Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.
For some reason, I feel, or rather, I sincerely hope, that all defenders of the bug and Red understand that using a bug is not fair, but due to alleged discrepancies in the rules, they believe Red is right. It's a real problem if someone thinks it's okay and even necessary to use it. I would like to clarify this and am even willing to organize a poll to identify all members of the "great winners" sect.
There can be different types of unfair victories: an unplayable situation for the opponent, exploiting loopholes in the rules in a losing situation, some kind of cheating using shrines in a situation where cheating is pitted against control, and so on. Not all victories are fair, especially in tournament games, where the result is more important.
Speaking for myself: I don't think using a bug is normal, and it's good that it was banned. But since in November, there was a case of using a bug, and some members of the Arbitration Committee commented that everything was legal and correct, to be consistent, we need to either acknowledge Redwait's victory or admit that they overlooked it in November and deduct points from or annul the result of the game between Maydak and Svarog. The absence of an official appeal from the "affected" party should not bother anyone; the members of the Arbitration Committee are still aware of the situation. After all, if one player openly cheats/watches the opponent's replay and writes a report about it on the forum, and another confirms it, surely, in this case, the Arbitration Committee, knowing about the situation, will not remain inactive until the "affected" player files a complaint?
And most importantly, regarding the rules. I believe that the most important meaning of any law is that everyone should be equal before it. The decisions of specific judges may vary from situation to situation, may be unfair to someone, etc. Judges are also people. But the rules must be the same for everyone. And the purpose of the rules is to minimize the intervention of judges in game situations and, conversely, to regulate most situations through the rules, so that there are fewer appeals to the Arbitration Committee. In the end, it is less offensive to be a hostage to common rules for everyone than to be a hostage to an individual judge's decision, which, as we see, may not be based on the rules but may take into account some mythical "common sense."
If we use the current version of the rules, then prohibited bugs and "what is not prohibited is allowed" are stated in the rules, and what is allowed is in the comments. It seems logical that the legal weight of the rules is greater than that of a comment on them, right? I am only talking about the formal side of the issue. From this point of view, Redwait did not violate anything. The only question that Nitro initially raised remains: was the rule of fair play violated? There is no answer yet.
There can be different types of unseemly victories: an unplayable situation for the opponent, exploiting loopholes in the rules in a losing situation, some kind of cheating using shrines in a situation where cheating is pitted against control, and so on. Not all victories are beautiful, especially in tournament games, where the result is more important.
Speaking for myself, I don't consider using a bug to be normal, and it's good that it was banned. But since in November there was a case of using a bug, and some members of the Arbitration Committee commented on it in such a way that everything was legal and correct, then to be consistent, we need to either acknowledge Redwait's victory, or acknowledge that they overlooked it in November and deduct points from/annul the result of that game between Maydak and Svarog. The absence of an official appeal from the "affected" party should not bother anyone; the members of the Arbitration Committee are aware of the situation anyway. After all, if one player openly cheats/looks at the opponent's screen and writes a report about it on the forum, and another confirms it, will the Arbitration Committee, knowing about the situation, remain inactive until the "affected" party writes a complaint to the Arbitration Committee?
And most importantly, regarding the rules. I believe that the most important meaning of any law is that everyone should be equal before it. The decisions of specific judges may vary from situation to situation, may be unfair to someone, etc. Judges are also people. But the rules must be the same for everyone. And the purpose of the rules is to minimize the intervention of judges in game situations and, conversely, to regulate most situations through the rules, so that there are fewer appeals to the Arbitration Committee. In the end, it is less offensive to be a hostage to the general rules for everyone than to be a hostage to an individual judge's decision, which, as we see, may not be based on the rules, but may have in mind some mythical "common sense."
If we use the current version of the rules, then prohibited bugs and "what is not prohibited is permitted" are written in the rules, and what is permitted is in the comments. It seems logical that the legal weight of the rules is greater than that of a comment on them? I am only talking about the formal side of the issue. From this point of view, Redwait did not violate anything. The only question that Nitro initially raised remains: was the rule of fair play violated? There has been no answer yet.
I think I asked not to engage in sophistry... I think I wrote that it will not be possible to reach a consensus... I don't understand why you decided that the position of individual members of the Arbitration Committee as judges or just players is the position of the entire Arbitration Committee? I don't understand why you decided that the Arbitration Committee should act only in the cases that you consider necessary? I don't understand, when you wrote so many words, did you prepare a mechanism or tool that will now explain to everyone that the notes to the rules have any less weight than the rules themselves? Is it written anywhere that the notes are for either not looking at them or looking at them at will, or looking at them in cases where something needs to be interpreted?
I now understand that I am starting to use nitpicking and basic legal skills, because otherwise it is impossible to explain to such a stubborn person. He himself writes that it is stupidity (it's good that it was banned), but he still argues for it because somewhere there it is not written as it should be... This is just insane.
I don't understand why you decided that the position of individual members of the Arbitration Committee, whether as judges or simply as players, represents the position of the entire Arbitration Committee?
So, a member of the Arbitration Committee can express one position on the forum and in private messages, and express the opposite position when accessing the closed section of the Arbitration Committee? Piterius
I don't understand why you decided that the Arbitration Committee should act only in the cases when you think it's necessary?
It's very sad that the Arbitration Committee doesn't think it's necessary to act in cases where its intervention is needed. Piterius
I don't understand, when you wrote all those words, did you prepare a mechanism or tool that will now explain to everyone that the notes to the rules have any less weight than the rules themselves?
In my opinion, this is obvious: otherwise, why is it not written in the rules, but placed in the notes? Piterius
Is it written anywhere that the notes are for people to either ignore or look at as they please, or to look at only when something needs to be interpreted?
Is it written anywhere that the opposite is true? Piterius
I now realize that I am starting to engage in nitpicking and basic legal skills, because there is no other way to explain it to someone who is so stubborn. He himself writes that something is stupid (thankfully it was banned), but he still argues for it because it is not written the way he wants... This is just insane...
I wrote a lot because you said you wanted to understand. As can be seen from your answer, you don't want to understand. I will try to formulate it very briefly: rules and regulations should be above the opinions of individual people. And judging should be based on the letter of the rules, not on common sense (common sense should be the basis of the rules themselves).
I want to understand how many people would use this bug without hesitation; I've already figured out everything else, so there's no need for you to guess for me.
Everything else, which you call "too many words," is just your subjective opinion, which doesn't affect anything and doesn't change anything.
In general, when a person says something like:
Sanin
Wouldn't it be logical that the legal weight of the rules is greater than that of a comment on them?
then, for me, that's the end of the discussion. I tried, but I see that it's pointless.
Thank you for your attention.
Maradona scored with his hand in the World Cup final, and after reviewing the video, did they order a replay? Or did they at least issue some kind of penalty to Diego? No, they agreed that it was the "hand of God." Victory in sports is victory. If doping isn't detected within the allotted time, the medal is mine. To investigate after the fact whether the winner showed respect to the opponent – excuse me, gentlemen, that's nonsense. No war has ever been won in a completely honest way.
Maradona scored with his hand in the World Cup final, and what happened? After reviewing the video, they ordered a replay? Or did they at least issue some kind of penalty to Diego? No, they agreed that it was the "hand of God." Victory in sports is victory. If doping wasn't detected within the allotted time, then the medal is mine. To investigate after the fact whether the winner showed respect to the opponent – excuse me, gentlemen, that's utter nonsense. No war has ever been won in a completely honest way.
That's exactly why sports isn't war, and we're not even playing for keeps! And what you're saying about doping isn't true; athletes are often disqualified and stripped of their awards, including World Championships and Olympics, even after the fact, and red cards are given to football players and disqualifications are issued retroactively! So, Maradona's and Henry's handballs are more of an exception.
Let's get straight to the point. Why compare doping, red cards issued after a match, and similar examples? There's no analogy here, and there can't be, for very obvious reasons: doping is prohibited, and it's not always possible to detect it before the competition begins through initial tests, which is why gold medals and other awards are revoked afterward. The same goes for red cards; any rough play or disrespectful behavior towards players/fans is prohibited, but the referee may not always be able to identify the violation (human factor), and such red cards serve as a warning to others, so they don't think they can get away with it. In any case, all these actions are PROHIBITED, and penalties are предусмотрены for them. So, what analogies can be drawn with the Redwhite-Nitro match? Let's leave the moral aspect of this abuse aside, as moral norms and boundaries differ among individuals and can vary greatly, even within the context of "generally accepted moral values." Making an official decision based solely on this is, at the very least, inappropriate. It's amusing how some people in this situation have decided to put on a feathered hat and act as noble knights guarding goodness, in contrast to other "bad, dishonest players with no morals" – yeah, right. No one wants to consider two simple facts: - If not everyone, then many knew about the bug, and most importantly, both Nitro and Redwhite knew about it, meaning they were in equal conditions. One of them had the opportunity to use the bug and won; the other didn't have that opportunity and lost – that's it. - Such a victory doesn't differ in any way from a loss due to a bad draw against a strong opponent or a defeat on the first day, considering the rules and conditions under which both players were competing on the date of the game. However, discussions about whether the victory was "worthy," "fair," or "sporting" from a moral point of view are a different matter, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But it shouldn't have influenced the official decision of the administration. Nitro deserves huge respect for finding the strength to admit defeat and not using the opportunity for a rematch that the administration offered him. In my opinion, this is the ultimate example of honesty and fairness in this situation. Also, for raising this issue and ensuring that the necessary amendments were made to the rules. I repeat, he's simply great – respect and kudos, no doubt.
I agree that everyone has the right to chime in on this topic. :) But if Lizard is clearly off the mark, then you surprised me. No, the fact that you brought up the "decision based solely on moral grounds" shows that your perception is skewed. There's nothing to comment on. Well done, you figured it out, you can now take off your hat. What's more interesting to me is what kind of books you and your generation are reading that lead you to come up with such gems: The_
Let's leave the moral aspect of this abuse aside, as moral norms and boundaries vary greatly among individuals and can differ significantly even within the context of "generally accepted moral values" - making an official decision based solely on this is at least incorrect.
Maybe you could provide some kind of scale, I'd like to see how you're going to "vary" "generally accepted moral values."
Well, Pete... And I'm not completely off base, and Timur explained quite clearly why it's wrong to take his most complex philosophical statement out of context. This phrase, which you highlighted in bold, is far from being the most important. We've gathered here, and we're not all completely clueless; we're not playing Counter-Strike, everyone understands each other's opinions. And most importantly, we respect these opinions. If a decision has been made by the Arbitration Committee, it's been made, and that's why the Arbitration Committee was created. But there's no need to pressure the fact that opinions that contradict the decision are "wrong" or "off base." To some extent, everyone who spoke here is right. They simply focused on different aspects of the matter. The topic is likely exhausted. Redwait won, and anything further has no bearing on this, but only on the future, where Redwait might not win in a similar situation. It's that simple.
Firstly, regarding your post – I completely don't understand what football, a hand, doping, war, etc., have to do with it. Should we now start comparing the rules of bowling or checkers? Zero level of constructive discussion and comparative demagoguery is permissible, but there's simply nothing to talk about. Out of respect for you, I simply remained silent then.
Secondly, I didn't accuse anyone of stupidity; why did you think that, and what does that imply? We'll leave that without comment. Just as I didn't allow myself to use phrases like "nonsense."
Thirdly, I'm not putting pressure on anyone; I'm responding to remarks, often provocative ones. When someone repeats for the umpteenth time that morality is nonsense, Redwait won, and the rules weren't broken... it's just not interesting anymore. When there's something to talk about, why not? That is, what you consider to be taken out of context, I consider to be a continuation of the main topic that is being discussed. Everything else written by Timur is mainly either a repetition or an interpretation of what has already been said.
Maradona scored with his hand in the World Cup final, and what happened? After reviewing the video, did they order a replay? Or did they at least issue a penalty to Diego? No, they agreed that it was the "hand of God." A victory is a victory. If doping wasn't detected within the allotted time, then the medal is mine. To investigate after the fact whether the winner showed respect to their opponent is, frankly, absurd. No war has ever been won through completely honest means.
It's strange to compare the rules of football and the acceptance of doping (which is hidden) with something that was recorded and is completely clear. In the end, the AC made a decision without awarding the results to anyone. If we draw an analogy, we are actually discussing actions equivalent to those committed by RBV and Diskwierd - in the form of a violation of morality, ethics, and, let's say, without violating the rules, and in general, if you think about words like "EXPLOITING A BUG" and "FAIR PLAY," you need to understand that this is not acceptable.
P.S. I completely disagree with The_ regarding the use of this bug when it wasn't in the rules! I didn't know about this bug, but almost everyone did! Knowing about it, I would never have used it, knowing that it's not fair play! What comparison to cheating? It's not the same thing! In one turn, you simply enter nebuchadnezzar and win! Let me give you something to think about: what if, in an official tournament, someone like a newcomer or someone currently under the AC's supervision, instead of Red, committed such an action? I think people's reaction would be completely different, as would the AC's decision!
By the way, I would just like to know The_'s opinion on the following situation. Let's say that when the AC considers Nitro's request, it comes to the following conclusion: Leave the result unchanged, because at the time of using the "BUG" (it's just funny now), it wasn't prohibited by the rules. From now on, this "BUG" (about that... prampram) will be included in the rules of HW World! Would that be better? Would the AC be ridiculed?
No, the fact that you deduced your opinion about the "decision based solely on the moral component" — well, those are your perception issues. There's nothing to comment on either. Good job, you figured it out, you can take off your feathered hat now. What I'm wondering is what books you and your generation smoke to come out with pearls like this:
Maybe give me a scale for a change, I'd like to see how you "strongly vary" "generally accepted moral values."
With all due respect (and that's not just a formality). What surprises me, Petya, is that instead of looking at the essence and trying to understand what I'm trying to say, you nitpick ordinary phrases meant to complement the post's meaning, but are in no way its foundation. I'll explain, if you truly don't understand this figure of speech. I'll explain quite commonly, even. Generally accepted moral values are what a particular group of people has agreed to consider as moral values accepted within that group. These values have developed throughout all of human life and continue to change to this day. However, different groups — peoples, religions, ages, professions — have different moral values. They are not just different, but sometimes directly contradict each other. Examples for clarity: - walking around without clothes is immoral. However, a 20-year-old girl with a bare navel, bra straps showing under her top, and a miniskirt would cause extreme indignation and incomprehension in some grandmother in a sheepskin coat and headscarf, and vice versa. That's regarding one region. If we look at this example across countries, in Africa/Australia (in the least developed states and remote villages far from the center), going topless is quite common, regardless of gender. Examples regarding appearance could be given endlessly. - the same picture in sports: someone kicks the ball out when they see an opponent lying on the grass; someone else thinks he's clearly faking it or doesn't want to ruin a promising attack and continues playing, rightly believing there's a referee on the field, and if he didn't stop the game, it means it's okay to play. Similar examples can be given from all areas of life, but I think the point has become clearer. That's what I was trying to convey with the aforementioned phrase.
- my post was driven by the AC's decision, which was unclear to me — the AC provided neither arguments nor explanations (at least in the thread) for its decision. - the misunderstanding is caused by the following things — there are simple facts that the AC should ideally have been guided by: a) Nitro and Redwite both knew about the Admiral's Hat. They were on equal footing! What I'm most curious about is whether the AC took this factor into account? And why does everyone who supports the AC's decision for a rematch or even awarding Red a loss keep overlooking it? b) Precedents for this exploit have already occurred and were discussed on the forum. Our AC doesn't live in the taiga, and I think if not all AC members saw that thread, then at least a large part definitely did. c) I don't know about you, but personally, I haven't noticed any sadomasochistic tendencies in Nitro, or an acceptance of life through self-flagellation and the like. He himself, weighing all the pros and cons, wrote that he accepts the defeat. And I suspect it was oh so difficult to do that — after all, it wasn't a fun game, but a match to advance from the group stage of a serious tournament, and the AC even kindly offered a rematch on a silver platter. Who better than the participant of that very game to judge the fairness/unfairness of the AC's decision, and he made his choice. Piterius
Thirdly — I'm not pressuring, I'm responding to attacks, and often provocative ones at that. When someone repeats for the umpteenth time that morality is nonsense, Redwite won, the rules weren't broken...
Nevertheless, for some reason you decide that my generation and I smoke books. Of course, I could be wrong, but we're the same generation, you and I :). Besides, I've never smoked books and don't plan to in the foreseeable future ;) Again, I'm not touching the moral aspect of the issue, I haven't even expressed my opinion on what I think about it within the framework of morality, because here it doesn't affect the essence, and accordingly I never said that morality is nonsense :confused: Morality is everything! :smile13: darkello
I didn't know about this bug, which is to say almost everyone knew!?
Sorry, darkellych, I completely forgot that you are at least 80% of the community, so it turns out yes, almost no one knew. darkello
Knowing about it, I would never have used it knowing it's not fair play!!?
Too many "woulds," and besides, we'll never know. What's that about? darkello
Let me give you some food for thought: what if such an action in an official tournament was committed, for example, not by Red, but by some newcomer or someone currently under the AC's supervision?! I think people's reaction would be completely different, as would, in principle, the AC's decision!
I have no idea about the AC's reaction, but my position would be unchanged, whether it was Red, you, or anyone else. Facts — it's hard to go against them, although on the internet it's much easier to do so — no argument there. darkello
By the way, I'd just like to know The_'s opinion on the following situation. Let's say the AC, reviewing Nitro's request, came to the following conclusion: Leave the result unchanged, since at the time of using the "BUG" (it's just ridiculous already) it was not prohibited by the rules. From now on, this "BUG" (that's enough ... damn it) is added to the HeroesWorld world rules! Is that better? Wouldn't the AC be laughed at?
Not sure I understood the full meaning of "that's enough ... damn it." But if you mean that the AC would have decided the result was valid and would have submitted a ban on the Admiral's Hat for the future, then in my opinion, that would have been the most correct. As they say, the wolves are fed and the sheep are whole. (Even if there was a vote, the majority would support this idea, although that is of course a completely non-essential point).
...But if you mean that AK would make a decision about the validity of the result and submit a ban on the Admiral's hat for future consideration, then in my opinion, that would be the most correct thing to do. As they say, everyone gets what they want. ...
So, I understand that if you write this, your vote is in favor of using the Admiral's Hat fairly... logically? (since you have doubts and want to hold a vote:smile20:) No further comments...
P.S.: While studying the rules, I found something that can be "circumvented" if there is no judging later, but this method won't work with judging - that is, it's not in the rules or not written about it. (what I found, they will fix soon).
Sanin
