Posts from Forum

I don't understand what you're talking about. I personally only saw this game presented in the Appeals Committee. The Appeals Committee's decision could have had several options; this one is perhaps the most reasonable.

Why the sudden call for a replay?

Did Svarog call the AK?
If not, then the comparison is inappropriate.

After reviewing the Redwhite-Nitro AK match, a decision was made: the match must be replayed, and the hat bug is now prohibited.

Who is currently on the Tournament Committee?

Okay, but at the time the decision was made, the rules didn't prohibit it! That's one. As you yourself noted, the bug WAS USED in a tournament game, and no one was outraged because, following the rules – if it's not prohibited, it's allowed! That's two. No one even thought about writing to the Arbitration Committee. As I understand the system, the decision should be made based on the RULES IN EFFECT at the time the decision was made. And the rules shouldn't be changed to make "correct" decisions. If the Arbitration Committee had supported Redwait, and THEN officially prohibited it in the rules (although, in my opinion, such a decision should be made by the entire community through an open vote), so that this bug would not be used in the future, then your position would be absolutely correct.
But changing the rules like this – wanting something and then changing it – is just ridiculous :smile52:

I started writing a lengthy response, but then I thought, what's the point?
You've probably heard of the phrase "Solomon's solution." During this guy's reign, there was likely a legal framework, but he clearly didn't bother with it. He made decisions primarily based on logic and common sense.
And if common sense suggests that an illegal tactic was used in a game, even if it was officially allowed, I see no reason not to speak out against the injustice.
And yes, regarding "it's okay today, but it wasn't okay then" - better late than never.

I started writing a lengthy response, but then I thought, what's the point.
You've probably heard of the phrase "Solomon's judgment." So, during the reign of this guy, there was most likely a legal framework, but the fellow clearly didn't bother with it. And he made decisions primarily based on logic and common sense.
And if common sense suggests that an illegal tactic was used in the game, even if it was officially allowed, then I see no reason not to retaliate against the injustice.
And yes, regarding "what's allowed today might not be allowed tomorrow" – better late than never.

You couldn't have said it better +1000
Specific people are not relevant here; in fact, the discussion revolves around actions that could have been committed by completely different individuals (players), in a completely different tournament or fan game, at a completely different time.

So, you understand that at the time the decision was made, the action was officially permitted. So why was the verdict not in favor of Redwait, if everything was officially allowed?

Yes, technically he didn't violate any rules, but in reality, he turned the game into a farce.

This kind of excessive exploitation should be prohibited at the rule level. That's all.

I don't want to repeat myself, but I guess I have to. There are rules that should govern these situations. If a situation isn't specified in the rules, it's allowed. Is that fair? Yes. Is there common sense in these words? Yes. The interesting question is: Did Redwait write these rules? No. Should Redwait follow the rules of the game? Yes. So why should comrade Evgeny be held responsible for the oversight of the guys who didn't think it was necessary to immediately include this bug in the rules of the game? This is a question I can't find an answer to, because it seems like he shouldn't be, but it also seems like the decision wasn't made in his favor.

p.s. Of course, you can't turn the game into a farce, but you definitely can't turn the rules, regulations, and everything else into a farce! Isn't that common sense?

The counter-question is: what was Comrade Evgeny thinking about at that moment? Did he want to put on a show? - He succeeded. At the same time, he violated the rules of fair play.
In any society, there are unwritten rules (moral norms) that it is desirable to adhere to. And if a person violates these norms without breaking the law, it does not mean that he is acting correctly and that he will not face retribution. Now, let's project this onto our situation.
Comrade Evgeny CONSCIOUSLY violated certain moral norms, and instead of punishment, he receives a win. And all this is only because of a loophole in the law. Is it fair to deprive him of this win by rewriting the law? The question is rhetorical; everyone has the right to their personal opinion on this. But encouraging such actions is fraught with consequences. In the near future, other precedents will arise, and they will again point the finger at AK and accuse them of inconsistency.