Posts from [POLL] AK and other weapon customization

Yurik, with all due respect, please don't make such statements; it's not funny.

Yurik, with all due respect, no offense, but don't make people laugh with such statements, please... )

I'm glad you can still find it funny after a 1:5 defeat.

If such nonsense is permissible due to pedantry (where you can fly however you want if there are 2+ guards, but you have to crawl through the mountains if there is only one), then the rules simply need to be adjusted. I don't manage the rules. Vitaly did a good job bringing the situation to the attention of the community! The more controversial situations are studied, the easier it will be to judge in the future and make fewer mistakes.

In no sport does a referee try to convince anyone of their correctness. The referee makes a decision. If the referee's decision is not satisfactory, then they can be excluded from judging.

A masterful post, in which "perfectly" every sentence is just... perfect :smile20:

Yes, these are very simple and, in their own way, perhaps even logical arguments, but in order to become a good referee, you need to stop thinking this way and understand the fallacy of such a worldview.

I can judge, it's not difficult for me)

While you haven't changed your mind, we need to immortalize this.

While you still haven't changed your mind, we should make it official.

I always help people when they need me to check a save, a block, or have a question about the rules. It won't be difficult for me to do this within the framework of a tournament. The question is whether I will be trusted.

And I will allow myself to interject in the dispute of these "highly respected" "gentlemen." Because there is a painfully important and defining question.

First, a brief educational moment based on Wikipedia.

"Moreover, I am not against establishing and introducing the position of "Tsar of all Hv" with any more or less adequate candidate for it. In my opinion, this is better than democratic chaos."

Caesar, Karl, emperor - these cannot be positions. Dictator and Führer as well. People seize power, and subsequently, no one provides them with protection from the fact that they may end up on the scaffold, humiliated in prison, or in exile.

Democracy is a general term that should be used with caution in the modern world. Democracy in the USA in the 1920s and 2020s looks completely different. And, in my opinion, the issue is not in the political regime. Apart from the definition of democracy according to Franklin, all other "variations" cannot be meaningful at all, and for obvious reasons, democracy according to Franklin is impossible on any forum.

If the question concerns judging, then definitely, it is not better, but more authoritative than others. As long as I have been playing Hv, I have remembered them in resolving many controversial situations, and all of them were justified.

And the expression about "authority" really grated on my ears. I want to slightly reduce this authority. I don't care about the question of what distinguishes cheating from a violation of the game rules, but there was such a thing in the history of Hv:

"The player is banned on the forum (his nickname is black). This is an administrative punishment. Why is he banned? He has 160 violation points. If you know the forum rules, you can understand that he has been banned repeatedly. Points were mainly given for rude insults to users. No, you cannot insult and swear on the forum.
In addition, this user registered several clones on the forum, which should have been punished with 50 points each, but we no longer gave points for this.

Everything is correct in the point about the fact that it is impossible to communicate and convince people of something when they have judicial and moderator authority at the same time. But, heavens, tell me, where is that "list of clones" published, the ignorance of which causes so much distress in my reading of Hv.

P.S. Gentlemen, keep in mind that you do not need to write any theses continuing the discussion in response to me, for obvious reasons. I will comment exclusively on the "list of clones." I know about the first clone, which, of course, does not overlap with the Homm3 section.


Indra

you need to stop thinking like that and understand the fallacy of such a worldview.

Why do you think my worldview is wrong, and yours is right? Does a hierarchy of worldview correctness even exist?

Glad that you still find it funny after a 1:5 score.

It was practically a draw:smile52:

I've been playing for 4 years and have never seen anything like this.

On anarchy, there were 3 blocks in a row. I took three restarts. In the end, the 4th layout turned out to be on a small patch with two mines and a dwarf town, followed by a Dragon Utopia guarded by ghost dragons, and the underground behind a crowd of evil-eyes—a completely unplayable layout. :cool:

Why do you think that your worldview is wrong, and yours is right? Is there even a scale of correctness for worldviews?

Practice is the criterion here; you are occasionally criticized for certain decisions, but I am not. Plus, there are clashes in the analysis of controversial situations; I don't remember your interpretations being more accurate than mine, but the opposite examples do happen.

Here's why this happens:

If literalism allows for such nonsense

This is not nonsense, but an inevitable companion to any attempt to measure harmony with algebra. It is a part of reality that should not be ignored. On the contrary, a judge should see these moments better than anyone else.

then you just need to adjust the rules and that's it

This is only possible if the rules do not initially claim to have strict formulations and are written approximately. There was a time when this was the case, so judges had more room for interpretation.

But if they do (and the Heroes rules are quite a detailed code), then it is impossible to change the rules retroactively, in relation to games that have already been played.

I don't manage the rules

But you could have asked Pete to clarify the wording, couldn't you? You could have, and you should have. This is also part of a judge's job: to identify errors and ambiguities in the rules and eliminate them by available means.

Moreover, even if you didn't recognize an error in the interpretation, you still saw that you couldn't convince Gomunguls, and he left dissatisfied. Therefore, sooner or later, the issue will resurface – either Gomunguls will raise it, or someone else will find themselves in a similar situation.

The more controversial situations are studied, the easier it will be to judge in the future and make fewer mistakes

This is the wrong attitude. Because accumulating experience is an endless process – Heroes evolve, the rules change, and it is impossible to collect a complete collection of experiences.

And a worldview is something like a set of general principles that are not tied to specifics and are therefore capable of dealing even with situations that have not been encountered before. And a worldview can be holistic and not need constant adjustments.

You play chess, and the difference here is approximately the same as between knowing openings/endgames and a general understanding of the game. Imagine that you are training someone, and during the analysis of a game, they tell you in a relaxed and cheerful way, "Well, yes, I understand, I won't play this variation again." How many years will pass before they remember all the "variations that should not be played"... old age will come sooner.

In no sport does a judge convince anyone of their rightness.

They do convince, but not the players, but the match inspectors, refereeing committees, disciplinary committees, etc. Because the employers for judges are not the players, but the tournament organizers, sports federations, sponsors, etc.

In Heroes, however, there are no controlling bodies for the AC, so the AC is directly responsible to the players.

The judge makes a decision. If the judge's decision is not satisfactory, then he can be not invited to judge.

This is what I call the "Dubrovin syndrome." Remember his constant mantras: "We are the AC... we were elected... we make decisions... if you don't like them, you can vote for a different AC in the next election... we are the AC... we were elected... etc."

Then all the forum rabble defended him, voted for him and his proposals, and insulted me, saying that you are attacking our Pasha, he is a titan of thought, and you are a random troll. Now, something similar is happening, only the nicknames are different. But time has put everything in its place – now Dubrovin is mentioned only in a derogatory context, and both sides of the dispute.

The right approach is to make decisions that satisfy the players. And if they don't, then make it so that they do – explain, convince, put pressure on. Even if not 100% of the public (there are particularly stubborn people), but a sufficient part of it, win a public debate. And if you fail to do so, then consider this a failure (even if you think your decision is correct), analyze the mistakes – maybe the decision is bad, maybe the way it is presented is not good, maybe there are mistakes in conducting the dispute, maybe something else.

And also look at the situations being considered not only in terms of "is there a violation or not," but in the overall context, including possible disputes and scandals. This is a good discipline.

Well done, Yura, you dissected Kostya’s entire post and tore the opponent to shreds with your arguments. That one phrase about “washing” and “not washing” is worth a lot, and you also put all the “forum thugs” in their place. You only ignored one phrase: “Maybe you want to judge a season? You’ll help the forum,” you probably didn’t notice it…

...And if they don't suit, then make them suit – explain, convince, put pressure. Even if not 100% of the audience (there are particularly stubborn individuals), but a sufficient part of it, win the public debate. And if it doesn't work, then consider it your fault...

Vikk doesn't discuss; he always engages in polemics. He doesn't want to achieve the truth; he wants to achieve his goal. He always wants to win the argument, which is why he so often distorts facts and resorts to personal attacks. That's what our main heroic tetan is like.

Wicc is great! He clearly notices all the flaws in the "forum trolls." But about the logs... Well, never mind, he knows everything himself and is working on it.

Moreover, even if he didn't recognize the error in interpretation, he still saw that he couldn't convince Gomunguls, he left dissatisfied. And that means that sooner or later the issue will resurface - either Gomunguls will bring it up again, or someone else will find themselves in a similar situation.

I just don't understand one thing. Were you holding a candle or something? Or did you read the chat logs? You didn't understand the situation at all, but you came up with something that turned out to be that I was even trying to convince Pete that I was right, even though he disagreed :D

it is impossible to change the rules retroactively, with respect to games that have already been played.

I didn't even have that thought. Apparently, you're making things up again.

Wicc doesn't discuss, he always argues. He doesn't want to find the truth, he wants to get his way. He always wants to win the argument, which is why he so often distorts facts and resorts to personal attacks. That's what our main hero-titan is like.

That's what happens when a person lacks self-esteem.

Vikk doesn't debate; he always engages in polemics. He doesn't want to find the truth; he wants to get his way. He always wants to win the argument, which is why he so often distorts facts and resorts to personal attacks. That's what our main hero is like.

You really managed to twist the meaning of my statement... your skill in distorting facts and resorting to personal attacks is better than mine: rolleyes:

Your skill in subtly shifting the conversation and focusing on personal attacks is better developed than mine.

No, your worldview is wrong on this matter, and deep down, you know it. Well, never mind, you're probably working on self-improvement.