Posts from [POLL] Who is to blame, and what should be done? Auto-translated

Well, and yes, in my opinion, the main mistake was made in the last round - after Aive's victory, it was necessary to explain to him the political necessity of selling the game to Hell. It's unlikely that it would be reasonable to expect him to figure this out on his own, but the judges and organizers could certainly have thought about it; they've been doing this for years.

Masterful :smile54: I can't even imagine how I would approach Dima and say, "You know, for the sake of fairness, why don't you lose this game for a bottle of beer?" :D But, not only did he, by winning against Aive, share 2nd-4th place in the championship based on the odds, he also received a good prize, and I doubt that Hell would have wanted such a victory.

Yes, exactly. This is what political talent is all about – finding a non-obvious solution to a bad situation, then convincing the participants that it is in their best interests, and then convincing the audience that it is not a betrayal, but a victory. Yes, not everyone can do it. Most people already have problems at the first stage. Your reaction illustrates this. And, of course, there will always be smart alecks who say, "But if you had gone with the bubey then," who have never resolved a similar situation in their lives, and if they did try, they only made things worse. Therefore, the last stage is to have a philosophical attitude towards them.

If you could convince someone of that, then you clearly aren't doing what you're meant to be doing – politics is your calling, but I'm 100% sure you'd be sent on a long journey.

If you could convince them, then you clearly aren't doing what you're meant to do – politics is your calling, but I'm 100500% sure you'd be sent on a long journey.

So far, I haven't been sent away. Although, of course, they don't always agree. But if they refuse, they do so politely.

Probably because when a person radiates motivation "for the public good," their words become very convincing.

And in the described case, there is definitely a public good. Because an illegitimate champion who is considered legitimate is more legitimate than a legitimate champion who is considered illegitimate.

Well, we'll wait for Aive's post...
Public benefit at the cost of a medal and prizes... hmm... And the "public benefit" here is questionable.

Heroin and Leader – come to the CIS 2017! We will be glad to see you!

I agree with Noom and Lider; there's nothing more to add.

Yes, exactly. This is what political talent is all about – finding a non-obvious solution to a stinky situation, then convincing the participants that it is in their best interests, and then convincing the audience that it is not a betrayal, but a victory.

Yes, not everyone can do it. Most people have problems already at the first stage. Your reaction illustrates this.

And, of course, there will always be smart alecks who say, "But if you had gone with the bubey then," who have never handled a similar situation in their lives, and if they did try, they only made things worse. Therefore, the last stage is to have a philosophical attitude towards them.

Yur, aren't you overdoing it?

Well, and yes, in my opinion, the main mistake was made in the last round - after Aive's victory, it was necessary to explain to him the political necessity of selling the game to Hell. Expecting him to figure it out on his own is hardly reasonable...

It's strange that you're not interested in how Aive would react to this proposal. The guy fought like three hundred dying Spartans combined, he fought for the victory... It's not surprising that he's still silent. In his place, I would have preferred to ignore such posts altogether.

Valer, and he doesn't even notice! He fought like a lion! He battled against forty people while sick! Anyone who says something bad about Dimon should say it to me first!

Heroin and Leader – come to the CIS 2017! We will be glad to see you!

But why should I go there? I can play whenever I want, anytime. And not everyone will agree to sell the game for 3000. Some will definitely have serious intentions to win the tournament and won't have any financial problems, which means you shouldn't even approach those with less than ten. And if you end up playing against someone cunning like Vik? Then it will definitely be 15. And that's not something I'm interested in. For me, the game is about fun. But not noob-level fun, but the kind of fun you get during intense matches. With idealistic principles. I believe that in such an old game as Heroes, where there aren't any super prizes like in that damned Dota, trying to force wins is the last thing you should do. Yes, it's a matter of honor, a tribute to the game itself first and foremost. To determine who is really the best and strongest. And not just "drop in" or rent a port prostitute. All these "CIS" events are just empty words. And it doesn't matter at all where you hold them. It's just a regular LAN tournament, "whoever can, comes." With elements of drunkenness and poker addiction. I'm not interested in the topic of alcohol at all; I despise it, as I do poker. Why would I go just to see someone? I already know almost everyone I wanted to know. What's the point? What haven't I seen? And what happened was a real "highlight" of the tournament. Which once again emphasizes the seriousness of this event. - "CIS Champion" - "Oh, that's the one who bought the victory in the tournament? lol, we heard, we remember" - "Yes, that's him, but you weren't there, so it's better to just stay silent, couch army" - "okay" - "but that's not all, the judges need to explain the political necessity of selling the game in the future" - "Hmm, seriously? but that's some kind of nonsense!" - "That's what political talent is – to find an unconventional solution to an unpleasant situation, then convince the participants that it is in their interests, then convince the audience that it's not a betrayal, it's a victory." In short, it's a victory. And I'm going to go now, having gained some impressions. Facepalm. Curtain. We had a great time.

There will be no sales or resales at the next CIS event! We will strictly enforce this! Come and test your skills in a fair and beloved game.

P.S. We've been wanting to meet and chat about Kharkiv for a while now.

I see some doubts have arisen, although it seemed that in such matters, you could simply take my word for it... A rough plan of action is as follows: after the 4th round, gather the interested participants and a few of the most reasonable people (it's best to send the "fighters" for a beer) and deliver a speech along these lines: - Guys, do you understand what we've done? If we sign this protocol, Heroin will come with a load of crap, and Vic will come with a fan, and not everyone will be able to wash it off. Then, take a grandmaster-level pause, wait until the "screw Vic!" hysteria subsides, but hands are still trembling, and Cobra hasn't had time to run in with an offer to buy a box of deodorant from him, and propose the described HPV (Hell vs. Lizard). The political justification is roughly as follows: the protesting electorate can be conditionally divided into two groups: those who are unhappy with the fact that there was a deal in principle, and those who are unhappy with Lizard's unfair victory. Nothing can be done with the first group (unless you forget to let Merlin out of the base's toilet for a month), so this is not the target audience. But the second group is quite susceptible to "fine-tuning." The Hell vs. Lizard match in the 5th round is best suited for this "fine-tuning." If Hell wins, then he is the legitimate king who didn't let the bastard Lizard onto the Iron Throne. And if Lizard wins, then he is the legitimate king who defeated the reigning king in a face-to-face battle, and they will quickly forget about the underwear left in the brothel. After all that has been said, Hell and Lizard will most likely be in favor, and Ayve will probably be too, but if necessary, he can be "persuaded" with Lizard's wallet; he's used to it. As a result, the number of votes for "depriving him of the title" will decrease dramatically (by a factor of 2-3), Redwait will be harassed only by a group of stubborn "fighters" and Satyr out of habit, and half of the protesting electorate will move to the "do nothing" camp. True, the "who is to blame" section will expand somewhat, but the distribution will be more even. That is, the mess will be partially cleaned up, and partially spread in a thinner layer over a larger number of participants. And since the organizers only need a legitimate champion and less turmoil in their cozy community, the achieved result is clearly in their interests, as it improves both points. True, the judge might get a little more heat for such "artistry," but it will be more fair than what happened now. In a way, the players act within the framework defined by the judge, so the judge is no less (or even more) responsible for the mess than the players. Now, Lizard and Redi have taken the brunt of it, and the rest have only been splashed with it, which, in my opinion, is wrong.

Seriously? You're actually considering this option... Facepalm...

And why Hell? After the 4th round, 2nd and 3rd place were taken by seven people. I'm not against Anton, quite the contrary, I'm for him, but it's funny to read when Vikk talks about unfairness, while he himself describes how he was trying to push Anton into the final behind the scenes, bypassing other players.