Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments. — Tournament Committee

Dirty_Player

9/30/2014 11:57 AM UTC

Auto-translated

A million examples can be given where a rule was broken, but it wasn't "decisive":
- on the second month, passed as a own-noob past shifted guards
- hit-and-run noob vs noob, when they fled in the first round, but could have simply died.
- casting Implosion from a scroll when Lightning could have been cast from a book
- flew past the Dragon Utopia guards and took it via autobattle...
etc.

There are countless cases, but if we analyze whether it was "decisive" or not every single time, we'll go crazy. Recently in the AC there was an idea to create a gradation of violations for which different punishments would be possible. But we considered this option absurd, as it would complicate judging many times over and players would consciously commit minor violations for which nothing would happen. Therefore, a technical defeat in the match is provided for rule violations.

Regarding hit-and-run. Initially, the interpretation implied only combat magic, but later this version was abandoned. Now the rules prohibit using ANY MAGIC (be it Explosion or Remove Obstacles) and paying off in the 1st round of battle. If a resist triggered, it is still considered that a magic cast occurred.

In reply to Dirty_Player

fil0sof

9/30/2014 12:18 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Dirty_Player

If we analyze each case to determine whether it's solvable or not, we might go crazy.

Are there really that many such cases, and is it really that difficult to check each one individually?
For example, I think this particular case can be checked very easily in just 5 minutes (including the time to download the save file and load the game).

I understand that checking one such case and making a decision in favor of "not solvable" will create a precedent, which is why I'm asking about the real scale of the problem. About the actual number of similar situations and the actual difficulty of checking them.

In reply to fil0sof

scorp

9/30/2014 1:21 PM UTC

Auto-translated

I also violated the rules (which couldn't possibly affect the outcome of the game) in matches where even the formal opening phase could be skipped. And if my opponent said, "technical loss," well, okay, technical loss. According to the rules, he's right, but how many more matches could I have played with him? In the end, no, thank you (I'll play with someone else). And after such "minor" incidents that turned a win into a loss, I wanted to introduce a "weight" to these violations so that I wouldn't lose a match like 7:1 at the 89th minute because of an offside. Of the reasonable solutions, this would only apply to the last turn, which is when the opponent demands a technical loss (if the violation doesn't affect the outcome of the match). In all other cases, no reasonable solution could be found because it would no longer be a violation of the rules, and I left the right to make the final decision to the opponent (technical loss or a clean win, as in the 7:1 case).
But here's the problem: most people started looking for these "minor" violations and immediately demanded a win in a lost match – THIS NEEDS TO BE CHANGED... let's say, instead of an immediate loss, some bonus is taken away from the next match of the same rank (season, tournament) (color, starting player, turn order, etc.)

In reply to scorp

fil0sof

9/30/2014 1:29 PM UTC

Auto-translated

scorp

most people started looking for these "minor" violations and immediately demanded a win in a lost game

That's the point... It turns out that the rules, which were originally created for fair play, serve the exact opposite purpose. On the one hand, the letter of the law is fulfilled. On the other hand, what was the goal? Fair play. And what did we get?...

A good option is to deprive a player of certain advantages in the next game. It's a kind of punishment, but it won't encourage the losing player to nitpick over minor details. After all, the main goal is precisely this: to prevent people from exploiting the rules.

And I also think that making such precedents public is a good option. Something like, "Yes, there will be a rematch, the situation was this and that." scorp is right, no one will want to play with such a person in the future. Maybe not only the "malicious rule-breaker," but also several viewers. Especially if the same people keep picking on their opponents time and time again. Then people might start thinking about whether it's worth trying to win by questionable means if they risk earning a corresponding reputation.

Lucky George

9/30/2014 4:52 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Hello everyone! I'm all for order, and since HV_rules cannot or is unable to maintain compliance with all the restrictions that bring balance (imho), then
1) explicitly define exceptional cases within the rule wordings: such as
a) does not apply
b) applies
2) based on a review by forum participants or the AC
Don't get me wrong, I love to argue, but let's not bicker; let's put such decisions to a vote among "adult" forum members) or define them meticulously without double- or triple standards.
PS: If I'm not mistaken, it is written that if you cast without specifying the effect of the spell applied and then skipped, it's TL(ex-uz). Yes, HV_rules is imho impartial hona 3 yy Dimension Door-xyz, hona cast and skip-xyz/ Choose; drama is cool, but not for the parties involved imho. Apparently, they played without rules.
Common sense rules are NOT specified; I won't even mention our media (all forum players) and what's going on there.

637-939-047
ТВ снова жив
Нервные, не предлагайте мне игры, жизнь и так сложная.
в Барнауле уже 00:00 когда в Москве 20:00
все игры и доигровки по договоренности, время для игр с 17 мск до 20 мск будни, выхи по предворительной договоренности, епт)
Да пропрет наш ГСК!

Wicc

9/30/2014 6:45 PM UTC

Auto-translated

In Heroes, the developers took on an ambitious idea — to programmatically ban not only obvious actions like hit-and-run, but also the rule of shifted guard (including Fly/Dimension Door). It seems to be working out.

Regarding the red rush, that could also be considered; in the HeroesWorld interpretation, it's unclear whether it can be algorithmically implemented, so perhaps a simpler version should be chosen.

In reply to Lucky George

Vatya

9/30/2014 7:39 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Lucky George

Hello everyone! I’m for order, and since XB_rulz is either unable or incapable of maintaining compliance with all the restrictions that bring balance (IMHO), then
1) write down exceptional cases from the wording of the rules: such as
a) does not fall under
b) falls under
2) based on consideration by forum participants or the AC
Don’t get me wrong—I’m not trying to start a fight, but rather to avoid arguments; let’s put such decisions to a vote among the "adult" participants
of the forum) or meticulously spell them out without double or triple standards.
PS: If I’m not mistaken, it’s stated that if you cast a spell without specifying the effect of the spell cast, and then skipped, then it’s TL (ex-uz). Yes, XB_rulz is, IMHO, impartial; hoona 3 yy DD-xyz, hoona cast and skip-xyz/ Choose, drama is cool, but not for either side, IMHO. Apparently they were playing without a rules lawyer.
The common sense rules are not specified; I’m keeping quiet about our media (for all forum players) and what’s going on there.

Personally, when I joined, I was astonished by the number of various rules, and you’re suggesting expanding them by about twice as much. Why not just remove the redraw entirely and that’s it basically? Only ban it on Jebus Cross, many have spoken up that this is important. And in general, cheesing tech heroes in such questionable ways is, of course, disheartening. But the rules don’t need to be inflated; instead, you need to approach each specific case individually.

And generally, I’m all for canceling certain things. Well, they removed various Müllichs and specialists from the restrictions, and is anyone against that? If they remove the redraw, no one will be against it either. Visiting objects should also be removed for good—in 99% of cases, if you’re heading there, you don’t care about the contents anymore. Only ban stealing artifacts above major and pandoras, you can pass shifted guard, in short, a lot of stuff that dates back to the ancient SMK, which almost nobody plays. Same with the Flux heroes—who’s this crazy imba Luna anyway? Me personally, I’d take Monere. Various Shaktis/Crag Hacks/Tazar are way more imbalanced. In other words, adjust the rules to match hero rules and these kinds of questions won’t even come up at all. What is banned is banned programmatically. And only fair play will remain...

Ася 390383586

Осень-Зима 2013-14.

fil0sof

9/30/2014 8:06 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Two teas for this gentleman.

zoog

9/30/2014 8:11 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Vatya, what you're suggesting is too informal, and it will lead to a lot of nitpicking. It's better for them to argue about the rules than to argue with each other, in my opinion. Luna, by the way, is a killer; in 50%+ of scenarios, she can defeat all the other specialists combined, it's just that people haven't figured out how to play against her yet. And I agree about the red rush; I would also cancel the rest on encounter – no one has used it for its intended purpose in my memory; they often "just in case" rest as a form of underhanded tactic. [off]

Don't get me wrong, I love arguing.

I would ban him.[/off]

648050691

In reply to zoog

Vatya

9/30/2014 9:40 PM UTC

Auto-translated

zoog

Vatya, what you're suggesting is so informal that it will lead to petty squabbles... it's better for them to be angry about the rules than about each other, in my opinion. Luna, by the way, is a killer; in 50%+ of scenarios, she can defeat all the other specialists combined, it's just that people haven't figured out how to play against her yet. And I agree about the red rush; I would also cancel the rest-by-meeting rule – no one has used it for its intended purpose in my memory; often, people rest "just in case" as a form of underhanded tactic.
[off]
I would ban it.[/off]

People used to get angry during the Wild West era, and that's where these rules came from. Now, there's a trend towards abolishing all sorts of rules that help tech-savvy players dominate, and I'm all for this trend.

Luna, I apologize, was banned because of the Sod's timer. I'm ready to play a series of Bo11 Luna vs. Moner on Chessboard with anyone. In 3-5 days, after being without the timer, you will understand how overpowered Luna is.

Rest-by-meeting is also a CM (Competitive Mode) prerogative; it originated there, when GO (Global Offensive) is played on a rough map, so I immediately suggest a rest-by-meeting in such cases. Because it will happen with a 90% probability; what's the point of running around for an extra hour and a half? And it can be left in the rules; it doesn't affect tech-savvy players. And there's another topic for discussing this....

Ася 390383586

Осень-Зима 2013-14.

zoog

9/30/2014 10:18 PM UTC

Auto-translated

These rules originated during the Wild West era, and that's where they came from.

Judging by the newly appeared term - "moshenie tekhvinov" - people are still quite something even now. And Luna, having received 1-2 angels, will win 90% of the remaining battles quickly. The topic of our current conversation, in my opinion, is the adequacy and excessive nature of the rules; outdated restrictions are perfectly suitable here.

648050691

In reply to zoog

Rabe

10/1/2014 5:27 AM UTC

Auto-translated

zoog

And with 1-2 angels, Luna will win 90% of the remaining battles quickly.

:smile11:
And what makes Moner with 1-2 angels worse than Luna on quick battles?

"Одержать сто побед в ста битвах — это не вершина воинского искусства. Повергнуть врага без сражения — вот вершина.
"Сущность войны — обман. Искусный должен изображать неумелость. При готовности атаковать демонстрируй подчинение. Когда ты близок — кажись далёким, но когда ты очень далеко — притворись, будто ты рядом."

In reply to Dirty_Player

=Lizard=

10/1/2014 5:32 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Dirty_Player

There are many cases, but if we analyze each one to determine whether it's a valid argument or not, we'll go crazy.

I apologize, but what is the purpose of the Appeals Committee (AC) then? To quote the rules? Surely, we're not all that unintelligent; we can read ourselves.

And here, since we're on the topic – a case is NOT every instance. Is it really that difficult to understand the point I'm trying to make:

IF THERE CAN THEORETICALLY BE NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ROUND 1 AND ROUND 2 OF A BATTLE – WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IN WHICH OF THEM YOU FLEE??? It's simply a matter of saving time. I don't know about others, but I'm incredibly annoyed by how all these newbies spend hours moving units around in battles that don't matter. I (and all serious players) do absolutely unimportant things as quickly as possible – and this is a sign of RESPECT FOR THE OPPONENT.

In short, if the decision in this case is not in my favor, the conclusion will be one thing: this is a gathering of formalists, not a Heroes community. And what is happening here has only an indirect relation to Heroes. Any sane person will be on my side.

zoog

10/1/2014 7:19 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Rabe

How is Moner with 1-2 angels worse than Luna on quick play?

The game date is approximately one week later.

=Lizard=

I (like all serious players) do absolutely unimportant things as quickly as possible - and this is a sign of RESPECT FOR THE OPPONENT.

Apparently, the opponent didn't understand you, since they took a tech point. You can allow for informalities if there is mutual understanding with the opponent on this issue, but if there isn't, then demanding it is not comme il faut.
Simply acknowledging the permissibility of minor violations will lead to such a number of them... in this case, they say that the attacker could have checked the resistance, and didn't give the other player a chance to escape. To avoid such discussions, it's easier to follow even empty formalities.

648050691

In reply to =Lizard=

Redwhait

10/1/2014 7:26 AM UTC

Auto-translated

=Lizard=

It's simply a time-saver.

Bone, the situation here is 50/50. For you, it's a time-saver, but someone is being overly strict with the rules, and there's nothing you can do about it. You just need to draw conclusions about the person, add them to your blacklist, and that's it.
Not everyone understands fair play, and that's their personal problem.

Reading content in

Interface language

Posts from Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.

Statistics

Library

Users Online 10 users 1361 guests

Today's Visitors 19