OFB-8

The discussion is interesting...

Throughout my entire career (both before and after becoming a hero), I've always adhered to a strict principle: to separate the Wic-player, the Wic-flooder, and the Wic-judge. When I'm playing the role of a player or a flooder, I can swear, troll, insult, and generally engage in demagoguery/banter/other inappropriate behavior.

But when I'm playing the role of a judge, my rhetoric and behavior change – my posts become serious, logically sound, respectful to the other person, and as conflict-free as the situation allows. Without any jokes, teasing, whining, ambiguous hints, condescending tones, etc.

When Rebel/Cobra are causing trouble, it's acceptable – they're defending their interests as best they can. But when members of the AC (Administration Committee) start doing it, it's disappointing.

Added 3 minutes ago
In the topic header, I see 9 completed slots.

You can say anything, but knowing that the passing score is 6.5, not 7.0, objectively changes the tournament strategy for "near-passing" players.

Added 8 minutes ago
Here are the exact quotes:


The same thought was repeated twice, clearly and unambiguously, with no "ifs" or "at least 7" – to make it clear to everyone that there would be no leniency, and no one would try to twist the rules.

After that, the position of "our rules, we'll change them if we want" looks pathetic. If you want to change something, first make sure that no one will object; the AC has no moral right to speak from a position of strength in this matter.

Wicc, you're talking like Wicc-Demagogue or Wicc-Nagger ;) Here's how I see it "from the judges' perspective": they took 7 people, then saw that Gomunguls withdrew, so there were only 9 people, and the Rebel-Cobra match was interesting and challenging, and both were worthy of winning, so they decided to take 11 people to avoid offending anyone, then Rebelius got upset, and there were ten of them left, as originally intended. Furthermore:
The argument that if "I had known that the passing score would be 6.5, not 7, I would have..." and then a choice of continuation: a). scored not 6.5 but immediately 11 b). crushed everyone like a hot knife through butter c). my name is Darkello
go to hell with such arguments))) honestly!!
YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO PLAY TO THE END!!!!!!! There are always possibilities, both in the game and in life. There are a million examples.

The problem isn't the tournament; it's the people, mainly those involved in running it. I don't want to offend anyone, but I support Rebelius's claim that he should be able to continue the game in the Facebook group that he started in the official forum.

So what's the problem? Organize your own tournament, with strict deadlines and... well, you know. A model tournament, so to speak. Right now, all we see is internet... nonsense. I can still understand the complaint from Wicc, who is actually doing something for people and trying to try new things. Do something, and then criticize, damn it. Or another option: the AC needs fresh blood, so elect yourselves and bring order there. The elections are open.

P.S. Dima, 5 mistakes in one sentence, I don't want to "offend" you, but how can you do that?))
*******************

Now, a couple of suggestions for running FB-8, I'm tired of the endless chatter
- use only a chess timer to avoid delays and pauses in moves.
- set strict deadlines for the game, and have them played in order, not everyone playing whenever they want – to avoid situations where one player has played 7 games, and another has played 1 or 2
- introduce 3 points for a win – to avoid the circus of draws and collusion.