And just imagine, it would be a total blast if someone created a topic and made everyone who voted "For" or "Against" reasonably explain their choice )))
Moreover, cut out all the flame, and only include the concrete reasoning from the HeroesWorld resident about what and how )
I've voted, now I'll comment on my choice:
Since the main function of the AC members is judging and analyzing disputed episodes, I evaluate candidates based on their abilities for this activity. Namely - judging experience, having one's own opinion, willingness and ability to argue one's opinion in a public discussion, composure and psychological stability (especially under pressure), impartiality (ability to assess a situation regardless of personal likes and dislikes), attention to details and nuances (both of the rules and the situations being analyzed).
First, let's look at the candidates with judging experience:
FOR:
Pit - fits the description
DirtyPlayer - fits except for the last point, prone, as chess players say, to "blitzing out" - making quick, superficial decisions. True, this is compensated by a lack of stubbornness when presented with arguments from those who disagree; he can reconsider a decision.
=Lizard= - ran tournaments on VT, I don't recall any complaints about his work. True, it's generally easier to work with the VT community because there are few random people, but still.
Redwhait HP - I remember he judged something somewhere, but I don't remember where or how. I also don't recall any complaints (perhaps that's precisely why), I'll vote for just in case.
ABSTAINED:
злой_романтик - does a large amount of useful activity, that's good, but has Dubrovin syndrome, "I was authorized and I decided," unwillingness to convince those who disagree with his decision, tendency to brush off criticism and push through his decision using administrative methods. That's not the way to go.
kalababa - initiative and enthusiasm, ease and positivity of image. But low psychological stability, tendency to run away from problems, so he might fold at the first major scandal involving himself. And since membership in the AC implies periodically receiving criticism directed at him, not always deserved...
Similar examples from the recent past - Stiki, Loy.
The judges are done, it's not very clear how to evaluate the rest, so by eye:
FOR:
=Stinger= - more of a player than an official, lazy about public activity, I'm surprised he's running for the AC. But since he wants to, he should be supported.
Sanin - well-structured speech and emphasis in reasoning (judging by the thread about the GM restructuring), I expect something similar from AC members if complaints arise against them.
ABSTAINED:
Mizrael - the elusive Joe, seems to have been in the AC for about 6 years already, but I don't recall a single post from him in topics related to AC activities. So I have no opinion.
KobRa_RR - veeery biased... objectivity of reasoning is at the level of: "Dad, what's 2+2? Are we buying or selling?"
rebellious - thoughts are often sensible, but the manner of presenting them... brrr... heavy text, emotional escalation, provoking rudeness. That's not the way to go.
Nitro, skd, Player_, Amiloo - I don't know enough about them, so I have no opinion.
AGAINST:
Сатир - unconstructive opposition, Baba Yaga who is always against, protest for the sake of protest.
Виго - I don't know why he's running, he doesn't particularly participate in the forum's life, imo he registered for the lulz.
