R55Max
Auto-translated
I voted in a way that was beneficial to me, based on the tournament standings. The possibility of such voting is a flaw in the regulations.
There is a connection here. A weak captain (in terms of skill) will never turn a team into strong players. It's a nonsense when a second-basket player is stronger than the captain. Why are the 2nd and 3rd players to blame for getting a weak captain and losing all their games? Homungulus and Bishop did a good job as captains because they are good players and have something to teach less experienced fighters. Why Kalababa didn't make monsters out of the Shtrafbat team is unclear :D
This is your personal IMHO and delusion; I believe that absolutely any player can put together a strong team. This is where a person's personal qualities come into play, while skill is often just an indicator and an example, nothing more. I want to tell you that you have no concept of "SPIRIT," and this ignorance of team spirit is what generates messages like the ones you write. Your knowledge and feeling for the sporting component are zero! because you haven't truly been immersed in it, well, except for chess probably. By the way, regarding Kalababa, he actually showed a certain amount of courage and finished the tournament despite everything, despite all decisions not being in his favor. You brought up a rather poor example.
It
is not true. Immediately after the announcement of the voting for captains and basket compositions, the voting began (or an hour later; I was asleep at the time). If I am lucky and become a captain, I will want to familiarize myself with who I can choose from the 2nd and 3rd baskets. I ask to be given at least a day for this.
And there should also be 4 groups, so there aren't situations with lucky losers from 3rd place and so on. In general, of course, everything depends on the number of participants; it's too early to say anything now.
Added after 6 minutes
The issue isn't about discussing the timer; it's quite obvious that having a timer in reserve that burns down, a normal player will check 30 times if everything is in place, while a slow-witted Новичок or just slowpokes (there are plenty of those) will sit and think during the free time in battle, or pour tea and go to the bathroom... definitely, a chess timer saves overall time and is optimal. I see absolutely no advantages for playing to win with a SoD timer; you mention them but provide no arguments—the advantages turn out to be quite mythical... while there are plenty of downsides. I think 80% of the forum can confirm my words, and I am merely proposing a truly equal alternative: there are 2 players, so let both players in their red color decide which timer to play on!
p.s. as for punishing such "slow-wits," that's foolish; by nature, some people just aren't able to move quickly, or haven't learned yet. Let the timer punish them. Depriving them of a game in the tournament won't teach them much of a lesson, but a missed turn certainly will, since someone else's opinion and a technical rule are perceived completely differently.
Hell, what is bothering you about a guy going to the bathroom, or does he need to sacrifice time so as not to pee himself, and you want to get a victory because of that? There is a timer; why do you think someone sits in battles for 20 minutes? I'm telling you—talk about such people, we will speed them up, but the timer has nothing to do with it
МУДРЫЙ - не обязательно старый, ОПЫТНЫЙ - не обязательно мудрый... обладатель и того и другого всегда должен помнить слова НАПОЛЕОНА БОНАПАРТА: Война состоит из непредусмотренных событий; В каждом большом деле всегда приходится какую-то часть оставить на долю :smile33: СЛУЧАЯ...