this is what bear music said about this subject when it came up before "he's the one that wrote most of these rules"
1. Regardless of what you may think of a given rule, rules are rules and we all need to follow them. It's ok to argue against a rule, like in here, but until its changed it must be observed when playing.
2. The RR has never paid back all 4 entrants in case of a 3-way tie. In the case of a 3-way tie that went to tie-breaker and ended up in a 3-way tie after THAT, each of the tying players got their YEPs back. NOT the eliminated player. It's not possible for you to be in a situation where by LOSING a match you can better improve your position. It's ALWAYS better to win a match, or at worst it makes no difference to YOU.
3. The rules allow for a meaningless match to be conceded. For example, 3-way playoff, team "A" plays in forst two matches and wins both, they have won, the 3rd match between "B" and "C" is just for stats. We DO need a winner to close the tourney, but either player may concede.
4. The situation you are describing is volatile. Essentially, you are saying "If I lose my first two matches, why should I care abgout the 3rd one?". My answer to that is, "Sheer Pride." By tossing the match because it means nothing to YOU, you materially affect the outcome of the tournament. Why would you want to be known as a player who, if he can't win it all, stops playing the game and messes it up for everyone else?
Basically, for a RR to be succesful it REQUIRES the willing completion of all 3 rounds by all 4 teams/players. And the rules reflect that. My suggestion to you would be, if you feel the rules are ridiculous, that you not play RRs. Alternatively, that if you DO play them then you abide by the rules which you agreed to observe, ok?