Is the HC League too long, too short, or just right? Why do you feel this way?
While the Hephaestus was quite lengthy (10 weeks in total I believe) I feel it should be that long. The Hephaestus was supposed to be a competitive league, not week long tournament.
Much of the league uses a best of 1 system. Would a best of 3 system have felt better, or was the best of 1 option a good way to protect your time and the audience's time?
Bo1 matches for the Regular Season and the Silver Playoffs were perfect for keeping things short, interesting, and on schedule. There's far too much that can happen in a Bo3 to keep it nicely planned out, and when there's a whole bunch of other matches waiting to be played, Bo3 for the Regular Season (and possibly the Silver Playoffs) just takes too long.
The HC League (re?)introduced a separation of casting and administration, but failed (largely due to me) to separate administration and referees. Was the separation good? Would you have liked to see more separation between administration and referees?
The separation between casting and administration was fine, as well as the "combination" of administration and referees. Far too often during the matches I saw people asking questions about the rules. Who better to answer them definitively than the people who wrote them?
Time limit rules came into play multiple times. Were these rules a good way to end the match, both as a player and as a viewer? Is there a different format that you feel might better protect the ability to bring any style to competition?
Its inevitable that if given enough time a match will end, one way or another. However, having a match that lasts 3 hours is tiresome to watch, just as tiresome as it is to play. The cut and dry time limit rules were great for keeping the entire Hephaestus rolling smoothly. 30 minutes is plenty of time for a match to be played and ended without getting too dragged out.
Were the set start times a good or bad thing? Did you feel you were left waiting in full lobbies too long waiting for your match to start? Did you enjoy knowing exactly when your match would start? Did it allow you to schedule better and get friends to watch you? Would a rolling start time or a different format work better?
Static start times works much, much better than a "lose" scheduling would. There's no wondering when you're going to play, you already know.
Did the lobby time limit provide an adequate arena for selecting your ship without opening the match to excessive ship swapping? Did you feel safe to take unusual builds, or would a different system make you feel safer in taking unusual builds?
Teams usually had a game plan before matches anyways, so I never saw choosing your ship loadout in lobby as too much of an issues. The shorter time-frame kept teams for doing an endless rotation of loadout swaps and kept it to forcing teams to play with something that they felt comfortable enough to fly.
Were the pause time rules fair, and fairly enforced? Were you ever concerned that server problems or player disconnects would ruin a match for your team?
I believe the pause time rules were fair in their design. As for fairly enforced, there are instances where I might disagree. There's always a concern that a player will disconnect and ruin the match (it happened to a lot of teams during the season, as well as my team during the finals unfortunately). Making the pause rules a bitter necessity.
Were the substitution rules sufficiently flexible to allow you to make all needed substitutions? Did you ever feel the substitution rules were too lax, allowing a player or team to abuse them?
Several things for substitutions: The rules for substitutions were lax enough to allow for a last minute substitution, which is a good thing. However, I would also like to add the idea of a mid-match substitution pause to be specifically longer than a normal pause to allow enough time for the in-game timers to run out and allow time for the player to join the game. Substitutions in general however I feel should be more tightly controlled. If Hephaestus is truly a league, then the competing clans are in every sense of the word; teams. Competitive teams don't lend one another players (American Football Example: If the Green Bay Packers' Quarterback was out on an injury, the New England Patriots wouldn't lend them Tom Brady on their bye-week. European Football Example: If Manchester United was down a goalie, Real Madrid wouldn't lend them their's if they weren't playing that week). Competing teams should list their players, their regular crews, as well as people they think might need to play for them as a sub sometime in the future. If a team does need a last minute substitute, they should be drafted from people not competing at all.
Were there any rules you felt strongly for or against? Something you felt harmed the integrity of the match or League?
I had no problem with any of the rules, except the aforementioned substitution rule, and maybe some more strict regulation on using the text chat mid-game is needed, so a referee's words aren't drowned out in all of the random blabber.
Do you feel that the map pool provided sufficient variety, and that the maps each added something beneficial to the map pool? Was there a map that detracted from the quality of the League that you felt should have been removed?
I had no problem with the map pool. While I understand the majority of people don't like Battle on the Dunes, it is 2v2 Deathmatch, and one that forces teams to play in a different style, due to its terrain. What sucks is how people are forced to play on the map, but assuming you keep the 30 minute time limit rule, then this map should continue to stay in the map pool.
Would you be intrigued by a restructuring of the regular season to allow more fluid participation, or would you prefer a second season to maintain a more strict adherence to current structuring?
As I said earlier, if this is supposed to be a league, then the more strict and organized, the better. Forcing teams to sign up by a specific date makes scheduling things far down the road much, much earlier. And for the teams themselves, they already know who they're going to be playing for the entire regular season (which is a good thing). Allowing teams to come in during the middle of the regular season also encourages teams to drop out entirely during the regular season, giving it more an atmosphere of the Sunday Community Skirmish, which isn't a good thing for a competitively league to have.
Would you be interested in playing more than one match per day (Bo1) even if your matches were not scheduled consecutively?
I liked the league's current set up, and don't really see a need to change it from how it currently is.
Would you be interested in taking an axe to the pause rules and removing official pauses?
No. Competitive gaming over the internet has far too many variables to
not have some sort of pause rules in affect. Between disconnects, lagging out, restarts, and a whole other plethora of things that can go wrong, the pause rules are necessary.
Ending Note: I thought the Hephaestus was very well thought out, planned, and excited. There's very little criticism I personally have for the Hephaestus Challenge. It was a great experience, lots of fun, and I can't wait for next season! 
