Alright i'm going to address each complaint separately, I suppose.
"You guys are only implementing this rule because it stands to aid your team. You're being biased hosts."
Just to clear this up, I was the one who went to Shiv with the idea for midweek substitutes. I did this AFTER all of my team's battles for the week were done, precisely so that people DIDN'T think that we were only allowing midweek subs so that our teams could finish their matches. So the thought that, as hosts, we would change the rules just so that we could benefit in a tournament, is really disrespectful. I am not one to abuse my power as host, and I'd prefer if you didn't claim Shiv was one either.
"We didn't even know about this rule, and you guys are miscommunicating and telling us two different things."
Wrong, there is no miscommunication about this rule. As evidenced by this post:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2714244&postcount=157
followed by this post:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2714276&postcount=158
We are obviously both on the same page in regards to this rule. Whatever was said on May 12th, is completely irrelevant. The rule is set in post 157, and then confirmed by me as a real rule in post 158. That's all that you guys need to see, and that's all there is to it. And if you want to whine and complain that "well we didn't see it" well that's too damn bad. We have a thread for a reason, so that you guys can read it and get rule updates.
Which brings me to the last bit of bitching we're receiving.
"This is stupid why are we implementing this in the middle of a week? You didn't implement the Latias ban in the middle of last week"
Simply put, banning or not banning latias has nothing to do with the logistics of running the tournament. We revised and made this rule because we saw a distinct problem with how the tournament was turning out. We are deciding too many matches a week based on activity. Already it's week 3, and a potential 5/15 matchups are going to be decided on activity wins (meaning that points were / will be gained or lost solely on how we determine who was more active). We don't want to have to do this anymore. We want 40 matches to take place during a week taking whatever means we have to to get there.
Why, if we have a solution to the problem (allowing midweek substitutions that are reviewed by Shiv and myself to eliminate gaming of the system), would we wait until next week to implement it when doing so means that during Week 3 we have to make MORE activity calls that determine the outcome of an entire week's worth of matchups? That's just plain stupid. We implemented it midweek because that was when it made the most sense to do it, so that we can hopefully "save" this week.
As of now, so that I can speak with Shiv, Kinneas v. SBK, and Umby v. FM (the substitute matches) are in "limbo." They may or may not be accepted (my personal inclination is to just say they are, but because Shiv says in the thread they aren't, it needs to be clarified between the two of us.)