Posts from Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.

It's like a real Criminal Code. Caught – a thief, not caught – not a thief. What irritates me most in the description of such situations is the "off-screen laughter" of those who, unlike the much-discussed Indra, constantly opens saves, watches opponents' streams, and secretly cheats. They simply do these nasty things so clearly that, as a result, they have an unquestionable reputation as "the most honest" players and continue to secretly mock "inexperienced mapmakers." In general, it's complete nonsense, all this AK and so on. I wouldn't impose any additional penalties beyond the temporary ban in a specific game for such behavior. It's like in football, for a tackle from behind, besides a red card, banning participation in international matches for a year.

And how many games have you played in Heroes of Might and Magic III in the last year?

And how many games of Heroes 3 have you played here in the last year?

None here. But I've played a billion in WOT. And I'm a moderator at heroeswt.net. I organize tournaments there and sometimes resolve controversial situations. So I think I have the right to an opinion on any resource, especially when it comes to players with whom I've had a long and good relationship in WOT.

There are none here. But on VT – there are a billion. And I am a moderator at heroeswt.net. I organize tournaments there and sometimes resolve controversial situations. So, I believe I have the right to an opinion on any resource, especially when it comes to players with whom I have had a long and good relationship on VT.

Well, we didn't want to offend your feelings. AK was created for this resource – it's like a firewall to make the game cleaner and somehow protect players and organizers. AK was created by the players themselves, through a general vote, and I don't remember anyone complaining about its work, except for those who ended up there. And people don't just end up there.
It's simple: play fairly, and no one will say a word to you. It's a simple statement. Why argue with this and interfere in someone else's business with your own rules? :rolleyes:

Well, we didn't want to offend your feelings. The Anti-Cheat (AC) was created for this resource – it's like a firewall to make the game cleaner and somehow protect players and organizers. The AC was created by the players themselves, through a general vote, and I don't remember anyone complaining about its work, except for those who ended up on it. And people don't just end up there.
It's all very simple: play fairly, and no one will say a word to you. It's a simple statement. Why argue with this and interfere in someone else's business with your own rules? :rolleyes:

I'm not interfering in any way. I'm just supporting a player who I consider worthy of, if not forgiveness, then at least a milder punishment for what happened.

I wouldn't impose any additional penalties beyond the technical defeat in a specific game for something like this. It's like in football, where in addition to a red card for a tackle from behind, you also ban the player from participating in international matches for a year.

Are you kidding? So, if you cheat and don't get caught, you're a genius! But if you get caught like an idiot on someone else's stream, then okay, let there be a technical defeat. Especially since he's a friend of Lizard's.

The comparison with football is just ridiculous. It should be like this: it's the same as banning someone from competitions for a year for using doping. And that would be right.

Wlk wrote to me tonight, sharing his thoughts on this. Who, if not him, understands what AK is better than anyone else? I think it's necessary to post the log.

Wlk777:
What is AK? Who elected you? What authority do you have? For example, ATG and Forrest don't respect you, to put it mildly... And their authority is higher than yours...

Wlk777:
In my opinion, you (AK) are complete assholes.

Wlk777:
All your decisions are bullshit, and you'll be disbanded soon.

Wlk777:
I'm sure of it.

Wlk777:
Although they're already laughing.

Wlk777:
At a bunch of idiots who weren't elected by anyone and who are doing nonsense.

Wlk777:
That's all for now.

:smile20:

Post by Lizard B
You have a system just like a real Criminal Code. Caught – a thief, not caught – not a thief.

That’s real life. If you can’t handle it (steal), don’t torture yourself. A self-respecting thief won’t expose himself for something insignificant, especially since the stakes are higher there. If you get caught, they might humiliate you, not just send you a private message. But all sorts of riffraff, who want to be considered serious thieves, will try – and get caught. Statistically, out of 10 thieves, only 1 will actually succeed, and the other 9 will remain at the bottom.

VLC wrote to me tonight with his thoughts on this. Who, if not him, understands best what AK is. I think it's necessary to post the log.



:smile20:

Valentin, as always, is clear and to the point:D
It's time to introduce another poll about unbanning and including VLC in AK:p

VLK wrote to me tonight with his thoughts on this. Who better than him understands what AK is? I think it's worth posting the log.



:smile20:

Judging by the number of typos, VLK had a couple of drinks for courage.

Treatise: on the delights of the work of a cesspool cleaner.

- Saves of an unfinished match may not be opened by anyone except the tournament judge/host or a member of the AC, and only in the event of a dispute arising in the match. If, at the moment a dispute requiring the opening of saves arises, there is no contact with the judge/host/AC, the match must be interrupted and saved by both participants until contact with the judges is established.

Well, for starters... This context of the rules does not assert that saves cannot be loaded during a postponement. At least because the second sentence indirectly contains an explanation of the content — why on earth would anyone in a dispute need to "load a save". Naturally, the judge will open the save from both sides, possibly the map, and based on that, will render a decision in the disputed situation. I do not see here any indication of the impossibility of loading a save in single-player.

Perhaps this is not stated, but is implied by the creators; let's approach it from that angle. In that case, it would be reasonable to assume that loading a save should give the player some advantage unattainable by other means. But, firstly, a participant can ask their opponent for the opportunity to recall the map during multiple reloads. This is formally allowed, and moreover, it is common practice. Besides the fact that a player can look for as long as the time limit is ticking, they can quite easily avoid accepting their opponent's turn, using the fact that HD+ provides this opportunity. Accordingly, they can start their turn after the same kind of preliminary analysis.

Secondly, a player can simply take screenshots of the game, knowing that the game will be postponed, and thus have the same information at their disposal. Thirdly, if we imagine that a stubborn opponent refuses the possibility of loading a save before handing over the turn online, one can prepare in advance and write down certain thoughts on the game in, say, Notepad. Naturally, all these considerations pertain specifically to difficult moments, when the obvious strongest development is not immediately visible.

Will a player who has studied the game in single-player have an advantage over one who has not? Yes, that is the case. But, firstly, postponing the game in any case provides a number of opportunities to play in a way that would be impossible for a player to do directly online. For example: say player A sent their turn and stepped away to use the bathroom, which took them 2 minutes. They return, and it turns out the opponent has already made their move; accordingly, player A needs to make a decision in the game on the fly, although again there may be situations where the correct and best move is very difficult to find.

If the match was postponed, then at the very least, it is possible to restore the game map from memory and carefully weigh the pros and cons of a particular choice.

Another possible situation is, for example, a player is facing a battle, say, of a level 9 Pire against 5-9 War Unicorns. Directly online, one might decide to take that battle, but might also get scared. If the game was postponed, nothing prevents me from simulating such a situation in the editor and testing the course of the battle.

I will give an example. In the Favorites -5, I had a match against GoedenDag. on the 8mm6a template. I had a Barbarian castle and I was planning to get Angels at the computer on the first week. During the postponement, it became clear that to get the required amount of gold, I would need to take a Medusa Fountain and a Dwarf Cottage in a row. The moment was obviously very important for the entire match, and I needed to understand what losses I could take the Medusas with, and also I needed to figure out if I could use the remaining army to break a normal-sized Dwarf Cottage. In single-player, I checked that my army and hero allow me to confidently take a Medusa Fountain with 30 units, but with 40 it's very risky. As a result, I came up with this plan: split the hero to check a Treasure Vault. If it contained 8, then simply transfer the army to the Dwarf Cottage and build Bears in the Fort. If it contained 20-30, then take both buildings (which is what happened in the game, allowing me to get Angels tempo-wise and rush to the center with 2 units of Mephala on day 121).

In general, the advantage for a player who analyzed the save certainly exists, but it is of the most legitimate nature. Therefore, to be honest, I don't see any "offense" in principle. Furthermore, a player who has streamed the game has the ability to simply watch the replay. And obtain, again, the same thing. I won't even mention that hints received on stream have 7 times greater influence on the course of the game than game analysis.

So, to the point. I must say that a certain vital organ, hereinafter referred to as the AC, conducted a very interesting dialogue with me. Namely, there was no dialogue at all. When the well-known player HW Numone deigned to send me information on ICQ, his only question was: explain how 5 saves ended up on your computer. HOW could 5 saves appear, allowing you to study them for 5 days??? I don't quite understand. I possess the codes nwcwhatisthematrix and nwcnebuchadnezzar, but I still examined 5 game saves. How so??
Here I made a big mistake. Instead of immediately telling this biased individual and mediocre Heroes player Numone to take a hike, after he admitted that he had NOT STUDIED the game saves.
I, for some reason, started describing the game situation and the course of the battle to him. Which, obviously, was of no concern whatsoever to player Numone. I admit, I hadn't fully recovered from a sudden bout of the flu.
And I didn't assess the situation properly.

So what am I waiting for? If, as the AC organ assumes, I gained an advantage during the course of the match against Alexander,
specifically

: the saves were opened before the end of the match with the aim of gaining an advantage in the game.

then it would be quite expected to hear what kind of advantage this was and in what it was realized. If the AC organ interprets the situation in such a way that I, say, cracked the map, but did not use the obtained information in any way, then I ask them to write this in clear, plain text.

If, however, I did use the illegally obtained information, then I want to understand where exactly and in what manner.
Non-lyrical digression:

Actually, in my naivety, I was planning to build my defense line on the premise that for the situation at turn 126, the plan for further play was not only clear, but also the only one. The question was only about the timing, exactly when this could be realized. In short. In the match, I had a very difficult situation, due to a respawn block that was not noticed initially, which later prevented me from building either Horses or Angels. Achievement — level 6 in the Stronghold for the Fortress hero and good heroes. By turn 117, the development for the week was already clear. A Dragon Utopia was scouted in one of the centers. Which needed to be taken in a simple way on the third week. Preferably on turn 131. So, the preparation for the capture was proceeding with difficulty. Namely, the water skill of the main hero was not being fully leveled up with high probability (due to a mistake on turn 124), and a full logistics skill was desirable for the week 3 Dragon Utopia. In short, after much deliberation, I decided that forcing the pace would likely be disadvantageous, and decided to take it with a buyout on turn 132, and in case the opponent appeared and stole it, to return to the swamp respawn and take the Dragon Utopia there. Everything after that is completely linear; after I got the town portal, I replenished my mana, took the only scouted Hive in the area, and was planning, through double mana, to go break the remaining two Dragon Utopias, using expert Summon Water and having 30 upgraded Wyverns.

What the AC is trying to convince me of:
the different dates of the saves indicate their "illegitimacy". No, they do not — this is a common phenomenon. The difference in dates with, say, Vick was about half a day. But I have had a firm conviction of the AC's incompetence since its inception, for which confirmation can be found in earlier posts. No surprises there!

To be continued...

P.S. If anyone has questions about games, this one or others, then ask them here; if they are worthy of attention, I will be sure to answer when I have free time.

Treatise: on the delights of being a sewage worker.

So, to the point. I must say that a certain body, which I will henceforth refer to as AK, has engaged in a rather interesting dialogue with me. Or rather, there has been no dialogue at all. When a well-known player, HW Numone, deigned to send me information via ICQ, his only question was how I managed to have 5 save files on my computer. HOW could 5 save files appear, and how could they be viewed for 5 days??? I don't quite understand. I possess the codes nwcwhatisthematrix and nwcnebuchadnezzar, but I still watch 5 save files of the game. How is that possible??
Here, I made a big mistake. Instead of immediately sending this biased and mediocre hero, Numone, on a long walk, after he admitted that he had not even EXAMINED the save files.
I, for some reason, started describing the game situation and the course of the battle to him. Which, apparently, was of no interest to player Numone. I admit, I haven't fully recovered from the unexpected flu that hit me.
And I didn't properly assess the situation.

Regarding his mediocrity, I can't disagree, but as for his bias, you're wrong. I don't mix flies with cutlets, and I'm not entirely sure that putting you on the blacklist was a positive decision from the point of view of re-education. In my opinion, more gentle methods would have been effective, but I'm not the whole AK; there are other people there with their own experience and perspective.

So, what am I waiting for? If, as AK suggests, I gained an advantage during the game with Alexander.
namely
then it was quite expected to hear what kind of advantage it was and how it was realized. If AK interprets the situation in such a way that I, say, hacked the map, but did not use the information obtained in any way, then I ask that this be stated in clear and concise text.

Well, well, now you're expecting something from AK, after sitting around instead of defending yourself when there was still time and reason to do so.:smile20:
You discredited yourself primarily through your behavior, and what was the point of me looking at the save files you sent two days later, after you had spent time contemplating how to get out of the situation? I asked you a simple question in ICQ, asking for a detailed description of what happened from your perspective, and that's all. And I got what I expected, namely that you consider "small amounts of offline play" in your games to be quite acceptable. Especially in such difficult moments as turn 126 in the game with Twaryna. If Javdet were in your place, I could have calmly accepted his position of "just looked and thought," even though this action is prohibited (the rules clearly state this, and everyone understands the meaning of this wording; there's no need to distort things), but you are an apple from a different tree, with completely different standards of what is permissible and concepts of honor.

The rest is just pointless arguing.

By the way, regarding dates, I had an episode with Oelm where, when loading a saved game, I saw a strange date on it. I started investigating, and it turned out that Oelm, with trance enabled, had created a new save, and the date on that one was also strange. After that, we continued the game. Nevertheless, I'll say this: acting crazy and making wild accusations when talking to authorized individuals is not the right approach. Rebel suffered a lot because, instead of clearly stating his position, he started to rant and engage in unproductive behavior. If he had provided the necessary explanations and confirmed that Stiky was responsible, this whole situation could have been avoided. If there are doubts about the competence or impartiality of an authorized individual, the issue should be immediately brought up for general discussion, without giving the opponent time to prepare for an attack or gather arguments. This is one of those cases where delaying action does not benefit the defending side. Again, returning to Rebel, if he had initiated the discussion himself and thought through a defense strategy, the decision might have been different. In borderline situations, this can help sway the balance in your favor. And in general, it's easier to defend yourself before a decision is made than to try to get it overturned afterward.

By the way, regarding the dates, I had an episode with Oelm where, when loading a saved game, I saw some strange date on it. I started investigating, and as a result, Oelm, with trance enabled, created a new save, and the date on it was also strange. After that, we continued the game.

As far as I understand, the save date depends on the time set in the computer's settings. Did you investigate in that direction?
What is your theory about the date shift, and what did you manage to find out during that investigation?

So, what am I waiting for? If, as the AK suggests, I gained an advantage during the game against Alexander, then it would be quite reasonable to hear what kind of advantage it was and how it was realized. If the AK interprets the situation in such a way that I, say, "hacked" the map but didn't use the information obtained in any way, then please state this clearly and concisely.

Let's start with the fact that thinking about a move for an unlimited amount of time is already a significant advantage. Especially in a complex situation, where the time limit can lead to a strategic mistake.

In general, the player who analyzed the save definitely has an advantage, but it is perfectly legitimate.

But it's not legitimate at all. It's legal to load an autosave and ask your opponent not to pass the turn so you can remember the situation. It's legal to take a screenshot. It's legal to watch your own stream. But opening saves is not legal.

Let's add to this the fact that in the Indra vs. computer 127.gm1 save, it is visible that 4 heroes were moving.

The rules state:

- No one, except the judge/tournament organizer or a member of the AK, has the right to open the saves of an unfinished game, and only in the event of a controversial situation in the game. If, at the moment a controversial situation arises that requires opening the saves, there is no connection with the judge/organizer/AK, the game must be interrupted and saved by both participants until they can connect with the judges.

Look up the meaning of the word "OPEN" in a dictionary.

As I understand it, the save date depends on the time set in the computer's settings. Did you investigate this?
What is your theory about the date shift, and what did you manage to find out during that investigation?

Well, I figured something like that, plus Oelm's tone conveyed confidence, so I didn't push it further.