How to adjudicate tournament games?

[kronenblatt]

Sometimes games in the tournaments that I run and in which I participate too drag on for very long.

One possible approach to deal with that (if lengthy games are unacceptable) is to set a firm deadline at which the results of any unconcluded games are determined by some sort of adjudication.

Ideas and suggestions on what the adjudication mechanism could look like?

It needs to take into account that I'm as admin also play in the tournaments and may even be one of the players in a game to be adjudicated.

[kronenblatt]

One initial idea I have is the following, with the result determined through the following steps:

1. The two players of the game attempt to agree on a result, within 1 day after deadline.
2. Failing that, both players make their suggestions to the administrator about the result, and why, within 1 day following step 1.
3. The administrator decides.

The players and the administrator take, always in good faith, the following into consideration:
- Current score at deadline.
- Underlying reasons for failing to complete game before deadline, such as length between players' turns, has the game been with one specific player for a majority of the time, etc.

[tyronec]

Ideally games will be completed within the timeline, if they are not then that should be a prime consideration in adjudicating a result.
So if Player A had done a move every day and Player B has completed a move every 3 days then when you get to Step 3 adjudicate the game if favor of Player B.
If you go partly on the score and partly on elapsed time then that may encourage a very small number of players to go slow on a game in which they have a lead but are anticipating things to turn against them.
Maybe it needs some support from Slitherine to be able to do this.

[kronenblatt]

Ideally games will be completed within the timeline, if they are not then that should be a prime consideration in adjudicating a result.
So if Player A had done a move every day and Player B has completed a move every 3 days then when you get to Step 3 adjudicate the game if favor of Player B.
If you go partly on the score and partly on elapsed time then that may encourage a very small number of players to go slow on a game in which they have a lead but are anticipating things to turn against them.
Maybe it needs some support from Slitherine to be able to do this.

Thanks, Tyrone, for thoughts. (You mean "adjudicate the game if favor of Player A" though, in your example?)

I agree with you that "elapsed time" should be relatively more important than score, so maybe something like this then:

The players and the administrator primarily take, always in good faith, into consideration the underlying reasons for failing to complete the game before deadline (such as length between players' turns, the time that the game has been with each of the players, etc.) and secondarily the current score at deadline.

[Karvon]

Without support from Slitherine, I'm not sure how easy it would be to verify time elapsed per player per turn.

I think a more realistic option would be to ask each player to submit a screen shot on the turn when the match is deemed timed out and a summary of their view of the situation and any relevant perceptions on speed of play. Should the players disagree as to the outcome of the game, these cases would then be put before a panel of 3 or 5, odd number to insure no ties, for judgement. Ideally, the panel members would be uninvolved in the tourney, but it might be difficult to find such people, so it could simply be made up of other members not involved in the match in question.

Karvon

[kronenblatt]

Without support from Slitherine, I'm not sure how easy it would be to verify time elapsed per player per turn.

I think a more realistic option would be to ask each player to submit a screen shot on the turn when the match is deemed timed out and a summary of their view of the situation and any relevant perceptions on speed of play. Should the players disagree as to the outcome of the game, these cases would then be put before a panel of 3 or 5, odd number to insure no ties, for judgement. Ideally, the panel members would be uninvolved in the tourney, but it might be difficult to find such people, so it could simply be made up of other members not involved in the match in question.

Karvon

Thanks, Karvon: good points. And much in line with my own reasoning with players first trying to agree and then providing their arguments (always in good faith), although a panel of 3 other players in the tournament (one of which would be me, unless I'm involved in the game) may actually be the way to go.

[Karvon]

If you go with 3 players from the tourney, you could be one and have each involved player nominate one from the other players participating in the tourney.

Karvon

[kronenblatt]

If you go with 3 players from the tourney, you could be one and have each involved player nominate one from the other players participating in the tourney.

Karvon

Great idea!