Posts from Poll regarding changes to the AK regulations.

One of the goals of the Arbitration Committee is to help Tournament Organizers resolve controversial situations.

Help is good when it's not imposed. You understand what I mean, right?

Help is good when it's not forced upon someone. Do you understand what I mean?

Kostya, please tell me, as the Tournament Organizer, would you remove a player from your tournament (or not allow them to participate in the tournament) if the Arbitration Committee has issued a decision to ban them (assuming a majority of players voting in the Player Poll approve the proposed change)?

Strange? I think it's logical – an admin is needed to handle organizational matters. Where is the help for organizers here? I don't see it. If the players in my tournament don't trust "Loser" and, for logical reasons, don't want to play with him, then it's clear – I take measures and resolve the issue. That's it. I made the decision to exclude "Loser" myself, after consulting with the judge. The AK (Administration Committee) essentially made the only correct decision a little later. Then, later, some claims/questions arose, but that's another story. And in any case, as it turned out, I made the right decision, although I didn't defend it. Well, we'll all gain experience bit by bit. And if this change goes through, many fan tournaments will simply fall apart. And in general, I think the AK has a different function. There's a complaint, a claim, a question – let's investigate, let's work on it. Maybe I'm not very good at understanding how the AK actually works, but it seems like that's how it should be, at least that's what it was created for. Help with organizational matters is, of course, welcome, but I don't see any help here.

Kostya, please tell me, as the Tournament Organizer, will you disqualify a player from your tournament (or refuse to include them in the tournament) if the Arbitration Committee has issued a decision to ban them from competitive play (assuming that a majority of players voting in a poll agree with the proposed change)?

First, I included Vitalik in the tournament.
Second, if I disagree with the decision regarding the ban, why should I disqualify a participant?

First, I registered Vitalik for the tournament.
Second, if I disagree with the decision regarding the World Championship, why should I withdraw a participant?

Because that's what the majority decides, if they decide that if it's the World Championship, then a participant should be withdrawn...

A small post to address some questions – I'm talking about not restricting the organizers' freedom. If someone doesn't want to play with someone specifically, this issue isn't that difficult to resolve, but the involvement of the Arbitration Committee (AK) is completely unnecessary here – it can be easily resolved through instant messaging. And with the acceptance of the change, I won't have a choice. If anything happens, it will immediately be brought to the AK for review. I don't understand why all this fuss is necessary. And another question about the wording: the OFB4 tournament, who organized it? The Tournament Committee (TK), the AK, or does it have some kind of official status? I'm just curious. I want to understand the difference between tournaments organized by the TK and those organized on the resource. If the TK organizes it, does that mean it's not on the resource? Or how? Is it like a state, a large business, a small business, or a sole proprietorship? Please explain. Who am I, OMG?!

It takes skill to create discord from such minor issues.
As mentioned above, one could simply implement this rule unilaterally and notify the players, but it seems to me that the controversy stems not from the ban itself, but from how it is planned to be implemented.
Personally, I am strongly against the AC imposing anything on anyone; in my opinion, it was not created for that purpose. The AC can recommend refraining from certain actions and adhering to general rules (which were written to simplify our lives and prevent us from making the same mistakes repeatedly).
Organizers have always had, and will continue to have, the right to decide who they accept and how they run the tournament (that's what organizers are for). But let's just imagine what will happen if they disregard the ban and accept a "blacklisted" player:
-> A new major tournament is being organized, and an experienced organizer (e.g., Dёti Player) decides to accept Loser and Vitalik because he doesn't consider them guilty and believes that everything has already been forgotten. Naturally, this happens during the participant registration phase.
-> Players who are unhappy with this decision and who rely more on their own perception of player integrity than on the organizer's opinion withdraw from the tournament (because it's unpleasant to play with someone you don't trust, especially when it's forced upon you).
-> The remaining players compete, and let's say a situation arises again where one of the "blacklisted" players is involved in a dispute. What should be done in such a situation? There's only one option: do nothing! Because, in order to prevent the organizer from making a decision based on his own experience, the "bad feeling" will not disappear. Another portion of the dissatisfied will leave, and the remaining players will be up to their necks in trouble.
Who needs tournaments like that? And it is precisely to avoid such mistakes that the "black list" exists! It's not just a label; it's a warning. If an organizer decides to take responsibility – that's fine, I don't see any reason why anyone should forbid it. But keep in mind that a "can of worms" will be hanging over your head, which could burst at any moment, and there will be no one to blame but yourself if that happens. The AC will not be able to help in that situation, I hope this is clear.

In general, I am against the AC having a monopoly on Hv-tournaments.
And I would advise organizers not to be so self-confident and to still give weight to the "black list," because it is awarded by the same players who will be signing up for your tournaments.

Hooray!! The organizers won! :)
Pash, close the poll, it didn't happen.

See, the issue is no longer about the Championship. Dirty and SpiritTom and I are looking at the bigger picture. I think the organizers made it clear: we don't want the Academy to monopolize tournaments or interfere with them in any way. Please, let us do our job, we can handle it. Focus on your own. You don't have any other organizers, take care of these ones. :)

Regarding future polls, there's a suggestion to not immediately open the poll, but to discuss it first. Or, for example, add an option to "change your vote." It's not the first time we've seen this pattern: votes initially flood in one direction, and then, after N pages of discussion, when people start to understand the issue, a reverse trend begins.

Hooray!! The organizers won! :)

And who were you competing with, and in what?

Pasha, close the poll, it didn't happen.

What does that mean? If everything is as numOne wrote, then why was this poll created in the first place. I don't want it to be like this either, but the thing is that Pavel created the poll, numOne says that this poll is nonsense and that no matter how they vote, nothing will change. They are both in AK... How is this to be understood??? This is what I don't like...

See, the issue is no longer about the Championship. Dirty and SpiritTo are looking a little further. In my opinion, the organizers made it clear: we don't want AK to monopolize tournaments and interfere with them in any way.

AK is not monopolizing anything, and you shouldn't speak for everyone. And whether it should interfere or not is not only up to the organizers, but to everyone who organizes and participates in the tournaments.

Leave us alone, please, we can handle it.

Especially the One Who Can Handle It, and Avern is also doing great (this is all a joke, there's nothing wrong with them disappearing).

Take care of yours. You don't have any other organizers, so take care of these :)

What makes you say that? Why won't there be any? For example, we have Avern, TaKo, Nagan, Kostyan, Oelm, Wicc, Pit, Javdet. If no one wants to organize tournaments, and there is a need for it, I can do it. So they exist and will continue to exist.

Vitya definitely went a bit too far, saying that there are no other organizers – at the very least, Pit, Javdet, Loi, and Pasha could easily replace us if needed. The question is, is that even necessary? And, as everyone knows, there aren't many irreplaceable people. As for what Hermit said about Averna and TaKo, he answered it himself a little higher up. Nagan isn't involved at all right now. Oelm – no offense, but he already organized one tournament, and we remember how it ended. KostyaN – hmm... where is he? Vik... It would be interesting to see what would make him do this, to simply take on the role of organizer himself – believe me, it's not as easy as it seems. You need basic experience – we've already gained some, and starting all over again – is that what you want? Regarding the competition – no, there isn't a competition, there's a poll. Almost 50/50 – that says something, although very few people voted. A monopoly is usually a bad thing, and in this case, it won't lead to anything good.
In general, the purpose of the poll isn't clear to me; a monopoly is bad, and I don't see any benefit from this change as an organizer. Peace.

Don't give him bread, let him argue. :)
Hermy is one of those you mentioned. Oelm, Vic, and you (as a potential organizer) voted against it, and Loi voted for it. 6:1.

Yes, I am against the idea that the organizer should not have the right to include a player with a history of cheating in a tournament. I truly believe that there should be no restrictions on this, and the history of cheating should serve only as informational, indicating that the player was caught cheating or using map hacks, etc. I would like to see more votes against it... But I am against the idea that a decision, even if I don't like it, should not be implemented. In general, I don't know how many votes are currently needed for a decision to be made – a simple majority or a certain percentage... I personally urge everyone to vote against it. Believe me, if no one wants to play with a cheater, then there is no need to prohibit it... no organizer will include them in any tournament. It is unnecessary to prohibit participation in tournaments, etc. How can a player with a history of cheating rehabilitate themselves? Only by proving that they have regained trust and are playing fairly...

Even if the majority of Players vote "yes" in the Poll, implementing a change with the current ratio – 13 "yes" and 10 "no" – seems impractical.
I would consider implementing changes if the ratio is 70 percent "yes" and 30 percent "no".

If I do anything on the Resource, I do it while considering the interests (opinions) of the majority of Players, and I don't try to impose my own point of view on anyone, especially forcefully.
I do what I think is necessary.

What is the essence of the Competitive Match Committee (CMC)? It is a subjective (though legally formalized and official) decision that a Player is playing unfairly. This decision should have negative consequences (even if temporary, i.e., for a year) for the Player whose gameplay was deemed unfair. It seems correct to me when Tournament Organizers acknowledge the decision of the Arbitration Committee (AK) regarding the CMC and do not allow (or remove) a Player who has received a CMC to participate in (or from) a Tournament. Otherwise, I don't see the point of the CMC as a punishment, or the AK (personally for myself) as an authorized body within the Heroes of Might and Magic community for resolving disputes.