I hope that this subject/problem will get serious attention from the devs.
A tournament should be completely fair as far as time & days allowed for players to take turns.
There is really no need for polling, as it appears the correct solution will leave little room for doubt.
Herr Ravermeister and Maelstrom have good solutions.
There has already been a very questionable alteration of the ranking system, and several players were given the royal shaft.
Please act with integrity. It represents your personal government.

If you like to play friendly battle, you can use old time limit and in the nearest future you will have additional option for non-rating game (in Glicko), but in the tournament there are tens or (I hope we can get it sometimes in the future) hundreds players and there is good Russian proverb for such case: "Seven don't wait one".
We can't create tournament with flexible length of round again. We've already had large bad experience of it. Players should wait one or two players, which one send his turn on the border of limit and round of tournament, which one should be one month is almost every time was 40-50 days on the SMALL planet. We couldn't use medium planet (about large planet I can say that it was used just in final battles and ordinary it was finished when almost all players, except final pair and moderator, forgot about this tournament).
I've play with many players by using both types of limit and could say, that players, which one very often delay their turn in the battle with standard limit until last day, to start play very fast with chess timer and we almost everytime finish our game until end of limit.

I would like to add still something to told.

1. there is small but very important detail. Games in tournament there will be not one, and ten. And if in one game the player began answer quickly suddenly:) is a single instance.
2. If for developers very much a BIG problem a limit of time it is possible to make even a chess clock of 3 weeks. It will allow though a few a little to unload traffic of games.
3. I cannot understand in any way:) - we unless where that hasten? Anything terrible will not happen, if one group of players will wait other group 10 - 15 days. Can play at this time with each other:)
And it seems to me of a ratio of expecting and playing players it will be far not 1 : 7 and at least fifty-fifty.
4. For a long time it is time to pass already from conversations which proceed a year, to real affairs. On mine, here with it just it is necessary to hasten

Tiger: I have played you on a chess clock (3 weeks) on Noble Rust. I was trying to keep up with my turns - and I was logging in every day.

As the game progressed, I was getting more and more behind on the chess clock. (Becuse you are on line a lot more that me, this was inevitable).

Even though I was loggin in on every day - and I was in the lead (on %) - there was a real risk that I could lose the game by running out of time. You are a very good player - and the better the opponent - the harder it is to finish the game.

In the end I had to log on morning and night just to make sure I did not lose the game on time. I think you surrendered in the end (thank you) but you could have played out the game for a tactical win on the chess clock.

I agree that a tournament needs to have a time limit. But if I am logging in once a day I firmly believe that there should be no way I could lose the game because I ran out of time.

I trust that if and when a tournament is held - the developers will come up with a balanced solution that keeps the pace of the tournament goind - without comprimising the purpose of the tournament - which I suspect is to find out once and for all who has the best tactics and skill.

I would also point out that if anyone is to enter the tournament - they should do their best to play their turns in a timely fashion so that they do not hold up the rest of their pool of players.

Anyway - I have said my piece. I will play in any tournament that is organised - and will do my best to play under any and all rules that are applied.

yeah we had this discussion before, best solution would be that the chess time starts decreasing after 24h from receiving the game. of course the chess time could be decreased then, so game wont take much longer through this.
this gives much more variablity to the players, when to make their turns, on a fair compromise between cutting the overall-time of a game and managing playtime and real-life business.
developers didnt seem to be interested at all however...

It doesn't seem that any opinion other than the "chess clock solution"will get serious consideration at this point.
However:
Is a 36-hour limit inconceivable?
Can the deadline of chessclock be reached for the game to finish "early" for both players?
If this happens, how is the winner asessed?
Is it based on Percent as shown on the screen?

I think the person who runs out of time first will lose the game.

Holy cow, Herr Ravermeister!
That doesn't sound good.

As shadow D stated in his post (quite awhile ago) many of us have jobs, families, ect. that make playing games on a constant time table impossible. I see the problem with large maps but i also see major problems for chess clock type games. Also, i agree with Morn, anything other than infinite time limit for turns would not suit my playing style.

one other thing, i don't think games can be awarded based on % unless there is a really large difference between the 2 players. I have been in many games where my opponent was beating me % wise, sometimes as badly as 125 to 75 and in reality they were loseing the game--which they did.

Some thought should be put into making a tournament interesting for spectators as well as players. Replays of all games should be available on the tournament website together with a short commentary. It would be nice if the players could give comments after each game as well. Comments on tactics, clever moves, turning points in the game etc would be great.

A strict time limit is essential. Playing in a tournament does require a committment. Players who don't have the time to commit don't have to enter. I suppose there's nothing to stop us having more than one tournament. A "long" tournament could be arranged to allow busier players a chance to compete.

This is a well-trodden path!
A true comparison of players would be best accomplished by setting up a rigid format, such as a chess board, with the same pieces and situation, and playing numerous times.
Take it from there.
BUT....(and this is a big but):
For those hungry egomaniacs out there , here is my humble assessment:
(There is no I in assessment, soldier! BUt there is an ass!)
TOP TEN, IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER:
1)Ravermeister: He is a bad mofo and also somewhat lucky, so if he is wearing his lucky tutu, watch out!

2)Storm440and a half: He is an engineering-type, so if he has enough time, and gets paid overtime, you're in trouble!

3)Tiger: He can play a hundred games at one time, using mirrors and tiny little assistants. He gets a bad rub from some of the greats, but he is the King of the Forest, damit@!, and if you want this title, start your own game!

4)Placid: Genius who can tan your hide and make from it a nice vest.

5)Pitor: He might not be human, but the product of years of superior Soviet work on AI game-player! (Note he is named after a tzar )

6)Morn: He takes names and puts his boot to the posterior.

7)Ahgpeu: Another Genius Russian, and a nice guy(seems like it).

Rextrent: This fellow doesn't belong on the list, but if he had more time and patience and amphetamines, well, then, he might be in jail !

9)Tryptammon: He has worked his way up in the world, and I can't think of the other guys' names.

10) _________: This is blank, because I know I am forgetting at least one name....

Oh well... I'm just following orders to have fun

2Tiger: This topic is over a month old. Any progress with a tournament?

Tournament manager is almost ready.

There is no serious consideration of playing a tournament under the guidelines I have offered?
It would be nice to be able to play the same-allotment game several times, instead of only haphazard randomness.
It would be an excellent option of the game to play a "chess-like" constant.
How about this?