World Baseball Classic Discussion Thread

[Schiltzberg]

Boom! Numero uno!

[Nova Anglicana]

The following nations posted both a roster and an RP in WBC 35:

Schiltzberg
Frenline Delpha
Ethane
Gregoryisgodistan
Ferret Civilization
Maklohi Vai
South Yerfilag
Saintland
Drawkland
Nova Anglicana
Kaboomlandia
Super-Llamaland

No nation that was not already on the Council posted a roster+RP in both WBC 34 and WBC 35, so no nation is eligible to join the WBC Council this time. Bolded teams are eligible to join the Council should they post a roster+RP for WBC 36.

Council membership prior to WBC 35 consisted of the following nations:

Gregoryisgodistan
Jeckland
Ko-oren
Maklohi Vai
Nova Anglicana
The Fair Republic
Super-Llamaland/Hicana
Cosumar
Southern Democratic States
South Yerfilag
San Llera
Schiltzberg
Frenline Delpha

Jeckland signed up for WBC 35, but did not post a roster or RP, so they are warned for WBC 36. Ko-oren signed up, but did not post a roster or RP. They are warned for WBC 36. San Llera posted a roster, but no RP, so they are warned for WBC 36. TFR had been warned for WBC 35 and did not participate, so their membership is revoked. Cosumar posted a roster, but no RP for both WBC 34 and WBC 35, so their membership is revoked. Southern Democratic States did not participate in either WBC 34 or WBC 35, so their membership is revoked.

Therefore, the current council looks like:

Gregoryisgodistan
Jeckland
Ko-oren
Maklohi Vai
Nova Anglicana
Super-Llamaland/Hicana
South Yerfilag
San Llera
Schiltzberg
Frenline Delpha

Please double-check behind me to confirm this.

[Nova Anglicana]

Six weeks from the last one finishing and the World Cup just ended - I'd say it's time to get another WBC going.

Agreed. We should definitely get signups going soon with Opening Day just over a week away.

Did someone say signup thread?

[Saintland]

Shouldn't I be eligible for Council voting, as a host of one of the last 3 WBCs?

Edit: Here's the exact wording from the Constitution:

WBC Constitution, December 2013
(previously amended April 2012)

Article I: Council Eligibility

Section 4: Any previous hosts of the Classic within the last three WBCs are also eligible, pending a simple majority vote of the current Council.

2nd edit: Assuming the list of WBC 35 roster + RPers is accurate, San Llera should also be warned for WBC 36.

[South Yerfilag]

Did someone say signup thread?

Signup thread!? SIGNUP THREAD?! SIGNUP THREAD?!?! WOOOOOO-HOOOOOOOO! Time to dust off those gloves and bats sitting in the SYBSA practice shed...

[Western cuba]

Signed up...wonder if any of you guys remember me. I hardly recognized the council list.

[Cosumar]

Signed up...wonder if any of you guys remember me. I hardly recognized the council list.

It makes me happy to see old names pop back up every now and then. Welcome back, Western!

(I'm assuming you remember me despite my new flag )

[Frenline Delpha]

Welcome back, sir. Nice to have golden oldies back.

Ah thank you, haha I wondered if anyone would take notice.

Well...
It was your signature.

[Western cuba]

Why yes I do Cosumar! It's nice coming back to something I enjoyed. May Margaret continue to be in my favor *burns rubber chicken* (is that still relevant, maybe I'm thinking about something else. It was so long ago)

And good point Frenline, that should have clicked haha.

[Maklohi Vai]

Now.

Ah, yes, that's what I happens when I don't RP more than once.

Signed up...wonder if any of you guys remember me. I hardly recognized the council list.

Good to see you again! Considering you were still a powerhouse when I was getting going (WBC 23 I think), it makes me feel old to have this be your golden comeback

[Nova Anglicana]

Shouldn't I be eligible for Council voting, as a host of one of the last 3 WBCs?

Edit: Here's the exact wording from the Constitution:

WBC Constitution, December 2013
(previously amended April 2012)

Article I: Council Eligibility

Section 4: Any previous hosts of the Classic within the last three WBCs are also eligible, pending a simple majority vote of the current Council.

2nd edit: Assuming the list of WBC 35 roster + RPers is accurate, San Llera should also be warned for WBC 36.

Thank you for the San Llera heads up. According to this post, you were up for voting last time and were not admitted.

[Ceni]

As a disinterested party to this dispute, my interpretation of the WBC Constitution is as follows:

Article 1, Section 4 clearly states that "Any previous hosts of the Classic within the last three WBCs are also eligible, pending a simple majority vote of the current Council." Also nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the one vote taken on the subject is final. Therefore, my interpretation of this section is that Saintland is still eligible to receive a vote on his membership if he has hosted this within the last 3 classics - which I believe he has - regardless of the result of a vote which was taken several months ago.

[Chromatika]

Host Bid for you.

[Aji No Moto]

As a disinterested party to this dispute, my interpretation of the WBC Constitution is as follows:

Article 1, Section 4 clearly states that "Any previous hosts of the Classic within the last three WBCs are also eligible, pending a simple majority vote of the current Council." Also nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the one vote taken on the subject is final. Therefore, my interpretation of this section is that Saintland is still eligible to receive a vote on his membership if he has hosted this within the last 3 classics - which I believe he has - regardless of the result of a vote which was taken several months ago.

I remember Cassadaigua being eligible to be admitted to the WBC Council after her hosting of WBC 26.

[Saintland]

As a disinterested party to this dispute, my interpretation of the WBC Constitution is as follows:

Article 1, Section 4 clearly states that "Any previous hosts of the Classic within the last three WBCs are also eligible, pending a simple majority vote of the current Council." Also nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the one vote taken on the subject is final. Therefore, my interpretation of this section is that Saintland is still eligible to receive a vote on his membership if he has hosted this within the last 3 classics - which I believe he has - regardless of the result of a vote which was taken several months ago.

I remember Cassadaigua being eligible to be admitted to the WBC Council after her hosting of WBC 26.

In this case, I was "retired" from NS at the time the vote took place, so obviously the Council wasn't going to vote somebody who had left NS onto the Council.

There's also plenty of past precedent where non-members who lost a Council vote but were still eligible a cycle later were put up for vote again (to the best of my knowledge, this includes every such case since the Council was created except this current one).

If the President wishes to avoid the hassle of holding Council membership votes, may I suggest amending the Constitution to make membership automatic for those who meet the criteria, assuming they are not currently impeached?

[Frenline Delpha]

I remember Cassadaigua being eligible to be admitted to the WBC Council after her hosting of WBC 26.

In this case, I was "retired" from NS at the time the vote took place, so obviously the Council wasn't going to vote somebody who had left NS onto the Council.

There's also plenty of past precedent where non-members who lost a Council vote but were still eligible a cycle later were put up for vote again (to the best of my knowledge, this includes every such case since the Council was created except this current one).

If the President wishes to avoid the hassle of holding Council membership votes, may I suggest amending the Constitution to make membership automatic for those who meet the criteria, assuming they are not currently impeached?

As a member of said council, I second this proposal.

[Nova Anglicana]

I remember Cassadaigua being eligible to be admitted to the WBC Council after her hosting of WBC 26.

In this case, I was "retired" from NS at the time the vote took place, so obviously the Council wasn't going to vote somebody who had left NS onto the Council.

There's also plenty of past precedent where non-members who lost a Council vote but were still eligible a cycle later were put up for vote again (to the best of my knowledge, this includes every such case since the Council was created except this current one).

If the President wishes to avoid the hassle of holding Council membership votes, may I suggest amending the Constitution to make membership automatic for those who meet the criteria, assuming they are not currently impeached?

Can you link to past precedent so that I can compare and we can have a recent link for future instances?

Also, I had forgotten about your "retirement", so I think there's room for another vote.

[Saintland]

In this case, I was "retired" from NS at the time the vote took place, so obviously the Council wasn't going to vote somebody who had left NS onto the Council.

There's also plenty of past precedent where non-members who lost a Council vote but were still eligible a cycle later were put up for vote again (to the best of my knowledge, this includes every such case since the Council was created except this current one).

If the President wishes to avoid the hassle of holding Council membership votes, may I suggest amending the Constitution to make membership automatic for those who meet the criteria, assuming they are not currently impeached?

Can you link to past precedent so that I can compare and we can have a recent link for future instances?

Also, I had forgotten about your "retirement", so I think there's room for another vote.

Initial Council Vote After WBC 12
Vote after WBC 13 (note that Vephrall was up for vote here after being rejected in the previous vote)
After WBC 14
After WBC 15
After WBC 16 (note Virabia was up for vote 2 consecutive times)
After WBC 17 (Western Cuba was up for vote a 2nd consecutive time here)
After WBC 18 (Western Cuba up a third consecutive time and a second consecutive Qazox reinstatement vote)
After WBC 19 (yet another Western Cuba vote)

I assume there's no need to dig up any further votes here.

To the best of my knowledge, there's no previous precedent for a host losing a membership vote.

[Frenline Delpha]

MARGARET!!!

[Chromatika]

Making tables will take a lot of time every day, as there is no way to make xkoranate run three games and keep track of it all. I'll post scores first so you guys can see, then expect tables to come sometime in the evening. Feel free to check my math.

[Drawkland]

MARGARET!!!

Man I got stomped too. This'll make for an interesting Margaret matchup tomorrow.

[The Royal Barangay]

Just a question.

Based from the scores, who was the home team; the first-listed team or the second-listed team? Because the second-listed teams was given the advantage of not playing the bottom of the ninth inning if the score was in favor of them. Thanks!

[Frenline Delpha]

Just a question.

Based from the scores, who was the home team; the first-listed team or the second-listed team? Because the second-listed teams was given the advantage of not playing the bottom of the ninth inning if the score was in favor of them. Thanks!

Baseball is a weird sport to scorinate. In order to get the first team listed to be home, you need to put your group into reverse order in xkoronate. It appears Chrom didn't do that, so the second team listed will be the home team.

[Drawkland]

Making tables will take a lot of time every day, as there is no way to make xkoranate run three games and keep track of it all. I'll post scores first so you guys can see, then expect tables to come sometime in the evening. Feel free to check my math.

Did you plan to erase the scores and replace with the tables? Because it appears the scores are gone.

I'm glad to see the tables, but I kinda still want to see the scores.

[Frenline Delpha]

Making tables will take a lot of time every day, as there is no way to make xkoranate run three games and keep track of it all. I'll post scores first so you guys can see, then expect tables to come sometime in the evening. Feel free to check my math.

Did you plan to erase the scores and replace with the tables? Because it appears the scores are gone.

I'm glad to see the tables, but I kinda still want to see the scores.

Check the spoiler.