Rafka, is there no way we can play the game today, tomorrow or on friday evening?. I like going out on saturdays you know , else on sunday.

That's not me, duh, shaggy, I don't wear Chile flag, I am from Argentina xD

LeTotalKiller, Monojonkka: you have to use 8 worms for each player in this cup

I wouldn't agree on something that could radically change the scheme.
More fair?, yes. But there are a few more things to consider:
-How unfair is the scheme as it is?. Hard to reach an agreement on that, specially if it is a discussion between people who play it in real depth and people who doesn't.
-Is it worthy to make it fair?. No way imho. Long time ago I was even someone who wanted to play it with manual placement, but after more games I started seeing that random placement just makes the scheme what it is. Intermediate without random placement is not intermediate.

I think that ropa isn't completely wrong. I agree that you will need walking/jumping perfection in elite more often than in Intermediate in order to save time. Still at intermediate it isn't strange to waste a chute/bungee or even a rope because you failed a jump and need to use an utility in order to reach the target in time.
Besides that when playing intermediate I think you are more often exposed to harder jumps, or at least you can go for harder jumps knowing that if you fail the first attempt  you will most likely have a second chance or third chance.
The situation is quite different when using LG. In turns that begin with it your target is usually quite far away and you will most likely be reaching it with barely enough time to do what you need to do precisely, even if you didn't miss a single jump.

Regarding Free's point of view about Intermediate deep tactics, I think you would have to study the scheme as much as you've studied Elite in order to make a valid/objective affirmation about it. I have probably spent as much (if not more) time -years- and effort -horus a day- on studying the strategy in it -screenshot the starting situation and play the whole round in my mind- and I can easily say that the depth of Intermediate strategy is as overwhelming to me as Elite tactics are to you.
Maybe it'd take someone like Mablak (recognized as one of the best in both schemes) to do such analysis, and it'd still be an opinion after all .

Round 2 was tied (not uploaded). Excellent performance by Ramb0 during the first 2 rounds, almost 2-0'ed me if it wasn't because one little bad luck+bad choice at the last moment forced him to tie the round.

It's just a suggestion and just my opinion (although I tend to be insistent when I think something could be better )

Player A wins all others in his group, player B wins also all but player A, A and B proceed to the next stage, case eaten.

That's an easy one, but what about this:

Player A won all his games 2-1 (except a 0-2 vs C)
Player B won all his games 2-1 (except the 1-2 vs A)
Player C won all his games 2-0 (except the 1-2 vs B)
Player D lost all his games.

A, B and C won 3 games each, only 2 of them will make it to the group stage. The fairest way of modding such situation I can think of is to start counting who won more rounds (A=6, B=7, C=7). But A only played 2 rounds vs C and I have no idea what could have happened in a third round between A and C.
If the game B vs C (2-1) was C-B-B, and the game A vs C was C-C-?... Why not to find out what that "?" is?. What if that last round is played and it turns out to be a C-C-A? Does player A really deserve no credit at all for winning the third round while B gets credit for winning the first round?.

Also, what about if someone wins 3-0. What happens then. :/

3 round against every player of your group, 1 round won = 1 point. Therefore you get 3 points for a 3-0, 2 points for a 2-1, 1 point for a 1-2 and 0 points for a 0-3.

We could give points for winner 2-0 (3 points), draw 1-1 (1 point to each), and 0 for lose, like FIFA world cup maybe.

Player A = 9 points
Player B = 4 points
Player C = 4 points
Player D = 0 points

B vs C = 1-1. Who gets the second place in the group?. -> needs a tie breaker match that might bring more timekeeping problems (more headaches for moderators).
At this moment I don't see a difference between 2 rounds with the "2-0 = 3 points, 1-1 = 1 point" option and 2 rounds with the "2-0 = 2 points, 1-1 = 1 point" option.
So, no matter which one you choose, if you play an even number of rounds against the other wormers in your group (2, 4, 6, etc) this ties can happen. If the extra stage in the tournament (the tie breaker games stage) won't bring any timekeeping problems then I see it as an option as valid as playing an odd number of rounds (1, 3, 5, etc).

constructive criticism:

Unique 2-1 pr
pr won 1 round against Unique, Pr and Unique played 3 rounds

Unique 2-0 f4st
f4st won 0 rounds against Unique, f4st and Unique played 2 rounds. How do you know that f4st wouldn't have won the third round?

In group stages with "best of" games and 1 round won = 1 point, some people end up playing more rounds than other people against some opponents. And it is logical to assume that someone who plays 3 rounds against a particular player (In this case Unique) has more chances of winning at least 1 round than someone who played only 2 rounds against the same particular player.

For these 1 round won = 1 point all vs all group stages, to keep things as fair as possible I think that the correct thing is to make each player play a defined and odd number of rounds against the other players. For example: 3 rounds.

Why not 2 rounds?:
Because you could get people with the same total number of rounds won (Wormer1 wins 6 rounds in total, Wormer2 wins 6 rounds in total) and that also have won and lost the same number of rounds against each other (Wormer1 1-1 Wormer2), a perfect tie*.
With 3 rounds played, one of the players will always win more rounds than the other one, so that if 2 are tied in the total number of rounds won, the one who won more rounds in the match between them has the lead (if Wormer1 has 6 points and Wormer2 has 6 points, but the result of their match was Wormer1 2-1 Wormer2, then Wormer1 will be above Wormer2 in the tables).

*A tie breaking stage after the group stage will have more or less the same result, although it might be slower. You know, if it is a tie breaking game and the one who loses doesn't get into the play-off, there is a good chance that both players will wait until they feel they are at their best level, slowing everything down (or at least giving the mods a nice headache). In contrast, making games of 3 rounds instead of "best of 3" shouldn't make the tournament go any slower (you can't say you don't have time for 3 rounds but you have time for a "best of 3" game, since the "best of 3" might last 3 rounds .