Actually, if I may get on my analytical pedestal for a second, about the Tiba v. Beds situation:
- It was definitely in Beds' favor, but the odds were maybe not as huge as we all thought
- Tiba's play could have gone in a few directions: all involved Ttar, and all give him better odds than you'd think.
- The first direction (the straightforward direction that everyone wanted him to go in) was to get Ttar active on Zapdos, continually Roar it out, and subsequently hit it with Crunches on the switch. This way, he keeps Ttar at full health and guarantees at least 3 attempts at a Special fall (barring crits) vs. the Lax, and if he gets just one, he can make a mad dash to KO the Lax with Starmie, Raikou, and Suicune. Starmie & Suicune would need crits, but Raikou could 3HKO and therefore attempt to come in on a predicted rest vs. Suicune or something (although playing for the crit would probably be the safer play from Tiba's perspective). This situation is very hairy for Beds (Tiba's probably actually favored in that situation, as DE won't OHKO Suicune or Starmie at +1, and if he Curses enough to get the OHKOs, Ttar gets extra Crunches), and there's a 48.8% chance of getting at least one Spc. fall from 3 Crunches (as opposed to 36% chance from only 2, and 59% from 4), so... I don't wanna calculate it, I probably can't calculate it, but with this sort of play, Tiba's odds are actually decent.
- There's also the idea of Roaring the Zapdos out, then repeatedly Pursuiting the Lax to just eliminate the threat altogether. If Beds plays to just keep getting the Zapdos in, his Lax dies and Tiba just straight-up wins. So Beds' play cannot be fixed into just getting Zapdos in every time.
- Beds needs to go for an EQ at some point instead of letting Lax get Pursuited to death or letting a full-health Ttar get 3 Crunches. These EQs are inevitable, and Tiba's only recourse is to attempt to PP stall Beds out of EQs, and only then play for the win. So stalling actually becomes a legitimate tactic and not just "fukc him he's just extending the game and being a bitch"
- Because there's a lot of interplay between what moves / directions the players could go in and who gets the win, and because the odds are certainly not guaranteed either way, and because you can't make a sportsmanship DQ or w/e for stalling because it's a legitimate play, Beds v. Tiba could therefore only reasonably be called a tie by a TD/host.
I know you were kidding Beds but that situation was way more complicated than even I initially thought. Some people seemed to be arguing for TDs and hosts to step in and award theoretical
wins here (or otherwise mandate plays that would effectively award a win to one side), but unless it's like a 1v1 between a max Attack Bliss vs a min-Attack Bliss, I wouldn't even feel comfortable with my
own ability to calculate odds and determine if they're triple-scald-crit-burn level even
given an optimal-play assumption and a few days to think about it (it's been almost a week at this point and I've only now fully realized the full complexity of
this situation), let alone some TD or host who need not have extensive experience with GSC and has to make the call fairly quickly amidst a bunch of chirping.
Also once in 6 SPLs? A game like this happens
every SPL. They're huge outliers too, no game really comes close to 300 turns, let alone surpasses it, except for these sorts of games. I really don't think stalling for 300 turns is very easy unless both players' optimal play is to sit there and not attack, in which case... that's a draw anyway, why not just auto-call it rather than rely on the goodwill of players or TDs' willingness to step in, neither of which gets anything done until turn 700 of a game we knew would go on forever by turn 150?