Forum

How you scared the people :). They're already imagining all sorts of hidden schemes and multi-step combinations. In reality, everything is much simpler.

The main goal is the development of the Heroes movement. Development in breadth, development in depth. This goal is distant, abstract, and without specific benchmarks, which is actually what makes it convenient. With this goal in mind, I hold tournaments, write articles, communicate on the forum, refine TE/BT, etc.

Of course, you can't limit yourself to just constructive activity; sometimes you have to destroy what was created earlier or put down various inappropriate amateur initiatives. Moreover, while I introduced various features not always appropriately — there were mistakes and failed experiments — I tore down almost everything appropriately, at least the subsequent course of events convinced most that it was bound to happen.

As for the AC — this experiment seemed strange to me from the very beginning, and I wrote about it even then, though not particularly aggressively; after all, it was just an intuitive feeling, not a firm conviction.

I also laid out my reasoning back then, and it was roughly along the lines of "what's the point?" That is, what actual niche could this body fill? Going through the options, I realized it wasn't much of any — for reviewing disputed episodes, tournament judges are sufficient; for reviewing season games, 1-2 season judges are enough; reviewing cheating will be done by the whole forum anyway, etc.

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

Therefore, an attempt to intrude into this established ethical ecosystem with some clearly alien charter inevitably leads to an epic fail, as we have had the opportunity to clearly see. If it weren't for Alex's case, it would have been something else — historical inevitability.

When I participated in AC-accountable tournaments on HeroesWorld, I didn't bother my head with thoughts that the AC might strongly oppose me. I thought they'd have the sense not to throw themselves under the wheels, but instead take a wait-and-see position and let people sort things out themselves.

Actually, many people thought this way, so the initiator of such a conflict could have been a very wide range of players. Moreover, a serious accusation like cheating isn't even necessary here; the very fact of opposing bureaucracy to Cossack freedom is important, and the reason is secondary.

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

Therefore, no matter how you arrange it, avoiding conflicts with top players (some leave — new ones will rise) with such an AC charter is unreal. The matter can be mitigated by correctly selecting the AC's composition — if it includes older people, well-acquainted with the traditions of Heroes gatherings, with experience in resolving conflict situations in tournaments, then there's a chance to smooth over the sharp edges.

The previous AC composition was clearly youthful, without serious judging experience, without experience observing schisms and reunifications of communities. For many of them, HeroesWorld is apparently their first serious Heroes gathering. It's no surprise that many things obvious to me were a discovery for them.

Well, so — ideally, it's better that bodies like the AC don't exist at all, but if you really want to play with this toy (I understand the idea is appealing, many are drooling over it), then you should take precautions. 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 a closet — only when a serious brawl is underway.

For contrast — Dubrovin's regular phrases "the AC will consider your request" (uttered clearly not without pride) evoke a persistent association with pompous bureaucracy, not realizing that in principle 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; for others, it might not be such an eyesore. As a trial, you could add a clause to the AC charter 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.

That's roughly my view of the issue ...