Wicc
Auto-translated
Vacation is over, so let's get back to work :)
Congratulations to everyone elected to the AK, especially those newly elected :smile20:
However, the recent election campaign raised a number of issues that I would like to discuss, and possibly propose amendments to the AK charter.
1. The closed nature of AK activities.
I don't remember why it was done this way initially, but now it's clear that it creates some difficulties:
a) The silent disappearance of AK members goes unnoticed. Decisions made by a smaller group have the same legal force. This has been happening lately, and if it hadn't been voiced by the AK members themselves, it would have continued.
b) Mizrael's example shows the optimal strategy for an AK member - to remain silent, not write anything on the forum about AK work, so as not to create a negative reputation. The trick of this strategy is that even in the event of a major scandal, only its participants resign, while the silent ones retain their positions. It's quite an advantage, in my opinion... I'm afraid that this strategy will become too popular.
c) It is impossible to individually assess the work of AK members - who voted how, who argued how, who was even at work? In the previous thread, a romantic soul asked - "what are the claims against me as an AK member?", and it is impossible to give an answer here, because the work of a specific AK member is completely invisible.
In this regard, there is a proposal - to make the work of the AK more public. For example, create 2 sections on the AK forum - open and closed. All current proceedings are conducted in the closed section, and after, for example, 3 months from the date of the decision (so that the emotions subside), the corresponding thread is moved to the open section. Old topics should also be moved to the open section.
2. Combining the position of AK member and moderator.
I've already written about this - it creates risks of abuse. Because the activities of an AK member can create turmoil on the forum, and the moderator's responsibility is to control this turmoil and reduce its intensity.
And when the same person carries out 2 opposite processes, the system risks losing stability and sliding into one of the extremes - either uncontrolled turmoil, or "everyone under the bed!".
The argument "lately this has not been the case" is, in my opinion, not an argument - the principle of "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" is not the best way to organize public life (although it is the most popular), it is better to anticipate possible difficulties in advance and somehow prepare for them.
Another reason is that people come and go, and if this is not so noticeable in the case of players, then in the case of officials it is much more noticeable. For example, Pit said that he has less time for public activities, so the forum loses both a moderator and an AK member at the same time.
In this regard, the proposal is to prohibit the combination of the positions of AK member and moderator of the online-tree section.
Here, moderator refers to the supervisor moderator - whose responsibilities include monitoring discipline and communication culture, deleting/moving posts and topics, assigning violation points, banning, etc.
3. Game rules
Previously, all changes to the rules of Hv were made by voting. Over time, the situation has silently shifted to the format "changes to the rules of Hv are made by Pit, sometimes coordinating them through voting, sometimes not".
This ambiguity of the situation has several times led to questions and claims - here you need to either choose underwear or a cross, in the sense of fixing one of the options.
The options here are as follows:
a) All changes to the rules of Hv only through a general vote (the passing percentage and participation criteria are to be discussed).
b) The rules of Hv are managed by one person or a group of 2-3 people (elected or appointed).
c) The rules of Hv are managed by the AK.
I have no specific preferences here, as I don't play myself, so I will be satisfied with any of these options, as long as it is officially announced and strictly adhered to in practice.
4. Rules for official tournaments
We are talking about organizational rules, not game rules - the number of participants, deadlines, the format of the bracket, admission/non-admission of participants, etc.
Currently, official tournaments do not differ from unofficial ones in fact - in both cases, all decisions are made by the organizer.
For example, recently Dirty refused Rebel participation in OFB, arguing that "as the host, I have the right to do so". Although the basis for refusal to participate in an official tournament can only be disciplinary action (CMCH, cards, etc.).
Or, for example, the story with the expansion of FB, the transfer of results from OFB to FB - the host wanted to and did it, then it was barely challenged.
Or, for example, all sorts of innovations in the OFB format - each OFB is held according to a new formula, and each time logical questions arise - "why?", the answer to which is always "if you don't want to, don't participate".
Initially, official tournaments were positioned as conservative, with a constant name, deadlines and regulations. And all experiments and innovations were tested in fan tournaments.
In this regard, the proposal is to streamline the regulations for official tournaments, oblige the hosts to comply with them, create a position of responsible person (or persons) for the rules of official tournaments, it can be combined with the position of responsible for the rules of Hv (in order not to inflate bureaucracy).
5. Registration for tournaments.
Currently, only Pit and Dirty can confirm automatic registration. And they are sometimes busy or away or something else. I remember that in "Tasting" the list of registered participants was not updated for 2 weeks, because Dirty was at the CIS, and Pit's inbox was full.
The proposal is to give the function of confirming registration to the tournament hosts.
These are some thoughts... if anyone has any other questions and suggestions for improving forum life, please share them.
I will not create a poll yet, because experience shows that the bulk of votes come in the first few days, and constructive discussion often begins later and changes the public trend. Therefore, it is better to discuss first, and after the presentation of arguments, if there is no agreement, vote.
Congratulations to everyone elected to the AK, especially those newly elected :smile20:
However, the recent election campaign raised a number of issues that I would like to discuss, and possibly propose amendments to the AK charter.
1. The closed nature of AK activities.
I don't remember why it was done this way initially, but now it's clear that it creates some difficulties:
a) The silent disappearance of AK members goes unnoticed. Decisions made by a smaller group have the same legal force. This has been happening lately, and if it hadn't been voiced by the AK members themselves, it would have continued.
b) Mizrael's example shows the optimal strategy for an AK member - to remain silent, not write anything on the forum about AK work, so as not to create a negative reputation. The trick of this strategy is that even in the event of a major scandal, only its participants resign, while the silent ones retain their positions. It's quite an advantage, in my opinion... I'm afraid that this strategy will become too popular.
c) It is impossible to individually assess the work of AK members - who voted how, who argued how, who was even at work? In the previous thread, a romantic soul asked - "what are the claims against me as an AK member?", and it is impossible to give an answer here, because the work of a specific AK member is completely invisible.
In this regard, there is a proposal - to make the work of the AK more public. For example, create 2 sections on the AK forum - open and closed. All current proceedings are conducted in the closed section, and after, for example, 3 months from the date of the decision (so that the emotions subside), the corresponding thread is moved to the open section. Old topics should also be moved to the open section.
2. Combining the position of AK member and moderator.
I've already written about this - it creates risks of abuse. Because the activities of an AK member can create turmoil on the forum, and the moderator's responsibility is to control this turmoil and reduce its intensity.
And when the same person carries out 2 opposite processes, the system risks losing stability and sliding into one of the extremes - either uncontrolled turmoil, or "everyone under the bed!".
The argument "lately this has not been the case" is, in my opinion, not an argument - the principle of "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" is not the best way to organize public life (although it is the most popular), it is better to anticipate possible difficulties in advance and somehow prepare for them.
Another reason is that people come and go, and if this is not so noticeable in the case of players, then in the case of officials it is much more noticeable. For example, Pit said that he has less time for public activities, so the forum loses both a moderator and an AK member at the same time.
In this regard, the proposal is to prohibit the combination of the positions of AK member and moderator of the online-tree section.
Here, moderator refers to the supervisor moderator - whose responsibilities include monitoring discipline and communication culture, deleting/moving posts and topics, assigning violation points, banning, etc.
3. Game rules
Previously, all changes to the rules of Hv were made by voting. Over time, the situation has silently shifted to the format "changes to the rules of Hv are made by Pit, sometimes coordinating them through voting, sometimes not".
This ambiguity of the situation has several times led to questions and claims - here you need to either choose underwear or a cross, in the sense of fixing one of the options.
The options here are as follows:
a) All changes to the rules of Hv only through a general vote (the passing percentage and participation criteria are to be discussed).
b) The rules of Hv are managed by one person or a group of 2-3 people (elected or appointed).
c) The rules of Hv are managed by the AK.
I have no specific preferences here, as I don't play myself, so I will be satisfied with any of these options, as long as it is officially announced and strictly adhered to in practice.
4. Rules for official tournaments
We are talking about organizational rules, not game rules - the number of participants, deadlines, the format of the bracket, admission/non-admission of participants, etc.
Currently, official tournaments do not differ from unofficial ones in fact - in both cases, all decisions are made by the organizer.
For example, recently Dirty refused Rebel participation in OFB, arguing that "as the host, I have the right to do so". Although the basis for refusal to participate in an official tournament can only be disciplinary action (CMCH, cards, etc.).
Or, for example, the story with the expansion of FB, the transfer of results from OFB to FB - the host wanted to and did it, then it was barely challenged.
Or, for example, all sorts of innovations in the OFB format - each OFB is held according to a new formula, and each time logical questions arise - "why?", the answer to which is always "if you don't want to, don't participate".
Initially, official tournaments were positioned as conservative, with a constant name, deadlines and regulations. And all experiments and innovations were tested in fan tournaments.
In this regard, the proposal is to streamline the regulations for official tournaments, oblige the hosts to comply with them, create a position of responsible person (or persons) for the rules of official tournaments, it can be combined with the position of responsible for the rules of Hv (in order not to inflate bureaucracy).
5. Registration for tournaments.
Currently, only Pit and Dirty can confirm automatic registration. And they are sometimes busy or away or something else. I remember that in "Tasting" the list of registered participants was not updated for 2 weeks, because Dirty was at the CIS, and Pit's inbox was full.
The proposal is to give the function of confirming registration to the tournament hosts.
These are some thoughts... if anyone has any other questions and suggestions for improving forum life, please share them.
I will not create a poll yet, because experience shows that the bulk of votes come in the first few days, and constructive discussion often begins later and changes the public trend. Therefore, it is better to discuss first, and after the presentation of arguments, if there is no agreement, vote.
