Wicc
Auto-translated
Well, here it begins... ((( It was assumed that this topic would be opened only for expressing personal opinions on the subject by those who voted!!! And the conversation was about the AK! Not to throw accusations at each other about what, where, when, and how!!! It's a mess!!! ((((( Remove everything unnecessary except for those who expressed their opinion on the topic!
The whole idea was criticized again (((
Those who don't see their own shortcomings stop developing. I would gladly listen to criticism about myself and, if possible, respond.
Here, for example, are criticisms from the thread about the AK reorganization:
Judging by how you run tournaments, you find opponents yourself, there are no proper tournament brackets, the schedule is unclear, etc., I wouldn't vote for you, no offense:cool:
Those who want to play as usual have every opportunity to do so - just don't rush, wait for the end of the next round and get the next opponent. There is no bracket because it's a Swiss system, which doesn't require a bracket.
All additional options are aimed at those who want to play earlier or fit games into a difficult real-life schedule (business trips, vacations, etc.).
The main goal is to have fewer technical results and more game results, because my tournaments are exclusively experimental, so collecting game statistics is one of the most important tasks. For this reason, I don't issue technical losses for missing the deadline, but only apply a debuff.
As a team player, Rebe is not suitable, as is Wick, they are purely independent individuals and it is difficult for them to vote for an opinion different from their own.
The point of collective decision-making is that opinions can differ, and voting reveals the most popular opinion. And before voting, debates are held, in which participants try to make their opinion more popular than the alternative. Whoever succeeds is doing well.
If, however, it is about publicly defending the opinion of the AK (even if it does not coincide with their own), then this is not required. At least, observations show that AK members are happy to engage in public discussions from different positions, tell who voted for what, publicly argue with each other, etc.
Against Wick's candidacy, despite all his merits, the person has a very pragmatic and rigid view, which cannot be changed, there is Wick's opinion and the wrong one. Despite a rather coherent style of posts, which are often supported by knowledge.
What is the point of a judge who does not have his own opinion or is not able to defend it in a discussion? Plush elves who listen to the chairman of the AK reduce the effectiveness of the AK. Ideally, all claims that may come from the "people" should be voiced in advance during the internal AK discussion - so that there is time to formulate a well-thought-out answer, and not just a quick response from the first AK member who joins the discussion. For this, the internal opposition should be no less strict than the external one (it is rather the opposite now).
The only thing I didn't understand is about the rigidity of the view, in my opinion, more game and organizational innovations come from me than from anyone else. Therefore, it is desirable to specify this. If we are talking about a dispute about Khotov's Shaft (it seems to be the only episode of disagreements with The_), then all participants in the discussion either took my side or abstained, it's strange to blame me for this.
And regarding "there is Wick's opinion and the wrong one," The_ had the opportunity to see on personal experience how this opinion is formed - in his game there was a controversial situation without a clear interpretation, I took the time to ask about 10 people before formulating "Wick's opinion." Which, in my opinion, satisfied both players.
Therefore, I assume that he either meant something else, or blurted it out without thinking.
