Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments. — Tournament Committee

Dark

9 years ago

Auto-translated

Dirty_Player

I suggest we don't discuss the situation that players might have to finish playing. Since there was an appeal to the Arbitration Committee, let the Arbitration Committee decide whether it's nonsense or not.

+1;)

Added 48 seconds later

Wicc

This is a reason to submit a proposal to the Arbitration Committee to improve the rules.

Intentionality/unintentionality of the violation is determined by the judge/Arbitration Committee. If it is decided that the violation was intentional, then a technical loss would be quite appropriate.

I repeat - in this episode, different refereeing decisions are permissible, but a forfeit due to a shifted turn order does not fall within the list of permissible options. If you want to schedule a restart, you need some other justification. Even if it's: "I, as the tournament judge, decided to change the tournament rules in relation to a specific game and schedule a restart, because that's what I wanted."

Wicc, did I already say that I agree with you? If not, I'll repeat: I agree :D

Mizrael

9 years ago

Auto-translated

Well, let me describe the situation from my perspective. I captured one road leading to the second-tier town; a Guardian of Order was found on the dirt road – bears. There’s no path to my ore mine, so it must be around the castle. I confidently head there, especially since the Guardian of Order is to the right. And then I run into Dark. I write to him, saying I don’t want any unnecessary tech-related arguments and attack his scout, proposing a replay to resolve the situation. I receive a stream of consciousness in response, claiming that I initiated the conflict and entered his territory. Since I am absolutely certain that I didn’t enter anyone’s territory, I write back, stating that he entered my territory. Ed says that he knows better, and I remain confident that I didn’t violate any rules. To avoid further argument, I save the game and submit it to the judges. That’s the whole story. Yes, after the exchange in ICQ, any desire to compromise disappeared, so I clearly stated that whoever violated the rules should receive the tech penalty.

Dirty_Player

9 years ago

Auto-translated

I won't be specific, but I'll say this in general terms. Allowing players to switch sides is the last thing I'm willing to accept as a judge.

In reply to Dirty_Player

Wicc

9 years ago

Auto-translated

You're overthinking it... the measure of "allowing a pass" is quite common in judging practice. It's usually applied in a situation where the current state of the game cannot be played, but neither player is at fault for how it turned out. Or if someone's fault is too minor to warrant punishment.

Pridu

9 years ago

Auto-translated

Definitely re on the meeting. Dark didn't know that he had entered someone else's respawn. Mizraael didn't know that Dark had passed by ГО.

But since they've decided to stand their ground on principle here, it will be interesting to see what the judges have to say.

bubuch

9 years ago

Auto-translated

If there are sufficient grounds to believe that Dark even allowed for the possibility, however unlikely, that the territory belongs to the opponent, then Techpor, as an experienced player, should assess the risks... in this case, it seems to me this is a key point.

Added after 6 minutes
By the way, clarify the situation: say there is an Imp dwelling, a chest, a level 1 artifact, and the guard has been moved... can you take the artifact without fighting? Only on Jebus (in the sense that here they lie unguarded)? Is it impossible at all? Why?

In reply to bubuch

Dark

9 years ago

Auto-translated

bubuch

if there are sufficient grounds to believe that Dungeon allowed for even an unlikely possibility that the territory belongs to Haven, then, as an experienced player, one should assess the risks. In this case, I think this is the key point.

I posted 2 screenshots, take a look at them, and tell me, could I have assumed that this was not my territory? Considering that the horses are standing on the road, heading towards the green spawn point, and the opponent has a Castle?!
Even if I had thought, with a probability of 0.00001, that this was not my spawn point, I wouldn't have gone there.

In reply to Dark

twaryna

9 years ago

Auto-translated

Dark

I posted 2 screenshots, take a look at them, and tell me if I could have assumed that this wasn't my territory? Considering that the horses are standing on the road, heading towards the green spawn point, and the opponent has a Castle?!
Even if I had the slightest doubt that it wasn't my spawn point, I wouldn't have gone there.

Based on your second screenshot, it can be assumed that the gold is located in the opponent's zone. To confirm this, you need to take 2 steps to the right and see that the gray units are moving along the off-road path. Easy tech support. I'm surprised by the attempts to reduce everything to a replay of the encounter. IMHO.

In reply to Dark

Heroin_HP

9 years ago

Auto-translated

Dark

I posted two screenshots, take a look at them, and tell me if I could have assumed that this wasn't my territory?

How many times has this situation happened? In such cases, I always draw lines from the guards along the X and Y axes, and everything becomes much simpler. In this case, Ed is on the same line as the knights. You can also draw another line from the knights to the bears to see that it cuts them off.
There is also another point: since the guards are not moved, they block the exits. Therefore, in this screenshot, you can see TWO exits from Mizrael's spawn point; there might be a third one, but it's not visible. If there is a third exit and the bears are guarding it, then we go back to the lines, and in this case, it's a close call. If there isn't a third exit in the darkness, and the bears are simply moved away from the second exit of the spawn point they are guarding, then it's a clear case of ignoring the guards.
So, it's unlikely that this is a violation on Dark's part.

Attachments 1

1 file attached • Total size: 169.3 KB

In reply to Dirty_Player

Gomunguls

9 years ago

Auto-translated

Dirty_Player

I won't be specific, but in general. Allowing players to "pass through" is the last thing I'm willing to accept as a judge.

What's the problem with allowing players to pass through?
Judging by the screenshot, it's hard to understand where to go.

In reply to Dark

bubuch

9 years ago

Auto-translated

Dark

I posted 2 screenshots, take a look at them, and tell me if I could have assumed that this wasn't my territory? Considering that the horses are standing on the road, facing the green spawn point, and the opponent has a Castle?!
Even if I had the slightest doubt that it wasn't my spawn point, I wouldn't have gone there.

Personally, I wouldn't see anything criminal here. I'm talking about the principle itself; the judge should be guided by their own vision, based on their experience, and considering, to the best of their ability, the moral aspect of the suspect. For example, I wouldn't see anything criminal, or at least it's not obvious, but Sanya thinks it's an easy win. If he were the judge, the decision should be made based on that.

skd

9 years ago

Auto-translated

I sense a hint of sarcasm in Tvariny's post.

bubuch

9 years ago

Auto-translated

in general, only the great generator knows the absolute truth here.

In reply to bubuch

skd

9 years ago

Auto-translated

bubuch

in general, only the great generator knows the absolute truth here.

If you reveal the map, it becomes obvious that Dungeon entered Mizrael's spawn area.

But, this becomes clear only after using nwcwhatisthematrix.

bubuch

9 years ago

Auto-translated

Personally, I'm at a dead end), thankfully I'm not a judge), now I'm leaning towards:
"What's the problem with allowing transitions?
Judging by the screenshot, it's hard to understand where to go."

Added after 39 seconds
this option doesn't seem to infringe on Mizrael's rights

Added after 7 minutes
obviously, the judge's decision should fully protect Mizrael's interests (since the rules were formally violated by Dark), but at the same time, Mizrael's interests should not go beyond the bounds of fairness) that's it)).

Reading content in

Interface language

Posts from Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.

Statistics

Library

Users Online 9 users 1261 guests

Today's Visitors 32