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.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.
Could you please share the arguments that the Arbitration Committee members used when making their decision?
Both Stinger and the others.
Well, I'll share my opinion. Initially, I was inclined to let the game continue as it was, but after some thought, I changed my mind and voted in favor of allowing the turn to be completed. And here's why: 1. The bug was specifically related to the HD update, not the HellLight mod, which Baratorch confirmed. An updated patch was immediately released.
4.100 RC8 -> 4.100 RC9 (01/25/2016)
[!] The < Sys.ReduceCpuUsage > tweak has been renamed to < Sys.CPU.ReduceUsage > and is disabled by default. (This means that the tweak will be disabled upon updating, which will eliminate lag in the interface on some PCs)
2. HellLight couldn't have known about this; he immediately contacted the judges upon discovering the issue. 3. HellLight isn't asking to change the turn in a way that would allow him to rethink or play it differently; he's asking to make the exact move he intended to make but didn't have time to complete. The stream shows that he was trying to position his hero in the correct spot, but he didn't have enough time to make the final click. Based on all of this, I voted to allow him to make that final click.
I simply looked at the ХВ Rules and saw the following there: Pit for LM
2. The use of additional programs that speed up the game process is permitted, in particular: - A mod to improve the functionality of the interface - HoMM3 HD, The player using these programs and files bears full responsibility for any bugs that arise from their use.
You can't just dismiss this out of hand.
It is necessary to either thoroughly explain why this rule is inapplicable to the situation in question (by the way, why?), or explicitly state that there is a flaw in the rules, submit a proposal to amend them, and characterize the decision as one made retroactively "due to special circumstances" (by the way, what circumstances? Does Hell instantly lose if it doesn't move the horse?).
Let's reason further... suppose for some reason we dismiss the above, but since nowhere in the rules does it indicate how to act in such situations, the episode in question should be considered a gray area in the regulations. Therefore, the AC's decision should be treated as a legal precedent that players and judges will use as a guideline, which will be referenced in discussions, etc.
Right now, there's a blitz Jebus Cross going on, where almost every turn is being finished in the last seconds. And I'm curious - does the AC really want to be flooded with complaints like "my computer lagged in time trouble, I think it's a bug of the HD mod, please allow me to finish my turn"? The question is rhetorical, no need to answer.
You're right. The rules version has long needed revision. The HD mod has already become the default version for a long time. Tournament organizers write so themselves. Moreover, in HOTU (which is the default version for the tournament) it seems to be built-in, or at least it is downloaded already in that form. Point:
The player using these programs and files bears all responsibility for any bugs arising from their use.
is not applicable, since the HD mod is the default version.
Right now there's a Blitz Jebus Cross going on, where almost every turn is finished in the last seconds. And I'm wondering — does AK really want to be flooded with complaints like "my computer lagged in time trouble, I think it's a bug from the HD mod, please allow me to replay the turn"? The question is rhetorical, you don't have to answer.
That's why I insist that players should first of all contact the tournament judges. And let them figure out whether it's a "bug" or "I think it's a bug".
That’s why I insist that players should first contact the tournament judges. And let them figure out whether it’s a “bug” or “possibly a bug.”
So, you’re suggesting that players should bombard the tournament judges with complaints instead of the AK? And if someone isn’t satisfied with the judges’ answer? Will the AK be back on the scene? A questionable approach.
A much more reasonable approach is to have “rules that are simple, clear, and have only one interpretation.” Within this framework, a solution can be found by stating that “lag is the player’s problem.” Yes, in some cases, this may unfairly disadvantage someone, but the simplicity and universality here more than compensate.
Right now there's a blitz Jebus Cross going on where almost every turn is finished in the last few seconds. And I'm wondering — does AK really want to be flooded with complaints like "the computer lagged during time trouble, I think it's a bug in the HD mod, please allow me to finish the turn"? The question is rhetorical, you don't have to answer.
Well, those are somewhat different things: talking about lag in general versus when you can see on the stream that the lag is actually happening and preventing the turn from being completed.
Well, it's about a few different things: talking about lags and when it's visible on the stream how these lags actually happen and prevent completing a turn.
Lucky, Vika hasn't been interested in the subject of the dispute for a long time. Here, it's the president of the "discussion club" who is interested in the competitive aspect: D
rebellious
10 years ago
Auto-translated
Of course, several simple questions arise. And where is the causal link between the bug and the fact that someone spent a long time on their turn? Did anyone who was involved reproduce the situation in real conditions – on Hell’s computer, and on a comparative control? No. On what basis was the decision in his favor made then? Did they simply believe him on his word? Ah, or maybe the time was lost not exactly at that moment, but in previous turns – where the player, say, scratched himself or yawned. And further. And this is very important. The bug affected both players. This means they were in equal conditions. This means that if one player believes that he suffered especially, and the other was not affected, then this case still shows that Hell’s hardware, software, and he himself were simply not ready to compete in certain conditions. At the same time, a paradox arises. In this case, the commission does not come to a fair decision, but to obtaining a benefit for one side. But the bug affected both players. Then where is the adequate benefit for the second player? And there is no need to say that the second player did not complain. The situation should be analyzed on its merits and be fair to both. Since there are no guilty parties, no one should suffer. If a foolish judge awarded an incorrect penalty in one direction, then let him award a penalty in the other direction as well. And here is another question, why did Dirty decide on his own to escalate the problem to the AK, since, according to his own statement, this case should not have been sent to them?
Vysotskiy
10 years ago
Auto-translated
Imagine it like in football: if, in the first half, during added time, a player were to perform some elaborate trick, slip, and fall, and then start yelling that the moment should be replayed because the field is uneven, or that the new floodlights on the field are confusing and he didn't know they were installed, the match would be stopped, and for two weeks, they would debate whether to replay that one minute of game time. It's like a kindergarten, honestly.
... A much more sensible approach is: "the rules should be simple, clear, and have unambiguous interpretations."
The core of the rules is still stored somewhere in the main branch; I stumbled upon it once. And everything is quite simple and clearly written there, including the prohibition of all sorts of bugs. It was Pete who overloaded the rules with absolutely unnecessary and superfluous information, such as
2.8.3. If a computer player has upgraded monsters of levels 1, 6, and 7 in the Conflux or level 4 in the Necropolis, then they are prohibited from upgrading their troops of these levels and hiring the upgraded version of creatures. If the Necromancy Amplifier has been built, then vampires are prohibited from being upgraded, and additional skeletons do not need to be disbanded. 2.9. It is prohibited to collect the composite artifact, the Shroud of the Dead King. All other composite artifacts can be collected.
, thereby confusing them and giving opportunities for outstanding tacticians to emerge. It could simply be written concisely that
it is prohibited to upgrade and hire monsters of levels 1, 6, and 7 in the Conflux and vampires in the Necropolis. It is prohibited to use the composite artifact, the Shroud of the Dead King.
why did Dirty decide on his own to push the issue to the forum?
I understand you might be upset, but it would be helpful if you read the entire thread before making such statements. Because after such bold claims, there is absolutely no desire to evaluate your arguments.
Of course, several simple questions arise. But where is the cause-and-effect relationship between the bug and the fact that someone spent a long time playing? Did anyone who was involved reproduce the situation in real conditions – on Hell’s computer, and on a comparative control? No. On what basis did they then make a decision in his favor? And what, did they just believe him on his word? Ah, maybe the time was lost not exactly at that moment, but in previous turns – where the player, say, scratched himself or yawned.
He burst in. Right, why read all the messages and delve into the problem if you can just barge in and put everyone in their place:smile04: Hell streamed this game, and there is a cut-out piece of the recording in the messages above, where everything is visible, how and what happened, so what does “believe him on his word” have to do with it?:smile35:
I’m not entirely sure about applying the standard rules of the game itself to analyzing this situation.
The tournament regulations do not clearly specify which rules apply in the games (it only states that the tournament is conducted according to the rules of tournament organization).
The "Mirror" regulations state:
II. Rules and Templates: a) By default, games are played on HoTA version (1.3.8) + HD-mod with the HW-Rules 1.34 patch enabled; by mutual agreement, opponents may play SoD.
The players were playing HotA.
In the HotA section, there have been rules for conducting HotA games for half a year now. They state that these rules are based on HeroesWorld rules. I did not find the clause mentioned by Vic in these rules; it was most likely removed from them, because the HD mod is used by default for HotA games.
And that’s the actual question. Why should we rely on the rules for SoD and WoG when analyzing a situation in a HotA game, if there are rules specifically for HotA?
You may excuse yourself, but it wouldn't hurt you to read the entire thread of this discussion instead of writing obvious nonsense. Because after such bold statements, there is absolutely no desire to evaluate your arguments.
Did I write that I didn't read it, or that I don't know the question? I watched, I read, and I asked. Arguments like "nonsense" are written out of the blue. This actually emphasizes that I hit the mark. And this conclusion was confirmed.
LuckyF
Burst in. Right, why read all the messages and delve into the problem if you can just barge in and put everyone in their place?
Is this some kind of "bots" from Hell attacking?:D Instead of factual counter-arguments, there are emotional outbursts.
Hell streamed this game, and there is a cut piece of the recording in the messages above, where everything is visible, how and what happened, so what does "believe on your word" have to do with it?
The stream only records the sequence of events. But not their origin, let alone their interpretation. I'll say even more, if you dwell on every detail. How can you prove that Hell's hand was controlling the mouse? How can you prove that Hell was controlling it from his computer, and not remotely? And there will be many more such nuances.
it is within the AK's authority to make exactly the decision it made. and there will always be dissenting opinions, regardless of the decision – critics would still be found)))
P.S.: a tennis player's racket broke. will they let him replay the point? not the game, not the set, but specifically that rally in which it broke?
