Restructuring of the Academy.

This is also because moderators combine the functions of organizers, judges, and, God forbid, are also members of the Arbitration Committee (AK). Well, these are ready-made dictators and usurpers. Therefore, no one has the right to argue with them. Otherwise, they will be banned.

You're getting carried away... Combining membership in the AK and judging Tournaments is actually a very desirable thing. Because the people who will review the decisions of the Tournament judges should be at least as competent (and preferably more so) than these judges.

In this regard, if I am elected to the AK, I intend to insist that AK members who do not have current judging experience be required to be appointed as hosts for various official Tournaments. So that they can gain experience and players can form an opinion about them in this role.

However, I agree about moderation; in my opinion, combining membership in the AK and moderation functions creates risks of abuse. The specifics of the AK are that its actions can sometimes lead to turmoil, including on the verge of a foul, and having a moderator's "baton" gives the temptation to use it, even if formally correct, but at the most convenient moment from the point of view of conducting the discussion. Therefore, I believe that for a member of the AK, having moderation functions is permissible only for the purpose of editing old posts (rules, statistics). This can also be considered part of my election program.