I agree. Or perhaps a penalty (-1 point per minute or fraction of a minute over time). But making a slow player's opponent be the one who enforces a timer introduces social pressure not to do it, and it feels silly to have tournament results decided by how someone feels about social pressure.Babyrhinorainbows wrote:Tangential other concern: you guys need to enforce time limits in these kinds of tournaments. If a player runs out of time they should lose the game immediately. In a competitive environment the timer is an important resource. The way it works now can also stall the tournament from progressing if several players are really slow.
That's not to say I'd object to a longer timer; I think 30 minutes per player is about right, but it could be 10 minutes or 2 hours and I'd still play-- just pick something and stick to it. The system already enforces other tournament choices of game mode (e.g. it mandates random selection, instead of counting on players to choose 'random selection' because they're supposed to); why doesn't it enforce the timer?
sur des critères de départage insensés (faute de rondes).
) plus la loterie pour complément. Le système suisse n'est pas fait pour ça. Dans le cas présent on n'a pas produit un classement, mais des pâtés de joueurs.
If only 4 players in final it looks like most fair Round-robin tournament. But if you keep your tiebreakers (oponents points and ELO on BGA) and noone will win all 3 games, winer will be the one with lowest ELO. If you are thinking about mutual match it will not works in case of 2-2-2-0 wins situation.
I am writing here such obvious things because you should clear used mechanism in rules at least before final.
