Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Whenever the decisions of the Arbitration Committee (AC) are criticized, someone from the AC writes that the AC doesn't get paid for this, people work on an enthusiastic basis, and sometimes the question arises: what have you done for hip-hop in your time, and in general, achieve something first.
Given the election mechanism of the AC, where voting for new members is not conducted among players, but among the members of the AC, new members of the AC must first and foremost be loyal to the current members. Perhaps that's why last time, Roger DAltavilla, who is new to the forum, was chosen for the AC instead of Wicc, who allows himself to make critical statements. Accordingly, critics essentially have no opportunity to get involved. In this regard, the first proposal is to change the election mechanism of the AC, making the voting universal, or, for example, with a requirement based on the length of registration/number of games played. Elections should not be held frequently, for example, once every two years – this seems like a sufficient time for the officials to prove themselves.
From the current members of the AC, I would vote for Pete, Dirty, and Mizrael. This, of course, is provided that the esteemed gentlemen are willing to continue doing this.
I would also like to see people who criticized the decisions of the AC in the AC.
In my opinion, the most revealing situation was the argument about the Rebellius-Cobra match. Rebellius's arguments were then more logical than the judges' decision, and Wicc also expressed himself very consistently. So, I nominate Rebellius and Wicc. //by the way, I still can't understand the hype around Rebe. I played offline with him last year and didn't have any problems. And Peterius has already written an election program for him in the neighboring thread// I will also nominate myself – it's not just about criticizing, I can also get involved in the work.
If we talk about the parameter "willing to entrust the review of your matches and trust in making decisions," then there are not so few such people on the forum; I won't list them yet, I will vote if someone from them gets on the ballot.