![[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]](images/stone-hello.png "Sensei's Library")
In regards to Usage of much better performance measures like playing more rounds is discouraged. - Why would a tiebreaker discourage more rounds? That doesn't seem clear to me. It does seem that we have already made a decision to have a certain number of rounds. We must have done so in the knowledge that we might not have a clear winner. The rules must have been made stating that we needed a clear winner. I think saying that the existence of tiebreakers caused us to do this is very tenuous. I would not count it as a genuine disadvantage.
If every tournament organizer were objective only, you would be right. However, quite some tournament organizers decide about tournament system details not at all (by copying what they find, e.g., as default in a pairing program) or subjectively (by thinking "oh, that tiebreaker breaks ties sufficiently often, so I do not need to plan for more rounds").
That sounds like a pretty weak argument to me. It is not the tiebreaker itself discouraging more rounds, it is the inexperience of the tournament director, or the existence of social 'peer pressure' or 'group behaviour' to conform.
Ok, something for the How Not to Organize a Tournament kind pages: Do not set things (system, criteria, program defaults etc.) blindly without thinking.