Currently, for the three-week pools, we require players play one of their games before the end of week two to avoid all of the games being played in the final week of pools. However, we also narrowly allow exceptions in very specific circumstances, provided the player is proactive about their scheduling (ie not waiting ~a week for first contact), gets all 3 games scheduled, and/or a few other things related to outside pressures.
There are frequent complaints about these exceptions and/or the rule itself each year. As it stands, there aren't many exceptions handed out annually (15/128 in 2023, 12/200 in 2024, 8/200 in 2025), and the most common reason across these 3 years is refusal to accommodate from opponents (eg 3 players in the pool have scheduled games with each other and refuse to reschedule and allow for the 4th to schedule before the end of week 2). Across the 3 years mentioned above, there are a handful of personal reasons/emergencies compared to the rest primarily falling into buckets for refusal to accomodate and/or timezones being timezones, and an extension isn't granted until all potential options have been explored, including sometimes asking the full pool to reschedule with each other when possible (ie there is further overlap across availabilities that allows for this).
There are a few ways to codify making the rule more restrictive, including getting rid of exceptions period, but I don't think removing all subjectivity serves players better, and/or pre-pairing players ahead of pools being posted, though this has plenty of its own faults in that we will run into situations where incompatibility is evident and we run the risk of considering repairing across the pool (even if we ask for availability before determining who gets paired), potentially inconveniencing other players who may have already scheduled.
I personally would not advocate for loosening restrictions, as there are enough players who explicitly do not want to play all 3 games in the final week/weekend.
Like most things, there's not a perfect catch-all solution so long as the rule and exceptions exist.
So, the purpose of this thread is two-fold; first, is the spirit of this rule still needed / worth enforcing? If yes, should it be modified to either be more consistent or less subjective? And if yes, how? (Or if no, should it stay as it currently is-up to hosts to determine case-by-case nuance?)
There are frequent complaints about these exceptions and/or the rule itself each year. As it stands, there aren't many exceptions handed out annually (15/128 in 2023, 12/200 in 2024, 8/200 in 2025), and the most common reason across these 3 years is refusal to accommodate from opponents (eg 3 players in the pool have scheduled games with each other and refuse to reschedule and allow for the 4th to schedule before the end of week 2). Across the 3 years mentioned above, there are a handful of personal reasons/emergencies compared to the rest primarily falling into buckets for refusal to accomodate and/or timezones being timezones, and an extension isn't granted until all potential options have been explored, including sometimes asking the full pool to reschedule with each other when possible (ie there is further overlap across availabilities that allows for this).
There are a few ways to codify making the rule more restrictive, including getting rid of exceptions period, but I don't think removing all subjectivity serves players better, and/or pre-pairing players ahead of pools being posted, though this has plenty of its own faults in that we will run into situations where incompatibility is evident and we run the risk of considering repairing across the pool (even if we ask for availability before determining who gets paired), potentially inconveniencing other players who may have already scheduled.
I personally would not advocate for loosening restrictions, as there are enough players who explicitly do not want to play all 3 games in the final week/weekend.
Like most things, there's not a perfect catch-all solution so long as the rule and exceptions exist.
So, the purpose of this thread is two-fold; first, is the spirit of this rule still needed / worth enforcing? If yes, should it be modified to either be more consistent or less subjective? And if yes, how? (Or if no, should it stay as it currently is-up to hosts to determine case-by-case nuance?)
