the one thread per tournament part. That may become a bit too much.
With packs of just four simultaneous matches one thread may suffice.
Sure, two threads for then smaller packs would be neater ...or sticking to the four-match packs and having simply more of them simultaneously that way.
But I had more in mind with the one-thread idea:
You remember "Seed elimination" was started first in GM and tolerated there for quite a while by the mods.
In Off-topic, which fewer people follow, two threads may be better as not everybody is interested in every match-up,
whereas in GM more than one thread of that kind simply won't be tolerated,
and furthermore the philosophy of only four matches at the same time would help ending the matches quickly, I think.
Many people always have a favorite even in GrandSlam 1st round matches. And if there is a pack you can as well vote simply in every match of it. Moreover, several people will probably (hopefully) play this game regularly. They will vote anyway. And with just one thread they also would have to vote (even if not the biggest fans) to keep things going on.
Given it works this game is far superior to "Seed elimination" and could have a future in GM.
) votes we got [...] Hopefully, we will get adequate participation.
It's Off-season and on top this thread is about rules. I don't care how many people vote. How many will play this game in January is a different story for me.
Based on the 16 votes we got, having the game for all 128 players would probably be the best.
Not necessarily for the poll, but I think anything but 128 would be a flop (half-assed).
7.) Incorrect votes further back then seven votes have to be regarded correct in any case.
I agree with all your points except 7. Not so sure about that.
It shall prevent the match scores from too many disturbing corrections or even disputes.
Better idea? ...The distance of "seven" is debatable of course, but imagine what could happen without this or a similar rule. Don't forget people can delete their voting-posts. (Why would they?)
Oh, how about that?:
9.) When voting always quote the respective previous voting-post!
...Well, like most of the other rules so this one shouldn't be applied so very strictly either, at least not at first.
A one hour voting gap would be enough. Most people found the 3 hour gap in the seed elimination too long.
Didn't know it was three there. It's tough to control; to check or to even keep in mind who voted three hours back.
One hour is simple, ...and if it turns out to be too short somehow, it can still be changed.
There should be a fixed max. time duration for each of the early rounds/packs. At the end for unfinished matches, whoever is ahead wins. The winner of a tie in this situation is the player who reached the tied situation first.
Let's keep that in mind for Off-topic, but in GM it won't be needed, I think.
First round: One set. TB set:First to 6/7 wins. 1 vote=1 game.
Second round: One set. Non TB set:First to 6 with a difference of 2 wins. 1 vote=1 game.
Third round: One super set(like super TB in doubles). First to 10 with a difference to 2 wins. 1 vote=1 game.
Fourth round: Best of 3 sets. First to 6/7 wins a set. 1 vote=1 game
QF: Best of 5 sets. TB sets. 1 vote=1 game.
SF: Best of 5 sets. Non TB sets. 1 vote=1 game
F(Save the best for last): Best of 3 sets. TB sets. 1 vote=1 point. Gives a long drawn out final. [...]
As of now, my major issue with this is that different rules for each round may make many posters not participate.
Hm, the differences and also the higher complexity with this scoring format (the same with my earlier idea from the other thread) might be too complicated.
Often people don't even read the OP.
At PYW participants were not even allowed to post the simple livescores ("in order to best saveguard the integrity of PYW").
I would stick to the simple and continous "1 vote = 1 game" format - at least for the first edition of this GrandSlam game(!) - and only increase the number of sets with the tournament rounds.
We could make it [the format] a little smaller, for better participation. [...]
The smaller initial round gives the possibilities of early upsets, and thus, makes the game more interesting.
Smaller than best-of-nine ? Sure?
Well, okay, if you insist on.
. -round one and two: best-of-three (= 12 votes to victory at minimum)
. -round three and four: best-of-five (= 18 votes)
. -QF and SF: best-of-seven (= 24 votes)
. -Final: best-of-nine (= 30 votes)
...Depending on the participation (has to be tested out) the scoring format can be adjusted.
However, when we really start in GM we probably won't have to cut it too much,
but I agree, let's have just one-set matches in the 1st round, at least this time!
Depending on the number of upsets - and also of participants - after this 1st round you can decide on the 2nd round format. And so on.
I think I am going to organize this for AO. Any helpers are welcome.
Yes, do it! I'm usually not so very active on MTF but I'll see what I can do. I'm definitely interested meanwhile.
And I hope after the first few packs of matches have been pushed through some other helpers will join.
Any participants who observe the voting process a little, would be helpful.