AK tuning and other modifications.

Kostya, I'm sorry, but you are currently engaging in sophistry. That is, you are uttering smooth, even speeches that weakly reflect reality. Plus, you constantly try to distort my position and argue with voices in your head.

And what exactly is wrong right now with Pete being responsible for the rules? If he needs help from the AC, he turns to the AC. If a vote needs to be created, a vote is created. What’s the problem? Or is it just that something has to be changed? Please explain.

It is easy to find an answer to this question in the first post: "I don't have any specific preferences here because I don't play myself, so I will be happy with any of these options, as long as they are officially announced and strictly adhered to in practice."

The problem is that people ask questions from time to time.

I agree; some specifics and a division into official and fan tournaments would be helpful. But I do not see the need for, for example, the "FB tournament" to be held according to the same fixed regulations every year. In my opinion, there are more drawbacks than advantages, although I may be wrong.

Whether or not to have a fixed regulation is a matter for the future; both options are acceptable. The main thing is that the process of changing FB rules should not be based on "whatever the leading person feels like," but through some formal procedure, whether it be a vote by participants or a vote by members of the AC, or something else.

Strangely enough, no election took place, but the topic of "AC operating instructions" appeared immediately.

Another psychologist. Please take your place in line.

Did it occur to you that you were not chosen precisely because people don't want your changes?

No, it didn't. At least because the expression of intent about this was not noticed even by many politically active forum users.

You should excuse me, but people know perfectly well who is a moderator and who is not, and if a person votes FOR, then they are happy with the current state of affairs.

Well... I also voted FOR you, but I am not satisfied with the current state of affairs. I simply voted for you as a member of the AC, and I decided to postpone the issue of combining positions until later.

Let me elaborate (hello, The_ :). It is common knowledge that democratic voting is not rational but emotional. Some voters may conduct some analysis, but most vote from the heart. This is not an accusation; presidents and deputies are elected worldwide in this way.

That is, democratic voting is a method of making decisions, not a method of finding truth, so it shouldn't be used to argue anything, except perhaps for throwing mud. Truth weakly depends on who believes in it; it is found in reflection, reasoning, and discussion.

To find the truth, one must delve deeply into the question, study obvious and hidden driving forces, and understand the dynamics of the process. In relation to social processes, the dynamic of any of them is such that people constantly try to become more brazen – take more, give less. Therefore, in a collective left without external or internal supervision, over time, processes of mental fermentation and erosion of social ties begin.

In a healthy collective, at a certain point, a danger sensor triggers, after which the collective receives a corrective kick (or gives it to itself), restoring degraded connections. In an unhealthy one, accordingly, it either does not trigger or triggers in the wrong direction.

The community on ХВ is currently quite healthy, but there are some degradation processes - members of the AC and moderators have become much more brazen in the last year or two, both in words and deeds. Some work less or worse, some claim more rights for themselves, some flaunt inappropriately. And the influence of regulations has weakened; many things are done "according to unwritten rules." Those who are new here may not notice this, but I have been observing ХВ for 7 years and can clearly see the dynamics of the process.

Therefore, I am signaling about the danger and proposing:

- restore the influence of the regulations so that processes proceed as written on paper, and not "this is how it is accepted here, everyone knows each other, if something happens, we will agree." If any points of the regulation are outdated and need to be updated, no problem, they can be updated. For example, skd was right about the Tournament Code. The main thing is to adhere to the updated version later.

- separate powers at a safe distance from each other. This process is similar to the erosion of regulations; officials gradually tend to acquire more and more power during peacetime, sometimes without noticing that they have approached the limit of their competence, or even exceeded it. As long as everything is calm, this is not noticeable, but when a significant episode occurs, sometimes even a minor one, all accumulated tension suddenly turns into streams of crap flooding the collective.

To prevent this, collectives create protective contours, separation of rights and obligations - who has the right to do what, and who does not have the right to do what. This helps to contain sources of conflict and, in case of an outbreak, localize them.

An example from the history of ХВ: /topic/7215/, an attempt to remove one of the protective barriers by adding AC's rights regarding independent organizations. It may seem insignificant, but the fact itself is important. If that amendment had been adopted, then over time the story would have continued; Dubrovin would have started pushing for another amendment, then another, and another. The outcome would have been approximately as follows: after a year or two, some particularly clever guy would appear in one of my (or someone else's) tournaments and try to put pressure on me with an AC decision. I would tell him to go away, after which there would be abundant spreading of grievances on the forum with the participation of all players who have any opinion on this matter. Then various referendums, leaks of compromising material, removals from tournaments, withdrawals from the AC, settling scores, etc., would follow – we have already gone through all this in "the Alex affair." In the end, the result would be the same; Dubrovin's amendments would be canceled, but with much more wasted time and nerves.

But the story unfolded differently - despite the positive voting result, the amendment was not adopted, thereby nipping the problem in the bud.

I propose doing something similar now. Some comrades are already losing their heads:

After all, if the AC does not want publicity, what should be done? Elect a new one?

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