2Wicc: As always, you have very long and tedious posts that I can't be bothered to read. Every now and then, of course, there are smart thoughts, for example about placing responsibility on the organizer, but that's the bare minimum.

You have correctly grasped the central idea of all these long and tedious posts :).

They are so long and tedious because not everyone is quick-witted enough to immediately understand the correctness of the central idea; it requires justification.

There was a line flashing by about the AC being bullied by some authoritative players. :confused: I didn't notice anything. If they're bullying behind the scenes, that only speaks to the baseness and meanness of these so-called skilled players. Whoever bullies the AC, let them write about it not in the VT chat, but to me on ICQ. I'll find something to say back!

If you didn't notice, then why bother worrying? ;)

Regarding the decision that the AC supposedly got egg on its face, etc.... No, it didn't get egg on its face at all.

Well, what else can you call a decision that led to such consequences? That a mass of justified discontent appeared, that people are leaving the forum, that opposition to the AC is emerging, etc. None of this existed before.

But in fact, the main task of any court is quite the opposite—to smooth over conflicts in society, to give them a civilized character. So in this case, the AC not only failed in this task, but on the contrary, initiated the very processes that it should ideally have been fighting.

In global practice, a judge (sports-related or otherwise) who allows such a thing loses a significant part of their reputation and is highly likely to be removed from their position, temporarily or permanently.

Here, on the contrary, they demand not only to keep the AC, but also to keep it with its current composition (nonsense). Hence the natural conclusion—this is not a court at all, but merely an organization lobbying for the interests of some groups of people to the detriment of other groups.

And therefore, the attitude towards it is so polarized—those it protects consider it a benefactor of the fatherland, while those it oppresses consider it an enemy to be fought. Both are very far from the image a court should have in the eyes of the public.

In general, a court (and a judge) should be big, mean, and nasty to everyone—that's the kind of image it should have. But the current composition of the AC consists partly of fluffy elves, partly of charming schemers, and not a single true judge.

You can disagree with the decision, you can consider it too harsh (ideally, maybe just putting them on both sides would have been fine), but you cannot consider it inadequate! Why not a CM? Because no one convinced me who actually entered the codes. But whoever did it, I believe the punishment should be... let it be harsh, but it must be!

No argument about the punishment, it must be there. Many examples from various sports are given, and the conclusion is always the same—the punishment should only apply to the game in which the disciplinary violation occurred. What on earth makes this case different?