Posts from Voting AGAINST candidates for the AC.

And just imagine, it would be a total blast if someone created a topic and made everyone who voted "For" or "Against" reasonably explain their choice )))

Moreover, cut out all the flame, and only include the concrete reasoning from the HeroesWorld resident about what and how )

Well, why a blast... it's a perfectly reasonable solution. At least so that such polls don't turn into a popularity contest or a way to settle scores.

I've voted, now I'll comment on my choice:

Since the main function of the AC members is judging and analyzing disputed episodes, I evaluate candidates based on their abilities for this activity. Namely - judging experience, having one's own opinion, willingness and ability to argue one's opinion in a public discussion, composure and psychological stability (especially under pressure), impartiality (ability to assess a situation regardless of personal likes and dislikes), attention to details and nuances (both of the rules and the situations being analyzed).

First, let's look at the candidates with judging experience:

FOR:

Pit - fits the description

DirtyPlayer - fits except for the last point, prone, as chess players say, to "blitzing out" - making quick, superficial decisions. True, this is compensated by a lack of stubbornness when presented with arguments from those who disagree; he can reconsider a decision.

=Lizard= - ran tournaments on VT, I don't recall any complaints about his work. True, it's generally easier to work with the VT community because there are few random people, but still.

Redwhait HP - I remember he judged something somewhere, but I don't remember where or how. I also don't recall any complaints (perhaps that's precisely why), I'll vote for just in case.

ABSTAINED:

злой_романтик - does a large amount of useful activity, that's good, but has Dubrovin syndrome, "I was authorized and I decided," unwillingness to convince those who disagree with his decision, tendency to brush off criticism and push through his decision using administrative methods. That's not the way to go.

kalababa - initiative and enthusiasm, ease and positivity of image. But low psychological stability, tendency to run away from problems, so he might fold at the first major scandal involving himself. And since membership in the AC implies periodically receiving criticism directed at him, not always deserved...

Similar examples from the recent past - Stiki, Loy.

The judges are done, it's not very clear how to evaluate the rest, so by eye:

FOR:

=Stinger= - more of a player than an official, lazy about public activity, I'm surprised he's running for the AC. But since he wants to, he should be supported.

Sanin - well-structured speech and emphasis in reasoning (judging by the thread about the GM restructuring), I expect something similar from AC members if complaints arise against them.

ABSTAINED:

Mizrael - the elusive Joe, seems to have been in the AC for about 6 years already, but I don't recall a single post from him in topics related to AC activities. So I have no opinion.

KobRa_RR - veeery biased... objectivity of reasoning is at the level of: "Dad, what's 2+2? Are we buying or selling?"

rebellious - thoughts are often sensible, but the manner of presenting them... brrr... heavy text, emotional escalation, provoking rudeness. That's not the way to go.

Nitro, skd, Player_, Amiloo - I don't know enough about them, so I have no opinion.

AGAINST:

Сатир - unconstructive opposition, Baba Yaga who is always against, protest for the sake of protest.

Виго - I don't know why he's running, he doesn't particularly participate in the forum's life, imo he registered for the lulz.

Damn, Yura))

"ran tournaments on ВТ" - that alone makes half of HeroesWorld click "disagree" )) oh well :)

Well, thank you, Vikks) where is my promised prize for winning the tournament on WOT?) you are very biased towards me, yes
By the way, I also have judging experience, not to mention experience in organizing all sorts of events.

Well, thank you, Vikks)
Where is my promised prize for winning the tournament on WТ?)
You are very biased towards him, aren't you?

You are illustrating it yourself – you understand everything, but you continue to grumble like Navukh about the clouds.

By the way, I also have judging experience.

Apparently, a long time ago, as I don't remember. Club tournaments from the early 2000s or so?

Added 2 minutes ago

Damn, Yura))

"organized tournaments on WТ" - that's an instant "against" vote from half of Hv. Well, what can you do :)

They've already voted, to be sure. Although I think it's not because of that.

That's why I posted after the main mass of votes, so as not to distort the voting results; it's interesting to study the logic of decision-making among different voters.

Apparently, it was a long time ago, as I don't remember. Club tournaments from the early 2000s, perhaps?

M200 2015, the St. Petersburg tournament, was judged/organized by Kober/Romantic/Aive. In my opinion, they did a good job.

Well, here it starts... ((( The idea was to open such a topic only for expressing personal opinions on the subject by those who voted!!! And the conversation was about the Academy! Not to throw accusations at each other about what, where, when, and how!!! It's a mess!!! ((((( Cut out everything unnecessary except for the opinions expressed on the topic! The whole idea was rejected again (((

Well, here it begins... ((( It was assumed that this topic would be opened only for expressing personal opinions on the subject by those who voted!!! And the conversation was about the AK! Not to throw accusations at each other about what, where, when, and how!!! It's a mess!!! ((((( Remove everything unnecessary except for those who expressed their opinion on the topic!

The whole idea was criticized again (((

Why are there accusations... it's normal feedback.

Those who don't see their own shortcomings stop developing. I would gladly listen to criticism about myself and, if possible, respond.

Here, for example, are criticisms from the thread about the AK reorganization:

Judging by how you run tournaments, you find opponents yourself, there are no proper tournament brackets, the schedule is unclear, etc., I wouldn't vote for you, no offense:cool:

A strange criticism. Apparently, it stems from a misunderstanding of the rules of my tournaments and the goals of all these innovations.

Those who want to play as usual have every opportunity to do so - just don't rush, wait for the end of the next round and get the next opponent. There is no bracket because it's a Swiss system, which doesn't require a bracket.

All additional options are aimed at those who want to play earlier or fit games into a difficult real-life schedule (business trips, vacations, etc.).

The main goal is to have fewer technical results and more game results, because my tournaments are exclusively experimental, so collecting game statistics is one of the most important tasks. For this reason, I don't issue technical losses for missing the deadline, but only apply a debuff.

As a team player, Rebe is not suitable, as is Wick, they are purely independent individuals and it is difficult for them to vote for an opinion different from their own.

Why vote for an opinion different from your own :confused:

The point of collective decision-making is that opinions can differ, and voting reveals the most popular opinion. And before voting, debates are held, in which participants try to make their opinion more popular than the alternative. Whoever succeeds is doing well.

If, however, it is about publicly defending the opinion of the AK (even if it does not coincide with their own), then this is not required. At least, observations show that AK members are happy to engage in public discussions from different positions, tell who voted for what, publicly argue with each other, etc.

Against Wick's candidacy, despite all his merits, the person has a very pragmatic and rigid view, which cannot be changed, there is Wick's opinion and the wrong one. Despite a rather coherent style of posts, which are often supported by knowledge.

And I thought that these were actually the merits being listed :rolleyes:

What is the point of a judge who does not have his own opinion or is not able to defend it in a discussion? Plush elves who listen to the chairman of the AK reduce the effectiveness of the AK. Ideally, all claims that may come from the "people" should be voiced in advance during the internal AK discussion - so that there is time to formulate a well-thought-out answer, and not just a quick response from the first AK member who joins the discussion. For this, the internal opposition should be no less strict than the external one (it is rather the opposite now).

The only thing I didn't understand is about the rigidity of the view, in my opinion, more game and organizational innovations come from me than from anyone else. Therefore, it is desirable to specify this. If we are talking about a dispute about Khotov's Shaft (it seems to be the only episode of disagreements with The_), then all participants in the discussion either took my side or abstained, it's strange to blame me for this.

And regarding "there is Wick's opinion and the wrong one," The_ had the opportunity to see on personal experience how this opinion is formed - in his game there was a controversial situation without a clear interpretation, I took the time to ask about 10 people before formulating "Wick's opinion." Which, in my opinion, satisfied both players.

Therefore, I assume that he either meant something else, or blurted it out without thinking.

Von Romantic moderates very well when he's drunk; everyone likes him. Although, when drunk, he would probably swear.

Were you drinking with me, or sitting nearby, when I was moderating while drunk?
As for the topic, I arrived today, read the thread, and still don't understand: is the discussion about the Arbitration Committee (AK), and what does it have to do with moderation? Not all moderators are members of the AK, and not all members of the AK are moderators; it's like comparing apples and oranges.

But on the topic – I arrived today, read the thread, and I still don't understand, is there a discussion about the Arbitration Committee (AK), and what does moderation have to do with it? Not all moderators are members of the AK, and not all members of the AK are moderators; flies are separate from cutlets.

Because voters usually evaluate the overall image, and dissecting a candidate into components and evaluating each separately is a lot of work.

For example, the Ukrainian diaspora voted more actively against me than against anyone else, I assume it was because of posts about politics. It seems that it's not just the AK, but Heroes in general that's involved?

For example, the Ukrainian diaspora voted more actively against me than against anyone else, I assume because of my posts about politics. It seems that this is not only related to the Arbitration Committee (AK), but also to Heroes in general?

I'll speak for myself. I didn't even read your posts about politics, and I don't think it's necessary to discuss politics in general.
Wicc. I voted against you because I believe you won't work well in a team with other members of the AK, whom I see in this role. I have nothing against you personally, nor against the others I voted against in the "AGAINST" thread. I don't want the AK to turn into a conflict of interests.
Satyr - a vote against someone who is always against the system. Simply put, he won't work well in a team, in my opinion.
Rebellius - there is already a conflict with Kostya, a.k.a. a dirty player. And he often behaves like a troublemaker in various tournaments. Therefore, I'm against him.
Kalababa - I don't see a conflict of interests here, but I also don't see much activity from him. Plus, in my opinion, a member of the AK should have a lot of experience in Heroes. Besides participating in M200 and some of the "one for all" events, I don't really remember him being active lately. And I don't see much activity on the forum either.

Vik received a poor promotion from The and Peterius.
And that's what made the difference.

The counting of votes from the disgruntled has begun.
I voted against Vik because I envy him as a person who has achieved more success in the game and in life in general. For this reason, I had to vote for Reddi and Amila.

That's a strange claim. It seems to stem from a misunderstanding of the rules of my Tournaments and the goals of all these innovations.

Those who want to play as usual have every opportunity to do so – just wait for the current round to end and receive their next opponent. There is no bracket because it's a Swiss-system tournament, and a bracket isn't intended for that format.

All the additional features are aimed at those who want to play earlier or fit games into a busy real-life schedule (business trips, vacations, etc.).

The main goal is to have fewer technical results and more actual gameplay results, because my Tournaments are purely experimental, and therefore, collecting gameplay statistics is one of the most important tasks. For this reason, I don't issue technical losses for exceeding the time limit, but only apply a debuff.

It gives the impression (and this is actually the case) that your Tournaments are not innovations, but rather exist in their own world, and after playing in them, interest in the game disappears because, frankly, everyone is fed up with everything.:cool:

Are you drinking again? :smile30:

After discussions in a parallel thread, I voted here as well, even though I wasn't planning to.
There was some debate about Calababa's candidacy because there's a "abstain" button – he has proven himself well on the forum, but to judge games on large maps, you need to have considerable experience with them.