Posts from Forum

Dubrovin Pavel: I wonder why you delete my insults but turn a blind eye to his insults directed at me?

If I consider a post offensive, I delete or edit it... nothing personal.
My opinion on what constitutes offensive may differ from another person's opinion, I may even be mistaken, but that does not mean I am being selective toward anyone.

This post was intended for the forum!

Among the memorable lyrics, there's this poetic piece:

Cold girl, Lida.
Why is she so cold?
Into what depths of Hades
Did she once step?

I'm dying for Atlantis,
And, despising the world of men,
I wish the cold girl Lida
To be even colder.

P.S.

Open the forum, Pete, and step down from the forum!!

At first, I thought about writing this post in the World Championship thread, but then I figured the information is important enough, so I created a separate topic. Let it stay here for now, and once it dies down, it can be moved to the Tribune or wherever else.

Remember, a couple of years ago there were two high-profile cheating cases. One went smoothly, but the second was like a bomb going off in a toilet. It seemed like clear material on how to do things and how not to, but not everyone learned the lesson. However, this issue has already been chewed over; I have some thoughts on it, but I don't think they are relevant for the players themselves—it's more for the judges and organizers.

Therefore, let's discuss the behavior of players and their fans... there are many complaints here, and they've been accumulating for a long time, and now they've just been released in a concentrated burst. Besides, this is a fresh question that hasn't been discussed in years.

First, a basic question—what is a judge for anyway? Maintaining the tournament bracket, drawing lots for players, recording results—even schoolchildren can handle that, and in some cases, players are capable of solving such issues through self-organization. So, the primary function of a judge is to resolve disputed episodes; this is exactly where maximum qualification is required, both in making the decision and in how it is presented. Furthermore, disputed episodes are called "disputed" because the players are unable to resolve them on their own. In other words, regardless of the decision, there will be dissatisfied people. Yes, in some cases a compromise is possible, but in severe cases involving technical losses or even bans, compromise options simply do not exist.

I'm explaining this in such detail not because these are non-trivial things—everyone knows them—but because it seems they aren't fully internalized, and a number of important consequences aren't being drawn. Specifically—how should the participants of the dispute and their fans react to various decisions made by judges?

Imagine a situation—a judge bans player N for cheating; half of the tournament participants agree, half disagree. And the disagreeing part begins to give the judge ultimatums—"if you ban the 'cool guy' N, we'll all withdraw from the tournament." The judge scratches his head and says—fine, we'll unban him. But then the second half of the players chime in—"either you ban N or we'll withdraw from the tournament; we refuse to play with a cheater." A stalemate.

The question is—who is to blame for this? For the most part, the tournament participants, though for different reasons, believe the judge is to blame. Although objectively, it is the participants who are to blame—due to their non-constructive behavior. Because no matter what decision is made here, there will be many dissatisfied people.

Theoretically, of course, there is a possibility for the judge to conduct preliminary preparation of public opinion, win over some of the dissenters, bring in a media resource in the form of outside agitators (relative to the tournament), and then morally crush the remaining dissenters with the number of those who agree. Only this process is complex and unpredictable; it requires talent and a certain amount of luck. Moreover, in any case, some players will drop out; argumentation of the type "N is a cool guy and that's that" does not imply the existence of counter-arguments.

So—judging by the intensity of the passions, the described situation only didn't happen at the World Championship because mostly foreign participants remained there, who don't care much about Rebel. If it had been mostly Runet players, a series of tournament withdrawals would have been inevitable, and from both sides. In fact, 2 out of 3 Runet players + the judge bailed.

The logical question—is such a situation normal?

Imho, not really. After all, we aren't dealing with toxic youth or hysterical ladies here, but adult men, often married, with children, etc. This implies an ability to find a consensus, both individually and socially. Moreover, unlike game regulations, it is not possible here to compile a set of rules and administrative penalties for their violation. That is, one must act through the creation of moral norms—ideas of what is ethical and what is not.

How it looks to me:

1) Criticizing the judge, expressing one's imho, etc.—is normal for both the affected player and their support group.

2) Resorting to personal attacks, threatening, issuing ultimatums, etc.—is unethical.

3) Withdrawing from the tournament, ignoring future tournaments organized by this judge or their like-minded associates—is normal (and logical) for the affected player.

4) Withdrawing from the tournament with wording like "out of solidarity" or "tired of the bickering" or similar—is unethical for the other participants (regardless of their position on the disputed episode).

5) For a judge to close an active tournament with such wording—is doubly unethical.

6) Engaging in anti-PR for future tournaments organized by this judge or their like-minded associates, demonstratively refusing to participate in them, or making any demands—is unethical for everyone. If you don't like the personality of the organizer—quietly ignore their tournaments; there's no need to stir up dirt again.

That's roughly the set of points. I think observing or at least cultivating these will heal the psychological atmosphere in the Heroes community, improve mutual understanding, and organize relationships between participants both within individual tournaments and during the off-season.

A "Wall of Fame" for those who particularly distinguished themselves during the events of recent days:

1) StickyFingaz - point 5
2) Pit for LM - point 4
3) CJIOHuK - point 6 oh-oh-oh ... (at the bottom of the page)
4) ... many others fell under point 2, but I'm too lazy to search for them now

The aforementioned citizens, imho, deserve public condemnation. It doesn't force them to reverse decisions, repent, admit they were wrong, etc. What's done is done. But taking note that one shouldn't do this anymore—is more than worth it.

Thank you for your attention :rolleyes:

P.S. Especially vindictive people might say that I myself violated the above points in the past. Yes, I did. That doesn't mean I acted correctly back then.

Dear user, perhaps you should start with yourself, as it seems you only enjoy trolling...???
And where is point 7 – about the ubiquitous trolls who will go to any lengths to twist everything...?
What do you hope to achieve with this topic???

1) Criticizing the judge, expressing one's opinion, etc. is normal, both for the affected player and for their support group.

2) Resorting to personal attacks, making threats, issuing ultimatums, etc. is unethical.

3) Withdrawing from the Tournaments, ignoring subsequent Tournaments organized by this judge or their like-minded individuals is normal (and logical) for the affected player.

4) Withdrawing from the Tournaments with the explanation of "in solidarity" or "tired of the squabbles" or similar is unethical for the other participants (regardless of their position on the controversial episode).

5) For the judge, closing the ongoing Tournaments with such explanations is doubly unethical.

6) Organizing an anti-PR campaign for subsequent Tournaments organized by this judge or their like-minded individuals, demonstratively refusing to participate in them, or making any demands is unethical for anyone. If one doesn't like the organizer's personality, they should quietly ignore their Tournaments; there is no need to stir up more trouble.

1. No one criticized the judge, and no one accused anyone!!! We said that if X was said, then prove it!!! Create a topic where everything is described, instead of writing all sorts of nonsense about what I supposedly said or uttered at some point, etc.!!!!
2. No one issued an ultimatum!!! The number of emoticons confirms this!!! A baseless accusation cannot lead to such a punishment, just as the accusation itself cannot.
3. I didn't see any offensive words towards Judge R, even from player N.
4. I think it's wrong to write about the same thing in two points, and it's completely irrelevant to your unconfirmed and unjustified words!!!
5. No one closed the Tournaments; it will start in July!!!!
6. In my opinion, you are doing more agitation there, saying that the Portal is not friendly with VT. It's their business, and what you write in every topic is nonsense!!!! (I don't understand why you haven't been banned there yet :))

PS:
I seemed to have a normal attitude towards you, and I still do, but it's strange to read such nonsense!
Sorry for the personal remarks! I got a little carried away and wrote it :) Good luck to everyone :)

A cart in the essay genre. Or the other way around..

A little bit of maphack theory. Let's think together about what exactly maphack helps with — using additional information from the map to achieve a result (this is an important point, it must be admitted; if maphack is not aimed at winning, well, a pathological one... then it is practically undetectable). First thing that comes to mind is playing with restarts. It's quite difficult to prove, due to subjective reasons for taking [an action]. The sixth sense in the gut suggested it. And that happens too. But it's logical to assume that a maphacker must look at the map before the game, otherwise they could find themselves in a situation of maphacker powerlessness (oh, the shame). This is not proof, but a symptom. By the way, there is a very effective means of combating this — streaming the game. Let's reason further: in principle, one could imagine that highly professional play with a closed map would not differ much from similar play with an open map. Moreover, everyone strives for that. But where does the cheater gain an advantage? Obviously, in a random game, it's in scouting the territory. Here the cheater faces a dilemma: they need to find out the map, for efficient progression, and also simulate scouting to be elusive. But this is counting one's chickens before they're hatched. After all, if one simulates scouting the territory and checking objects before taking them to the fullest, then in principle, the same could be done with a closed map, given a sufficiently high understanding of the game's laws. That is, the snake eats its own tail. In real life, a maphacker MUST cut corners on scouting. And this is the second symptom. The more they economize, the greater the profit in development. Third, time: a maphacker will always play quickly, faster than they would play without knowledge of the map. There is a persistent myth that cheaters will take longer. Let's just think: for a hacker, there is no problem of a closed map, no problem of turning right or left, choosing the strong or the weak stack, needing a unit to move without penalty or not. What order to collect objects in. All of this is caught by an experienced eye directly from the map. By the way, I was surprised by this passage:
Neoandy:

Generally, I noticed with the Chinese players, and then it was confirmed in a conversation with Gomunguls, that they move very quickly. In the first week, my opponent took from 1 to 3 minutes (I started thinking either the layout was crap or he was a noob), and then he also took the ramp crypt in no more than 5 seconds (I saw that part of the spawn from the scout view). I decided I must have imagined it and simply didn't believe my eyes, but Gomunguls reported the same thing. I don't think they take objects on quick... Maybe they cooked up some program?

Well, if this is not artistic exaggeration, then of course, this is no longer a symptom but direct evidence. You might take a mini-crypt in 20 seconds, taking it in 10 seems incredible to me, anything less already requires special programs.
The fourth symptom is an extremely high "intuition". Like the player always gets the winning cards. This is not proof in itself, but the coincidence of symptoms is a very heavy argument for guilt.

And actually, what needs to be looked for (it's been said many times) — movements and transfers of heroes and troops that would look irrational with a closed map, but are (maybe very) advantageous with prior knowledge of the terrain.

Right here I'll throw in an objection — an addition for Wic: a person who examines, and most importantly takes responsibility, when identifying dishonest play, must possess the highest level of qualification. Which, by the way, was not observed in the World Championship situation. There are individuals I view favorably/neutrally in terms of human qualities, but who IMHO have not reached the necessary level to make balanced judgments.

A little about Thinkeer:

Unfortunately, this will be non-factual nonsense, as there is no way to get into the SoD game. But!

In my opinion, questions should not be built on the principle of 1. suspicious moment 2. suspicious moment... Investigation doesn't work that way. Questions should be different; preferably, completely harmless ones should be neighbors with those disguised as harmless — the person is no fool. To be caught out by cheap tricks. And cunning pitfalls can sometimes throw a person off balance, break their pattern. But since it's already too late for that, I would simply ask, besides what our accusers have written, for Thinkeer to provide a detailed analysis of one of his own games. Since the case seems non-trivial (that's what I think, despite the saves). Any game he wishes. But with strategic content, that is, not some balancing-Jebus Cross games, but preferably something XL, where thinking is much more multidimensional. Based on such a report, a lot can be said in addition to those "indictment" points.

Now about ethics. Topic tags.

There won't be such a peaceful, orderly, a-la Wic-fantasy anyway. In any case. Let's imagine there is a certain player we've known for more than a month or year. We constantly fight against them. And we both ended up in a tournament under the auspices of "THE ORGANIZER". And this person, without having properly played against my well-known opponent, starts spouting some nonsense about maphack-x.hack. How will I (should) act on this? Well, maybe it's not as logical as Wic's theses, but I truly would consider myself entitled to use my likely authority, weight, etc., to influence the judges. Maybe even at the cost of being disqualified from the tournament. This is not criminal! That's what KobRa and Forrest did — some of the best HoMM players in the world. Possibly in certain situations, I would have done the same. In my opinion, this is natural and organic. You don't give up your friends. Even "virtual" ones. In principle, one could conduct a long, tedious analysis claiming to consider the circumstances, adding arguments. BUT! This would require a considerable amount of my personal energy resources. As well as the judges' readiness for contact, and necessarily a subtle "feeling" for the game. Nothing less. That's the way it is, guys (or pies).

Now to the main bones of contention!

Why do I think Wic is guilty in the situation with the discharges at the World Championship. I am sure that his clear factual position "FOR" Rebellius from the start (relying solely on the game logic of actions) would not have allowed a deadlock to form. What happened? Rebella was disqualified, and the tournament was killed. Yes, yes, no matter how hard you try, now it's just a fan get-together. Whether it needs to be finished or not, I don't know; honestly, it's secondary to me personally. Well, remember the RP-tournaments (if this abbreviation means anything to you). Imagine Paladin being disqualified two rounds (for example) before the end. How do you finish the tournament after that? You can finish it, but it won't be an RP anymore! Just a strong fan get-together. Same here — REBELLIUS is the winner of WC_2012. For me!

(By the way, in the recent tournament with "World", a similar situation occurred. Samurai was disqualified, and for good reason. And the tournament died, SOMEWHERE. That's how it is, everything is very subtle, you had to feel it immediately).

ABOUT ETHICS:
Wic:

But where would it have gone without my intervention? Well, yes — then why does street magic not work on Thinker's case?

The situations are different. First there was a bonfire, then it grew into a conflagration.

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

10 times NO!!

Pure logic leads only to one thing: First, you will create a theory, assertion, conclusion — (e.g., Mr. X is guilty), and then, albeit very talentedly, fit the data to it. And by the way, this is your thought from who knows when — that an investigator intuitively looks for a criminal among the accused, and then starts to break them, dig deeper, and so on in that direction. So, whether it's true or not, if your ethical side of perception is flawed, you will be in the role of a careless engineering student who first builds a drawing or graph (and an incorrect one at that) and then stuffs real premises into it, even while following logical rules.

AND FINALLY. ABOUT THE COOL GUY. YES!!! THAT IS HOW IT IS AND HOW IT SHOULD BE!! THIS IS A REAL AND SIGNIFICANT ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENSE (but by no means for the prosecution). AND IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IT IS CALLED A PERSONAL/PROFESSIONALCHARACTER REFERENCE. AND IT IS PERFECTLY NORMAL TO BUILD ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT BASED ON THE CONTENT OF THIS VERY REFERENCE, AND THE VERDICT OFTEN, DEPENDING ON SUCH A CHARACTER REFERENCE, WILL DIFFER IN A REMARKABLE WAY!!

Thank you for your attention. I am confident in the innocence of the winner of WC_2012 — Rebelliousa.

P.S. Special thanks for not being included in Bay's tournament (in case of your decision)

Regarding some concerns about Euro 2012. In print media (like Utkin's blog and many others), there's a tendency to criticize D. Advocaat. I completely disagree. Of all the participants in this spectacle (the team, the players, the staff, the Russian Football Union, the fans), Dick turned out to be the MOST predictable. He did exactly what he was SIMPLY OBLIGED to do (money, the game, the atmosphere – everything coincided with the most obvious predictions). The national team players – Kerzhakov, Pavlyuchenko – could have played like that. Or they could have played better. Or worse. There was a range of possibilities. Fursa also showed variability; he could have behaved differently. But it turned out the way it did. But only Dick was locked into a predetermined course, with his WELL-REHEARSED and predictable approach, and HE DID EVERYTHING exactly as he was OBLIGED to do according to the PLAN (for example, according to higher powers). In contrast, I would highlight Oleg Blokhin. I just don't like him as a coach. Sometimes his game plan is too simplistic, and sometimes the Ukrainian national team just turns into a team from some backwater town (for example, when they lost to the Greeks). But look at how he transformed the team for the match against the English! There are no words, only admiration. And what should the Ukrainian national team players, who left a piece of themselves on the football field, think of our pathetic clowns, who, apparently, were given a TOO EASY opponent?

In contrast, I'd like to highlight Oleh Blokhin. I simply don't like him as a coach. Either his game strategy is too simplistic, or he turns the Ukrainian national team into a team from a backwater town (for example, when they lost to Greece). But look at how he transformed the team for the match against the English! There are no words to describe it, only admiration. And what should the Ukrainian national team players, who left their mark on the football field, think of our pathetic clowns, who, apparently, were given an opponent who was TOO easy?

We didn't lose to Greece under Blokhin.

From the audience: Absolutely sound and understandable comment, I agree 100% with Oelma's post. I would like to add something for the "lawyers" who are discussing the primacy of logic on the forum. A good lawyer differs from a bad one primarily by strong rhetoric and courtroom eloquence (they can twist any situation in the desired way, which is what they are paid for) and knowledge of the pitfalls of the legislation in the relevant area (and, of course, having connections and resolving issues, but that's between the lines). And logic, as has already been written, is different for everyone. Some people will punch you in the face if you ask, "Can I have a cigarette?"

Let's imagine there is a certain player whom we have known for more than a month or a year. We constantly fight with him. And we both ended up in a tournament under the auspices of the "ORGANIZER". And this person, without actually playing against my well-known opponent, starts spouting some nonsense about maphack-cheats. How should I (must I) handle this? Well, perhaps this is not as logical as Wic's theses, but I truly will consider myself entitled to use my likely authority, influence, etc. to exert pressure on the judges.

Exerting influence is possible and necessary. See point 1.

Perhaps, even at the cost of being disqualified from the tournament. That is not criminal! KobRa and Forrest did this — some of the best HoMM players in the world, and in a certain situation I might have done the same. In my opinion, this is natural and organic.

But this is not needed. Because it harms the community.

Earlier, when duels were in fashion, many tsars and kings forbade their nobles from challenging each other to duels. Because it harmed the state's defense capability. And the nobles themselves resisted this, reasoning like you — "if I have been insulted, then I have the right to kill the offender, it is natural and organic."

It wasn't just KobRa and Forrest; there were also a bunch of other players who acted similarly, including myself. That's the point — we need to stop this shit. We've already ruined several tournaments, and who knows how many more we'll ruin.

I can't recall a single case where such actions benefited a tournament or the community. The typical scenario — they quarreled, got puffed up, and scattered. Who felt better because Forrest left HeroesWorld or Valenok the same? No one pushed them to do it, but "I disagree!"

If you look at professional sports, you'll see how controversial situations are resolved there — sure, they get screwed over by referees, it happens. They curse, they conflict, but they keep playing. Because they understand — there can't be solutions that satisfy everyone in some cases.

Just the other day, the Ukrainians were denied a clear goal against England. According to your logic, they should have made a scandal, subjected the referee to obstruction, withdrawn from the tournament themselves, and stopped holding it on Ukrainian territory, let the Poles host it. How could they not, it's natural and organic — if I disagree, I'll dig in and force everyone to eat shit along with me.

That's why I say, from the standpoint of sports ethics, this is at a kindergarten level — "I'll freeze my ears off to spite my mom." Adults, for the most part, understand that the world is fundamentally unfair, and anything can happen in it.

In two words, what is this about? I can’t read all these poems. :smile24:

in two words, what is this about? I can't read all these poems :smile24: Post 666

They are analyzing the reasons why CIS players are not good at Heroes (i.e., they are all noobs).
And in this way, they are trying to shut down the World Championship :)))
Just kidding.
Although the real state of affairs in the World Championship 2012 today is as follows:
6 foreigners remain in the tournament, and three of ours (even if we count Rebel). Sadness. We are noobs.

Special thanks for not including me in the Baevsky tournament (just in case you decide to).

I couldn't quite grasp this phrase.

Although the real state of affairs in the World Championship 2012 as of today is:
6 foreigners remain in the tournament, and three of ours (even if we count Rebel). It's a pity. We're noobs.

This is a consequence of our own lack of restraint. If you look at it from a sporting perspective, the situation is different - 2 out of 4 semi-finalists are ours, and another one is making his way through the lower bracket. And this is despite the fact that our starting lineup is far from optimal, while all the strongest foreigners are participating.

Yura, maybe it would have been better to focus your efforts on accusing the Chinese player instead of writing lengthy posts? You're quite good at that. So far, the Chinese player's response in the neighboring thread is discouraging; it's even unclear how to counter it. I've encountered this attitude from artists many times – they create something obviously bad and then say, "That's just my vision." Such people are practically unbeatable.
Maybe you could take a look at the save files? And also, check out Reba's opinion; he has much more reason than the Chinese player to say, "That's just my vision."

As others have pointed out, everyone has their own logic.

This is sophistry; everyone can have their own, but logic is the same for everyone, much like mathematics.

Some people, when asked "Can I have a cigarette?", immediately punch you in the face.

This is more likely paranoia or something similar; it has nothing to do with logic.

Oelm
Pure logic leads to only one thing: first, you create a theory, assertion, or conclusion (e.g., Mr. X is guilty), and then, perhaps quite skillfully, you fit the data to it.

Where they start "fitting" things, logic ends, and sophistry begins.

AND FINALLY, ABOUT THE GREAT GUY. YES!!! THAT'S HOW IT SHOULD BE!! THIS IS A REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENSE (but not for the prosecution). AND IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, IT IS CALLED A PERSONAL/PROFESSIONAL CHARACTERIZATION. AND IT IS PERFECTLY NORMAL TO BUILD ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT, BASED ON THE CONTENT OF THIS CHARACTERIZATION, AND THE VERDICT, OFTEN, DEPENDING ON THIS CHARACTERIZATION, WILL BE SURPRISINGLY DIFFERENT!!

The presumption of innocence, not a personal characterization, obligates one to resolve ambiguous situations in favor of the accused. A personal characterization is taken into account when determining the sentence and is not taken into account when deciding on guilt or innocence.