You are absolutely right. However, the debate isn't about that. The argument is about the form, not the content. You intuitively understand the right way to present your will to public opinion – writing long, structured posts, persuading with words, etc. In other words, making the public agree with you, rather than submit to you. Dubrovin, on the other hand, adheres to a different point of view – minimal constructive dialogue, the decisions of the party and the government are correct simply because they are the decisions of the party and the government. And if someone disagrees, that's their problem. With an elegant formulation of dismissal: "you can vote for other candidates in the next elections." Therefore, his proposal caused such a reaction – the organizers are being asked to be not an object of persuasion by the AK (Arbitration Committee), but an object of submission to the AK's decision. This is not ideal for many reasons (which have already been stated). It is clear that the organizers wouldn't take a player who has clearly violated the rules into the Tournaments, whether it's the World Championship or not. The AK's decision isn't even necessary here; public approval/disapproval is enough. Therefore, the proposed amendment won't provide any particular advantages, but it will remove one of the safeguards against the AK's arbitrariness (whether accidental or intentional). For the stable development of the community, the existence of such safeguards is a necessary condition.