Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

I could certainly argue against some points, but I won't, because I think it's just beating a dead horse...
I'll note that if you look at it from your perspective, then yes, you're right, but if you look at it from mine, then I'm right... which means there's no absolutely perfect ranking! And since you've taken on the responsibility of keeping track, I don't have the moral right to argue with you; as they say, "The ball is in your court."
Sincerely.

That's the wrong approach. You not only don't have the right, but you ARE OBLIGATED to use numbers and examples to show the shortcomings of the system I proposed, if you plan to actively participate in Tournaments based on the game rating on this resource!
And I suggest that you start by explaining to everyone why the player who comes in last has their rating halved. To "kick them while they're down," so to speak. The proposal to give a minimum score to the ten lowest-ranked players was also not accepted. However, a non-linear rating doesn't set a minimum, nor does it halve the rating of the lowest-ranked player. And this is already a small advantage of the ranking system I proposed. What do you say?
All I can say is that the ranking doesn't care who looks at it from what perspective. It should reflect the current state of affairs and the strength of the players participating in the Tournaments, quickly reacting to both very good and bad results that a player has achieved in the current Tournament, removing players who have not participated for a certain period of time or have disappeared altogether from its table, and, upon their return to the resource and Tournaments, if they show very good results, quickly restore their rating to match their playing strength.