Well, that's normal... :) Second place is second place, even in Africa... And the fact that there weren't many strong players at the Tournament (which allowed a weak player to take second place) is compensated for by the lower rank of the Tournament.

You're trying to reduce everything to a comparison with the leader's result.

But this simply narrows the picture down to two numbers. It feels like the Tournament is a duel where only two people participate - the Tournament leader and the player. That's it. Your accounting mechanism ignores many significant factors: - does not take into account the number of participants - does not take into account the second criterion, which also indicates the strength of the player. After all, getting the most mercury in a Tournament, even if other participants completed the map in exactly the same time as the participant who got the most mercury, indicates the strength of the player. Or do you disagree?

- does not take into account the average strength of all players in the Tournament; according to your method, a Tournament in a kindergarten is evaluated with the same points as the World Championship :)

The word "Rating" is a broader concept. Therefore, I urge you to spend your energy not on defending your specific position, but on finding solutions to all the points that you are not satisfied with in the oscillator. And not to reject these points, but to make them more balanced. You simply cut everything out. This is dogmatism. Your principle: "this is not accepted because there are flaws." Maybe just correct the flaws so that only the advantages remain...