The date for the re-elections is approaching. In my opinion, the election algorithm outlined in our regulations needs to be supplemented. Based on past experience (I conducted the elections last year and know the situation better than anyone), this is very important. First, the possibility of WITHDRAWALS has not been taken into account. Currently, at least three (as far as I know) members of the current Arbitration Committee are withdrawing their candidacies. But it is obvious that votes will still be cast for them. This means that the opinion of some players will simply be lost. Players will vote for those who will ultimately decline. There is no possibility of SELF-NOMINATION. If a person wants to work, has ideas on how to improve things, and has the opportunity, then, in my opinion, they should have the opportunity to express this. Whether or not they are voted for is up to the voters. It is possible that a voter simply FORGOT about someone and did not include them in their list. Then they saw a good candidate, but it was too late, and they voted. Therefore, I still believe that it is necessary to conduct the elections in two stages. 1. Nomination of candidates, self-nominations, withdrawals. Compilation of a complete list, including ALL candidates who are actually ready to work. Deadline - 2 weeks. (Last time, we did this in a few days, not everyone had time to express their opinion, and a proper list was not compiled, and then we had to make additions). 2. Open voting on the list on the forum. Moreover, for each candidate, it is necessary to vote FOR and AGAINST. Last time, there were many discussions about TRUST/DISTRUST in the judging by certain candidates. Now, too, part of the forum trusts someone, and part of the forum does not trust that same candidate. I believe it is essential to conduct two open votes on the forum - for and against each candidate. And it is necessary to establish a clear criterion for "trust." For example, 20 people voted for Candidate A, and 19 voted against. Personally, such a judge does not inspire confidence in me. I thought for a long time about introducing "trust coefficients," but then the idea arose to simply subtract the number of votes AGAINST from the number of votes FOR, and if the result is the same for several candidates, take into account how many percent of those who expressed their opinion on a particular candidate voted FOR. For example, 26 people voted FOR Candidate A, and 10 voted AGAINST; 19 voted FOR Candidate B, and 3 voted AGAINST. 26-10=16, 19-3=16, but in the first case, FOR - 72%, and in the second, 86%. The second candidate has an advantage. Of course, there may be controversial cases where the advantage of one over the other will be small. Perhaps it is necessary to provide for the possibility of a revote. Of course, the regulations have already been approved, and I voted for them myself. At that time, I did not read them very carefully and did not think about the nuances that might arise. If what is written is not relevant, then we will not change anything.