Posts from Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.

I think that before making a decision, we should hear the other side and the witness mentioned by the plaintiff.

I think that before making a decision, we need to hear the other side, and also the witness mentioned by the plaintiff.

Plaintiff (mooshner) :D

I am a witness.
I admit, I am not impartial.
So, you can suspect that I am lying and twisting the facts :D
But at least a precedent is being created – after resolving the dispute, regardless of the outcome, to encourage the community to introduce a rule to keep the save option enabled, and if a disconnect occurs in any battle, the rules should allow for a continuation using the battle.gm2 file (or a manual save, which players always make anyway, regardless of the save option))))

I see the situation as follows:
The opponent just lost almost a thousand skeletons (~800) under the Castle, which were also going second, and he had more troops in general.
He will attack with fast units and Implosion, sees the Cloak of Displacement, sees the newly equipped +1 speed instead of +3 to everything, and realizes that he won't be going first in the second round, which frustrates him (those who watched the streams saw how this happens), and he leaves, also from the chat.
He remains silent for half an hour, although it is clear that he is online (some may believe this, some may not, I am writing what I saw with my own eyes).
He could have immediately posted the win, as has already been done in this tournament, especially since the deadline is approaching, but we are tough guys and are ready to replay the battle.
But specifically the battle, not the turn, because it is important to know if the opponent has enough money to buy out the battle, maybe he was going to win/draw the battle with Implosion/Summons and didn't trade? This is unknown.
But there should be a save – isn't that normal when the save option is enabled?
But there is supposedly no save, and the internet supposedly "dropped":

Derbent (03/27/2017 01:19):
The internet dropped. We will continue tomorrow, I attacked you without the Castle, I will repeat the turn.

After seeing the pings during the opponent's silence (well, if the internet dropped, just say so, don't sit there and sulk), and then finally reading his quoted explanation, we have every right not to trust him, including regarding the save option and the fact that the turn will be repeated.
He could have taken a screenshot of the pings, or even recorded a video.
But we are tough guys, we don't need tech support, we just want to continue from the save before the battle.
But that file, unfortunately, was not available, which is why we turned to the administration

Guys, I'd like to ask you to stop attacking me before I start defending myself, although I don't think I should, because I would never forgive myself for cheating. In general, I've been very involved with various games throughout my life, and Heroes definitely isn't at the top of the list, but I still enjoy the game, and as long as I'm interested, I'll keep playing it.
Of course, in any game, you can act unfairly and gain some advantage, so I'm very careful about all the strange actions of my opponents, and that's why I fully understand my current opponent and I'm quite calm about this situation. I even praised him for contacting the admins.
Regarding our situation, here's what happened. On my turn, I captured two villages, one belonging to my opponent and the other a neutral one. Then, I teleported to the Citadel, where there's a fountain that doubles mana. After that, I teleported to a Necropolis village, took a few Angels and Pegasi from the dwelling, bought some skeletons and zombies, and attacked Tanta to eliminate two of his Angels. That was my goal. Those who have access to the save files can analyze the situation in detail; there are no obstacles that have been mentioned. I was only worried about Armageddon, but a cloak and +1 speed, or even 3 cloaks and +3 speed, wouldn't have changed anything. My initial plan was based on Implosion, but even Ice Blast was enough to accomplish what I had in mind.
So, after attacking him and checking for a cloak, I cast Ice Blast and waited for at least 10 minutes (my opponent isn't known for his quick actions). Then, I experienced a disconnect (it's possible the disconnect happened earlier, but the game didn't kick anyone out immediately). If it hadn't been for the battle with him, I would have simply saved the game and then shown my opponent my save file, which would have been a clean GM.1, and we would have continued playing. That's why I don't use the option to save every battle; I hadn't thought that such a situation could occur, although there was a similar situation in one game, where the HD mod was malfunctioning, and there were some glitches during the battle. But in general, my save strategy seemed quite reliable, and I also asked my opponents to show me their save files so that any questions would be resolved.
I know how to lose gracefully and I don't make a big deal out of it (this is for those witnesses who get upset after losing). At one point, I even wanted to give up on this match because I wouldn't have enjoyed continuing it with the person who called me a paranoid, a clown, to put it mildly. But two arguments tipped the scales, and now it's a matter of principle to finish this match to the very last village burned.

I know how to lose with dignity and I don't make a tragedy out of it (this is for those who get upset after losing). I even wanted to quit this match at some point...

So, is this the explanation for why there was no response for 39 minutes after the interrupted battle, even though the internet was working (I checked)?
At the very least, it's not very nice to the opponent and their team – it's a group tournament, and it's already past midnight.
And it makes you think all sorts of unpleasant things, sorry.
What prevented you from writing something right away?

As for the rest, the situation is clear: there is no save, and there won't be one, so either the turn is replayed completely, or... well, I don't know what.
And as for what was written about the plans, it's not a fact that they would have been carried out in the interrupted scenario – the blue team was thinking for 10 minutes about how to defeat the enemy in the 2nd round, which wouldn't have happened without +1 speed, but if we're talking about it, how many times more did the red team think before their skeletons were attacked?

The lack of internet access bothered me, and I spent half an hour configuring a SIM card to insert it into a modem and connect to the internet. Previously, I always kept a backup mobile internet connection, but now the provider seems to have improved, and the connection is relatively stable, with no major issues every other day, so there's not much need for it. Although, on Monday night, there were probably scheduled maintenance works, I should check, but even then, I might be wrong :)

The lack of internet bothered me, and I spent half an hour configuring a SIM card to insert it into a modem and connect to the internet. Previously, I always kept a backup mobile internet connection, but now the provider seems to have improved and doesn't lag every other day, so there's not much need for it. Although, on Monday night, there were probably scheduled overloads, I should check, although I might be lying anyway :)

So, both I and Maxim urgently need to see a psychiatrist because we both witnessed the ping to Hama "without internet"? Or did we make it up specifically to slander someone?
And regarding the more than half an hour it took to restore the backup channel, if there's a need for it, you don't even need to tell someone who has configured more than a hundred wired and mobile routers, especially since it's not the first time that channel has been connected. And, by the way, why was that channel "configured"? Any opponent would be asleep after that much time ;)

said A, and I said B. I'm certainly not an expert in configuring routers and other things. I don't even know what pinging is or what it's for. In practice, failures can happen anywhere. I can't say whether it was that way or not because I don't know. I don't see any point in continuing the conversation with you and I don't want to. I'm ready to discuss it with members of the AC in ICQ if there are any questions left for me.

said a, I say b. I am by no means a master of router configuration and other things. I don't even have a clue what pinging is and what it's for. In practice, failures can happen anywhere. I cannot say whether it was like that or not, because I don't know. I don't see any point in continuing the conversation with you and I don't want to. I am ready to discuss with the members of the AK in ICQ, if there are any questions left for me.

For the sake of a more constructive conversation with the AK, I will explain that pinging checks the availability of an IP address.
If the IP address that Hama provides for connecting to Heroes is available and can be pinged, it means that the computer is turned on and it has internet access.
This is exactly the situation that was constantly observed with the unique IP address of the opponent, Maxima, in the unfinished game after the "disconnection".

Well, since it has now become definitively clear that this match is decisive, I will allow myself to express my opinion.

I could also write that our entire team watched Derbent's game and is ready to unequivocally confirm everything he said, but this cannot be proven, which means that evidence from directly interested parties can safely be disregarded.

Now, to the point. As I understand it from Vova Derbent's post, he is accused of unfair play based on the fact that he remained active in the chat after disconnecting, as well as due to the absence of a save before the battle.
Let's start with the save. The rules clearly require players to make daily saves; there is nothing in the rules about saves before battles. Yes, I agree that this is a convenient feature and it should be enabled, but the rules do not regulate this in any way. Accusing someone of unfair play based on the absence of this save is absolutely unfounded from the point of view of the rules. If we set aside the rules, then, of course, it is a mistake not to enable autosave before the battle when it could have been enabled, but this is a mistake that is not punishable in any case. And, as mentioned above, there was a time when we played without password-protected saves, and nothing terrible happened. I immediately remember the game with JustObserver in HoMM2, where a disconnect occurred during the final due to my fault, and I had to completely repeat a very difficult move, but for some reason my opponent did not write to the admins about the disconnect, but calmly let me continue, and then we repeated the mana and troop losses in the battle.

Regarding the ping in the chat. I am not an expert here, but if the presence of ping in the chat is enough to accuse a player of unfair play, then I ask knowledgeable people to explain why and on what basis. The fact is that if this alone is enough to accuse someone of malicious cheating, then this means that Derbent faces not only a technical defeat in this match, but also a yellow card and disqualification from all tournaments. But all this, of course, makes sense if the plaintiffs have something to confirm their words about the ping in the chat.

If, however, there is nothing to confirm, and/or the ping in the chat is not enough to accuse someone of unfair play, then there are no grounds to stop the match.

Regarding the option of awarding the victory, there is an obvious bias here. As far as I know, in this particular situation, awarding the victory in the match will most likely be in favor of the Dark faction. I would like to cite a recent example of awarding a victory: a game in HotA against Jaris, in which I was losing strategically and had no desire to play it, but the organizer told me that the beginning of the second month was too early for awarding the victory, he scheduled an odd game twice, and only on turn 247 agreed to award the victory. Why force players to play until the third month in one tournament, and award the victory at the end of the first in another?

Now, briefly:
The absence of a save does not indicate anything and does not obligate anyone to anything.
The presence of ping in the chat, if there is something to confirm, is either a technical defeat, a yellow card, and other unpleasant things, or again, it does not indicate anything.
There are no grounds for awarding the victory.

As a captain, I have finished, now as an organizer. There was an arbitration decision on this situation - to continue the match with a repeat of the turn. I ask someone from the admins to express their opinion here or inform me personally whether the admins will consider the situation and, if so, within what time frame.

The situation is tricky, especially since both sides in the discussion are not entirely logical in their reasoning. From my perspective, there are two clear points that are important and that the AC cannot ignore, and a reasoned decision needs to be made. 1. Based on the current rules, everything is fine except for the ping issue in Hamachi (there will be lingering doubts and suspicions, but this can be lived with, and the game will have to continue). But even with the ping in Hamachi, not everything is straightforward. Two points are important: - Can the Dark30/Vova pair somehow prove that the ping occurred? Apart from the fact that "they saw it with their own eyes" (was there a stream? is there a video recording?) If they cannot, then this issue will have to be closed. - And even if they can, some authoritative source is needed to confirm that the ping is impossible due to a Hamachi glitch. I don't know, for example, at least the support for this Hamachi, to whom you need to write and somehow get an answer, or someone with extensive experience as a system administrator and a clear head, who can clearly explain this issue to the AC. Yes, common sense and superficial knowledge of how networks work (mine, and judging by the discussion, not just mine) suggest that ping is impossible if the computer is disconnected from the network, but doubts still remain, especially since Hamachi is a "quirky" program. 2. Since the checkboxes for saving every day and saving before battles already exist and work stably, the rules should include a clause requiring their use in official games. In addition, a couple of sentences can be added to clarify the nuance of saving at the end of the turn specifically through autosave, and not "manually" (I myself, after playing for six months (after a long break), only figured out the nuances of these situations last week and realized that you need to load from autosaves, and there are, as we can see, guys who will never think about it until they "get involved" in a controversial situation). In addition, it seems that it is necessary to add an explanation about the need to create a complete copy of all game saves in case the match is postponed, and immediately after the match is postponed, to eliminate absurd excuses in the style of "the autosave was overwritten." This is really a kindergarten, but someone regularly mentions that their "autosave was overwritten." In this discussion, this excuse was voiced by a respected person, an honorary moderator of almost all Twitch chats. In general, it is better to clarify this nuance as well. This situation should be unequivocally equated to the absence of daily saves.

The situation is tricky, especially since both sides have flaws in their reasoning.

I'm responding:
On our side, there are flaws in the logic, but only if we assume we're lying.
We can't prove that the ping was sent.
Nothing was (video) recorded, and the ping was only sent to find out where the opponent was and why their Hamachi icon (which, unlike Heroes, can automatically reconnect when the internet is restored) was red.
At the time, it seemed like a simple misunderstanding, and suspicions began the next day, as a result of communicating with the opponent.
If I had given the save file, no one would have known about this... if that save file existed, of course – but now no one will ever know.)))

Furthermore, I'm a system administrator with a lot of experience (although I also have a personal interest in this).
Nevertheless, I'll share this experience – it shouldn't influence the verdict, but it will help understand our attitude towards the opponent:
If a computer is online and Hamachi is enabled, it appears green to others, and pings go through in this case.
It can be blue, red, or even gray, as if the computer is turned off; in this case, pings don't go through.
But I've never seen any other Hamachi status besides gray when someone disconnects a computer from the internet or completely (a common scenario: I wish my opponent good luck, their Hamachi icon turns red, their status turns gray; Hell comes out of trance, their status turns gray :).)
And in terms of team organization, no host can return a response if it's offline; that's what the ping is for – to find out if the host is alive or where it is.)))
In Hamachi, among other things, in the chain of servers that the ping passes through, there's always a Hamachi server, which also assigns external IP addresses to the hosts.
And it can't give an IP address, the availability of which is being checked, to anyone other than its legitimate owner, with an identification login/email.
However, if there's another enabled computer where the Hamachi client is running with the same login, it will respond to pings, but only when it's running in single-player mode.
If both computers are enabled, network conflicts arise, which are resolved at the Hamachi server level, and the clients indicate the conflicting host with a red color, which the opponent never saw.
This is where our attitude comes from.
We were ready to offer a rematch, but when they talk about the internet supposedly being unavailable, they could just as easily be misleading us about redoing a turn.
But this is just our attitude.
And we weren't demanding a technical loss for intentional disconnection, which still needs to be proven, and nowhere in the thread is there talk of a technical loss, but only of awarding the victory, and even then, only in the most extreme case :).
The appeal was made for not the most abstract guarantees of protecting the interests of not only the opponent (which are obvious), but also our interests, which, if we simply allow such rematches, may be violated (and in our opinion, certainly will be; the Hamachi episode was not presented as proof, but as an illustration of our attitude)

I request that the admins respond, indicating whether this precedent will be reviewed or not. Even though two people claim to have seen the pinging player after the disconnection, there is also a statement from the opponent claiming that there was no internet connection during that time. I request a clear answer regarding whether the game can continue or not.

We demanded a tech loss from AK, not for an intentional disconnect, which still needs to be proven, and there's nothing about a tech loss in the thread, but only about awarding the victory, and even then, only in the most extreme case. :)

So, make up your mind. If Derbent is accused of unfair play, what kind of award can there be? Only a tech loss. If there are no grounds for accusing him of unfair play, then what are we even talking about?

So, make up your mind. If Derbent is accused of cheating, what kind of ruling can there be? Only a technical loss. If there are no grounds for accusing him of cheating, then what are we even talking about?

There is no 100% proof.
Even screenshots/recordings made after the fact don't count, even if they existed.
Only a live stream during the incident, viewed by an independent expert, would be sufficient.
But at that time, we were only thinking about how to continue from the moment he attacked, without the possibility of additional actions.
And that's exactly what we're trying to achieve now.
Plus, we're trying to get a fix in the rules regarding saves, and hopefully, this will be done.
And the cheating – I wrote to my opponent in a private message after the 2nd game about loading not from an autosave and then passing the turn, but from his own save, saying "let this be on your conscience."
Now, that phrase can be repeated.
During the game itself, we agree to whatever the administrator comes up with, given his experience in resolving controversial situations.
That's essentially what we're asking for.
The misunderstanding with Khamay, I repeat, was not presented as a direct accusation, but as an illustration of the attitude towards the possible further course of the game – why we don't want to allow a replay.
But even if, theoretically, nothing can be figured out, the game must be finished; this is better than a replay.
All that is required from the administrator is rich experience – can the issue still be resolved in a way that satisfies both sides, and not just one?