ASMV/K&P BoF 43 Host Bid

[Kagdazka and Pazhujebu]

On behalf of the FAs of both Andossa Se Mitrin Vega and Kagdazka and Pazhujebu, this post is to formally announce the candidacy of the above-mentioned nations to jointly host the 43rd Baptism of Fire. Below is a list of factors we ask the World Cup Committee to consider while voting.

OVERALL GOALS

Having noticed the widespread concerns of "experienced" nations over the frequent selection of the "match report" RP style by new or relatively new nations, we want to put forward a plan that will directly address the issue. Our overall goal, should we be elected as hosts, will be to encourage new nations to experiment with as many RPing styles as they feel comfortable with, in the hopes that they will confidently enter the World Cup community and soon become renowned creative RPers. We acknowledge that it can be quite difficult to get a grasp of things when an inexperienced nation joins NS or first branches out into NS Sports, and want to encouragingly demonstrate to these nations that they are not limited to one style or another. We have therefore developed an RP bonus format that will directly reward nations who lightly experiment with different RP styles during the Baptism of Fire (see specifics below).

EXPERIENCE

The player behind Kagdazka and Pazhujebu has been an on-and-off NationStates participant since 2007, with the nations The Pazhujeb Islands, Kagdazka, and Kagdazka and Pazhujebu (current). He has created and scorinated a highly organized league system, and in so doing familiarized himself with both the process of and formulae behind scorination. He can fluently use (and comprehend the formula behind) NSFS 3 and xkoranate.

The player behind Andossa Se Mitrin Vega has been a participant of NS for much longer. He has demonstrated exemplary creativity in his RPing and repeatedly undertaken collaborative RPs, considered by these two nations to be among the most (if not the most) rewarding RP styles. He has previously hosted a World Bowl, several editions of his own Draggonnii Inviyattii, and the 17th edition of the Baptism of Fire.

TOURNAMENT FORMAT

An ideal ASMV/K&P-hosted Baptism of Fire would contain a traditional single-round-robin group stage, followed by straight knockouts. Specific formats would be dependent on the number of signups. Multiples of eight would be preferred, but should another, less compatible number of signups be offered, we have developed a format that would use two short single-round robin group stages. (The Baptism of Fire that The Pazhujeb Islands once participated in, hosted by a Bazalonian puppet, similarly used two short group stages and is remembered by at least this player as a fantastic tournament.) Either way, we would hope to have 6 to 10 matchdays over the course of the group stage(s) in addition to the 4 to 5 matchdays that would be required for the knockouts.

SCORINATOR

Based on the results of this (admittedly somewhat rudimentary) study, conducted by Kagdazka and Pazhujebu, we have decided that the SQIS formula of xkoranate is the best suited scorinator for a short tournament full of unranked teams, such as the Baptism of Fire, and would use it on a nightly basis to generate scores.

STYLE MODIFIERS

Style modifiers would not be used in this Baptism of Fire.

TIEBREAKERS

Tiebreaking criteria would be as follows, in order: head-to-head points, head-to-head goal difference, head-to-head goals for, number of wins, overall goal difference, overall goals for, and, as a last-ditch option, a coin flip. Note that multiple head-to-head categories are listed so as to account for the possibility of a three-or-more-way tie.

RP BONUS FORMAT

A common and basic bonus format would be used, with nations receiving either zero, one, or two RP bonus points for any given matchday. Zero points would be awarded when a nation does not RP at all or is adjudged to have RPed exceptionally poorly. One point would be awarded when a nation is adjudged to have RPed anywhere between slightly poorly and very well. Two points would be awarded when a nation is adjudged to have RPed "exceptionally" well, ("exceptionally" meaning that a nation has RPed something unique, engaging, and (not or) thorough (thorough meaning something that someone has clearly worked very hard on; length being a possible indicator of thoroughness)). One additional point can be added to a team's bonus on any given matchday, provided they have fulfilled the requirements of the "earned RP diversity bonus," described below.

A roster post at any time during the tournament, would automatically earn a nation either one or two RP bonus points. Rosters with simply names, numbers and positions would receive one point. Rosters with names, numbers, positions, club status, biographical history, and other interesting auxiliary information would receive two points.

"EARNED RP DIVERSITY BONUS"

If a nation RPs compellingly* in three clearly different styles (in three different posts on three different matchdays), from the point of the third such RP onward (for the remainder of the tournament), an extra point shall be assessed to each future RP they would otherwise have received credit for.

*For an RP to be considered “compelling,” it need not receive two RP bonus points. It could be a below average RP for which only one RP bonus point was awarded, but if the poster is clearly demonstrating an attempt to actively experiment with a different form of RPing, then the RP can still be considered “compelling.” This "compelling" clause has been added to prevent nations from deliberately trying to exploit the earned RP diversity bonus without any attempt at real creativity.

Confusing? Check out these examples.

Nation A RPs “compellingly” on Matchdays 1, 2, and 3, in three clearly different styles. Nation A receives one point for each of these RPs. When Nation A RPs on Matchday 4, regardless of RP “genre,” and is adjudged to have earned one normal RP bonus point, an extra point for the “earned RP diversity bonus” is added, for a total of two RP bonus points for Matchday 4. When Nation A RPs with exceptionally high quality on Matchday 5, regardless of RP “genre,” and is adjudged to have earned two normal RP bonus points, an extra point for the “earned RP diversity bonus” is added, for a total of three RP bonus points for Matchday 5.

Nation B RPs “compellingly” on Matchdays 1, 2, and 3, in three clearly different styles. Nation B receives one point for each of these RPs. When Nation A RPs on Matchday 4, regardless of RP “genre,” and is adjudged to have earned one normal RP bonus point, an extra point for the “earned RP diversity bonus” is added for a total of two RP bonus points for Matchday 4. Nation B does not RP on Matchday 5. Nation B receives no RP bonus points at all. When Nation B does RP on Matchday 6, regardless of RP “genre,” and is adjudged to have earned one normal RP bonus point, an extra point for the “earned RP diversity bonus” is added for a total of two RP bonus points for Matchday 6.

Nation C posts three stellar and exceptional RPs on Matchdays 1, 2, and 3, but all in the same style. Nation C receives two RP bonus points for each of these RPs, but only because of the sheer quality of the RPs, not the diversity of genre. Nation C RPs “compellingly” on Matchdays 4 and 5, in styles clearly different both from one another and from the MD 1, 2, and 3 RP style. Nation C’s Matchday 4 RP is considered to be of exceptional quality, but Nation C’s Matchday 5 RP is not. Nation C receives two RP bonus points for the Matchday 4 RP, and one point for the Matchday 5 RP. When Nation C once again RPs with exceptionally high quality on Matchday 6, and is adjudged to have earned two normal RP bonus points, an extra point for the “earned RP diversity bonus” is added, for a total of three RP bonus points for Matchday 6.

What do we mean by “different RP styles?” Here’s a very short list of known “genres,” which could easily have other items added to it should suggestions be made by other nations.

Collaborative
Storytelling
First person player account/interview
Fan experiences
Match report/media analysis
Artwork
Music
Something completely different

If awarded hosting rights to the Baptism of Fire, we would provide examples of all these (and, hopefully, other) RP styles for the benefit of involved nations.

[Virabia]

One hiccup with your RP bonus system is that I think it puts those with storylines (that use same format) at at a disadvantage...

[Polar Islandstates]

Whilst not wanting it to look like a pair of nations looking to bid themselves are picking at a rival, I too share that opinion. Surely of those 'genres', storytelling and collaborative rely on similar posts over more than a couple of matchdays that use the same genre/format of RP?

[Kagdazka and Pazhujebu]

One hiccup with your RP bonus system is that I think it puts those with storylines (that use same format) at at a disadvantage...

Whilst not wanting it to look like a pair of nations looking to bid themselves are picking at a rival, I too share that opinion. Surely of those 'genres', storytelling and collaborative rely on similar posts over more than a couple of matchdays that use the same genre/format of RP?

Should a nation write a series of RPs in the same format, and do it very well, he or she would be justly rewarded via the classical RP bonus system. An engaging storyline is very likely to generate high RP bonus rewards. We would never deliberately punish nations for trying to build an interesting narrative. What we are suggesting is merely there to give a gentle pat on the back to nations who are not sure what they want to do or where they want to go with their RPs.

Further, I reject as false the suggestion that a lengthy storyline can only be told in one RP style all throughout. Some of the better epic narratives that have been told in WCC tournaments have morphed in and out of different forms. Take the recent example of Juan Miguel Planudes in the World Cup 55 RP thread. Multiple nations used him in multiple forms, and the Holy Empire's RPs embraced that.

[Qazox]

My only problem with this bid is the feeling that you are attempting to force creativity onto people.

There are many people on NSSports who RP can RP in multiple genres, but seeing as the Baptism of Fire is for newer nations, many of which who probably have not RPed in any shape or type, if at all. As such they might not be able to RP certain styles. And under this format it seems to me those nations that stick to one RPing format but RPs every MD, beacuse that's the style they're most comfortable with; might not do as well as a team that RP's every other day but follows the different genre rule.

Other than that one thing, this is a solid bid.

[Polar Islandstates]

In answer to your second point regarding the JMP storylines, this is of course true. I was merely imagining how my posts, which did rely on similar format RPs between myself and Newmanistan, would have fared under this format.

Am I right in assuming that a lengthy RP storyline told in different RP styles would score higher than stories told all in one format under your system? I would be concerned that nations (speaking mainly about new nations, not puppets of experienced ones) forcing themselves to use different styles whilst telling a longer story arc in order to collect your bonus might find the storyline suffers, and thus might end up shooting themselves in the foot somewhat. Speaking purely for myself, I know I would struggle with that level of literary competence just yet. Provided this was done with enough skill to maintain the storyline across the different formats however, I agree it would be fully deserving of a higher bonus.

I feel I'm appearing too critical. This isn't a major point at all, just thinking out loud.

[Andossa Se Mitrin Vega]

While we will admit that RP storylines that cover multiple matchdays would not allow for as much diversity, I would strongly argue that most new nations do not venture into the realm of extended RP storylines. There are, however, plenty of people who do write stand alone stories that do not require any other RP to add to it.

The basis of this bid is to help new players discover just what they enjoy and help build solid RPers
who will make this game more exciting for everyone.

Remember that we are not punishing those who RP, but rather rewarding those who are willing to try new things. Length is just one of many criteria that will be looked at . Long stories that fail to go anywhere are not a good thing.

[Newmanistan]

Though I like the bid and am in favor of the people doing the bidding to host the tournament, I'm not fond of the "RP Diversity Clause" either, more because you have this as a specific rule. I'm all for encouraging first-time users to become versatile RPers, but let's face it, some people do one thing and do it well. They should not be at a disadvantage to a user who sees this "set in stone" rule and plan accordingly JUST to get the bonus. As a host, when evaluating RP, a consideration should be made when a particular person may be exploring a different RP avenue and valued appropriately; but it should not have a set rule assigned to it.

I'm also not a fan of "coin flip" used as a tiebreaker. Have a tiebreaker game.

Having said all that I still may vote for you.

[Newmanistan]

A roster post (in which eleven or more players are named), at any time during the tournament, would automatically earn a nation two RP bonus points, regardless of quality.

Don't like this either, really.

So, in your opinion, this deserves the same as this?

[Sarzonia]

For the reasons previously listed, I'm not at all comfortable with the idea of rewarding people for "creative" RPs because that therefore penalises players who are "uncreative", and use match reports to RP.

I'll admit to a slight personal bias, as I've used the match report style frequently in the past. More important to my reluctance to stomach the clause, I'm a former journalist, having served as a newspaper editor for two and a half years.

I definitely believe in ASMV as a host and I definitely think K&P has great potential. I just think that clause would be a deal-breaker for me.

[Kagdazka and Pazhujebu]

A roster post (in which eleven or more players are named), at any time during the tournament, would automatically earn a nation two RP bonus points, regardless of quality.

Don't like this either, really.

So, in your opinion, this deserves the same as this?

While I would half-heartedly argue that an automatically-set RP roster bonus is (as far as I know) fairly commonplace in most NS soccer tournaments, I have no particular love affair with this clause and am willing to revise it. Allow me to consult with ASMV on this.

I'll admit to a slight personal bias, as I've used the match report style frequently in the past. More important to my reluctance to stomach the clause, I'm a former journalist, having served as a newspaper editor for two and a half years.

A match report is absolutely considered to be an RP style, at least as far as this bid is considered. Nowhere in the bid does it say that ASMV and I will fail to dish out a deserving bonus for a fantastic match report. Nowhere in the bid does it say that a nation must experiment with three styles other than a match report. (In fact, the bid doesn't say that a nation must experiment with anything.) I would imagine that most nations who receive the earned RP diversity bonus will have written a match report as one of their styles, and that's totally fine with me and ASMV. The bonus may stand out because it has a wordy name and a couple paragraphs devoted to it in the OP, but it's not as radical as it's being made out to be. After all, many sports RPs already utilize multiple styles within single posts. A talented RPer will have no trouble acquiring the diversity bonus.

The only type of RPer who might have trouble doing so is one who writes the exact same thing in the exact same format day after day after day, whether it's a match report or not. You may disagree, Sarzonia, but if I were to be hosting a standard BoF (meaning one without this clause), and was presented with such a set of repetitive RPs, I would score it poorly anyway.

[Andossa Se Mitrin Vega]

The only type of RPer who might have trouble doing so is one who writes the exact same thing in the exact same format day after day after day, whether it's a match report or not. You may disagree, Sarzonia, but if I were to be hosting a standard BoF (meaning one without this clause), and was presented with such a set of repetitive RPs, I would score it poorly anyway.

Let me echo this sentiment. Solid match reports are excellent RPs and will be rewarded as such. Cookie Cutter RPs of any sort will not fair well at all.

There are several RPers out there who use multiple genres in a single RP (Arch for example frequently uses some combination of storytelling, collaborative, fan perspective, and match report.) While I don't expect most newcomers to have Arch's pinache to begin with, It is possible for RP's to be jusdged as meeting more than one criteria for the bonus and those would be rewarded as such. Bears Armed is another example as those RPs are usually split between storytelling or another genre followed by a match report. Both would be rewarded.

Now as to the issue with the bonus...

Which is better, to simply say that we will reward diversity if different styles are used for RP or to do as we have done and simply laid out just what those rewards would be? If we had chosen to keep this bonus as "host only" information, which would have been our right to do, we would not even be having this discussion. We thought it better to let everyone know up front what we are trying to do in helping new players become solid RPers. I do agree with K&P's statement that this is being made into much more than it is.

It is hard enough for some newer nations to simply figure out where to start. What we have done, or will do rather, is to lay down some solid examples of where one can start and encourage those players to try more than one genre in order to find what they like most.

I'm also not a fan of "coin flip" used as a tiebreaker. Have a tiebreaker game.

This could be changed as well, but in all honesty the form of the final tie-breaker is splitting hairs as I have never personally seen it go down to that point when so many stand in front of it.

[Bears Armed]

STYLE MODIFIERS

Style modifiers would not be used in this Baptism of Fire.

Why not? Apart from anything else, visible differences in style can be a useful detail to know for writing 'match report' RP.

[Starblaydia]

I like RPing style diversity, especially within the same tournament, and have a similar system for the DBC - I just never told anyone about it

[Kagdazka and Pazhujebu]

STYLE MODIFIERS

Style modifiers would not be used in this Baptism of Fire.

Why not? Apart from anything else, visible differences in style can be a useful detail to know for writing 'match report' RP.

There are a couple of reasons.

1. The omission of style modifiers has been a common practice throughout the history of the BoF. We grant that leaving them out used to be much more common some years ago than it is now. However, it's hardly beyond recent precedent to see it done. For instance, according to its bid thread, the most recent BoF, hosted by Erathore and Legalese, did not use style modifiers.

2. The scorinator study that I recently ran did not make use of style modifiers, for various reasons. If ASMV and I had posted a bid that included style modifiers, I would not have felt comfortable quoting that study. And quoting that study was something I really wanted to do in order to justify the use of xkoranate (something I was concerned might be a bit controversial).

I like RPing style diversity, especially within the same tournament, and have a similar system for the DBC - I just never told anyone about it

Look at this purple devil, running around, keeping secrets, winking at people!

JK Star, glad to hear you like the idea.

[The Babbage Islands]

2. The scorinator study that I recently ran did not make use of style modifiers, for various reasons. If ASMV and I had posted a bid that included style modifiers, I would not have felt comfortable quoting that study. And quoting that study was something I really wanted to do in order to justify the use of xkoranate (something I was concerned might be a bit controversial).

Your excellent study is not necessary to justify xkoranate, which has proved itself in a variety of tournaments for years.

As for no style modifiers, I'm quite comfortable with that, although their value as an aid to RP even if not scorinated is not to be discounted.

[Kagdazka and Pazhujebu]

This bid's OP has been revised. Based on Newmanistan's legitimate concerns, ASMV and I have decided to set up a simple criteria for deciding whether roster posts deserve one or two RP bonus points, rather than automatically dishing out two.

<snip>

Your excellent study is not necessary to justify xkoranate, which has proved itself in a variety of tournaments for years.

You're right, of course, TBI. I may have chosen my words poorly. My worry came not so much from the fact that xkoranate is unproven but from the fact that NSFS 3 has of late become a de facto "safe option" for any bid for any soccer tournament, and that therefore ASMV and I might encounter questions as to our comparatively unusual scorinator selection.

[Legalese]

My commendations to the hosts on the thought put into this bid, as well as their ideas behind the Diversity bonus. I'm also (predictably) a fan of the non-use of style modifiers, and the corresponding use of GF in the tiebreakers.

Just a technical question from me, partially due to my lack of knowledge of SQIS: Considering the allocation of RP points handed out, etc., can you give us an idea of what kind of increased chance an RPer will have of defeating, say, a non-RPer?

[Kagdazka and Pazhujebu]

My commendations to the hosts on the thought put into this bid, as well as their ideas behind the Diversity bonus. I'm also (predictably) a fan of the non-use of style modifiers, and the corresponding use of GF in the tiebreakers.

Just a technical question from me, partially due to my lack of knowledge of SQIS: Considering the allocation of RP points handed out, etc., can you give us an idea of what kind of increased chance an RPer will have of defeating, say, a non-RPer?

Absolutely.

The SQIS formula is ratio-based, which means that when two teams play against each other, the number of goals either team scores is based on the comparison of only the two teams' ranks (in the case of this tournament, their accumulated RP bonus points). Compare this to a scorinator such as NSFS 3, which compares the difference between two teams' ranks to an overall "max points" constant, (which is set by the host, usually significantly higher than the rank of the highest ranked team) in order to generate scores.

Example: in a theoretical BoF, it is matchday two. Two teams are facing each other; one (Team A) has posted a roster and has RPed and received, say one bonus point for each, whereas the other (Team B) has posted nothing at all. In the SQIS formula, both teams have a tiny number added to their overall total (0.01, I believe) in order to avoid a division by zero problem, and the ratio of Team B's accumulated RP bonus points (0.01) over Team A's accumulated points (2.01) is used to generate scores. One should not oversimplify the formula by saying that Team A has a two in three chance of winning; the formula is much more complicated than that; but if comprehension is aided by thinking of it that way, you could go with that.

Take this example, and change nothing about it but the scorinator. In another theoretical BoF, it's matchday two, Team A has posted a roster and RPed once, Team B hasn't, blah blah blah. The hosts are using NSFS 3, and because they are using a cumulative RP bonus system, they have had to set a max points constant at the start of the tournament. Let's say for the sake of the argument that they've set it at 20. When Team A plays Team B, the likelihood of a victory for either team or for a draw is calculated based on the difference between their two ranks (not their ratio to one another), in this case 2 points, compared to the max-points constant (20).

A difference of just two when compared to an overall possible difference of twenty (while significant enough to favor Team A slightly) is not very much, and so on an early matchday Team A is less likely to get a result against Team B in NSFS 3 than in xkoranate's SQIS formula.

Now, as tournaments progress into later matchdays, and teams accumulate bonus points, and the best-ranked team gets closer to whatever the max-points constant is, and therefore gets "further away" from non-RPing teams, NSFS becomes predictably more reliable. That's why when you actually compare final tables in sims of identical tournaments in the two scorinators, NSFS actually isn't that far behind xkoranate in terms of rewarding RPers.

The short answer to your question is this: RPing teams are slightly more likely to beat non-RPing teams when xkoranate is used than when NSFS 3 is used, especially on earlier matchdays.

[Andossa Se Mitrin Vega]

One more point on the non~usage of style mods. Many newer nations do not fully understand the actual ramifications of using style mods. Yes, using a -5 style is easily seen as giving up fewer goals. It also means a risk to qualification when pts for and goal differential are given higher priority. That is but one example of many that could be given.

Not using style mods also serves to keep a level field where the only controllable variant is RP.

[Mytannion]

Don't get me wrong, I like different RP styles - but I do not think it is particularly fair to try to make people explore different styles, if they do not feel comfortable with it.

Don't think I can vote anyway so this doesn't particularly matter - but it's just my opinion.

[Kagdazka and Pazhujebu]

Don't get me wrong, I like different RP styles - but I do not think it is particularly fair to try to make people explore different styles, if they do not feel comfortable with it.

Don't think I can vote anyway so this doesn't particularly matter - but it's just my opinion.

Has anyone actually read the OP? Or are they just reading the complaints of other nations?

Again, we're not "making" anyone do anything. This RP bonus format contains a significant reward for nations that are interested in exploring other styles. Teams that stick to one thing and do it extremely well will be extremely well rewarded via the standard RP bonus system.

The diversity bonus is a carrot, not a stick.

[Mytannion]

Don't get me wrong, I like different RP styles - but I do not think it is particularly fair to try to make people explore different styles, if they do not feel comfortable with it.

Don't think I can vote anyway so this doesn't particularly matter - but it's just my opinion.

Has anyone actually read the OP? Or are they just reading the complaints of other nations?

Again, we're not "making" anyone do anything. This RP bonus format contains a significant reward for nations that are interested in exploring other styles. Teams that stick to one thing and do it extremely well will be extremely well rewarded via the standard RP bonus system.

The diversity bonus is a carrot, not a stick.

Sorry, didn't word it the best I probably could have - but was in a bit of a rush...

I don't like the idea that people get an added extra RP bonus, just because they have role-played differently even if and I quote 'it is a below average RP for which only one RP bonus point was awarded' - this is the part I don't like, their RPing could be below average and yet still they could get extra RP points just because they have RPed in different styles.

I do realise that even if someone doesn't role-play different ways and they do it well - they will still get rewarded, I just don't like it how people can get rewarded for RPing in different ways even if they don't do it particularly well.

[Kagdazka and Pazhujebu]

<snip>

Sorry, didn't word it the best I probably could have - but was in a bit of a rush...

I don't like the idea that people get an added extra RP bonus, just because they have role-played differently even if and I quote 'it is a below average RP for which only one RP bonus point was awarded' - this is the part I don't like, their RPing could be below average and yet still they could get extra RP points just because they have RPed in different styles.

I do realise that even if someone doesn't role-play different ways and they do it well - they will still get rewarded, I just don't like it how people can get rewarded for RPing in different ways even if they don't do it particularly well.

Mytannion, the problem is that under a conventional RP format there's no reward for even trying to RP in different ways. Consequently, many nations, old and new, never innovate. While nobody's telling them they HAVE to, I see absolutely no harm in encouraging people to give it a shot. Maybe you're right... maybe the products of a new nation's innovation will make for terrible RPing, but at least they'll have learned something in so doing, and that's what the BoF is supposed to be about.

There seems to be an unhealthy fixation, for some teams, on churning out cookie cutter RPs in the relentless quest for KPB points. And nations are well within their rights to do that. But if it's really only about the KPB points, only about winning, only about tangible rewards, then let's at least give them a reason to entertain the rest of us (who DO care about interesting RPing) in order to get their KPBs.

Here's my opinion: I would rather read a crappy RP that at least tries to explore an unfamiliar approach than read a crappy RP that looks just like every other crappy RP out there. If you think that ASMV and I are out of line for introducing an RP rewards system that embraces that opinion, then fine.

[Mytannion]

Mytannion, the problem is that under a conventional RP format there's no reward for even trying to RP in different ways. Consequently, many nations, old and new, never innovate. While nobody's telling them they HAVE to, I see absolutely no harm in encouraging people to give it a shot. Maybe you're right... maybe the products of a new nation's innovation will make for terrible RPing, but at least they'll have learned something in so doing, and that's what the BoF is supposed to be about.

There seems to be an unhealthy fixation, for some teams, on churning out cookie cutter RPs in the relentless quest for KPB points. And nations are well within their rights to do that. But if it's really only about the KPB points, only about winning, only about tangible rewards, then let's at least give them a reason to entertain the rest of us (who DO care about interesting RPing) in order to get their KPBs.

Here's my opinion: I would rather read a crappy RP that at least tries to explore an unfamiliar approach than read a crappy RP that looks just like every other crappy RP out there. If you think that ASMV and I are out of line for introducing an RP rewards system that embraces that opinion, then fine.

As someone who has recently tried different avenues of role-playing, I can say you can reap rewards from it yes. I object to the fact that someone can do a 'crappy' RP which is done in a different style - and then they get a bonus for it, sure, if they do a good role-play in this different style then great - give them the bonus.

I don't think it is fair on people who do role-play well using the same format every time, that people who can do (and this is taken from your bid, it isn't something I have said) 'below average' role-plays can get a bonus for just using different styles. Sure, it may be taking them out of their comfort zone or whatever, they may be trying something new - but these two things are not enough to warrant a bonus which could possibly get them a result against someone who has done a brilliant RP but has just kept the same format throughout.

It is just differing opinions at the end of the day.