Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments. — Tournament Committee

caliban

2/9/2017 4:04 PM UTC

Auto-translated

bubuch

Personally, I'm at a dead end. Luckily, I'm not a judge. Now I'm leaning towards:
"What's the problem with allowing a move?
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 Dark formally violated the rules), but at the same time, Mizrael's interests should not go beyond the bounds of good faith. Here.

Mizrael proposed a compromise – a rematch. LuckyF, in my opinion, described a good similar example, when a player violates the rules on Jebel, mistakenly believing that the opponent's GO is broken and moves into his respawn. And I think there was a similar situation in Path to Olympus, and the game was replayed.
Either rewriting the rules for these situations, or a compromise – replaying the game. IMHO

https://twitch.tv/calibanhw

bubuch

2/9/2017 4:10 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Added 2 minutes later
[/U]

bubuch

Wicc:
"I repeat - in this episode, different refereeing decisions are permissible, but a restart of the match due to a shifted turn order does not fall within the list of permissible actions."
This is, in my opinion, an axiom.

+ Mizrael suggested it, and Dark disagreed; it is definitely not within the referees' competence; this is a compromise solution...
"Mizrael's interests should not exceed the bounds of fairness."

Mizrael

2/9/2017 4:12 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Gentlemen, the screenshot clearly shows that blue moved into red’s respawn area, and drawing arrows was quite amusing. Looking at the open areas of the map, it’s obvious that blue ventured much further south than the dreads, and then climbed higher than the “red line.” There’s no need for any NVMatrix here. By the way, now I understand why Dark insisted on loading the save after my attack – to avoid moving in and occupying the respawn area, so everything would be hidden. Galtran’s performance on the skirmish map was quite impressive.

http://www.twitch.tv/mikevalentine/

caliban

2/9/2017 4:35 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Here, one can understand both Mizrael (after all, he won the game according to the rules) and Dark (he didn't know he was breaking the rules, and such defeats are probably frustrating).
It's also obvious that the situation is one-sided. One player doesn't want to play poorly, while the other wants to exploit a loophole. If it wasn't a fair loss, then replaying the game seems to be the only fair option.
P.S. And it seems to me that the angels were simply placed first.

https://twitch.tv/calibanhw

In reply to Mizrael

bubuch

2/9/2017 4:49 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Mizrael

Gentlemen, the screenshot clearly shows that Blue entered Red's respawn, the drawn arrows made it obvious :) Based on the opened areas of the map, it's evident that Blue went much lower than the dreads, and then moved up above the "red line", no matrix needed here :) By the way, now I understand why Dark insisted on loading the save after my attack - to move in and not step on the respawn, so everything stays under wraps, it was just too obvious. Galtran on a slow SMK amused me :)

That said, heroes in terms of intensity, drive..., it's a sport!, you could even compare it to boxing, everything on the edge of the rules, and there are small, albeit obvious, tricks)

skd

2/9/2017 4:54 PM UTC

Auto-translated

You are in the discussion, and when considering possible options, keep in mind that the decision will set a precedent for the future.
In the future, a player in a worse position will demand a restart in a similar situation, citing the earlier decision made in this case as justification.

I'll repeat: we are analyzing the case of entering someone else's respawn past a shifted ГО (should the player assume that the ГО standing along the path is shifted?), when this is not clear to the player at the moment of the turn, when the hero's movement path is in the opposite direction from the ГО, and when this did not lead to critical consequences in the game. We need to abstract away from everything else.
I believe that at the end of the turn, when Dark also saw the White Bears, it is at that moment that doubts should have arisen about further movement through that area.
The screenshot shows that the hero aimed at a pile of gold below. If on the next turn Dark had moved down, he would have appealed the decision regarding a technical loss.

UTC+03:00, icq 593626431

Mizrael

2/9/2017 5:00 PM UTC

Auto-translated

If on the next turn, Dungeon went down, he would have appealed the decision regarding the technical pause.

Excuse me? If the blue player, in the situation shown in the screenshot, went down, he would have essentially and consciously signed his own technical pause. Think before you write nonsense.

http://www.twitch.tv/mikevalentine/

skd

2/9/2017 5:05 PM UTC

Auto-translated

I actually meant what you wrote. You probably misunderstood me.

UTC+03:00, icq 593626431

In reply to skd

Mizrael

2/9/2017 5:15 PM UTC

Auto-translated

skd

Actually, that's exactly what I meant. Maybe you misunderstood me.

No one would understand correctly; perhaps adding a "not" to the sentence would help. For example: "If Dark had moved downwards on the next turn, he wouldn't have appealed the technical decision."

http://www.twitch.tv/mikevalentine/

In reply to skd

Wicc

2/9/2017 5:24 PM UTC

Auto-translated

In situations like this, the following solutions are fundamentally possible: 1) Continue from the last save - if there was no violation. 2) Technical loss - if one of the players grossly violated the rules. Either intentionally or showed negligence in a simple situation (with an adjustment for the player's skill). 3) Replay the turn - if one of the players violated the rules unintentionally, due to a lack of information beyond their control. 4) Replay the game - the same as in the previous point, if replaying the turn is impossible (for example, the players finished the game without noticing the violation), and the violator won. I don't think I forgot anything.

In reply to Mizrael

bubuch

2/9/2017 5:28 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Mizrael

No one would understand correctly; maybe it's worth adding "not" to the sentence. Something like:
"If Dark had gone down on the next turn, he wouldn't have appealed the decision about the technical pause."

nonsense!, I understood correctly.