The issue of creating a specific body to handle controversial situations was raised by most of the Heroes of Might and Magic community members, which led to the formation of the Arbitration Committee (AC).
Everyone in the Heroes of Might and Magic community saw the decision that was made regarding Alex.
And the Heroes of Might and Magic community has the right to decide who they want to see in the AC, to delegate their authority to resolve controversial situations in the Games to those people who, in their opinion, can handle this task.
I repeat, if you don't like the current AC, vote for the AC that you do like.

There is a well-known phrase: "the people deserve the rulers they choose." This is exactly the case. Democracy is flawed because the crowd amplifies the negative qualities of the people within it – stupidity, shortsightedness, bias, and a short memory. For this simple reason, throughout history, all wise rulers have paid great attention to ideology, the history of their state, and the principles of further development – in order to channel all this chaotic mix of opinions into a constructive direction for the state. Now, Ketch is writing intelligent things, drawing on the experience of previous conflicts in the Heroes communities. But how much of that experience do the voters have? I think that for more than half of them, this is the first such episode. Where should we expect a reasonable, balanced decision? Correct – nowhere. Therefore, a much more primitive logic comes into play – like/dislike, one of us/not one of us, bad/good. I think the basis of the collective motivation was approximately this: "Alex is bad, the AC wants to ban him, therefore the AC is good." The consequences of this step are hardly realized by anyone, simply because there has not yet been personal experience of stumbling on such a rake. And when it appears, new, enthusiastic participants rush in, drowning out the voice of reason of the old-timers. The wheel of history makes another turn. That is, with democracy, it often turns out approximately as it does with girls – first they fall in love, they paint a picture of their chosen one in the most rosy colors, and when the pink fog dissipates and enlightenment comes, then there is a reversal, they erase his image in the darkest colors. But the truth, as always, lies in the middle. But the psychology of the collective is such that it does not accept a balanced assessment – a radical opinion is much easier to implement and express. For this reason, democratic institutions tend to degenerate in a relatively short time – when leaders begin to realize the essence of what they have been given to manage. That is, it is not necessary to bring the light of reason to the crowd; it is only necessary to feed them ideological goodies in time, and to make the right decisions independently, promoting them only after the fact, although this is not stated openly. So, your constant appeal to the results of the vote is a sign of weakness, an inability to defend your point of view in an open dispute. Yes, you currently have supporters, but they are so not because you are an authority or an example for them, but only because you are doing the dirty work for them – eliminating a person who is unpleasant to them. As soon as the goals diverge, the real attitude will become apparent. How long you will last in a leadership position with such a weak position... I don't know, it depends on how soon you make a new mistake, and then you will feel on your own skin what a blind and psychologically unstable entity public opinion is.