NationStates

I'm sure if someone included some ridiculous "sport", the Council might reject it. While any host who I would trust with hosting the Olympics would certainly be capable of doing it, that isn't necessarily the issue. Wasn't summer vigil fasting contested as a "sport" once? I'd have had an issue with that had I been here at the time. And I'm sure if I proposed including slave beating or heathen crushing or some other violent Gregoryisgodistani "sport", as I've joked about on IRC, it would be rejected. Some things don't belong in the Olympics no matter who the host is.

That being said, I agree any numerical limit is arbitrary and would oppose one.

Gregoryisgodistan wrote:I'm sure if someone included some ridiculous "sport", the Council might reject it. While any host who I would trust with hosting the Olympics would certainly be capable of doing it, that isn't necessarily the issue. Wasn't summer vigil fasting contested as a "sport" once? I'd have had an issue with that had I been here at the time. And I'm sure if I proposed including slave beating or heathen crushing or some other violent Gregoryisgodistani "sport", as I've joked about on IRC, it would be rejected. Some things don't belong in the Olympics no matter who the host is.

That being said, I agree any numerical limit is arbitrary and would oppose one.

Why should it be rejected though? You don't have to participate in sports you don't like.

Personally, I'm in favour of the host nation deciding any additional medal events they want to hold, as long as they make it clear in their host bid.

Why should it be rejected though? You don't have to participate in sports you don't like.

I strongly disagree. Actually, what Ilyseum is citing as the original state of play was in fact a drafting mistake which was only realized quite a while afterwards; I had wanted to include rugby sevens and golf as medal events at the 5th Summer Olympics but was told I couldn't and this, or something else later, may have revealed the loophole. The amendment was to put into words what had been intended all along.

The intent was always to keep the Nationstates Olympics close to the RL Olympics and that is how I believe it should be. I would go so far as to argue that the clear analogue and simulation of the real thing is precisely what makes the Olympics as an RP event attractive and interesting. This would be lost if we just started including any sport as a medal event on the host's whim (I say whim because it's rare that we even get competing bids). A multi-sport event with a variety of non-Olympic sports was attempted and it didn't take off despite a very credible host and participation from many members of the community.

Commerce Heights wrote: - All events in the sports which are established as part of the RL Olympic program—i.e., those sports which are listed in the Bye-law to Rule 45 of the RL Olympic Charter and whose international federations are members of the ASOIF or AIOWF—must be included as medal events.
- Additional sports may be proposed in a host bid as medal events. Each such sport must be individually approved by a vote of the Olympic Council, which will take place at the same time as the host vote. A host bid may not be made contingent on the inclusion of any additional sport.
- During the year of the RL Games of the Olympiad, additional sports which are being contested at those RL Games may be included without a vote of the Olympic Council.

There are two conflicting realism issues here. Is it more realistic to follow the rule and give hosts up to 5 events at their discretion to award medals in, which opens up the (unrealistic) possibility of medals being awarded in sports that aren't recognized by the IOC? And when the point of that rule change doesn't really apply here, as Taeshan points out?

But I think these 3 points are good ideas. We move towards setting up the "core" Olympic events which always take place, and allow for a small number of medal events that vary year to year. In this sense we would follow the principle of the IOC's change, despite the intent of attracting more local ticket sales not really being a relevant concern for us. As an alternative, my keep-it-simple suggestion would be to augment the existing base list/extended list system and place any event confirmed as a medal event for the next RL Olympics onto the extended list. This gives hosts the option of including none, some, or all as medal events or not. I suppose this would be the more strict "follow the real thing" version.

Gregoryisgodistan wrote:I'm sure if someone included some ridiculous "sport", the Council might reject it. While any host who I would trust with hosting the Olympics would certainly be capable of doing it, that isn't necessarily the issue. Wasn't summer vigil fasting contested as a "sport" once? I'd have had an issue with that had I been here at the time. And I'm sure if I proposed including slave beating or heathen crushing or some other violent Gregoryisgodistani "sport", as I've joked about on IRC, it would be rejected. Some things don't belong in the Olympics no matter who the host is.

I'm sure the vote would be alot closer than you'd think. Besides, you could argue that some of the RL Olympic events shouldn't be there (supporters of wrestling certainly did during that controversy).

Vilita and Turori wrote:I think that any olympic games that is purposely scheduled to coincide with the real olympic games, such as this past one, one 2 years from now, and 2 years from that, etc, should be 'encouraged' to stick to the events of that years official games.

Any olympic games that do not loosely coincide with the real ones could include 1-5 events as additional medal events so long as they include it in their bid - but ONLY if that sport has previously been contested and completed as an official demonstration event in a prior games.

If a sport hasn't been demonstrated previously, then the host has the option of adding it as a demonstration event so it can be included by future hosts

I don't support a numerical limit, but I could support a rule that only RL Olympic events and events previously contested as demonstration events could be contested as medal events.

I do believe that the extra events actually contested in a RL Olympics should be held in the NS Olympics corresponding to that year (for example, I would not vote for a bid in 2020 that excluded baseball just as I wouldn't vote for a bid that excluded basketball were such a bid legal), but I'd be opposed to restricting a host of an Olympics held in that year to the events actually contested. Realistically, most hosts aren't going to go far above the lower bound anyway, since it is set so high for a Summer Olympics (and there aren't really any popular winter sports that aren't part of the RL Winter Olympics).

Ilyseum wrote:

Gregoryisgodistan wrote:I'm sure if someone included some ridiculous "sport", the Council might reject it. While any host who I would trust with hosting the Olympics would certainly be capable of doing it, that isn't necessarily the issue. Wasn't summer vigil fasting contested as a "sport" once? I'd have had an issue with that had I been here at the time. And I'm sure if I proposed including slave beating or heathen crushing or some other violent Gregoryisgodistani "sport", as I've joked about on IRC, it would be rejected. Some things don't belong in the Olympics no matter who the host is.

I'm sure the vote would be alot closer than you'd think. Besides, you could argue that some of the RL Olympic events shouldn't be there (supporters of wrestling certainly did during that controversy).

Vilita and Turori wrote:I think that any olympic games that is purposely scheduled to coincide with the real olympic games, such as this past one, one 2 years from now, and 2 years from that, etc, should be 'encouraged' to stick to the events of that years official games.

Any olympic games that do not loosely coincide with the real ones could include 1-5 events as additional medal events so long as they include it in their bid - but ONLY if that sport has previously been contested and completed as an official demonstration event in a prior games.

If a sport hasn't been demonstrated previously, then the host has the option of adding it as a demonstration event so it can be included by future hosts

I don't support a numerical limit, but I could support a rule that only RL Olympic events and events previously contested as demonstration events could be contested as medal events.

I do believe that the extra events actually contested in a RL Olympics should be held in the NS Olympics corresponding to that year (for example, I would not vote for a bid in 2020 that excluded baseball just as I wouldn't vote for a bid that excluded basketball were such a bid legal), but I'd be opposed to restricting a host of an Olympics held in that year to the events actually contested. Realistically, most hosts aren't going to go far above the lower bound anyway, since it is set so high for a Summer Olympics (and there aren't really any popular winter sports that aren't part of the RL Winter Olympics).

Well, Bandy is the world's second most popular winter sport, and isn't in the Winter Olympics.

Kelssek wrote:The intent was always to keep the Nationstates Olympics close to the RL Olympics and that is how I believe it should be. I would go so far as to argue that the clear analogue and simulation of the real thing is precisely what makes the Olympics as an RP event attractive and interesting. This would be lost if we just started including any sport as a medal event on the host's whim (I say whim because it's rare that we even get competing bids).

I've always been a strong supporter of this founding principle for both the Olympics and the NSWC.

Note that it's not just to keep things 'attractive and interesting', however; drawing people into participation on the basis of similarity to the RL event is only part of it, though an important part. On a purely practical level it also helps to minimise (though never wholly avoid) logistical arguments over how tournaments should be organised.

Kelssek wrote:

Personally, I'm in favour of the host nation deciding any additional medal events they want to hold, as long as they make it clear in their host bid.

Why should it be rejected though? You don't have to participate in sports you don't like.

I strongly disagree. Actually, what Ilyseum is citing as the original state of play was in fact a drafting mistake which was only realized quite a while afterwards; I had wanted to include rugby sevens and golf as medal events at the 5th Summer Olympics but was told I couldn't and this, or something else later, may have revealed the loophole. The amendment was to put into words what had been intended all along.

The intent was always to keep the Nationstates Olympics close to the RL Olympics and that is how I believe it should be. I would go so far as to argue that the clear analogue and simulation of the real thing is precisely what makes the Olympics as an RP event attractive and interesting. This would be lost if we just started including any sport as a medal event on the host's whim (I say whim because it's rare that we even get competing bids). A multi-sport event with a variety of non-Olympic sports was attempted and it didn't take off despite a very credible host and participation from many members of the community.

Commerce Heights wrote: - All events in the sports which are established as part of the RL Olympic program—i.e., those sports which are listed in the Bye-law to Rule 45 of the RL Olympic Charter and whose international federations are members of the ASOIF or AIOWF—must be included as medal events.
- Additional sports may be proposed in a host bid as medal events. Each such sport must be individually approved by a vote of the Olympic Council, which will take place at the same time as the host vote. A host bid may not be made contingent on the inclusion of any additional sport.
- During the year of the RL Games of the Olympiad, additional sports which are being contested at those RL Games may be included without a vote of the Olympic Council.

There are two conflicting realism issues here. Is it more realistic to follow the rule and give hosts up to 5 events at their discretion to award medals in, which opens up the (unrealistic) possibility of medals being awarded in sports that aren't recognized by the IOC? And when the point of that rule change doesn't really apply here, as Taeshan points out?

But I think these 3 points are good ideas. We move towards setting up the "core" Olympic events which always take place, and allow for a small number of medal events that vary year to year. In this sense we would follow the principle of the IOC's change, despite the intent of attracting more local ticket sales not really being a relevant concern for us. As an alternative, my keep-it-simple suggestion would be to augment the existing base list/extended list system and place any event confirmed as a medal event for the next RL Olympics onto the extended list. This gives hosts the option of including none, some, or all as medal events or not. I suppose this would be the more strict "follow the real thing" version.

I just really want to have slave beating included in the Olympics. Rping that would be interesting.

Coraspia wrote:

Kelssek wrote:
I strongly disagree. Actually, what Ilyseum is citing as the original state of play was in fact a drafting mistake which was only realized quite a while afterwards; I had wanted to include rugby sevens and golf as medal events at the 5th Summer Olympics but was told I couldn't and this, or something else later, may have revealed the loophole. The amendment was to put into words what had been intended all along.

The intent was always to keep the Nationstates Olympics close to the RL Olympics and that is how I believe it should be. I would go so far as to argue that the clear analogue and simulation of the real thing is precisely what makes the Olympics as an RP event attractive and interesting. This would be lost if we just started including any sport as a medal event on the host's whim (I say whim because it's rare that we even get competing bids). A multi-sport event with a variety of non-Olympic sports was attempted and it didn't take off despite a very credible host and participation from many members of the community.



There are two conflicting realism issues here. Is it more realistic to follow the rule and give hosts up to 5 events at their discretion to award medals in, which opens up the (unrealistic) possibility of medals being awarded in sports that aren't recognized by the IOC? And when the point of that rule change doesn't really apply here, as Taeshan points out?

But I think these 3 points are good ideas. We move towards setting up the "core" Olympic events which always take place, and allow for a small number of medal events that vary year to year. In this sense we would follow the principle of the IOC's change, despite the intent of attracting more local ticket sales not really being a relevant concern for us. As an alternative, my keep-it-simple suggestion would be to augment the existing base list/extended list system and place any event confirmed as a medal event for the next RL Olympics onto the extended list. This gives hosts the option of including none, some, or all as medal events or not. I suppose this would be the more strict "follow the real thing" version.

I just really want to have slave beating included in the Olympics. Rping that would be interesting.

You know Gregoryisgodistan would win multiple medals in that event.

The Serbian Empire wrote:

Coraspia wrote:I just really want to have slave beating included in the Olympics. Rping that would be interesting.

You know Gregoryisgodistan would win multiple medals in that event.

Certainly. We could have something of a rivalry, Havenic slavery isn't much fun (if I can scrape up something from international incidents it'd be more obvious.)

Is there any rule IRL that the host only gets to choose five sports, or Is that just the number Tokyo chose? Realistically, as mentioned earlier, a host isn't going to add too many additional events, but if there's no cap IRL there shouldn't be on NS either, in my opinion. And it's worth noting that sports do have to be approved by the IOC IRL. They'd presumably give approval to any reasonable sport, like they did for Tokyo, but if a host were to propose something ridiculous I think they'd stop it and so should we.

Creating a cap also forces us to decide what is or isn't the same sport. For instance, the IOC considers baseball and softball to be the same sport because they're run by the same organization outside the Olympics. That isn't true on NS. Should we treat them as one sport even though there's no IC reason, or call them two? If we call them two, then there are six sports in Tokyo but we have a cap of five. So we wouldn't be allowed to include all of them.

Conversely, rugby union and rugby league are run by the same organizing group on NS but not IRL. So we have an IC reason to treat them as the same sport if a host wants to include them but IRL they aren't. If there's no cap, none of this matters.

On the matter of the extension of the sports/events base list/extended list, Kelssek has my thoughts covered, and also why I seconded and voted in favour of CH's amendment when it was put forward.

Kelssek wrote:As an alternative, my keep-it-simple suggestion would be to augment the existing base list/extended list system and place any event confirmed as a medal event for the next RL Olympics onto the extended list. This gives hosts the option of including none, some, or all as medal events or not. I suppose this would be the more strict "follow the real thing" version.

This would be my favoured amendment, if we need one. Realistically, if people want to take part in events that aren't on the Olympic calendar, go create a new multi-sport event for them.

Liventia wrote:On the matter of the extension of the sports/events base list/extended list, Kelssek has my thoughts covered, and also why I seconded and voted in favour of CH's amendment when it was put forward.

Kelssek wrote:As an alternative, my keep-it-simple suggestion would be to augment the existing base list/extended list system and place any event confirmed as a medal event for the next RL Olympics onto the extended list. This gives hosts the option of including none, some, or all as medal events or not. I suppose this would be the more strict "follow the real thing" version.

This would be my favoured amendment, if we need one. Realistically, if people want to take part in events that aren't on the Olympic calendar, go create a new multi-sport event for them.

I will of course be voting against anything that makes the Olympics 'follow the real thing.' Having the Olympics follow the real thing is just an impediment to creativity: I'm all for a base list being put in, but nothing says it must follow the real thing.

Coraspia wrote:

Liventia wrote:On the matter of the extension of the sports/events base list/extended list, Kelssek has my thoughts covered, and also why I seconded and voted in favour of CH's amendment when it was put forward.


This would be my favoured amendment, if we need one. Realistically, if people want to take part in events that aren't on the Olympic calendar, go create a new multi-sport event for them.

I will of course be voting against anything that makes the Olympics 'follow the real thing.' Having the Olympics follow the real thing is just an impediment to creativity: I'm all for a base list being put in, but nothing says it must follow the real thing.

Then go make your own event, it's really not that difficult.

Liventia wrote:

Coraspia wrote:I will of course be voting against anything that makes the Olympics 'follow the real thing.' Having the Olympics follow the real thing is just an impediment to creativity: I'm all for a base list being put in, but nothing says it must follow the real thing.

Then go make your own event, it's really not that difficult.

Wow. That's really how to deal with a simple statement of how someone will vote. Smooth.

Coraspia wrote:

Liventia wrote:Then go make your own event, it's really not that difficult.

Wow. That's really how to deal with a simple statement of how someone will vote. Smooth.

I think Liventia has an occasional tendency to be far too abrasive for his own good.

However, in this case I happen to think he's entirely right.

'Having the Olympics follow the real thing' is more or less the entire point; just as it is with the NS World Cup. Those who want more 'creative' multi-sports events are very welcome to start their own.

Yeah, I'm all for having the NS Olympics mirroring the current RL Olympics setup as far as rulesets.

I like the NS Olympics because they're mostly like the RL Olympics, with an NS twist. Start adding in loads of other sports and completely getting away from the RL Olympics, and it's no longer the Olympics at all - it's just Generic Multi Sports Festival. Which, I might be interested in participating in separately - but it's not the Olympics. So I, too, side with Kelssek on this.

Just thought I'd make you all aware of this post, specifically this sentence:

the current Olympic Records will be treated as the current World Records by the NSAC, giving the opportunity to set world or Championship records. (Whether the NSOC reciprocate is, of course, entirely up to them.)

I'm hoping (if the event is successful) to run it twice a year - once in autumn and once in spring. I leave it entirely to the NSOC as to whether any records set in this event should be considered as World Records for the purposes of the Olympics.

Krytenia wrote:Just thought I'd make you all aware of this post, specifically this sentence:

the current Olympic Records will be treated as the current World Records by the NSAC, giving the opportunity to set world or Championship records. (Whether the NSOC reciprocate is, of course, entirely up to them.)

I'm hoping (if the event is successful) to run it twice a year - once in autumn and once in spring. I leave it entirely to the NSOC as to whether any records set in this event should be considered as World Records for the purposes of the Olympics.

Why would you decide to do this NS Athletics Championships twice a year when we have spoken about doing a diamond league series (on this thread, hence why I am asking this question on this thread) with a World Championships at the end of it? I'm just curious.

Britonisea wrote:

Krytenia wrote:Just thought I'd make you all aware of this post, specifically this sentence:



I'm hoping (if the event is successful) to run it twice a year - once in autumn and once in spring. I leave it entirely to the NSOC as to whether any records set in this event should be considered as World Records for the purposes of the Olympics.

Why would you decide to do this NS Athletics Championships twice a year when we have spoken about doing a diamond league series (on this thread, hence why I am asking this question on this thread) with a World Championships at the end of it? I'm just curious.

I would rather a World Championships run by an experienced player, then have a Diamond League series run by God knows who.

Britonisea wrote:

Krytenia wrote:Just thought I'd make you all aware of this post, specifically this sentence:



I'm hoping (if the event is successful) to run it twice a year - once in autumn and once in spring. I leave it entirely to the NSOC as to whether any records set in this event should be considered as World Records for the purposes of the Olympics.

Why would you decide to do this NS Athletics Championships twice a year when we have spoken about doing a diamond league series (on this thread, hence why I am asking this question on this thread) with a World Championships at the end of it? I'm just curious.

To take a leaf from another famous website, I'm "being bold".

BTW, there has been an attempt at a Diamond-League style event in the past (run by Ceni/Costa de Ouro IIRC) that sank rather quickly.

Liventia wrote:

Britonisea wrote:
Why would you decide to do this NS Athletics Championships twice a year when we have spoken about doing a diamond league series (on this thread, hence why I am asking this question on this thread) with a World Championships at the end of it? I'm just curious.

I would rather a World Championships run by an experienced player, then have a Diamond League series run by God knows who.

Not even if the Diamond League series were connected to the World Championships, which would be run by an experienced member of NSSports? Not even if experienced members of the NSSports community lends a guiding hand to the "less experienced" hosts prior to the World Championships? I'd rather have an experienced player run the World Championships, too, but that doesn't mean the community couldn't give the "less experienced" a chance to host an Athletics meet. No, they can't set up their own little athletics champs because everyone will take it for a rip-off, and won't sign up.

Krytenia wrote:

Britonisea wrote:
Why would you decide to do this NS Athletics Championships twice a year when we have spoken about doing a diamond league series (on this thread, hence why I am asking this question on this thread) with a World Championships at the end of it? I'm just curious.

To take a leaf from another famous website, I'm "being bold".

BTW, there has been an attempt at a Diamond-League style event in the past (run by Ceni/Costa de Ouro IIRC) that sank rather quickly.

Attempts to do a series, in general, are working and in place.

If I sound argumentative, that's not my intentions.

Tell you what, Britonisea. Let's see how this goes. The Diamond League discussion added up to about four posts four weeks ago, so let's not call that "working and in place". How about we see what happens with RP in the NSAC, and if it goes well, maybe a few of us can get our track on and hash out details for some sort of athletics tour.

Athletics has, traditionally, not been a strongly-supported sport on here in terms of RP. Hopefully, a centrepiece event might change that, and we can go outwards from there.

How does that sound?

Commerce Heights wrote:Second, I would like to remind everyone that the original intent of the clause allowing the President to appoint a member of the Executive Committee was not for the terms of past hosts to be extended, as it has often been used, but rather to allow a place for a non-host who otherwise contributes to the Olympic Games. For this reason, I appoint Vekaiyu to the Executive Committee.

After much deliberation, Vekaiyu will accept said appointment.

((OOC: actually I didn't know if there was a process for this or not, lol, so I waited a bit))

Any news on upcoming Winter Olympics i.e. signups, who's hosting etc. ?