Posts from Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments. Auto-translated

I clearly described my position, providing facts.

When RC8 was released, it was stated that mice with DPI higher than 2000 might experience lag; to avoid this lag, you need to disable a tweak in the HD mod settings.

Once again, clearly and concisely, this is not a bug, but rather configuration settings in the ini file and the hardware of HellLight.

He didn't have enough time – 7 seconds. He had 10 minutes at the start of his turn.
For the first 3 minutes and 15 seconds, none of his heroes made a single move.
Then he spent another 4 minutes changing his hero's equipment.

Once again, clearly and concisely: this is not a bug, but configuration settings in the ini file and HellLight's hardware

[-] Bug with system cursors on Windows Vista and later
[-]Bug: tweak < Sys.ReduceCpuUsage > did not work properly.
[-] Minor fixes.

[!] The tweak < Sys.ReduceCpuUsage > has been renamed to < Sys.CPU.ReduceUsage > and disabled by default. (Therefore, the tweak will be disabled upon update, which will eliminate lags in the interface on some PCs)

The current rules state that if one player has a save and the other does not, the situation is interpreted in favor of that player. But there is nothing said about streams. Do you think that a streamer should have more rights than a non-streamer? The rules do not provide for taking streams into account at all.

2Wicc: remember the Tournaments you judged on WТ. There were much more serious bugs caused by software issues. Remember CIS in Odessa, where Mee lost 50k gold (or so) during someone else's turn. You didn’t say then that it was the player's problem who played on WT. In Minsk, Cobra constantly had timer problems; every turn required loading a save. And I don't even mention gray Castles. For some reason, no one thought to consider that this was the player's problem and their version of the game.

since there is nothing in the rules about how to act in such situations, the case in question should be considered as falling into a gap in the regulations.

the decision of the Arbitration Committee should be treated as a legal precedent, which players and judges will rely on, which they will refer to in discussions, etc.

I myself occasionally run Tournaments, and I absolutely don't want to deal with claims like "I lagged, please allow me to finish my turn." But the created precedent gives players the moral right to make such requests and argue them by saying that "the Arbitration Committee allowed it in a similar situation."

It’s easier now, while the atmosphere is calm, to fix in public consciousness the idea that the decision of the Arbitration Committee is not the only correct one, and therefore it shouldn’t be relied upon when considering similar cases.

Well, these are somewhat different things: talking about lags and seeing on stream how these lags actually happen and prevent completing a turn.

Furthermore, you say, "Let him try it in a practice game." But what guarantee is there that, in a panic situation, he would have enough time – those 5-10 seconds, or however much time was lost due to this "bug" – to actually make that decision, rather than sitting there in confusion/indecision for those 5-10 seconds?

Nick, explain just one thing to me: how can this statement not be a fact?

The current rules state that if one player has a save file and the other doesn't, the situation is interpreted in favor of the player with the save. However, there's nothing said about streams. Do you think a streamer should have more rights than a non-streamer? The rules don't provide for considering streams at all.

Besides, as Antoshka mentioned above, the situation (at least externally) can be replicated by holding down the button with the spellbook, meaning any streamer can do the same if they want. And, by the way, you can crash the game at any time by holding down a specific key combination, as baratorch recently wrote. So, there is a video proof, but it doesn't seem to be conclusive evidence in such situations.

The_ Because he made that decision during the stream and clicked to move to that cell (he was just a fraction of a second too late). He set the path, but didn't have time to confirm it. So, he definitely would have needed just +1 second for that action. Judging by the stream, the lag "ate up" about 7-8 seconds.

It's not that it "cannot be a fact," but rather that it "is not a fact." In this context, a fact is a verifiable, verified, and confirmed statement. The statement "This is not an HD bug, it's a hardware problem with Hell's computer" is neither verified nor confirmed. However, there is evidence against this statement (provided by both me and Dirty), so it is not only not a fact but also unlikely.

Do you even understand what you're trying to say? Because I don't. The question was asked very precisely, and the answer could be yes or no. Although, I didn't really expect you to give a clear answer without twisting things, and you confirmed that.

Are you kidding me? The question was, "How can this statement not be a fact?" Yes or no? I answered that question directly. I explained how you initially misunderstood the wording, showed what is considered a fact, showed the relevant statement, and showed why it doesn't fit the definition of "fact." You should focus on learning how to engage in a rational discussion instead of dismissing it with a "YNAP, and everyone else is an idiot" attitude.

P.S. Although, at this point, I give up and admit that you're not interested in genuine answers to the questions being discussed; you just want everyone to think you're so right. That's called disrespecting your interlocutor. That's not how a conversation should go. I'll just leave this here: http://cs627630.vk.me/v627630255/33594/9LTT57Boehc.jpg

AK simply made a decision against the player twice in a row, and that's why he's upset.

Let me explain once again for those who don't understand: even if he specified the action 10 times, said that he would do it this way, signed papers with a notary, etc., is there a 100% guarantee that he would perform this action in a real time frame, and wouldn't change his mind later and go somewhere else or delete the hero, etc.? And is there at least a tiny chance that this wouldn't happen?

That is, I would be perfectly happy with clarifying this post in the form of "P.S. The decision made is not a precedent for considering other episodes related to lags on the player's computer."

Hello. I'm on your side in this dispute. I don't know if it will help, but you could bring this point to the attention of the Arbitration Committee. Hellight's lags were related to the fact that he couldn't open his spellbook and couldn't do anything else. And when the lags stopped, he used it. The rest, blocking your path, he didn't have time to do, not because of the lags, but because of incorrect time management, since there were no lags from the moment of the damage. As Dirty said earlier in that thread, everyone can use their timer as they want... And from the Arbitration Committee's decision, it turns out that if this lag had occurred at the very beginning of his turn and he hadn't had time to block the path, they would still have allowed him to block the path. Good luck.