Connection ErrorBad RequestSession 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.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Well, a week has passed, time for an interim summary:
1) Regarding the secrecy of the AC (Advisory Council), most speakers were in favor of "creating a topic with the AC's decisions and indicating who voted for what." So be it, already a step forward.
2) No discussion on moderators materialized.
3) Opinions diverged on the HeroesWorld rules.
4) No discussion on official tournament rules materialized.
5) Registration confirmation has been promised to me for a year now... and they promised once more... we're waiting... :smile50:
Thus, items 2-3-4 will be put to a vote. Rough answer options (multiple choice):
- allow combining moderator and AC membership - prohibit combining moderator and AC membership - changes to HeroesWorld rules are made by 1 person - changes to HeroesWorld rules are made by the AC - changes to HeroesWorld rules are made after a general vote - official tournament rules are determined by their organizer - official tournament rules are part of the HeroesWorld rules
If you have objections to the wording or not all options you're interested in are listed — let me know, I'll correct them.
I'm curious, why do you need all this? You don't play anymore, you personally know half the AC, or at least some of them, and you can discuss ideas with them outside the forum if you want. Of course, it's fun to read reactions to your posts, or is the reaction itself the purpose of the posts?) Or are you still upset that you weren't elected to the AC?
It seems like the fifth person now is writing something along the lines of: "Wicc wasn't chosen for the Arbitration Committee (AK), so he started causing trouble."
I wrote something similar to the "angry romantic" a little earlier; I'll repeat it: don't project your decision-making logic onto me; you'll most likely be wrong.
Regarding the issue at hand, you can check the pre-election thread and see my post from June 22nd (before the voting started):
Wicc
In this regard, if I am elected to the AK, I intend to insist that AK members who do not have current judging experience be required to be appointed as referees for various official Tournaments. This way, they can gain experience, and players can form an opinion about them in this role.
However, I agree about moderation; in my opinion, combining membership in the AK and moderation functions creates risks of abuse. The specifics of the AK are that its actions can sometimes lead to turmoil, including borderline violations, and having a moderator's "baton" creates a temptation to use it, even if formally correct, but at the most convenient moment from the point of view of conducting the discussion. Therefore, I believe that for an AK member, having moderation functions is permissible only for the purpose of editing old posts (rules, statistics). This can also be considered part of my election program.
That is, a direct and unambiguous statement of intent to start stirring things up if elected to the AK.
I hope that before the next attempts to psychoanalyze my personality, the authors will study the materials more carefully.
The AK has been elected, but there is no noticeable activity. For starters, I believe the AK regulations themselves need to be changed in the appropriate section. Currently it states: Functions: Control over compliance with the rules of the "Heroes 3 - ONLINE" section. Resolution of disputed situations in ranked games. Management of the "Blacklist" section. Consultation of players on individual issues.
The old composition is still listed. Next, a solutions thread needs to be created in the same section. The thread should be closed so that only AK members can post. Posts in the thread should be about reviewed issues. For example: On 27.07.15, the issue regarding the game "such-and-such" within the framework of the "such-and-such" tournament was reviewed. Decision: "such-and-such." Voted in favor: "such-and-such" AK members, against: "such-and-such."
Furthermore, the activity regulations need to establish a term, powers, and procedure for the removal of AK members.
And then we can proceed to discuss the issues raised by Vic. Wicc
Thus, questions 2-3-4 will be put to a vote. Approximate answer options (multiple choice):
- allow combining moderator status and AK membership - prohibit combining moderator status and AK membership - changes to the HeroesWorld rules are made by 1 person - changes to the HeroesWorld rules are made by the AK - changes to the HeroesWorld rules are made after a general vote - the rules of official tournaments are determined by their organizer - the rules of official tournaments are part of the HeroesWorld rules
Combining AK membership and moderator status - no objections, during the vote everyone was perfectly aware that the person is a moderator.
Changes to HeroesWorld rules - changes are made by Pit, after a general vote on the forum. A clause can be added to the regulations that the AK can veto changes with a 2/3 majority vote.
Rules of official tournaments - are established by the AK; a clause may be added: changes to the rules of an official tournament are made upon coordination with the AK well in advance of the start of the tournament (e.g., 2 months before). In that case, there should be a subsection or a closed thread listing the official tournaments and the rules of those tournaments.
Actually, when it comes to such an important factor as "caring about the Heroes community and the main game portal," Vic definitely holds the top spot, regardless of any voting results. And as for not being chosen for the Advisory Council – I'm sure he doesn't care at all (and neither do I, for that matter). This doesn't change a person's character.
Actually, a question has arisen regarding the Tournament Committee: /topic/6100/
In fact, all subgroups of this committee could be abolished, leaving only one AC and assigning all functions of the Tournament Committee to the AC (perhaps even renaming the AC to the Tournament Committee while maintaining AC functions), since apart from Javdet, among the people listed as members of this committee, the others are either in the AC or inactive.
I also want to bring up for discussion the issue regarding the organization of tournaments /topic/6162/ some points of the rules that should be discussed:
II. Duties and Rights of the Organizer.
zh) agree upon the following issues with the rating administrator: inclusion of games in the seasonal/permanent rating, the number of additional points added to the tournament winners' ratings, as well as reflect this information in the first post This point was not used in a single tournament last year, as far as I understand, regarding bonus points for the top 3
l) list participants in the "Blacklist" thread who had serious grievances against them, both from the Organizer and other Participants, with mandatory specification of the remarks. Punishment is at the discretion of the Organizer, up to suspension from all games of the tournament and a ban on participating in their future tournaments. Based on such lists, other Organizers of subsequent tournaments have the right to refuse an application for participation from "distinguished" players.
This point must be mandatory to execute. People withdraw from tournaments often and in large numbers, disappear, or just stop caring. There must be accountability.
2. The Organizer has the right: d) to refuse an application for participation in a tournament from any user without a public explanation of the reasons. In my opinion, this is complete nonsense and this point should be removed from the rules for organizing tournaments (at least official ones)
Thus, questions 2-3-4 will be put to a vote. Approximate answer options (multi-select):
I don't understand, whose fame is troubling you? DaU's or Dubrovin's? :D Wicc
- allow combining moderation and membership in the AC - prohibit combining moderation and membership in the AC
Sorry, but the people know perfectly well who is a moderator and who is not, and if a person votes FOR, it means they are fine with that state of affairs. Wicc
- changes to the HeroesWorld rules are made by 1 person - changes to the HeroesWorld rules are made by the AC - changes to the HeroesWorld rules are made after a general vote
And what is wrong right now with Pit being in charge of the rules? If he needs the AC's help, he contacts the AC. If a vote needs to be created, a vote is created. Where is the problem? Or is it just a desire to change something for the sake of changing it? Explain, please. Wicc
- the rules of official tournaments are determined by their organizer - the rules of official tournaments are part of the HeroesWorld rules
I agree, some specifics and a division into official and fan tournaments wouldn't hurt. But I don't see the need for, for example, "the FB tournament to be held every year according to the same fixed regulations." In my opinion, there are more downsides here, though I could be wrong. Wicc
In this regard, I, in the event of my election to the AC, intend to insist on...
Strange, but the election didn't happen, yet the topic of "AC operating instructions" appeared right away. Did it not occur to you that you weren't elected precisely because the people don't want your changes? =Lizard=
Actually, according to such a not insignificant indicator as "caring about what happens to the Heroes community and the main Heroes portal," Vic is 100% in 1st place regardless of the votes. And as for not being elected to the AC - I'm sure he couldn't care less (as would I, by the way). This doesn't change a person's level.
"Caring" and "doing no harm" are not always the same thing. skd
The AC was elected, but there's no noticeable activity.
Well, generally, the goals and objectives of the AC do not imply any activity without the occurrence of extraordinary situations.
Functions: Control over compliance with the rules of the "Heroes 3 - ONLINE" section. Resolution of disputed situations in ranked games. Management of the "Black List" section. Consulting players on individual issues.
I.e., a disputed situation arises - we review it; if not - everything is calm. I'm not arguing that many issues need refinement, and some even a complete overhaul... but not everything at once.
Gomunguls
11 years ago
Auto-translated
Regarding the Facebook group, the players in the final stage should decide which format to use. Create a topic with two options, for example, a standard circular map or one with a twist, and let them vote. Then there will be no questions.
The rules need to be revised; there are many unclear points. For example, from the rules: 1.5. Restart is allowed for a strong block up to 112 inclusive. A block is a strong defense of something that cannot be destroyed without catastrophic losses in a specific game. A restart is initiated at the request of the player who owns the block if it is impossible to bypass the block, which cuts off the Castle from the main part of the starting zone, leaving no opportunity for development up to the block. Could you provide more details here? How is the main part of the starting zone determined? What is meant by "development up to the block"?
Here's an example from a real game: one mine was blocked, and it covered approximately 50% of the starting zone, but there was some kind of single, questionable exit to another half of the starting zone... which, as it turned out, was blocked by a guard. The solution in this situation was as follows: when playing as Necromancer, you need to build skeletons (as I understand it, in that half of the zone that exists) and break the guard at the end of that turn (it doesn't matter that nothing is being built in the city at that time), and that when playing as Necromancer, mines are not needed; just keep building skeletons and move forward. Why isn't it stated in the rules that mines are not needed for Necromancers? Is building skeletons considered development? There are many more such moments that could be cited.
Could you elaborate on this point? How is the main part of the starting zone determined? What is meant by developing to a block?
It is clear that the main part or non-main part, etc., is determined by the judge, to whom the save file is sent for review. This is a classic case of expert evaluation of a situation, where it is not possible to fully formalize the criterion by which a restart is taken/not taken due to a block.
Стримы HMM5 на полных картах мод TE: ru.twitch.tv/noom11
Alex_nv - draw - Vovan112013 летос 236
alex_nv wrote: Наконец то нормальная игра с открытием половины карты.
A moment from a real game: one mine was blocked, which controlled approximately 50% of the starting zone, but there was some questionable exit leading to another half of the starting zone... which, as it turned out, was blocked by guards. The solution to this situation was as follows: when playing as Necropolis, you need to build skeletons (as I understand it, in that half of the zone that is available) and break through the guards at the end of that passage (it doesn't matter that nothing is being built in the city), and that when playing as Necropolis, mines are not needed; just keep building skeletons and move forward. Why isn't it stated in the rules that mines are not needed for Necropolis? Is building skeletons considered development? There are many more such moments.
You need extrasensory intuition to know what and how to do.
It is obvious that whether a situation constitutes a major or minor issue, etc., is determined by the judge, to whom the save file is sent for review. This is a classic case of expert evaluation of a hand, where it is not possible to fully formalize the criteria for whether or not a restart is granted due to a blocking situation.
Well, I sent the save file, and here is the response.
Actually, when it comes to such an important indicator as "not being indifferent to what happens to the Heroes community and the main Heroes portal," Vic is 100% in first place, regardless of any votes. And I'm sure he doesn't care at all that he wasn't chosen for the AC (and neither do I, for that matter). This doesn't change a person's worth.
The main Heroes portal is heroes.by, as far as I remember? In any case, that's what many poker gurus claimed. It's good that he cares; its operation in recent years has been impressive. However, heroesworld is a slightly different matter. Wicc
5) They've been promising me registration confirmation for a year now... and they promised again... we're waiting... :smile50:
A year? I've been waiting for registration on heroes.by since 2004. At some point, it worked.
In essence. Heroes 3 is a rather old game. It's quite easy to scare away the existing players with radical innovations or punitive sanctions, but it's practically impossible to gather and nurture a new generation. In this regard, I believe that the activities of the AC, despite some erroneous decisions, were generally beneficial. And we should all thank them and wish them good work in the future. And that would be the right thing to do. And those who really love to criticize can go to heroes.by, enjoy its functionality, the variety of images on the screen, and create their own wonderful AC there, which will do everything differently.
PS. I suggest introducing a new meme. Example: I lost in a contest, misclicked, can I get an auto-win? - Go to heroes.by
When it comes to the Final Battle, the players in the final stage should decide which format to use. Create a topic with two options, for example, a standard circular map or one with a twist, and let them vote. That way, there will be no questions.
The rules need to be revised; there are many unclear points. For example, from the rules: 1.5. Restart is allowed for a strong block up to level 112. A block is a strong defense of something that cannot be destroyed without catastrophic losses in a specific game. A restart is taken at the request of the player who owns the block if it is impossible to bypass the block, which cuts off the Castle from the main part of the starting zone, leaving no opportunity for development up to the block. Could you elaborate on this? How is the main part of the starting zone determined? What is meant by "development up to the block"?
An example from a real game: one mine was blocked, and it covered approximately 50% of the starting zone, but there was some single, questionable exit to another half of the starting zone... which, as it turned out, was blocked by a guard. The answer to this situation was: when playing as Necromancer, you need to build skeletons (as I understand it, in that half of the zone that exists) and break the guard at the end of that turn (it doesn't matter that nothing is being built in the city), and that when playing as Necromancer, mines are not needed; just keep building skeletons and move forward. Why isn't it stated in the rules that mines are not needed for Necromancers? Is building skeletons considered development? There are many more such moments.
The answer is terrible; I suggest that the AK (Administration Committee) revise the wording in the rules regarding this issue. I am ready to participate in the work of the commission to discuss this
Kostya, I'm sorry, but you are currently engaging in sophistry. That is, you are uttering smooth, even speeches that weakly reflect reality. Plus, you constantly try to distort my position and argue with voices in your head.
And what exactly is wrong right now with Pete being responsible for the rules? If he needs help from the AC, he turns to the AC. If a vote needs to be created, a vote is created. What’s the problem? Or is it just that something has to be changed? Please explain.
It is easy to find an answer to this question in the first post: "I don't have any specific preferences here because I don't play myself, so I will be happy with any of these options, as long as they are officially announced and strictly adhered to in practice."
The problem is that people ask questions from time to time.
I agree; some specifics and a division into official and fan tournaments would be helpful. But I do not see the need for, for example, the "FB tournament" to be held according to the same fixed regulations every year. In my opinion, there are more drawbacks than advantages, although I may be wrong.
Whether or not to have a fixed regulation is a matter for the future; both options are acceptable. The main thing is that the process of changing FB rules should not be based on "whatever the leading person feels like," but through some formal procedure, whether it be a vote by participants or a vote by members of the AC, or something else.
Strangely enough, no election took place, but the topic of "AC operating instructions" appeared immediately.
Another psychologist. Please take your place in line.
Did it occur to you that you were not chosen precisely because people don't want your changes?
No, it didn't. At least because the expression of intent about this was not noticed even by many politically active forum users.
You should excuse me, but people know perfectly well who is a moderator and who is not, and if a person votes FOR, then they are happy with the current state of affairs.
Well... I also voted FOR you, but I am not satisfied with the current state of affairs. I simply voted for you as a member of the AC, and I decided to postpone the issue of combining positions until later.
Let me elaborate (hello, The_ :). It is common knowledge that democratic voting is not rational but emotional. Some voters may conduct some analysis, but most vote from the heart. This is not an accusation; presidents and deputies are elected worldwide in this way.
That is, democratic voting is a method of making decisions, not a method of finding truth, so it shouldn't be used to argue anything, except perhaps for throwing mud. Truth weakly depends on who believes in it; it is found in reflection, reasoning, and discussion.
To find the truth, one must delve deeply into the question, study obvious and hidden driving forces, and understand the dynamics of the process. In relation to social processes, the dynamic of any of them is such that people constantly try to become more brazen – take more, give less. Therefore, in a collective left without external or internal supervision, over time, processes of mental fermentation and erosion of social ties begin.
In a healthy collective, at a certain point, a danger sensor triggers, after which the collective receives a corrective kick (or gives it to itself), restoring degraded connections. In an unhealthy one, accordingly, it either does not trigger or triggers in the wrong direction.
The community on ХВ is currently quite healthy, but there are some degradation processes - members of the AC and moderators have become much more brazen in the last year or two, both in words and deeds. Some work less or worse, some claim more rights for themselves, some flaunt inappropriately. And the influence of regulations has weakened; many things are done "according to unwritten rules." Those who are new here may not notice this, but I have been observing ХВ for 7 years and can clearly see the dynamics of the process.
Therefore, I am signaling about the danger and proposing:
- restore the influence of the regulations so that processes proceed as written on paper, and not "this is how it is accepted here, everyone knows each other, if something happens, we will agree." If any points of the regulation are outdated and need to be updated, no problem, they can be updated. For example, skd was right about the Tournament Code. The main thing is to adhere to the updated version later.
- separate powers at a safe distance from each other. This process is similar to the erosion of regulations; officials gradually tend to acquire more and more power during peacetime, sometimes without noticing that they have approached the limit of their competence, or even exceeded it. As long as everything is calm, this is not noticeable, but when a significant episode occurs, sometimes even a minor one, all accumulated tension suddenly turns into streams of crap flooding the collective.
To prevent this, collectives create protective contours, separation of rights and obligations - who has the right to do what, and who does not have the right to do what. This helps to contain sources of conflict and, in case of an outbreak, localize them.
An example from the history of ХВ: /topic/7215/, an attempt to remove one of the protective barriers by adding AC's rights regarding independent organizations. It may seem insignificant, but the fact itself is important. If that amendment had been adopted, then over time the story would have continued; Dubrovin would have started pushing for another amendment, then another, and another. The outcome would have been approximately as follows: after a year or two, some particularly clever guy would appear in one of my (or someone else's) tournaments and try to put pressure on me with an AC decision. I would tell him to go away, after which there would be abundant spreading of grievances on the forum with the participation of all players who have any opinion on this matter. Then various referendums, leaks of compromising material, removals from tournaments, withdrawals from the AC, settling scores, etc., would follow – we have already gone through all this in "the Alex affair." In the end, the result would be the same; Dubrovin's amendments would be canceled, but with much more wasted time and nerves.
But the story unfolded differently - despite the positive voting result, the amendment was not adopted, thereby nipping the problem in the bud.
I propose doing something similar now. Some comrades are already losing their heads:zloy_romantik
After all, if the AC does not want publicity, what should be done? Elect a new one?
Wicc
Yes, that’s right. The AC is an elected body created to serve the interests of the players and therefore subordinate to a general referendum. Or did you think you received a party card and can do whatever you want?
злой_романтик
11 years ago
Auto-translated
Here's another lengthy post from the "self-proclaimed voice of the people," but does the people actually want this? Judging by the limited support for your proposed changes, I'm not so sure.
