Grando
Auto-translated
What do you see as the flaw in the proposed solution? I'm just curious what you considered and evaluated, and what you think is wrong with it.
I see the flaw in the idea of involving the Arbitration Committee (AC) in resolving issues related to replaying games. Why create unnecessary entities where they are not needed? Why burden the AC with additional functionality to deal with this? If both opponents attempt to replay the game but cannot agree, where did the idea come from that they must necessarily replay it? If they both try to replay, but it still doesn't work, the very idea of mandatory replaying within a certain timeframe is flawed. This isn't a tournament. If one player is being disruptive, then the two "blockers" I proposed in key situations cut off the disruptive player's path to retreat. They can't start a new game without offering to replay the unfinished one. But if, according to the established rules, both players have fulfilled their obligations, and one believes that an injustice has occurred, then they can write their arguments to the AC. By the way, the discussion about the idea of replaying games is a separate topic. I'm still interested in whether there are any drawbacks to my proposal in its latest formulation. Lider tried to list them, but as far as I understand, he was unsuccessful? R55Max is currently unable to handle the task of at least reading and understanding my proposal and is considering it through the prism of his desire to create a procedure for replaying games. dom2, Chingis, and rimpel2 are on my ignore list. I will only find out that one of them has written something useful if someone else reacts positively. Iamsamstan made a couple of requests to be added to the ignore list, but didn't provide any substance. Did I forget anyone?