? Pit for LM
-Regarding the current situation. Kostya told me he wants to hold a tournament for everyone who played for rating in the spring, and asked if he could promise the winner a spot in the FB. In the spring, there wasn't a single ChMC holder in the rating. Since the tournament was expected to be large, I had no objection. The inclusion of a player with a ChMC in the tournament, which I found out about somewhat later, contradicts the existing rules, makes the tournament unofficial, and automatically leads to the cancellation of this promise.
Well, this is all quite funny. This is called: "I am the master of my word! I give when I want, I take back when I want" :D Why does this "taking back" only appear when the tournament is already in the semifinal stage? :confused: And even if a player who has a ChMC does get a ticket to the FB, he won't be able to play anyway, because his participation contradicts the regulations. So why beat around the bush? I don't understand...
In my opinion, the recognition by the Tournament Organizers of the decision regarding the Clash of Heroes Championship (and, consequently, the disqualification/ban from future participation in the Tournament), which is made by an authorized structure of the Resource (whether it be the Arbitration Committee or any other structure specifically created by the Heroes of Might and Magic Online players to resolve disputed matches), is a necessary and mandatory condition for the normal functioning of the Resource.
I can say that I didn't immediately come to this conclusion, but I can no longer deviate from it, and without the adoption of this amendment, I no longer see the point in my participation in the Arbitration Committee of Heroes of Might and Magic Online.
Really? How is “confidence in fair play” measured? My poll: /topic/7053/ showed that 80% of players are willing to give Vitalik a second chance. Another poll: /topic/7143/ showed that only 56.76% believe player bRitvo4kA. The remaining 43.24% are confident in his dishonesty. So now, including Andrey in the Tournaments – is this disrespecting these 43%? Which of these players should I refuse registration to so that my reputation doesn't suffer?
There’s no need to complicate things; there is a special body – the AK (Arbitration Committee) – and almost 100% of players voted for its legitimacy. The Champion title isn’t given out just like that; it’s awarded after careful and thorough consideration. I simply don’t understand this childish behavior with Vitalik, especially from such kind people as Dubrovin, who first vote for the Champion title, then for a "second chance," and then fight against allowing Champions into tournaments, even though they themselves essentially voted for it. Enough is enough. No, gentlemen, it’s time to end this childishness, stop stressing each other out and the Creator, let’s act like adults: if you receive the Champion title, goodbye, no second chances or concessions. Most of the AK and players consider the player innocent – no questions asked; those who don’t trust him can choose not to play with him; the tournament organizer has the right not to accept any player of their choice. P.S. By the way, at one time, NO ONE voted in favor of Vitalik’s honesty – compared to this, 56% for Britva is VERY high.
I just don't understand this childish behavior with Vitalik, especially from such nice guys like Dubrovin, who first vote for Champion of Champions, then for a "second chance," and then fight to prevent Champion of Champions players from participating in tournaments, even though they themselves voted for it.
Wlk777, I don't think that if a player is awarded Champion of Champions, they should be written off. I believe that a player can change. I think that banning a player with Champion of Champions from tournaments for a year is a sufficient punishment. Also, I don't rule out that the punishment could be lifted early.
Remember your own story with the ban, which could have been permanent for you, and only the goodwill of the Volod players helped you avoid it. There's no need to go to extremes.
Wlk777, I don't think that if a Player is awarded the "Champion of Champions" title, it means they should be written off. I believe that a Player can change. I think that disqualifying a Player with the "Champion of Champions" title from Tournaments for a period of 1 year is a sufficient punishment. Also, I don't rule out that the punishment may be lifted early.
Remember your own history with the Ban, which could have been permanent for you, and only the goodwill of the Volod players helped you avoid it. There is no need to go to extremes.
Excellent. Implement these procedures for lifting the "Champion of Champions" title, instead of staging a circus first with a vote for a "second chance" and then raising a topic like this, but don't say that it wasn't started because of Vitalik. Pete, Dubrovin, Darth, Spirit, Cash, and others – agree among yourselves and don't involve the entire forum in your disputes.
Oelm
