[POLL] AK and other weapon customization

Why do you think that your worldview is wrong, and yours is right? Is there even a scale of correctness for worldviews?

Practice is the criterion here; you are occasionally criticized for certain decisions, but I am not. Plus, there are clashes in the analysis of controversial situations; I don't remember your interpretations being more accurate than mine, but the opposite examples do happen.

Here's why this happens:

If literalism allows for such nonsense

This is not nonsense, but an inevitable companion to any attempt to measure harmony with algebra. It is a part of reality that should not be ignored. On the contrary, a judge should see these moments better than anyone else.

then you just need to adjust the rules and that's it

This is only possible if the rules do not initially claim to have strict formulations and are written approximately. There was a time when this was the case, so judges had more room for interpretation.

But if they do (and the Heroes rules are quite a detailed code), then it is impossible to change the rules retroactively, in relation to games that have already been played.

I don't manage the rules

But you could have asked Pete to clarify the wording, couldn't you? You could have, and you should have. This is also part of a judge's job: to identify errors and ambiguities in the rules and eliminate them by available means.

Moreover, even if you didn't recognize an error in the interpretation, you still saw that you couldn't convince Gomunguls, and he left dissatisfied. Therefore, sooner or later, the issue will resurface – either Gomunguls will raise it, or someone else will find themselves in a similar situation.

The more controversial situations are studied, the easier it will be to judge in the future and make fewer mistakes

This is the wrong attitude. Because accumulating experience is an endless process – Heroes evolve, the rules change, and it is impossible to collect a complete collection of experiences.

And a worldview is something like a set of general principles that are not tied to specifics and are therefore capable of dealing even with situations that have not been encountered before. And a worldview can be holistic and not need constant adjustments.

You play chess, and the difference here is approximately the same as between knowing openings/endgames and a general understanding of the game. Imagine that you are training someone, and during the analysis of a game, they tell you in a relaxed and cheerful way, "Well, yes, I understand, I won't play this variation again." How many years will pass before they remember all the "variations that should not be played"... old age will come sooner.

In no sport does a judge convince anyone of their rightness.

They do convince, but not the players, but the match inspectors, refereeing committees, disciplinary committees, etc. Because the employers for judges are not the players, but the tournament organizers, sports federations, sponsors, etc.

In Heroes, however, there are no controlling bodies for the AC, so the AC is directly responsible to the players.

The judge makes a decision. If the judge's decision is not satisfactory, then he can be not invited to judge.

This is what I call the "Dubrovin syndrome." Remember his constant mantras: "We are the AC... we were elected... we make decisions... if you don't like them, you can vote for a different AC in the next election... we are the AC... we were elected... etc."

Then all the forum rabble defended him, voted for him and his proposals, and insulted me, saying that you are attacking our Pasha, he is a titan of thought, and you are a random troll. Now, something similar is happening, only the nicknames are different. But time has put everything in its place – now Dubrovin is mentioned only in a derogatory context, and both sides of the dispute.

The right approach is to make decisions that satisfy the players. And if they don't, then make it so that they do – explain, convince, put pressure on. Even if not 100% of the public (there are particularly stubborn people), but a sufficient part of it, win a public debate. And if you fail to do so, then consider this a failure (even if you think your decision is correct), analyze the mistakes – maybe the decision is bad, maybe the way it is presented is not good, maybe there are mistakes in conducting the dispute, maybe something else.

And also look at the situations being considered not only in terms of "is there a violation or not," but in the overall context, including possible disputes and scandals. This is a good discipline.