Is an AK (assault rifle) necessary or not in principle? (poll)

The form of social organization is strongly tied to its size and the system of beliefs of its members. The desires of the people are secondary here; objective factors are primary.

Historical processes clearly demonstrate this. If you need to organize a million people living densely in a limited area, then a fairly strong dictatorship is required, one that suppresses local conflicts at the root. If, however, you need to organize a million nomads, then a different structure is required, something like a representative democracy.

The form of government does not depend on population density. First and foremost, it depends on resources. If the territory is rich in pastures and livestock, then each nomadic family lives separately from its neighbors, and individual freedom is considered more important than the goals of the nation. If, however, there are few pastures, then the consolidation of resources under one authority and tyrannical rule are simply a necessary measure for survival.

Kostya, that guy broke the rules in one playthrough, and his result was annulled. Moreover, he broke the rules. Here, Alex behaved incorrectly in one game, and he was removed from the entire tournament. It's not quite a perfect match, don't you think? Moreover, he didn't formally break any rules.
By the way, what about your words after the vote, that the best option would have been Techport in one game?

In a situation where you have to make a decision that will inevitably not please everyone, it is best to act decisively. That is, the punishment itself does not necessarily have to be severe, but it must be firmly enforced. If you give one player a break today, tomorrow HW will be overwhelmed by a wave of lawlessness.

A suggestion for the AC: I think it would be good to conduct post-game analyses on our forum, indicating the main nicknames of the participants. You can see that even this is being blamed on you (they say you are hiding everything from the people).