Posts from Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.

Whatever decision the AK makes, that's what will happen. If they decide one way, then that's it, if they decide to replay, then we'll replay. I'm not going to argue with anyone or withdraw from the tournament, etc. Maybe it's for the best; I'll pay more attention to the details. That's important in Heroes.

Golden words! I wish the same for other arguers.

Whatever decision the AC makes, that's what will happen. Either way, a replay or not. I'm not going to argue with anyone or withdraw from the tournament, etc. Maybe it's for the best; I'll pay more attention to the details. It's important in Heroes.

A worthy conclusion from a worthy person!:smile20:

What's the difference between conceding in round 1 and round 2?

I didn't see any saves here – I'm sure there was no difference, but in theory, the opponent could have surrendered himself, disrupting your plans (@no mana/MP for DD/TP). Maybe you offended him with your attitude towards the game (and therefore, towards himself), who knows. Of course, he acted inappropriately, but appropriateness isn't written in the rules.

A game with Toghan was already played – I easily won there, not by 99%, but by exactly 100%.
You're talking complete nonsense, and yet, mostly, you seem like intelligent people.

I don't know how old you are.
But you need to understand that victory is when it's 100% certain. This means that the opponent would acknowledge your victory, or disappear, or vanish, etc.
But you only had fantasies.

Mamai celebrated his 99% victory with the Murzas after the Battle of Kulikovo. But a few minutes later, he was already losing by 99%, and later lost by 100%.

Your arguments are like saying, "IF this and IF that, then flowers would grow on the moon." :)
And it's not clear at all, if you won by 100%, THEN WHY are you getting upset over some trivial thing? Is it just for show? But you have to take responsibility for showing off:)


In online games, and even more so in tournaments, any small detail can play a role in achieving victory. If you don't pay attention, you'll reap the consequences.

I would say – not like God, but like Klitschko. In short, Chingiz’s post looks something like this: “No one knows who would win tomorrow, because all the winners are no longer the ones they used to be.”

Now it's perfect!

the only significant difference is that if the opponent wanted to flee, leaving your hero in the place where the fight took place, plus the remaining moves... and there was a need for that fleeing hero.
Otherwise, this situation changed absolutely nothing.

the only significant difference is that if the opponent wanted to flee, leaving your hero in the place where the fight took place, plus the remaining moves... and there was a need for that fleeing hero.
Otherwise, this situation changes absolutely nothing.

Klitschko detected.

Of course, the opponent's hero wasn't going to run away or offer a bribe. If the situation could have changed even by 0.01%, I wouldn't have started this discussion. The point is that the beginning of rounds 1 and 2 of the described battle is 100% identical.

In my opinion, it should be like this: Someone writes to the Arbitration Committee (AK) that a rule has been violated. The AK looks into it and sees the situation described by Lizard. The rule violation is clearly not intentional and not aimed at gaining an advantage, but the complaint is DEFINITELY intentional and aimed at getting an easy win. Therefore, the move is replayed (although in this situation it's pointless, but for the sake of procedure), and Lizard receives a strict warning for the violation. THAT'S IT. And this "someone" receives a verbal warning that getting an advantage at the expense of others is unacceptable! People need to be taught how to communicate with each other and discouraged from "running to mom" over every little thing. This is similar to when, in the second month, you are caught speeding with shackles and then lose your entire army on a log. But you, having absolutely no chance of winning, play until the end and analyze every move of your opponent, hoping to catch them off guard. AND BANG!!! Victory! I'm awesome! Ugh...

In my opinion, Wicc has clarified everything with this statement. "Rules don't have to be fair; rules should be simple, clear, and have a single interpretation." And there's no need to criticize Toganash; in a game where decisions are made, time is limited by a timer, and this becomes part of the game. If you don't like it, play a fun game without a timer on anarchy. Although, of course, it's frustrating, I know from personal experience).

I don't understand how the fact that the rules don't have to be fair implies that individual situations cannot be considered individually and that a fair outcome cannot be achieved.

For Toganash, for example, only one outcome would be fair, considering his past, unfortunate experiences with similar situations. Why not view what happened as a lack of experience and concentration, leading to a subsequent defeat?

lack of experience

Are you serious??