Posts from Voting AGAINST candidates for the AC.

A match is in progress, and ends with one of the players winning, while the other acknowledges defeat. The game is over.

Let me explain in another way. In Heroes, you can win without any contact with your opponent. A player who has no road to the GO on a Jebus Cross can achieve victory without ever knowing about the lack of that road. And their opponent will have no opportunity to moan for a replay. The same goes for that game with Sam: if I had thrown and surrendered, there would have been no talk of any replay; he would have calmly secured his win despite the bug. Allowing replayed bugged setups after a loss is a one-sided game, favoring the one who has the bug.

but in our conversation, you mentioned that you follow all the rules, but not the rules for a humanitarian restart, so there's an inconsistency, especially when talking about a match with the Executioner.

1.4. By default, games are played according to the official rules with changes reflected in the first post of the current season's thread.
Any changes to the rules are allowed with the mutual consent of the players, except for the fair play clause. All amendments to the rules must be agreed upon in advance via ICQ.

This means that, with mutual consent, players can give each other as many restarts and autosaves as they want, allow minor rule violations, replay from the beginning, and so on. As long as the players reach an agreement between themselves, it only concerns them. For example, I didn't replay that game with you because it looked like griefing, and I told you about it right away. But in the current m200 game against me, Player violated the rules, and I offered him a replay myself. It's a personal matter between two specific players, but when a judge is watching the situation, the rules come first.

Well, why do you need politics in the tribunal? In my opinion, here are the people I voted for, 7 people. I would leave three of them: Pit, Dirty, and злой_романтик, and I just listed the rest. These people generally know the answers to questions about the game, they have been on the forum for a long time, and I accept their decisions because, in my opinion, they judge objectively.
As for those I voted against, firstly, the absence of an "abstain" button. Many candidates registered on the forum slightly earlier than me, and some even later. Again, a good player does not necessarily mean a good judge or organizer.
And about the celebrities, I voted against Vikka because he is in favor of politics on the portal and all sorts of discussions. I believe that the Administration Council discusses things among themselves and makes a decision, like a jury. I voted against Vigo because he was banned from the forum. I voted against RedWhite, well, he sometimes has outbursts, which is not good. I should have also voted against Stinger, if possible, remove my vote for him, because he probably doesn't have time for this. And Rebelius, I personally have no questions for him, but again, he becomes a participant in controversial situations, as does Cobra, although I have communicated with both of them, and I only have positive emotions from the communication. Sanin, I encountered him in a tournament, he is too pedantic, although he allows for a "fluctuation" of the rules in his favor. I won't give an example, if necessary, I'll tell you in ICQ. The Administration Council is the face of the forum, not a gang of quarrelers with green or pink nicknames.

So, let's say I'm a newbie, I don't know anything, I lose the game to you, and only then do I realize that there was no way through. But I could have done something differently... so I turn to the judge and ask, what was wrong with my actions?

By that logic, after a loss I could dive into the map and look for bugs — an area flooded somewhere, a passage missing somewhere that I never even reached, and what if... what if through that zone the opponent could have been slowed down, what if that zone existed and I would have played differently. A rematch! ...utter nonsense.
What would be wrong in your actions is that during the game you failed to assess the generated layout. Iamsamstan didn't even fully scout his own zone. And what if he had won the game? Could the opponent have requested a restart because the generation was bugged? For example, interpreting it as not finding a path to the opponent's secondary hero, through which he could have killed him. Yes, during the game I didn't discover that there was no path to the opponent's secondary, only after looking at the map later, but what if there had been a teleport here and I would have caught it, instead of dying at the Griffin Conservatory along the way...

we're talking about different things... I'm saying that while playing, I don't understand, for example, that there's no passage where my hero is standing. But you're saying I lost, I opened the map, found something I didn't even see in the game, and asked the tech support.;)

And if the zone has already been fully explored, but the player hasn't realized that there's no way through.

Well, in the game being used as an example here, Iamsan didn't even fully explore his zone. And if the zone is already fully explored, but the player hasn't realized that they have no way forward... which rule applies to this? There's a rule like this: "1.4. Restart at the player's request if the only path leads to the GO," where the restart is taken on the day the issue is discovered, but no later than day 115! I don't see any other rules that suggest you can take a restart because you have no way forward on the second day.

Unfortunately, I was discussing the situation in general, not a specific case with Sam.. so don't hold it against me :smile13: