Connection ErrorBad RequestSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
And the idea that each person is a decent guy individually, but together they become inadequate – it’s just funny and absurd. This effect happens when too many people gather, but here there are no more than the number of jurors in a court.
You act like you don't live in Russia :)
Have you never encountered thugs? Or football fans? Many of them are wonderful people individually.
Kash, you either need to take off the cross or put on some underwear.
Deleting my reply and leaving Britva's post is not right. Either delete both or leave both.
I agree with what came after, it was just spam and off-topic.
Kash, either take off the cross or put on your underwear.
Deleting my reply and leaving his post is somehow wrong. Either delete both or leave both.
I agree with what was said afterward, it was just spam and off-topic.
That's correct. But you wrote about two dozen similar posts, while Britva wrote only one, so I don't think there's any unfairness. And in his post, there's a candidate that wasn't mentioned before, but I didn't find anything like that in yours.
Listen, can you guys stop it? One then another... Should I close the section if I step away for a couple of hours? I'm going to bed soon, have fun... I'll wake up and delete everything without reading it :)
This was kind of a hint about herd instinct. Which should be and is annoying when communicating with them and others.
Herd instinct (or, more precisely, collective psychology) begins to work with any number exceeding 1.
Those who served in the army know well: 1 Chechen in a company is a normal guy, 2 Chechens in a company are a source of problems, 3 Chechens in a company are a natural disaster.
But what does AK have to do with it?
The fact is that none of them in their right mind would go after Alex alone with such flimsy arguments. But by uniting in a group and branding themselves as AK, they gained courage. But as soon as things started to heat up, they immediately said, "It wasn't me! We decided by voting..." and went back into the bushes.
Compare this to the position of Alex's defenders – almost everyone goes into battle on their own, with their own arguments.
Now imagine that we've moved on from Alex's case, forgotten it, and moved on. Life goes on, new problems arise. Let's say that AK, which was formed in this way, starts to do something to you. You go to them for explanations, but there's a closed door, a vague protocol on the wall, and the phones aren't answered. What will you do?
Added 5 minutes ago Kash
That's right. But you've written about a dozen similar posts, and Britva has written only one, so I don't think it's unfair.
Ugh, yuck :(
They're accusing me of being a chatterbox with April theses, even though I actually bring new examples, arguments, and associations every time, and I'm using my literary talent, but AK and its defenders are stuck in a closed loop of "everything is fine, stay calm, go back to your rooms, the party and the government take care of you, everything is fine, stay calm, go back to your rooms, etc."
And in his post, there is a candidate that wasn't mentioned before, but in yours, I didn't find anything.
Well, I would have left that part, and deleted the rest.
Added 1 minute ago Kash
Listen, enough already, okay? First one, then another... Should I close the thread if I step away for a couple of hours? I'm going to bed soon, have fun... I'll wake up and delete everything without reading it :)
Okay, let's move on. Closer to the elections, AK will write something constructive.
I wouldn't advise you to compare the AK with a gang that attacks someone, or with a herd. This is incorrect and offensive, both to the AK itself and to its voters.
If you are talking about dictatorship and one-person judgment, then in this case, the probability of corruption in the judiciary is much higher.
Besides, in this case, in order to implement the principle of "the law is the same for everyone," the judge must have a strong character; otherwise, even if they catch an authority figure red-handed, they won't be able to convict them.
And considering that none of them in their right mind would go up against Alex alone with such flimsy arguments. But when they united in a group and put the AK brand on themselves, they gained courage. But as soon as things started to heat up, they immediately said, "It wasn't me! We decided by voting"... and went back into the bushes.
Yura, what "bushes... heat... not me..." are you talking about? You are definitely projecting your desires onto reality, and it's unclear what goals you are pursuing in doing so.
AK has not backed down from its decision; it has been made, no matter how much you dislike it.
Yura, what are you talking about with these "bushes...fried...not me..."? You are definitely projecting your desires onto reality, and it's unclear what goals you are pursuing.
The Arbitration Committee did not back down from its decision; it was made, no matter how much you dislike it.
I already asked why you, as the organizer, didn't make the decision unilaterally, even though it was entirely within your competence, and you, judging by how you voted, were convinced of cheating? Why did you choose to share the responsibility with six other people? Nothing but a vague answer about the Arbitration Committee's rules was received. A true leader always makes the decision himself and is not afraid to take responsibility for it. Of course, he can consult, but he won't hide behind the backs of those who advise him. So, there is some truth in Vik's words, and a very big one ;)
What’s not clear? His goal is called: “Bow down, you infidels, let me judge you, for I am the prophet, the smartest one here, and I am ‘almost’ never wrong.”
I already asked why, as the organizer, you didn't make a unilateral decision, even though it was entirely within your competence, and you, judging by how you voted, were sure of cheating? Why did you choose to share the responsibility with six other people? Nothing but a vague answer about the rules of the Arbitration Committee was received. A true leader always makes the decision himself and is not afraid to take responsibility for it. Of course, he can consult, but he won't hide behind the backs of those who advise him. So, there is some truth in Vik's words, and a very big one ;)
I'm not afraid to take responsibility, but I want the decision to be well-considered, correct, and qualified, which is why the Arbitration Committee was handling this situation. If there were no Arbitration Committee, I would have naturally made the decision myself. One mind is good, but two are better.
I am not afraid to take responsibility, but I want the decision to be well-considered, correct, and qualified, which is why the Arbitration Committee was handling this situation. One mind is good, but two are better.
So, you think that your decision would have been ill-considered, incorrect, and unqualified? ;) Okay, this question is rhetorical. Just understand how you differ from Vik. Vik runs Tournaments on the Portal. He does so without being a representative of the administration. That is, he does not have a powerful administrative resource behind him in the form of some Arbitration Committee or a group of moderators. But this does not prevent him from running tournaments at the highest level and making well-considered, correct, and qualified decisions. And I can't even imagine him making some decision and then saying, "Sorry, it wasn't me; I discussed it with Neoandi, the online master, and with Gorbik, the Supreme Master. This is our joint decision, so I have nothing to do with it. All complaints should be directed to them."
Those who served in the army know well: 1 Chechen in a company is a normal guy, 2 Chechens in a company is a source of problems, 3 Chechens in a company is a natural disaster.
I already asked why, as the organizer, you didn't make a decision on your own, even though it was entirely within your authority, and you, judging by how you voted, were convinced of cheating? Why did you choose to share the responsibility with six other people? All I got was a vague answer about the rules of the Arbitration Committee. A true leader always makes the decision himself and isn't afraid to take responsibility for it. Of course, he can consult, but he won't hide behind the backs of those who advise him. So, there is some truth in Vik's words, and a lot of it ;)
I wouldn't make a decision about the World Championship alone either. Whether it's Alex or Maxlewis. There's an Arbitration Committee, why take that headache on yourself? I think: the organizer is responsible for the organization, order, and resolving various disputes and misunderstandings. And suspicions of cheating are referred to the Arbitration Committee. They were elected for this, and all of this should, in theory, be written down somewhere. So, why are you attacking Pasha specifically, it's not clear. If you haven't had enough yet, continue to attack the system. Which hasn't been properly tested yet, it needs to be tested and refined, but you...
Pasha, don't bother arguing like that, it doesn't work for you. You're methodical, they're aggressive. Your strength lies in AA, CC, and the Arbitration Committee :cool: Damn, I can't help but make fun of you. That's enough. It's like a kindergarten, honestly