The host had refrained from assessing anyone's chances of participation since the tournament rules were announced, relying on randomness, as stated in the regulations. Moreover, the immutability of randomness was emphasized. Fine, let it be.
But during the discussion, the regulations were significantly changed, even though they had supposedly been "carefully considered" beforehand. Never mind. This happened before the tournament started.
But even after the tournament began, the rules (specifically, the tournament format) were changed within a short period, smoothed over by the term "adjustment." But it's still a change!
I have a very negative attitude towards changing the rules during a tournament; it at least raises doubts. But if there is a need to change the rules, it should be done systematically, mentioning this in the regulations, and implemented at the end of a period, for example, a semester. Moreover, the change may be caused by certain events and should be motivated and justified. I regret the lack of transparency from the host in this matter. As well as the communication style: my specific, simple questions are called "grumbling" and "fierce attacks"
"Specific questions"? It seems we are speaking different languages.:smile39: Besides your ungrounded concerns, I don't see anything else. Well, never mind. I assure you that all the adjustments to the rules will only be beneficial. As the organizer, I probably know better what and how I should do in my tournament. And instead of "criticizing," you should have finished our conversation in ICQ. I asked you a simple question, but I never received an answer.
