In this regard, there is a suggestion to make the Arbitration Committee's (AK) work more public. For example, create two sections on the AK forum: an open one and a closed one. All current cases are handled in the closed section, and after, for example, 3 months from the date the decision is made (to allow the dust to settle), the corresponding thread is moved to the open section. Old topics should also be moved to the open section.

This is not a bad option, but it's too radical; I don't think anyone is ready for it. It would be quite sufficient to have a protocol – who voted how and why. What is important in my opinion is that the public announcement of the decision should be accompanied by an explanation of that decision, yes, with a direct link to the rules and an additional comment if necessary.

2. Combining the positions of AK member and moderator.

If this entire point is written with one specific moderator in mind, is it worth introducing the rule? Wouldn't it be easier to replace the moderator?

4. Rules for official tournaments
Or, for example, the story with the expansion pack, transferring results from OFB to FB – the organizer wanted to and did it, and then it was barely challenged.

Or, for example, all sorts of innovations in the OFB format – each OFB is held according to a new formula, and each time logical questions arise – "why?", and the answer is always "if you don't want to, don't participate".

Initially, official tournaments were positioned as conservative, with a constant name, schedule, and regulations. And all experiments and innovations were tested in fan tournaments.

A mandatory point in these rules is that the organizer should not have the authority to make changes to the regulations during the tournament. In the current OFB, there have already been two or three such changes – three points instead of two for a win and a ban on recording a draw in the last round. No, but can you imagine if the regulations in a football or chess tournament were changed during the tournament? Strictly speaking, this is unacceptable even in an unofficial tournament, and in the main tournament of the forum (as FB is positioned), it is completely unacceptable.

I am in favor of authorizing the AK to make changes to the rules, because holding general polls takes a very long time, and often it is necessary to urgently make additions to the rules (for example, in the case of a bug in the Sea Battle expansion).

So, what's this? An elected official is advocating for expanding their own powers; you've started well :D During the vote, it was stipulated that we were voting for judges who would resolve controversial situations, not for those who would decide what rules the entire forum would play by. If this had been stipulated from the beginning, the voting results might have been different. This is the same as after the election of a mayor, announcing that the mayor will also have gubernatorial powers. It's just not right. As for the Admiral's precedent, this is clearly a bug fix – no vote is needed for such issues.

Here's what's interesting: in the last election, the forum voted for ALL the AK members who were in office at the time, but it didn't choose Vika, with his "beautiful" and "correct" slogans. It turns out that the forum was satisfied with the AK's activities, but no, it's offensive that he wasn't appreciated, and he, as an experienced opposition figure, doesn't calm down, and here's a new topic. This is like in the elections to the State Duma, when a candidate who didn't pass says, "Guys, let me teach you everything, let's change everything, I know how it should be." :)

Such remarks do not do you any credit; instead of discussing the substance, you resort to personal attacks. On the topic of the elections: you, for example, beat Amila by 4 votes and lost to Redwait by one vote, while skillfully voting against both of them in the last days of the vote. Coincidence? I don't think so :D