The Final Battle 7

If someone is being punished, and as a result, people who won against a less active opponent are suffering – there's no need to even think or reason further; it's intuitively clear that this action is wrong/unfair. A person spent their time, energy, and health, and they're told, "Sorry, that didn't happen?" :smile38:

Perhaps assigning blame to those who didn't play would be unfair to those who lost to Britvachka. So, if you have to choose between two evils (zero points for wins or a point for an unplayed match), assigning blame would clearly be the lesser evil.

Since intermediate deadlines have been set, it would have been correct to create a schedule for each period. That is, Player 1 in the first period should play against Players 5, 7, and 9. In the second period, against Players 2, 3, and 6, and so on. After each period, summarize the results and assign blame.

And if you look even further, the 50% rule is not applicable with intermediate deadlines. If it is applied, it should be applied to the entire duration, specifically to all 9 games. Currently, Britvachka has 3 games, which equals 50% of what is needed. Perhaps, if he were not artificially prevented from playing, he would have managed to play his 50% within the deadline, and those who managed to win against him would not have suffered.

I understand that "who are you to say goodbye," and the decision has already been made, but I sincerely hope that Kostya will reconsider it. At the very least, it might be worth reconsidering the approach in future tournaments.

I don't see any tragedy in this.

You should think about it more carefully.

The punishment for those who were late is more or less adequate.

Yes, for those who were late, but what is the fault of Ayauhteotl and Scorpiona?