Aeronwen said:
Wolfpack posted by the stated time (Tuesday, 18.00 GMT ). If Druzhina wanted to make a complaint about Wolfpack's post not complying with teh rules, they needed to have done that by the stated time (Tuesday, 24.00 GMT). Since Druzhina did not post, the opportunity to chose a time reverted to Wolfpack.
That's all I was trying to point out.
I like the new sheduling system, as it makes team be more organised and helps to avoid some "problems" like we had during past tournaments. Scar and all WNL/NC admin teams are working hard every tournament to make a solid tournament system, which is impossible without well-defined ruleset.
But there is one thing about rules: rule should answer any "what if" question. Even if it's obvious. In this case it's not obvious that the opportunity to chose reverts to Team A and is not defined by the rules or stated in an "official explanation".
Thanks for the quick and explicit answer, Scar.
1)
First of 'free' in this sentense means 'allowed'
Do you agree that using "allowed" in the rule instead of "free" will help to avoid misunderstandings?
Do you think that it's a bit better to say: "you are allowed to ... but should do it untill 24:00GMT"?
2) I'm sorry for not following all the discussions. And as I've said earlier I do like the idea of sheduling system. Though I think that from competitive point of view having a full strenght teams in a match means more then having a good streaming plan.
3)
Why would I add a deadline for Team B under normal curicumstances, and then not have it anymore
I belive we've already had that conversation in "suggestions" thread before WNL2 about how detailed should rules be.
You are right it's obvious, but
imo if you want a ruleset to "rule" the tournament, then you should have clear rules, not obvious conclusions backed by the rules. I think you have an opposite opinion since you are talking about
the spirit of the rule.
Unfortuantely some teams just keep ignoring rules.