Posts from Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.

to Sanin, what will happen according to the rules if someone on an XL+U map with advanced air magic uses Dimension Door 3 times with one hero?

To avoid going too far, here are the rules:
2.4. Dimension Door spell:
- on all maps except those of size XL+U, each hero can use it no more than once a day;
- on maps of size XL+U, each hero can use it twice a day with expert air magic.

if the answer to the first question is yes, then it automatically follows that the answer to the second question is also yes

My posts contain answers to the questions, and he commented on one of them first at this link, where I explained the basis for the decision. Some people just like to keep arguing :rolleyes:

Let me try again: section 2.13 is a prohibiting norm, the comments to section 2.13 are a permissive norm, and section 2.14 is a prohibitive-permissive norm. For some reason, the defenders decided that section 2.14 is the key norm with supreme power. In reality, all norms are equal; at best, we can talk about a conflict of norms. But in no way does "he did nothing wrong" apply. This is the same as ignoring amendments to the rules that were developed for different maps.

name the rule number that someone will violate if they use 3 Dimension Door spells on a prolonged Air Elemental on Hero Level + Ultra (they won't get the win during judging - so something is violated):

(Section V) fair play or (2.4) Dimension Door spell
or something else?

(2.4) The Spatial Gate spell.
With a comment that the player misunderstood the current rules, and to avoid further misunderstandings, clarifications will be made to the rules. Well, at least that's how I would reason.

Well, because if the decision was made based on a comment to clause 2.13, that's strange, but okay, but if it was made based on the Fair Play rule, then the question is no longer about a rematch, but about more severe measures.

I want to summarize:
1) The AC wrote rules for players of the entire community, but have the right to make decisions regardless of their rules. After all, rules are supposedly written with common sense as well.
2) All AC decisions are not subject to discussion, because the AC are the most respected and wise people of the community.
Did I understand everything correctly? If not, please write down the ultimate truth and there will be no more questions.

By the way, my suggestion to put the question about the ShA bug to a vote on the forum didn't get a response from the AK.

Okay, maybe it wasn't clear enough.
I'll try again: 2.13 is a prohibitive rule, the comments to 2.13 are a permissive rule, and 2.14 is a prohibitive-permissive rule. For some reason, the defenders decided that 2.14 is the key rule with the highest authority. In reality, all rules are equal; at best, we can talk about a conflict of rules. But it's definitely not the case that "he didn't violate anything." This is the same as ignoring the additions to the rules, which are developed for different templates. And although I don't see a conflict of rules here, or rather, someone certainly sees it, and even if we assume that there is one, then the higher authority should determine the rule that has the highest authority for a specific situation, and then make changes or additions so that these conflicts do not arise.
In general, if all the rules were perfect, why would we need the Arbitration Committee? Why would we need courts if laws are in effect in the world?
Of course, we could have voted for them, but we voted for a replay. This is exactly the situation where the rules are not enough to make the decision obvious.
I'll repeat what some forum users said: no matter what the decision, some people will be unhappy. And the saddest thing is that the more time passes, the more questions and demands there will be. It's disgusting when this turns into a squabble and a circus, but it has become an integral part of the world.
By the way, in private messages, people are writing that Red is just a friend or a cool guy, and the rules, therefore, are just something to be bent, something to engage in nitpicking...

Peter, aren't you tired of this? Just forget about it. Let's talk about politics instead.

I'm just leaving this here.
This is what my position was based on, and accordingly, I believed that AK had also studied this material before making a decision, which I didn't understand, and that's what I had questions about, not the morale, not whether or not to ban the bug, and all the other things you came up with later.
-the precedent itself /topic/10979/ (page 177)

-additional discussion in the ХВ rules topic, where Nitro also shares his opinion on this issue (by the way, the post was earlier than Питерский Лан, where Nitro first heard about this bug). /topic/10609/ (pages 18-19).
But of course, I am wrong; I provide false facts. You will now explain it to me in detail and, most importantly, together, kindly, as if to a fool. Thank you for that, and may God grant you health.

I'm in favor of making the mechanics obvious and accessible for beginners to learn. Because, for example, after playing for a year and a half, features (or rather, bugs) still emerge that directly contradict common sense and physics.
In summary: the rules (and mechanics are part of the rules) of the game should be clear to everyone - if, of course, we want to make the game more "competitive".

I've exhausted the topic for myself.