Forum

Let me explain what it means to change the rules in the context of a specific game:
1. Before the specific game, players followed the original, established rules.
2. During the specific game, players follow the rules modified by the judge.
3. After the specific game, players revert to the original, established rules.

If this arrangement suits you, then so be it.

I have the impression that you perceive the host as a troublemaker who needs to be protected from somehow :rolleyes:

That's not the case. The host is interested in a fair outcome of the game, perhaps even more than the players. Because for players, winning is usually the top priority, and other criteria come second. But for the host, if they are not biased towards one of the players, the primary criterion is the fairness of the outcome.

I would understand if the complaints were directed at the hosts of official tournaments, who are not the authors of the rules, but merely their enforcers. But in author-created tournaments, the rules are a sphere of the host's personal creativity, so there is no point in creating any mechanisms for protection.