Forum

Wicc wrote: “Against - DubrovinPoll. Here, they are asking for justification... The main idea is roughly this: “As can be seen from his public activities - when everything is going well, he moderates every comma, but when things start to get heated, he hides in the bushes. Plus, his initiatives are mostly flawed and шаблонные - a bunch of unnecessary polls, a topic about withdrawals that doesn't fit the context, etc. His attempts to discuss controversial issues turn into either monotonous repetition of April's theses or into some vague formulations with a bunch of logical or axiomatic errors. But despite this, he constantly strives for power, carefully emphasizing that he wants equality (yeah, "catch the thief"). As they rightly say in politics, "those who reach for power should not be given power, but should be restrained." And good leaders usually become those whom the public asks for (often a little against their will), as well as those who take on difficult tasks in a difficult situation when all the ambitious people are sitting in the corners (NumWan had a good post on this in the topic about withdrawals). Plus, he has a strange view of the role of the Arbitration Committee (AK) - like "the AK is always right." That is, there is no understanding that working in the AK is not about resting on the laurels of public trust, but about constantly working to justify this trust, and in the eyes of everyone, not just his own electorate.” _________________________________________________________________ I will express my opinion on these justifications directed at me: 1. Regarding hiding in the bushes. I am confident in the correctness of my decision to transfer the handling of the controversial game between Alex and Numon to the AK of Vold. This is my opinion. Vold has an AK, and ideally, I would like all controversial situations in games to be handled by the AK, and not by one person. As they say, two heads are better than one. 2. Regarding flawed initiatives. There is no accounting for taste. 3. Regarding attempts to discuss controversial issues. As far as I understand, this is your reaction to my defense of the AK. I am explaining. I am defending my point of view - you are defending yours. I only see the point of the AK when the AK is delegated the right to handle controversial issues and the right to decide whether to put the controversial match to a general vote or not. Your opinion is that ultimately the Players should decide. If we have different opinions, it doesn't mean that you are right by expressing your opinion. Everyone has their own truth, which they defend. The vote on "whether or not to have an AK" has already been held, and you still can't calm down. 4. Regarding the desire for power. I don't understand what power I am striving for. Please be more specific.