Posts from Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.

...in Facebook, if there's a real disconnect, it shows in green at the bottom that the opponent left the game and there's lag, but if someone exits using Alt+F4, a panel appears in the middle of the screen with a checkmark. Those who don't know can test it.

a panel appears in the middle of the screen with a checkmark

if it's a real disconnect, it says at the bottom in green that the opponent has left the game and there's lag, but if someone exits using Alt+F4, a window appears in the middle of the screen with a checkmark.

Why replay if the player kept disconnecting, exiting the game five times during the match, claiming a disconnect? But you can't prove it. However, in Facebook games, if it's a real disconnect, it displays a green message at the bottom saying the opponent left the game and there's lag. But if someone exits using Alt+F4, a panel appears in the middle of the screen with a checkmark. Those who don't know can test it. Out of respect for myself, I don't even consider talking to this person. Let everyone draw their own conclusions. I'm willing to accept a technical defeat, but you should draw your own conclusions. There are also many other issues with the game, but unfortunately, I don't save because I trust people, and that was a mistake.

a notification appears in the middle of the screen with a checkmark (c)temofey

ONLY THEN, and ONLY WHEN the opponent manually presses Alt+F4? Has this been tested?
Why immediately blame the opponent, I don't understand...

Due to the current situation surrounding KillerVampir, I believe it is not advisable for me to continue our game. I suggest using the save files (which I previously posted in another thread).

I request that the esteemed members of the Arbitration Committee make a decision regarding our game (save files attached).

KillerVampir (red, Castle, Valya, Gosha) vs AYMAN (blue, Swamp, Tazar, Tazar) 2sm4d(3), 136

I suggest that members of the Arbitration Committee (AC) should be dismissed in the same way they are elected: by a general vote. That is, if a member of the AC wants to resign, the forum should first find a replacement for him or temporarily ban him from participating in tournaments. In other words, joining the AC should be a well-considered decision; it shouldn't be possible to simply quit.

Regarding physical punishments: imagine the reaction of a player who receives a gray mark, let's say for not confirming reports.
"Who's snooping around in my profile? What are these marks? Go to hell, all of you! Pirates, damn it."
In sports, there is a system of disciplinary sanctions; perhaps we could borrow from it?
1 warning
2 reprimand for unsportsmanlike conduct
3 temporary ban from competitions
4 disqualification
But first and foremost, we need to ask ourselves: what do we want to achieve – protect honest players from dishonest ones, or try to help those who have strayed? Because, by getting carried away with punishments, we might not notice that we end up in 1937 or during the Time of Troubles. Perhaps we should use some positive methods, not just the stick? For example, in Genghis Khan's army, a certain law was adopted. In particular, if a soldier fell asleep in the saddle during a campaign and lost his weapon, the soldier behind him had to pick up the weapon. And if he didn't, he was punished. Could any of the forum's authorities vouch for the offender and take the mark instead of him? Temporarily, of course, until he improves.
I propose considering a "Code of Honor".
Clause 1: Fair Play – I undertake to play only with permitted means, to comply with the Forum Rules and the tournament regulations, and to comply with the decisions of the judges.
Clause 2: Save a comrade at your own peril – when I encounter a dishonest player, I will try not to see him as an enemy and help him in every way possible to return to the Path of the Honest Warrior, sparing no effort or time.
Two clauses seem to be enough.

You shouldn't be too generous with rewards. In Soviet times, even in schools, more responsible students among the Pioneers tried to take responsibility for their less diligent peers, and in 90% of cases, the bad ones didn't become good, but the good ones definitely became worse or admitted their helplessness.
We are on an internet resource, and most of those here are not newcomers (80-90% at a glance). You can make allowances for newcomers and make comments, try to help them, especially since communication shows whether a person wants to understand and play honestly or not. But with those who have been caught and warned three times, there is little point in talking. They need to be punished, and punished severely! They've been caught three times, but how many times have they gotten away with it? Twenty times, or more! This has become a system, and such users need to be protected from honest and, in some ways, even naive users.

Helping lost souls means forgiving deceit, but who will take care of those who have been deceived? They are left to swallow their saliva, shrug their shoulders, and that's it. Of course, a system of rewards and punishments, incentives, praise, and a hall of fame should be introduced, BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS NOT TO INTRODUCE ANY RANKINGS OF BAD GUYS, ANY LISTS OF NICKNAMES! Otherwise, this will also be a kind of encouragement. You just need to punish those who play unfairly, inform users through some kind of general mailing list about the names of the unfortunate players, and punish them.

Is AK not active? How are things going with the Clan Wars and Zones?

No, Valentine, AK is not sleeping ))) I think the results will be available soon.