Posts from Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.

And inflating the number of moves to the exact amount that a cheat gives (or even higher) is not an exploit – it’s a BUG.

AK simply saved (as much as it could at that time) the game from being ruined.

and its leniency towards Reddit is due to an awareness of its own miscalculation, which is quite understandable – after all, AK is not a professional legislative organization.

With all due respect (and this is not just a formality).
I am surprised by something else, Petya, that instead of looking at the essence and trying to understand what I am trying to say, you are nitpicking at common phrases that are intended to complement the meaning of the post, but do not form its basis.
I will explain, if you really don't understand this figure of speech. I will explain, it is quite common.
Generally accepted moral values are what a certain group of people has agreed to consider moral values accepted in this group. These values have developed throughout human history 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 midriff, bra straps peeking out from under her top, and in a miniskirt will cause extreme indignation and misunderstanding in some old woman in a shapeless dress and headscarf, and vice versa. This applies to one region; if we take this example in the context of countries, then in Africa/Australia, it is quite popular (in the least developed countries and remote settlements) to walk topless, regardless of gender. There are countless examples of this kind of appearance.
- the same picture is in sports: someone kicked the ball out when they saw that the opponent was lying on the grass, someone thought that he was clearly faking it or did not want to spoil a promising attack and continued to play, rightly believing that there is a referee on the field and if he did not stop the game, it means that you can play.
Similar examples can be given from all spheres of life, but I think the essence has become clearer. This is what I was trying to convey above.

- my post was due to the incomprehensible decisions of the AC (Arbitration Committee) – it did not provide any arguments or 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 have taken into account:
a) Nitro and Redwhite knew about the admiral's hat. They were on equal terms! I am most interested in whether the AC took this into account? And why is everyone ignoring it, those who support the AC's decision to replay or even award Red a loss?
b) There have already been precedents of this kind of abuse, and they have been discussed on the forum. The AC does not live in the wilderness, and I think they saw the thread, if not all members of the AC, then at least most of them.
c) I don't know about you, but I personally haven't noticed any sadomasochistic tendencies in Nitro or a desire to live through self-flagellation, etc.
He weighed all the pros and cons and wrote that he recognizes the defeat. And I suspect it was not easy to do, after all, it was not a friendly game, but a game for a place in the group of a serious tournament, and the AC kindly brought a replay on a silver platter. It is up to the participant in this game to judge the fairness/unfairness of the AC's decision, and he has made his choice.

Nevertheless, you somehow decide that I and my generation are bookworms. I may be wrong, but we are the same generation as you :). And I have never smoked books and do not plan to in the foreseeable future ;)
Again, I am not touching on the moral aspect of the issue; I did not even express my opinion on what I think about it in terms of morality, because it does not affect the essence and, accordingly, I did not say anywhere that morality is crap :confused: Morality is everything! :smile13:

I like the numerous expert opinions that, formally, the rules were not violated, but again, these are just subjective opinions. They've watched too many American movies about courts and lawyers, and now everyone thinks they're a successful lawyer, but has even a tenth of them even looked at the civil code? Not every lawyer can explain the rule of law, the hierarchy of laws and regulations, the principles of how norms work, the difference between notes, recommendations, and explanations, but all the protesting forum users definitely know that a note is not more important than the rules and have definitely determined which of the rules has the highest authority. Well, never mind, it's not that important anymore. If you think so, think so.

Well, what else is left besides subjective opinions?

First, he asks not to engage in demagoguery, and then he writes lengthy posts about the loss of moral values in the younger generation.

Do you think that comments on the rules carry more weight than the rules themselves?

Or are we going to interpret these rules depending on the situation?

How does this dismissive attitude towards common rules for everyone relate to high moral qualities?

We still have to play by these rules, and we would like the understanding of the rules to be the same for ordinary players and representatives of the administration.

Well, what else is left besides subjective opinions?

He decided on his own

He drew his own conclusion

He drew his own conclusion based on his own conclusion

And presented it on behalf of the group

And for this

What made you think that the replay was scheduled because of a fairly won game?

1) Did Redwhite violate the rules of fair play?
2) Under which rule was a rematch ordered?

I like the numerous expert opinions that, formally, the rules haven't been violated, but again, these are just subjective opinions. They've watched too many American movies about courts and lawyers, and now everyone thinks they're a successful lawyer, but has even a tenth of them even glanced at the civil code? Not every lawyer can explain the rule of law, the hierarchy of laws and regulations, the principles of how norms work, the difference between notes, recommendations, and explanations, but all the striking forum users definitely know that a note is no more important than the rules and have definitely determined which of the rules has the highest authority. Well, never mind, it's not that important anymore. If you think so, then think so.

=

(couldn't hold it back anymore)

to Sanin, what happens according to the rules if someone on XL+U with advanced air magic uses 3 Dimension Doors with one hero?

so we don't have to look far, here are the rules:
2.4. Dimension Door spell:
- on all maps except for XL+U size maps, it can be used by each hero no more than 1 time per day;
- on XL+U size maps, it can be used by each hero 2 times per day with expert air magic.

Vova, don't break my heart. Something is wrong with this guy, or he's just messing around. My posts contain answers to questions, and he was the first to comment on one of them, where I explained the basis for the AK's decision. Does this person really want to keep arguing? :rolleyes: