But @Trofo and @cryptofrka, aren't the rules good when you knock somebody out after the person failed to submit results three times? Unless someone comes out and announces that there is some serious issue/illness, it should just be disqualification and period.
As I have failed to submit on time once, I know that there can be circumstances involving health issues from either yourself or someone close to you, but getting three passes on failed submissions is certainly enough. The problem is that you have all the work to do to update things when after 10 rounds someone failed to submit for the third time, which I think an upfront paid fee could be good for.
I don't know what others think, but if we include a rule that says something like: if somebody fails to pay the fine for not submitting three times, negative trust on the account could be given for not living up to agreed upon terms. Once the payment is done, negative trust could be removed.
I fully understand the need for remedy here and developing the questions is enough work to do. Starting to update the tables every two weeks is annoying. I guess no suggestion to solve this will be perfect, but it might make people think before they submit their BSFL application.
Let's say it like this - the rules are good, but it isn't good for the competition. We need to find a middle ground - keep the competition fair and competitive, while offering something to the casuals as well.
The problem with H2H competitions is that casuals can't be the majority, because it ruins the concept.
I don't see us ever redtagging somebody in BSFL - after all, we're here to make virtual friends and have fun. We also want to keep the door open for new players, not scare them away with fees and penalties.
We need to do a bit of both - keep you guys happy and engaged while maintaining high numbers for SB - and we already have some decent ideas we'll be implementing.