Currently in the first semi Haas has 64 votes, Djokovic 58. Assuming that Federer would be the favourite for the final, you claim that all the fedhaters could "simply vote for Haas". You forget that many of them are Nole fans who would obviously vote for Nole. Some Federer-hater-Nadal-fans would vote for Djokovic and some would vote for Haas. As you said, "there would be obvious favourites", but there would not be only one strong runner against Federer. So, the fedhaters votes would be somewhat spread out. In a MC poll, it is Fed vs Others for the haters. In a SC poll, it is Fed vs X vs Y and so on. The MC poll gives an effective negative vote to the haters, which the SC does not. Hence the negative effect is lesser in an SC poll. It's as simple as that.
You mean the negative "volume" is smaller in SC (I don't know how to call it), but not the negative effect on the whole contest.
With MC the haters can vote for EVERY other player
, which several voters already did as early as the QF.
In my opinion that is okay, it's part of this contest from the beginning and is a clear statement and doesn't really distort the results therefore.
But when you vote strategically for just ONE player, be it Haas, be it Djokovic, you do distort the results.
Sure, with MC you are not obliged to vote for every other player and you could set up a mess as well,
but I don't think there is much motivation for such a thing, and even if, it would be more random than with SC.
Furthermore, you are looking at the final only, while I'm also looking at the whole contest.
Also, as far as I remember(not too sure of this), Hian did not mention that the final would be MC. If this is true, then the rules are not even changing.
Hian mentioned the final. Since he just said the final would feature 8 players (period), it sounds to me like there were no format changes planned.
Anyway, I'm not respecting Hian's "rules" from principle. No, no, but I guess it's not his own idea. He got it from TF, where they already tested it.
And MC till the end makes simply most sense (as explained). For me that is logical.
And as for the tournament rules changing mid contest, the tournament organizer changed mid contest. There is new management. They(in this case, Slasher) should have at least a little autonomy for deciding the rules. He volunteered to continue the contest, he should be able to change the rules, especially if a majority of participants agrees. As he said, the format would be decided by the outcome of the poll.
I just talked about contential issues so far; the effect of format changes on the contest.
The autonomy and also the responsibility(!) of the organiser is a slightly different topic.
As I said, MC is simply the most logical format for the final for me.
A poll to decide on it is fair too.
The problem with it is that some voters don't understand the "dynamics" entirely. It's apparently not so easy.
The alternative would have been to leave things as they are.
Slasher's "Tennis draw" idea for example, is interesting for a separate tournament, but what has it to do with this contest?? It is totally different.