One for all, and all for one!

Glad you used me as an example in the table, I understand. The voting results can be put under a spoiler or deleted, I don't know who needs them, seems like nobody. If anyone disagrees, let them say so, or let them copy it, but my finger gets tired scrolling to the table, and it's not just my opinion.

I understand it's inconvenient. At the start of the tournament, everyone really wanted to see the voting results, so I posted them. Only the creator can put them under a spoiler; I'll ask him, maybe he'll do it. I don't want to delete them entirely either, because this information is part of the tournament preparation, and the voting itself is quite interesting to look back on as history, for example. After all, there's a scrollbar on the right side of the browser ;)

Message from Dirty_Player:
R55Max, sorry, but I agree with Sevensan. The table is just terrible. If one player has 1-0, then the other should have 0-1. Even better, when one has 1 and the other 0. Then everything is clear to everyone. If there's a second round, no big deal. You can always add the result, for example 2-0 or 1-1, or even better just 2 and 0, then everyone will understand immediately. Same with teams: results could simply be added up, it could be 3-3, or 5-1, etc.
I'll also add that the wording about two rounds could be replaced by saying that participants play 2 games against each other, and enter results into the table based on that. Or make 2 separate tables for each round, if it's really that important. I understand you took the system from football, but it's not the best option. Understand, everything should be simple, clear, accessible, and informative. Participants should play, not ask questions about tables, rules, report formats. Keep it simple and people will be drawn in.

Well, chess tables exist not only in football, but in almost all sporting events.

At the time of creating the table, the relevant topic was how to create one table for everything. That you can add a second and third is obvious, but again, it's very inconvenient, including for me, to enter everything into different tables, especially since in reports many people write far from complete info (we've been telling people how to write season and simple tournament reports correctly for ages, but even now, experienced players periodically write them incorrectly). It's easier to find, for example, a tour in one table.

Regarding other options:

1. Write 2-0 for one, 0-2 for the other — I assure you, questions will start: "Is this like the players played until two wins?" And yet these are two completely unrelated games between them, counting towards different standings.

2. Write 1-0, 0-1 for one, and 0-1, 1-0 for the other — just try to imagine how that would look (you didn't write about this, but it's an option). Twice as many digits, a bigger table, eyes will get completely confused.

3. Write 2 for one, 0 for the other — again, there will be questions: "Are these points scored in the game? Why 2 points? And if only one game was played, they'll think it was a draw and that's 1 point for a draw."

In all these cases, all the listed misunderstandings will turn into questions about the team score. There would hypothetically be even more of these questions than the ones written above.

Now imagine how "easy" it will be later to calculate which team advances to the next round in case of a tie, when the blue win indicator comes into play! But this way it's much clearer — if there is a result next to you, it means the game was played; if there is none, there is no game, and the color in each cell corresponds accordingly. You don't need to remember if the first round game was played, look at who was what color, read what the red or blue color in the cell means, then do the opposite and play the 2nd round. But here it's immediately clear: if the cell is red, you choose 3 templates and go.

As for this:

Same with teams: results could simply be added up, it could be 3-3, or 5-1, etc.

No, this absolutely could not be done. It simply contradicts the entire concept of the tournament! Look at what you're suggesting: you're told that a game is played to 2 wins out of 3 games, the result of which gives one of them 3 points; then a 2nd game is played using the same principle. And you say, "Let's make it one and lump everything together."

The clearest example to explain this is volleyball. Zenit (Kazan) plays Dynamo (Moscow) — result 3-0 in sets, return game 1-3 in sets. Final result: both teams got 3 points each, but the set score is 4-3! In this case, sets are an additional indicator, just like in our tournament, consider each player's game a set in a match.

Regarding reports, I agree, it's a bit difficult and inconvenient. We experimented; next time we'll come up with something easier. Right now, changing anything is completely out of the question; it's easier to clarify things for the remaining few than to retrain everyone.

P.S.: I'll add one more thing.

If one player has 1-0, then the other should have 0-1.

That is never done in the world of sports when it comes to double round-robin group systems, unless it's option No. 2.

I'll also add that the wording about two rounds could be replaced by saying that participants play 2 games against each other, and enter results into the table based on that.

This wording cannot be replaced under any circumstances, because the players play in 2 rounds (one game each round), not just 2 times. The difference is that the 1st and 2nd rounds separate both games, while the wording "2 games" ties them together, leading to the proposal where the overall score becomes (5:1, 4:2, etc.)