scorp
Auto-translated
The point is not whether it is soft or harsh. The point is how it is presented to the public.
The AK brand is far from being a symbol of infallibility for everyone (as Dubrovin tries to portray), and one must defend one's point of view in an open debate. AK avoided this debate, and this is one of the reasons for such a reaction.
Do you really think that the way the decision was presented, which AK chose (to announce the verdict and lock itself in its office, dismissing it with standard phrases), cannot be fundamentally improved?
AK avoided this debate - I don't quite agree with that; the defense was simply not conducted very correctly.
Do you really think that the way the decision was presented cannot be fundamentally improved? - I completely agree with that; one should try to present it in a more detailed and accessible way - explaining what it is and why, and why it cannot be done differently, not like A.S. Pushkin ((... But one shouldn't crawl on one's knees in such cases, begging to talk to the judge.
Whether to believe it or not is your right. It is better to believe it and try to figure out how it could have been done. If you figure it out, you will grow a lot. A small hint - reread all the materials on Vitalik's case; it turned out to be simpler, but the principles are similar.
it's just that we shouldn't offend the captain )) ... (not out of malice)
put yourself or me or someone else with experience/I'll consider myself to have it/ in the role of "lawyer" in that case...