Posts from Турниры HeroesWorld Cup & World Cup - 2012

It seems to me that the controversial situation reached a dead end precisely because of the intervention of a "guru in retirement."

Timeline:

Note how Vik's posts differ from all other players:
The rest put sincerity into their lines: you read them and immediately feel that the person cares about the discussion. And only one writes as if he is proving a mathematical theorem, coldly, dryly, and impassively. The logical content is excellent.

Let me remind you that in jurisprudence in general, and in judging in particular, logic is primary, and ethics are only involved where logical analysis shows the existence of several legitimate options, between which a choice must be made.

I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I'm sure that in legal proceedings, the evidentiary basis comes first, not logic.

Vik, your posts don't carry any meaningful content. Am I the only one who notices this? What was the point of your last post?

How is the evidence base analyzed? It is analyzed using logic.

It's as if he's proving a mathematical theorem, coldly, dryly, and impassively. The logical content is excellent. But there is absolutely no ethical side to it.

Here, Vic is talking about the method of analysis. He says that facts (which are the evidence base) should be analyzed not based on emotions (using an ethical method), which is what Oelm accused him of lacking, but using a logical method.


And as someone directly involved in practical jurisprudence, I can confidently state that a professional court will side with the one who presents the case clearly and concisely, like a mathematical theorem, rather than with emotional "water carriers," whom we often see in foreign films, typically with the aim of influencing the audience and a jury.

Everyone has their own style, and that's why we have a forum where everyone's opinion is needed and valued. :)
It's just a shame that the discussion has turned into an off-topic conversation. :(

The theory of probability (the permissibility of certain player moves, with or without maphacks) becomes of primary importance for Judges (in the game).

Here, Vic is talking about the method of analysis. He says that facts (i.e., the evidence base) should be analyzed not based on emotions (an ethical method), which is what Oelm accused him of lacking, but using a logical method.


And as someone directly involved in practical jurisprudence, I can confidently state that a professional court will side with the person who presents their case clearly and concisely, like a mathematical theorem, rather than with emotional "water carriers," whom we often see in foreign films, typically with the intention of influencing the audience and a jury.

Everyone has their own style, and that's why we have a forum where everyone's opinion is needed and valued. :)
It's a shame that the discussion has turned into an off-topic debate. :(

In my opinion, the court (in life) will be on the side of truth (the law), as it understands it...

Master_A
Logic can work differently for everyone, including the judges.

Dubrovin Pavel
In my opinion, in real life, the court will side with the truth (the law), as the court understands it, and not with the person who, unlike the other, logically presents something.

What? Have you completely lost the connection between the quality of the game and the personality of the player? Surely, you're all reasonable people!
Do you know Rebel's personality? What kind of cheating could there be?

Before the tournament, he decided that either he would team up with someone to create a decent international portal, or this would be his last tournament. He didn't receive any help with the website, so he didn't exactly lose interest in the tournament, but he simply knew that it wouldn't lead to anything more than just another tournament.