Posts from Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments. Auto-translated

Why be so strict? The guy was on his way to success...

Juristis already had a yellow card, so considering everything, the punishment was quite severe.

We didn't even really discuss it properly; I almost missed the thread, and where are the new facts, details, and intrigues... oh well... but there used to be heated debates (c).

Dear AK!

Despite the fact that we reached an agreement with Toganaш regarding a rematch in the "One for All" tournament due to my formal violation, I believe it is necessary to present arguments that would undoubtedly prompt any reasonable person to consider voting for the introduction of certain amendments and clarifications to the adopted Rules.

Without these amendments, the current rules, in some respects, will directly contradict common sense. Therefore, here are my arguments, in order of their importance to the specific situation:

1. In the battle, which Toganaш used as a basis for his claim, my hero, Septienna, attacked the opponent's hero, Gunnar. Septienna's army: 2 Bone Dragons, first speed. In the first round of the battle, Septienna cast a spell that had no effect due to resistance. After that, Septienna paid a bribe.

The point is: in the first round, GUNNAR COULD NOT HAVE KILLED EVEN ONE DRAGON, not even theoretically. Thus, I simply saved time for both of us by paying a bribe not in the second, but in the first round. In the second round, NOTHING WOULD HAVE CHANGED. Therefore, my question is: WHAT WAS THE "HIT-AND-RUN" ABOUT??? Where is the common sense here???

2. Due to the resistance, the spell I used had NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER. There are no explanations regarding this in the rules. However, common sense tells us that this cannot be considered a "hit-and-run." Should we also consider using "antimagic" for fun when the opponent has no mana as a "hit-and-run"??? What kind of absurdity is this, comrades???

3. In general, at the time of the situation, I could have disbanded all heroes except the main one and avoided these ridiculous battles, and I would still have easily won, as I had an overwhelming advantage, and the opponent, even with an open map, could not have changed anything in his favor. For the last week and a half of the game, I was just having fun, sometimes not even moving some of my heroes. Game time - 222, template 8mm6a.

Trying to "mooch" in such situations, demanding a technical win or a rematch, is EXTREMELY UNSPORTSMANLIKE. Relying on the fact that the tournament is a team event and this is "for the guys" - I beg you, it's funny and awkward.

________________________________

Based on the above, I demand that the AK collectively consider this specific situation and vote on the need to amend the Rules regarding "hit-and-run."

________________________________

Dear AK!
The point is: in the first round, GUNNAR simply could not kill even one of my dragons, not even theoretically. Therefore, I simply saved time for both of us by settling in the first round instead of the second. In the second round, NOTHING would have changed. Thus, my question: WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THE HIT-AND-RUN??? Where is the logic here???

2. Due to the resistance taking effect, the spell I used had NO EFFECT. There are no explanations regarding this in the rules. Common sense tells us that this cannot be considered a hit-and-run. Maybe we should also consider using "antimagic" just for fun when the opponent has no mana as a hit-and-run??? What kind of absurdity is this, comrades???

What if you attacked specifically to check for resistance?
Your logic would also apply to the following case: "A" attacks "B" with the intention of killing him with Armageddon, even though he only has 1 Efreet. Resistance triggers, and no one suffers. Can we proceed to the second round?:)

I remember not so long ago there was an episode involving Toganash, only back then he acted as the party that made some stupid mistake (like flying over the Dragon Utopia while breaking through its guards, and then breaking through the guards, formally "checking" the Dragon Utopia first, which could be taken in autobattle regardless of size).
Well, there were kilograms of text about this and that, regarding common sense, meanness, and unsportsmanlike behavior—opps—demanding victory, etc. And now it turns out to be like this.
P.S. In fact, a correction about common sense should have been written under every single point to be guided by; the other problem is that for most people, common sense is either their own specific kind or distorted by the harsh realities of life.

The simpler the wording, the better. If the wording becomes more complex, the number of borderline cases increases, which in turn leads to further complications.

For example, let's say you attacked, cast a spell, but didn't kill anyone. Can you then bribe them?

Or, a more practical example: you attacked, cast a wave of death, but didn't kill anyone. But you learned that they have no resistance (most likely).

I remember not so long ago there was an episode involving Toganash, only back then he acted as the party that made some stupid mistake (like when breaking through the Dragon Utopia guards, he flew over the Dragon Utopia and then broke the guards, formally "checking" the Dragon Utopia first, which was taken in autobattle regardless of size).
Well, so there were kilograms of text about this and that, regarding common sense, sneakiness, and unsportsmanlike behavior from the opponent who demanded victory, etc. And now it turns out like this.
P.S. In fact, a correction about common sense should be written above every single point to be guided by; the other problem is that for most people, common sense is either their own specific kind or distorted by the harsh realities of life.

I'm fed up with this already. Add +1 regarding common sense. And add that if someone abuses the rules contrary to common sense (if the overwhelming majority of AC members decide so), they should be given a yellow card. Otherwise, how else do you deal with these guys who shit on the most important idea of this resource — FAIR PLAY!

I wasn't arguing with Toganash and I don't intend to. I just wanted to emphasize that such situations provoke "particularly clever players" to even when facing a total loss, both in terms of skill and the overall situation, to start scrutinizing saves and so on, looking for any minor mistake by the opponent that could be considered a violation.

My point is that in this case, ordering a replay is the same as sending a player off the field in football for an incorrectly thrown throw-in.

There should be some kind of gradation of violations, especially since the Arbitration Committee has been created.

The point is: in the first round, GUNNAR could not possibly kill even one of my dragons.

Why didn't anyone notice this piece of text?.. The second part of the explanation, about the resistance, does sound shaky, I agree. But checking whether Gunnar could have killed at least one dragon, in my opinion, is not difficult at all. If he couldn't, then what is there to argue about?..

Added 5 minutes later

I mean that in this case, ordering a replay is the same as sending a player off the field in football for an incorrectly thrown throw-in.

This isn't entirely correct. If you send a player off the field in the 85th minute with a score of 7:1, it's unlikely to help you win. But ordering a replay of such a match for an incorrectly thrown throw-in...
You can open the saves and see if the situation is really so advantageous there and if this move really decided so much, even if it was actually a brilliant move

In my limited experience, there have been a couple of such cases, and they were always resolved in favor of the letter (rather than the spirit) of the rules. I eventually agreed with the decision because it's difficult for the admins to understand the logic of each individual case; it's easier to make players follow the established procedures. In other words, one of these groups will inevitably be unhappy.

Added 4 minutes later
fil0sof, whether it resolves the issue or not, what difference does it make? If you enter an object guarded by a group of skeletons with 10+ angels and the ability to fly, you are still required to defeat them first, losing 300-500 MP, and no one disputes that.

Rules are written to be followed. If you don't like the tournament rules, don't sign up for it; if you don't like the forum rules, don't register on it. Any changes to the rules, made by mutual agreement, are discussed before the game. So, Lizardu is the World Champion, and Toganash is the champion!

I'm fed up with this. Add +1 for common sense. And add that if someone abuses the rules, contrary to common sense (if the overwhelming majority of the Arbitration Committee decides so), they should be given a yellow card. Otherwise, how else can we fight against those guys who disregard the main idea of this resource - FAIR PLAY!

Most people have common sense, that's why it's called the majority. And let the Arbitration Committee deal with the minority.
Recently, there was a case where an opponent demanded a tech point for violating the no-rush rule - excuse me, what kind of no-rush is it when a hero attacks with new troops with the intention of attacking and immediately paying off and taking away the reinforcements? You need to turn on your brain sometimes, but you're talking about...
It is impossible to describe all situations in the rules.

It is impossible to describe all situations in the rules.

Wise words. The misunderstanding of this principle leads to all those infamous, idiotic lawsuits in the United States about a cat dried in a microwave, and so on.
You always need to look at everything through the prism of the situation's reasonableness.

300-500 movement points can be decisive. And if it was really impossible to kill even one dragon in an entire turn, then what is there to talk about?

300-500 mana points can be decisive. And if it was truly impossible to kill even one dragon in an entire turn, what's there to talk about?

So, you see, people are willing to accept real losses for the sake of following the rules – but couldn't they just wait a bit?
Reasonableness is good, but it's better not to rely on it. "Treat people like gods, but treat them like slaves, and there will be happiness" (said an ancient philosopher).

We could have waited. I'm not saying that Lizard acted 100% correctly, and I'm not advising everyone to do the same. It's just that, in the end, his action, although it turned out to be a formal violation of the rules, didn't change anything. Perhaps it should be punished in some way (although I don't know how :)), but to order a replay because of this... The scale of the offense and the punishment are absolutely disproportionate.