Posts from Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.

The_, that's an interesting point, but I don't think a lag at the beginning of the turn would have had any impact on the situation. However, when you have 15-20 seconds to attack, but the game suddenly lags, and you lose about 8 seconds of the timer just because of the "unresponsiveness," that's a completely different situation. It's additional pressure on the player due to the software, at a critical moment. And as Dirty rightly pointed out, Hell's move is clearly visible in the stream (he definitely positioned himself in the passage), and he didn't manage to do it because he only had 5 seconds (instead of 13) to assess the situation and make a decision after the damage dealer's attack.

What a mess!))))) I especially like the "experienced players" and "know-it-alls" who think they know everything and are ready to endlessly discuss it in posts – HERE I SEE!)))) How's it going with that streamer? GO TO... if you're so smart. And the rest – oh my god, are you even normal?

In HD, starting with version 3.7?? up to 4.100 RC7, the tweak was enabled by default, but the functionality associated with this tweak did not work due to a bug. In 4.100 RC7, this bug was fixed. Consequently, if there were no lags on computers with mice that have high DPI before 4.100 RC7, then after updating to RC7/RC8, they appeared.
That is, any player could be unprepared for such a turn of events: for such behavior of HD after the update.
There's also this issue: the more and faster you move the mouse, the stronger the lag.

The culprit option was forcibly disabled in the RC9 update after reading this complaint from KobRa_RR.

What does time management have to do with it? The player uses the time limit as they see fit. If a player believes that 10 seconds is enough for their last action, they are entitled to use the remaining time as they wish. We cannot know what the player was thinking at that moment.
When a person has a lot of experience, thousands of online matches, many tournament victories, and experience in finals, neither you nor I should be teaching them how to manage their time. Don't you agree?

Bone, yes, I don't think I was trying to teach anyone anything...

but time management is relevant here because the player is asking to be given more time!!!
But if he is so experienced, it is unclear on what basis he should be given it.
What happened that doesn't fit within the game's rules?
Did he shout that he was lagging? Is that it?!
Shouting is not how you play Heroes... if the opponent shouts, will that be enough to overturn the decision?
I doubt it, so why was such a decision made based on hysterical shouting? I would like to hear a detailed, well-reasoned answer.
And not just from you, but from everyone who made this decision.

Added after 12 minutes

the calculation was that it would be enough
taking into account the previous time spent thinking
but the mouse failed – precisely at that critical moment (this lag doesn't occur from the beginning of the game, I've already written about this)
which was not suspected until that point – the responsibility for the situation lies with the developers, they acknowledged and fixed it
if it weren't for this fact, the decision would certainly have been different

YamaDarma;).. what calculation?!
in the calculation, Hel would not have had a chance to make his move, as the game would have ended on that turn.
and it seems that Hel was initially aiming for this result... but the "calculation" didn't allow him to do even 10% of what he had planned.
during the entire turn, he only had to attack with two heroes, maybe that's a very complex calculation...
perhaps I'm wrong, but Hel played as his experience and his attitude towards the game allow him to. No more and no less.
So why are they trying to change this result, even if only slightly?

Antoshka, can I ask you something? Please answer me – how are you connected to this situation? Why do you think your arguments are correct, and why are you even writing here?

the response of an average practitioner to a great theorist
even the greatest, there's really nothing better, no exaggeration:

YamaDarma;).. what calculation?!!!
in the calculation, Ve would not have had a chance to take his turn, as the game would have ended on that turn.
and it seems that Hell was initially aiming for this result... but the "calculation" didn't allow him to achieve even 10% of what he intended.
during the entire turn, he only needed to attack with two heroes, maybe that's a very complex calculation...
perhaps I'm wrong, but Hell played - as his experience and attitude towards the game allow him. No more and no less.

EXACTLY!!!
you can argue in any way, but in a real game, before the finale, when the game should end, the timer doesn't matter -- the main thing is to manage to attack in principle, but before that, think everything through so that the opponent's main hero doesn't escape.
that's why they attack in the last seconds, leaving a little time to manage to retaliate and, possibly, gain momentum -- in case the opponent has something up his sleeve and doesn't type "gg".
that's exactly what Hell was counting on! when the attack didn't work out, there were those very seconds left for a backup plan, and then....

...there's also this: the more and faster you move the mouse, the stronger the lag.

he had to act quickly, but that's exactly what failed.
and what might have seemed to someone as "the mouse doesn't (un)click" -- don't take Hell for an idiot with claws instead of hands, he probably didn't click any differently than usual.... except that he did it faster, which had consequences -- see above!

Hello. I'm on your side in this dispute. I don't know if it will help or not, but you could draw AK's attention to the following point. Hellight's lags were related to the fact that he couldn't open the spellbook and nothing else. And when the lags were gone, he used it. The rest, he didn't have time to block your path, not because of the lags, but because of incorrect time management, since he didn't have any lags after the damage dealing phase. As Dirty said earlier in that thread, everyone can use their timer as they want... But from AK'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.

Here is another point for consideration. I didn't sign the author, because I don't know if he wanted to publicize it or not; it came in a private message.Following the logic of the unknown author, since the lags occurred when opening the book, should he have been given the opportunity to replay the turn starting from that moment? But I doubt that would have satisfied you.

"Cup to Siberia, or something like that?"

This is the second time I've read such a remark from you. On the one hand, it's unpleasant, and on the other hand, it's funny. If you think that AK, where there are 3 people from Moscow and 1 from Siberia, is "favoring Siberia," then something is wrong with your head. With such an attitude, I don't want to comment on anything further.

the only thing that matters here is that the player is asking to be given more time!!!

He is asking not to be given, but to compensate. These are two very different things.

I doubt it, so why, based on hysterical screaming, was such a decision made? I would like to hear a detailed, well-reasoned answer.
and not just from you, but from everyone who made this decision.

Below, I have provided all my arguments; if they are not enough for you, then I cannot help you, I don't have any others, and I didn't have any at the time the decision was made. I will not comment further on this situation; here, "heavy arguments" about Siberia, etc., have already begun. I will always be happy to chat with you in private/Skype, Anton, if you have any further questions for me.

If any of my colleagues would like to express their opinion, I would be happy to, because it's getting a bit tiresome that I am the one being dragged into the mud for every controversial situation.

Antoshka - can I ask you something? Please answer me - how are you related to this situation? Why do you believe your arguments are correct - and why are you even writing here?)

1. Just like anyone else here, I enjoy playing/watching Heroes.
2. "I was moving the mouse around":D. Does one need official permission to express thoughts objectively and logically?
3. What conclusions? It seems like I'm trying to understand the illogicality of the decision.
4. For the same reason as anyone else registered on this forum.

Added 10 minutes ago

That's exactly what Hell was counting on! When the attack didn't work out, there were still those few seconds left for an alternative, and then...

Yeah... so he was counting on it, but there wasn't enough time or moves left.

Am I understanding the logic of the reasoning correctly?
The player is very experienced, he calculated everything to do in the last seconds. But he lagged - as a result, he should be given a bonus and allowed to finish his turn.
And that's at the most crucial moment, when the cost of mistakes is very high.

Okay. Then, from this situation, I conclude that a less experienced player would not be given this bonus?
They would say, "Is that how you play? Why should we compensate you? You miscalculated. You messed up."

Because appealing to the player's experience allows us to draw such conclusions!

Added 4 minutes ago

...there's also this: the more and faster you move the mouse, the stronger the lag.

He had to act quickly, but that's what failed.
And the fact that someone might think "the mouse wasn't clicking" - we shouldn't assume Hell is an idiot with clumsy hands; he probably wasn't clicking any differently than usual... except that he was doing it faster, which is what caused the consequences - see above!So, we're back to Hell moving the mouse too quickly?
- I asked him at the beginning of the dialogue, "Why does he move the mouse away from the book so sharply every time?" - and the only thing he could answer was that he doesn't know me and can't deign to answer those he doesn't know.
But that was Hell, not Baratorch - so the responsibility for the results of these actions lies with the player.
It's his fault, so why should he be compensated for anything?


Added 15 minutes ago

He's asking to compensate, not give. That's a big difference.

Okay, why should he be compensated?

I'll repeat the question. If the player had been less experienced, would he have been given the same compensation?
I highly doubt it, and then it turns out that the decision is too subjective.

Or, to rephrase the question: If it hadn't been Hell, could he have claimed compensation?

To add to that, I'll state my position.
I don't care who wins/who loses. Last time, I was for fair play, and I am this time too. As a viewer, I'm not interested in watching a game where certain people are constantly being given something.
Such a game starts to lose its appeal.
I have no bias towards either player. As proof, I can cite my post from the previous situation, where my position was that everything was within the rules of the game, and there was no reason to replay.
Here, there is even less reason to replay/finish the turn. But for some reason, the opposite decision was made.
I would like to understand why?!
Why, in a situation where the gameplay was changed significantly, the decision not to replay was made, but in a situation where the gameplay only slightly lagged, a replay is provided?

okay. Why would he be compensated?

I'll repeat the question. If the player was less experienced, would they also be compensated for the time?
I highly doubt it, and then it turns out that the decision is too subjective.

Or, to rephrase the question. If it wasn't Hell, could he claim compensation?

I'll also state my position.
I don't care who wins/who loses. Last time, I was for fair play, and this time too. As a viewer, I'm not interested in watching a game where certain people are constantly being favored.
Such a game starts to lose its appeal.
I have no bias towards either player. As proof, I can provide my post from the previous situation, where my position was that everything was within the rules of the game, and there was no reason to replay.
Here, there are even fewer reasons to replay/continue the game. But for some reason, the opposite decision was made.
I would like to understand why?!
Why, in a situation where the gameplay was significantly changed, the decision not to replay was made, but in a situation where the gameplay only slightly lagged, a replay is provided?

ok
I'm also for dirtyfair play
and I'll state my position, sorry for the repetition :smile43:

The player's personality is both important and not important here...
In the sense that the fact that he appealed to the administration is important! Hell appealed, but another player might not have, because he would have blamed his weak video card, the resource consumption of the stream, and other subjective factors.
And the status of the game is also important: in a regular game, it's unlikely that anyone would bother the administration because of something like this - well, you lose, you lose, we'll get over it somehow...
But here, there were appeals, including an episode from the previous game with the same final status.
And the decisions in these cases turned out to be in favor of the same player.
But if you look at it from the outside, it might seem biased, but only without delving into the essence of the issues.
The essence is that the_ couldn't have known in advance about the features of the software that led to the first controversial situation! Including during the auction for the color ;) That's one.
Secondly, when he realized what was happening, he tried to continue the game, instead of stopping it immediately.
Hell, on the other hand, didn't know, like the other players, about the newly introduced lags, and secondly, he stopped the game immediately, instead of deciding to "let me try to fight it off first."
If someone else had been in his place, providing the same evidence base, aka the stream, I can't even imagine a different decision.
The only unclear point is whether Hell's reputation as a Dota player, i.e., his known lack of skill, influenced the decision in the second episode?
(The fact that he messed up the attack is not about his hands, but about his brain after hours of intense play, and then there was still time to block the passage if there hadn't been lags).
But for me personally, even this is not important, since the lags have been proven, and they were practically unknown until you encounter them

Reading all this nonsense (by the way, why?), I imagine Vik – he posted it and is now sitting there chuckling.

Threw it out there and is now sitting writing an election platform for the next АК elections

АК is mired in corruption and fraud! Down with the rule of bureaucrats!

I'll be voting for Vic, the ХВ is just too dull without the flame wars (

the point is that the_ must have known in advance about the specifics of how the software works, which led to the first controversial situation! including during the bidding for the color. that's point one.
secondly, when he realized what was happening, he tried to continue the game instead of stopping it immediately.

"let me try to defend myself first"

What are your conclusions based on? Did you not read my statements? Or do you consider them to be false from the start? Although I already know why this was brought up - just for the sake of it. It's something on the level of a cobra, only more concise.

This is the second time I've read such a remark from you. On the one hand, it's unpleasant, and on the other, it's funny. If you think that a team with 3 Muscovites and 1 Siberian is "favoring Siberia," then something is clearly wrong with your head. With such an attitude, I don't want to comment any further.

Let's end the discussion here. I won't get anything from you other than distortions, lies, and evasions of direct answers. It's now a matter of defending your position, no matter how absurd it may be, and that's understandable. If you think something is wrong with my head, then so be it.

I suggest we end the discussion here, as it's starting to resemble the tale of "the white bull." The Arbitration Committee has voted and made its decision; there will always be those who disagree. The Arbitration Committee exists to take responsibility for decisions in controversial and sometimes borderline situations. If the current Arbitration Committee's work doesn't satisfy the majority of the forum, you can choose more worthy candidates in the next election. For now, I suggest everyone calm down. The topic is closed for a while; take a breath.

I want to appeal to the AC regarding the actions of the player Amazing (679640067).
I am running the tournament War of Mages 2 and the Newcomer Winter-16.
It so happens that at the beginning of February, I have to make a decision to disqualify this player from two tournaments.
Here are the reasons:

In the War of Mages 2 tournament:
On February 2, Satyr contacted me; he had some controversial moments in the game with Amazing.
Verbatim from ICQ: "is amazing3 a verified guy at all?
he's already crashed on his turn twice, and he loads saves from the start of the turn"
I wrote that he is a newcomer (not Russian). Satyr won the match against him, and we didn't continue the discussion.
At almost the same time as Satyr, Jubi-Juby wrote to me in ICQ.
According to him, they held a draft and his opponent Amazing demands to redo the draft, claiming he didn't know which tournament they were playing =).
In the Mages tournament, according to the rules, the "blue" player chooses the template. I found out that Amazing chose 8xm12a, after which they did the town draft and he discovered that the starting hero can only be a mage (although this is stated in the rules). According to him: "didnt new thats its magic toumanet i forgot that need to go only with magic hero".
Regarding this issue, I explained to him that if the opponent does not want to redo the draft, he will have to play with what he has. In my opinion, the player himself is responsible for not understanding the tournament rules and starting the draft.
After that, the player gave me ultimatums in ICQ — either I convince Jubi to redo the draft, or he will withdraw from the tournament. As a result, I had to disqualify this player.

In the Newcomer Winter-16 tournament:
On February 6, the player battanas wrote to me: hi i play whit AmazingZ in 114 he say have critikal eror i wanna send me mg for critikal eror or screan but he dont have what i do ??- he wannt to autosave
We looked into the situation and explained to Amazing that next time he should take screenshots of the error so that the situation could be confirmed. Even at this point, I had doubts about the truthfulness of his words.
On February 10, the Newcomer player Georg_ contacted me: "Hi, another controversial situation with Amazing"
Amazing disagreed with the slow roads that appeared on the SMKA and left the game on turn 111 as the blue player.
I explained to him that slow roads are played on the SMKA, and the game should continue.
After some time, it turns out that Amazing forgot the password and demands a restart. I wrote to Georg_ that he could take a restart at his own expense, but it turned out that the players had already used up all their restarts.
Amazing showed me a screenshot of his Heroes folder and explained that the HD mod did not create a folder for this game. In response to my question about the restarts already being used up and where the folders from previous games were, he replied that he didn't have the checkbox (daily saves) enabled.
I started to investigate how the HD mod could have failed to save the password.
I asked Georg_ to create a game, uncheck the autosave options; he created it, and I, as the blue player, left the game on turn 111. The HD mod did not create a separate folder for this match, but in the Heroes games folder, the password is still saved in the text file passwords anyway. I tried deleting this file from the folder and repeated the situation of leaving the game on turn 111. The file was created again and contained the password.
Since this was not the first controversial case with this player, I had very strong doubts, and I believed he was faking a tech restart.
I wrote to him: try loading a few more times and enter different passwords, or I will assign a tech loss in this game. In response, I was told that I was biased and that I should just remove him from the tournament. Fine.
About 10 minutes later he writes that he wants to try loading the game, and lo and behold, he remembered the password =). The players started the game from that save.
After some time, players write to me again about this match on the SMKA. Amazing requests a tech restart because there is no road to the opponent's respawn (GO on SMKA with no road). I looked at the map; the layout is indeed very bad. He, as blue, got a bad draw on roads — he has one road to a secondary town, and the other exits are off-road.
In the Newcomer Summer, I reviewed the SMKA, but the player is not Russian-speaking. For about half an hour, I explained to him that a tech restart on the SMKA is only given if a player has a single road blocked at 45k; all other cases are just a bad draw. Actually, knowing the template more or less, it was easy to find a respawn by meeting.
I did not grant the players a tech restart, and after a while, Georg_ writes to me: "Listen, he left the game, he says there should be a road between players, but there is no road. And he won't play such a map. How should I interpret this?"
After that, I spoke with Amazing again about this issue. He again started accusing me of bias, not knowing the rules, etc.
He refuses to continue the match, refuses to confirm the game report (which his opponent hasn't written yet).
As a result, I am forced to disqualify him from this tournament as well.

Now, what I want:
1. I consider such player behavior insulting and unsportsmanlike. I believe he has violated the rules of fair play.
2. According to the tournament rules
III. Duties and rights of Tournament Participants.
A tournament participant is obliged to:
a) treat the Organizer, Judge, and other Tournament Participants with respect;
b) familiarize themselves with the rules, regulations, and tournament deadlines before submitting an application;
e) write a report for each tournament game regardless of the outcome.
These are just the main points that he violated.
3. The Organizer must review the presented facts and, if they consider them justified, contact the AC, which makes a decision on this issue and assigns a punishment if the accusations are confirmed.
As you can see above, I have received enough complaints about this player to contact the AC.
I propose:
1. Since the main problems with this player stem from his ignorance of the rules, ban him from all tournaments for 2 months. (possibly allow him to participate in seasonal events to learn the rules)
2. In case of a repeat offense after the penalty period expires, impose an increased penalty period.
http://my-files.ru/12x0cr — this is a link to the save file on the SMKA; red player's password is qaz, blue player's password is in the save.

Player Amzaing has been disqualified from all Tournaments (including the season games) for 3 months for multiple rule violations.

Player Amazing has been disqualified from all Tournaments (including season games) for 3 months for multiple rule violations.