Rules for Heroes of Might and Magic III online tournaments on HeroesWorld.

2 Wicc

I apologize in advance for writing in such gloomy tones (Cassandra, yes), but the situation reminds me of events on the League from N years ago.

No, things were different on the League. And the League of heroes failed not because it had an elected body, although it made a big mistake when it banned you from a working, analytical position; I was very upset. There was probably an abuse of power.

Various committees and a hierarchy are forcing a situation where there are many generals, but few soldiers. This leads to the site turning into a club where people just "chat in the kitchen with their own circle."

But I agree. People who worked on their own issues on the forum will continue to do so. Therefore, what I conditionally called the executive body can just be an unofficial one?

But we need 5 people for an Expert Council. I'll be blunt about why it's needed.
1. A person organizes a tournament, then the organizer loses interest, players slack off, real life takes over, and the tournament stalls. The person is not accountable to anyone; it's like, "I created you, I can destroy you..."
There will be a council, and there will be approved deadlines. The person-organizer will approach organizing the tournament differently. It turns out that they will let down the trust of their comrades, and it will be very difficult for a decent person to cope with that. Could it be that there will be fewer tournaments? Unlikely, if a person is determined to hold a tournament, they will still do it: but this is better than unfinished tournaments. Otherwise, people will lose faith in the organizers' ability to run tournaments.
2. Cheaters. I'm reading the forum, and this issue is just hanging in the air in different threads, hinted at, but not explicitly stated. Either it will explode into a big scandal, or people will leave.
There will be a council, approved by the players, and it will take action. It's clear what to do with obvious cheaters – they will be banned. With sophisticated cheaters, a large post will be published with specific claims against a particular player. And with a subsequent inscription under the nickname: "there are doubts about fair play." The player can play in ranked games, but the people playing with them will be warned.
A player who receives such a mark loses the right to play in tournaments held by our player community.

I don't think there will be many such cases. I don't think there are that many cheaters, at least on our forum. The people elected to the council should be experienced players and level-headed individuals. If the council's decision is reached, it means the cheater has annoyed the forum.

At the same time, a person suspected of cheating will in no way lose the rights of a forum member; they have the right to prove their innocence, play in ranked games, participate in tournaments on other forums, change their nickname, or ultimately prove through games over time that they have reformed; there will definitely be players who will give them such an opportunity.

Now, cheaters are confident in their complete impunity; they master basic safety measures and go ahead to win, pleasing their ego. Players trying to draw attention to this problem are often left alone; one person complains, then another after some time, and most people just remain silent, even though there is proven evidence of cheating. The council will be able to give cheaters a reprimand. A justified reprimand from an elected body of players.

Yes, a situation may arise where ultimatums are issued – either the Council revokes the decision, or we (the cheater, their friends) leave the forum. That's why it's important to survey as many players as possible and get the opinion of the overwhelming majority.
Yes, there may be little good in a demonstrative departure, but if it comes to that, it might be for the best? Because otherwise, sooner or later, the honest players will leave.
In any case, cheaters will be afraid: during the game, they won't be able to freely look around the map anymore; they might make a mistake and get caught by the council.
So, the elected body was created for a reason. Of course, no one will jump on a person based on the controversial results of one or two games; outrageous cases will be considered.

Moreover, introducing aristocratic orders into a community with a democratic atmosphere means forcing either aggressive resistance or quiet sabotage of them (at least on my part).

Who will we choose? It's better not to choose me. But many guys can be chosen; "power" won't spoil them.
What kind of aggressive resistance could there be? From cheaters? Let them, they don't want to die on the forum. From democratically minded people? Yes, maybe, but if you knew how bitter it is when a forum that you enjoy reading dies because ideas reach a dead end, because of boredom and hopelessness, I'll remember the same League-3, the same Wings, the same ProGamer; I could name more, but I won't.

Quiet sabotage is when tournaments seem to be running, but they're not really. Is there no council now, but is there sabotage? Or are there just gaps in the organization?

If I knew the answers to these questions. That's why Pit raised the topic, and we're discussing it.