Tiebreakers redux

[Duplode]

Given that it's quite possible that we'll see a draw (or even a few draws) somewhere on the season scoreboard, it makes sense to have a look at the issue of tiebreakers, in order to clear any lingering ambiguity.

The ZakStunts rules page says that "in case of a draw, the pipsqueak with the most victories / best positions / number of best positions is announced as the winner". That provision was added for the 2016 season, after we realised in the previous year that the rules were silent on tiebreakers. Sounds clear enough, right? However:

• Somehow, and in spite of being involved in the discussion about it back in 2015, I either forgot completely about the rule change, or was never aware that the text of the rules had actually changed to begin with! I suppose others among you might be similarly surprised about it.
• The season scoreboard page currently doesn't break ties using the number of wins and so forth.

The point of this post is just to put the matter up for consideration. For this season at least, I won't push for any particular way of breaking, or not breaking, ties. I can't do that with a straight face given that I was confidently misquoting the rules as late as yesterday 

[Argammon]

I think the tie-break rules should work as described on the Zakstunts page, at least for this season. For the next season "SUM" is an alternative for the first tie breaker to award consistency/effort. However, I am also fine with having number of wins as the first tie breaker.

I would also suggest that the rules explicitly state that a pipsqueak cannot get more than two leading-time points. I wasn't aware of this last month and thought Alanrotoi should have gotten three points. However, Duplode and Alanrotoi reminded me of the fact there was a precedent, so it seems fine to only award Alanrotoi two points. However, given that the rule exists, I do not see a reason why it is not written down.

[dreadnaut]

However, given that the rule exists, I do not see a reason why it is not written down.

Yes, I plan to clarify that in the rules for 2025. I was also surprised, first by the limit (which I had forgotten) then by the fact that it was in the code, clearly defined, but not in the rules. Seems like we forgot to add it when the LTB calculations changed.