AK tuning and other modifications.

Water, water..."Imagine if"..."until the first incident"..."until the rooster crows"... All ifs and buts...

Smart people learn from the mistakes of others, fools from their own. I have seen many such mistakes in my time, so I am warning you in advance - the situation has the potential for conflict. Waiting for it to become obvious is an option, of course...

Regarding the fact that the suddenly appeared Davalista would pass into the new AK - this is far from a fact, but again, it's your assumption.

Not an assumption, but a well-founded assumption. Unfortunately, it is no longer possible to verify it, but from the experience of past votes for the AK composition, it is clear that AK members who have not been personally involved usually get many votes "for", even if they have not distinguished themselves in any specific way. Because approximately 20-30% of players usually vote for the entire AK composition at once, without looking into the individual members.

For example, why did you raise the issue of the AK's closed nature after the elections were held?

I have been thinking about the idea that something needs to be changed in the AK for a long time, and I have repeatedly written complaints on all 5 points in different topics.

There just wasn't a reason to make a fuss, and there weren't any arguments either. Now they have appeared.

Because, for example, if the AK does not want publicity, what should be done? Should a new one be elected?

Yes, that's right. The AK is an elected body created to serve the interests of the players, and therefore it is subject to a general referendum. Or did you think that you received a party card and can do whatever you want?

Kostya was right - publishing AK information will lead to so much spam and trolling that it's a disaster.

Judging by the fact that you and Kostya are so upset, you must have said something compromising behind closed doors. I have no other reasonable explanation.

What could be secret about the arguments for making certain refereeing decisions? I have been doing this for many years, and I cannot remember any situations where my motives were undesirable to publish - everywhere there is either a reference to the rules, or to common sense, or to the ethical aspect of the situation.

Added after 14 minutes

or am I misunderstanding something, but I have a question, what is the purpose of the opposition in the AK?
As far as I understand, the AK is an appeals committee that deals with disputes on specific matches and provides solutions, that is, it is more of a judicial body and, judging by the composition, similar to a jury, isn't that right?

In theory - yes.

In practice, however, the powers of the AK are broader and include not only judicial, but also legislative and executive powers. This happens because of the combination of positions - there are 3 moderators and 1 author of the rules in the AK.

That is, the AK is not just a judicial body, but a full-fledged authority, so the emergence of an opposition is quite logical.

For this reason, mistakes in one of the aspects affect the entire structure. A moderator acts arbitrarily => criticism of the AK. Chaos in the rules => criticism of the AK.

While Pete was overseeing the situation, there were no exacerbations. But as soon as he reduced his involvement, problems began to emerge. That is why I say that the situation has the potential for conflict, and it is desirable to somehow redistribute the powers in order to resolve it.