How you scared the people :). All sorts of hidden machinations and multi-move combinations are already being imagined. In reality, everything is much simpler.

The main goal is the development of the Heroes movement. Broad development, deep development. This goal is distant, abstract, and without specific benchmarks; that's actually what makes it convenient. With this goal in mind, I run tournaments, write articles, communicate on the forum, refine TE/VT, etc.

Of course, it's impossible to limit oneself solely to constructive activities here; sometimes you have to destroy what was previously created or put down any inappropriate amateur initiatives. Moreover, while the features I created weren't always relevant – there were mistakes and failed experiments – almost everything I destroyed was justified, at least the course of subsequent events convinced most people that it had to happen that way.

As for the AC – this experiment seemed strange to me from the very beginning, and I wrote about it at that time, although not particularly aggressively; after all, it was only an intuitive feeling, not a firm conviction.

I also laid out my reasoning back then, and it was roughly along these lines – "what for?" That is, what actual niche could this body fill? After going through the options, I realized it wasn't much of one – there are enough tournament judges to handle disputed episodes, 1-2 season judges are enough to review season games, analyzing cheating will be done by the whole forum regardless, etc.

That is, all the niches that the AC claims are already occupied, and have been for many years; certain traditions and understandings have developed about how things are done here. After all, Heroes has been around for more than 10 years.

Therefore, an attempt to intrude into this established ethical ecosystem with some clearly foreign charter inevitably leads to an epic fail, as we've had the opportunity to clearly witness. If it hadn't been Alex's case, it would have been another – historical inevitability.

When I participated in AC-supervised tournaments on HeroesWorld, I didn't bother my head with the thought that the AC might strongly contradict me. I thought they'd have enough sense not to get under the wheels, and instead take a wait-and-see position and let people sort out their own relationships.

Actually, many thought so, which is why a very wide range of players could have been the initiator of such a confrontation. Moreover, a serious accusation like cheating isn't even necessary; the very fact of opposing bureaucracy to Cossack free-spiritedness is important, and the reason is secondary.

There is too much anarchic romance in the Heroes movement, a desire for the freedom to choose one's own leaders and idols; imposing a bureaucratic "you elected them – now obey" system here is fraught with a multitude of conflicts.

Therefore, no matter how you arrange it, avoiding conflicts with top players (one leaves – new ones grow) under such an AC regulation is unreal. The situation can be softened by choosing the right AC composition – if it includes older people, well-acquainted with the traditions of Heroes gatherings, with experience in resolving conflict situations in tournaments, then there are chances to smooth over the rough edges.

The previous AC composition was clearly youthful, without serious judging experience, without experience in observing the schisms and reunifications of groups. For many of them, HeroesWorld seems to be their first serious Heroes gathering in general. It's no wonder that many things obvious to me turned out to be a revelation for them.

Well then – ideally, it would be better if there were no bodies like the AC at all, but if one wants to play around with this trinket (I understand the idea is beautiful, many are drooling over it), then precautions should be taken. For example, create a situation where mentions of the AC on the forum are kept to a minimum, and it's brought out like a machine gun from the closet – only when a serious brawl is underway.

For contrast – Dubrovin's frequent phrases "The AC will consider your request" (uttered clearly not without pride) evoke a persistent association with pompous bureaucracy, not understanding that ideally they are servants of the people, not masters. Therefore, it's better if these phrases don't exist at all, or at the very least, if they are uttered not by Dubrovin; with others, it might not be such an eyesore. For a trial, you could add a clause to the AC regulation roughly like this – AC members are forbidden from mentioning the name "AC" (and its synonyms) publicly, as well as using the word "we" in relation to the AC.

Something like that is my vision of the issue ...