The World Cup Discussion Thread (OOC, version III)

[The Sova Empire]

There is now a 2nd World Cup bid!

Casaran or Cassadagan?

That mini-heart attack when the Casaran system almost comes back up. The only reason I didn't RP The Sovan Antithesis' BoF was because I had no idea what was going on.

[Furellum]

There is now a 2nd World Cup bid!

Casaran or Cassadagan?

That mini-heart attack when the Casaran system almost comes back up. The only reason I didn't RP The Sovan Antithesis' BoF was because I had no idea what was going on.

That's why Furellum didn't debut until BoF 53; we were avoiding the Casaran used in 52.

[Felix]

There is now a 2nd World Cup bid!

Casaran or Cassadagan?

That mini-heart attack when the Casaran system almost comes back up. The only reason I didn't RP The Sovan Antithesis' BoF was because I had no idea what was going on.

That mini-heart attack when the Casaran system almost comes back up. The only reason I didn't RP The Sovan Antithesis' BoF was because I had no idea what was going on.

That's why Furellum didn't debut until BoF 53; we were avoiding the Casaran used in 52.

Guise, guise.

The Casaran system was pretty swell and was enjoyable and should be considered when you vote on voting day.

/not saying this because of 2nd place finish

/not sponsoring this system because the user had a jolly good time in the Casaran and the Free Republics did not

#justtrustmeonthisone

[Vaugania]

I happen to think that the Casaran system looks interesting. Every tournament on here is run in pretty much the same way. It's nice to have a change every once in a while.

[Apox]

I happen to think that the Casaran system looks interesting. Every tournament on here is run in pretty much the same way. It's nice to have a change every once in a while.

^ This

[The Licentian Isles]

Any potential BoF hosts out there?

I would be willing to host the Baptism of Fire, and I could maybe be considered a more experienced host, as I have experience of hosting WCC events in the past. So, if anybody's interested, send me a TG.

[Alasdair I Frosticus]

I happen to think that the Casaran system looks interesting. Every tournament on here is run in pretty much the same way. It's nice to have a change every once in a while.

^ This

I remain adamantly opposed to the Casaran system in the World Cup - as opposed to the CoH and BoF - for the same reason I remain adamantly opposed to expansion of the World Cup finals; it's too much of a departure from the RL World Cup, and the Casaran system bears no resemblance to any known RL qualification system.

Legalese and Saintland would, I'm sure, run an excellent tournament - this is no slur on their hosting abilities - but I cannot support a Casaran qualification system in WC qualification.

Fortunately, we have another bid from another pair of highly qualified hosts, so I can vote for that other bid with a clear conscience.

[Polar Islandstates]

Polar Islandstates suck, and that is a fact.

Okay, either you're a puppet, a new nation of an older user, or you've got an impressive amount of sass for one so new.

I'll allow it.
For now.

[Blouman Empire]

I remain adamantly opposed to the Casaran system in the World Cup - as opposed to the CoH and BoF - for the same reason I remain adamantly opposed to expansion of the World Cup finals; it's too much of a departure from the RL World Cup, and the Casaran system bears no resemblance to any known RL qualification system.

Legalese and Saintland would, I'm sure, run an excellent tournament - this is no slur on their hosting abilities - but I cannot support a Casaran qualification system in WC qualification.

Fortunately, we have another bid from another pair of highly qualified hosts, so I can vote for that other bid with a clear conscience.

QFT

[Vaugania]

^ This

I remain adamantly opposed to the Casaran system in the World Cup - as opposed to the CoH and BoF - for the same reason I remain adamantly opposed to expansion of the World Cup finals; it's too much of a departure from the RL World Cup, and the Casaran system bears no resemblance to any known RL qualification system.

Legalese and Saintland would, I'm sure, run an excellent tournament - this is no slur on their hosting abilities - but I cannot support a Casaran qualification system in WC qualification.

Fortunately, we have another bid from another pair of highly qualified hosts, so I can vote for that other bid with a clear conscience.

While that does make sense (as far as having no resemblance to RL), there isn't too much on here that is exactly like RL. It is possible that a horse will have to dribble past a hippo in order to score a goal on this website. Why not?

[Nouvel Ecosse]

I really enjoyed BoF 52 as a participant...

[Liventia]

I really enjoyed BoF 52 as a participant...

The Baptism of Fire isn't the World Cup qualifiers, though.

[Alasdair I Frosticus]

I remain adamantly opposed to the Casaran system in the World Cup - as opposed to the CoH and BoF - for the same reason I remain adamantly opposed to expansion of the World Cup finals; it's too much of a departure from the RL World Cup, and the Casaran system bears no resemblance to any known RL qualification system.

Legalese and Saintland would, I'm sure, run an excellent tournament - this is no slur on their hosting abilities - but I cannot support a Casaran qualification system in WC qualification.

Fortunately, we have another bid from another pair of highly qualified hosts, so I can vote for that other bid with a clear conscience.

While that does make sense (as far as having no resemblance to RL), there isn't too much on here that is exactly like RL. It is possible that a horse will have to dribble past a hippo in order to score a goal on this website. Why not?

You're confusing organisation tournament format with content of RP.

Do we expect the contents of our RPs to always closely follow RL expectations of what happens in a football match? No.

Do we expect the organisation of our premiere tournament to adhere as closely as possible to RL organisation conventions? Yes - that's the whole idea behind the organisation of the NSWC, and has been since WC1.

While we can't replicate RL confederation-based qualification, we have developed a system modelled as closely as possible on RL qualification; in essence, we have a "single confederation system" roughly equivalent to every World Cup participant qualifying out of UEFA.

A Swiss/Casaran system has absolutely no precedent in World Cup qualification formats. As the Wiki article on Swiss systems notes, it's a system most commonly associated with games and sports like badminton, chess, Go, bridge, Scrabble, hardcourt bike polo, ultimate frisbee, and South African esports. I note that none of these involve association football.

Introducing the Casaran system may sound like a lark, and a bit of a fun change, but it's a fundamental rewriting of the organisational basis which supports the NSWC.

And one of the reasons we adhere to the RL system as closely as possible - in both the NSWC and the NS Olympics - is to avoid precisely this type of argument; it ensures a consistent understanding of the tournament's basic organisational framework. For precisely the same reason, we cap the maximum number of tournament participants at 32 in keeping with RL organisation. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? What's to stop someone proposing a tournament with single-elimination / knock-out qualification for 64 finalists? Or a Scheveningen system with 16 qualifiers?


Again, this is no slur on Legalese and Saintland themselves; they're fine people, and would make excellent hosts - but I regret that I find their proposed use of the Casaran system in the World Cup proper to be a serious mistake in light of the above.

There is nothing against the rules in the Legalese / Saintland bid, but given the level of controversy this always causes, given the extent to which it rewrites many of underlying assumptions of our tournament, potential hosts should be actively banned from proposing a Swiss/Casaran-style qualification process for the World Cup proper via constitutional amendment. Current informal conventions on "single confederation" qualification based on teams playing each other home and away within their qualification group should be written into the constitution, while nonetheless maintaining host flexibility of the number and size of groups, how many teams qualify from the group, and whether or not playoffs will be necessary.

I really enjoyed BoF 52 as a participant...

Which is completely irrelevant, because the Baptism of Fire is not the World Cup.

[Polar Islandstates]

There is nothing against the rules in the Legalese / Saintland bid, but given the level of controversy this always causes, given the extent to which it rewrites many of underlying assumptions of our tournament, potential hosts should be actively banned from proposing a Swiss/Casaran-style qualification process for the World Cup proper via constitutional amendment. Current informal conventions on "single confederation" qualification based on teams playing each other home and away within their qualification group should be written into the constitution, while nonetheless maintaining host flexibility of the number and size of groups, how many teams qualify from the group, and whether or not playoffs will be necessary.

I 100% disagree with you on this part.

Is this really a controversy? It looks to me like some people debating the relative strengths and weaknesses of a tournament style, and discussing whether they'd like to use it or not. I see no controversy here at all. Merely some newer users saying they didn't like it, some other newer users saying they did like it, and some older users claiming its a controversial subject and objecting to it so strongly that they've just proposed banning it altogether. I'd agree that it is a tournament style better suited for smaller tournaments, but hell, why do we need to ban it? It's just a discussion about a tournament style...

If it's so bad, it'll lose the vote. And if the objection here is how different it is to the 'UEFA model' of RL WC qualifying, why single out only Swiss/Casaran style qualification processes? Why not eliminate CONCACAF style qualification as well? Or CONMEBOL? Or double-elimination? If they are informal conventions, let's leave them as informal conventions. I expect the vote to go one particular way, as I'm sure you do as well, but I don't see the point in writing up and voting in a constitutional amendment that basically says "you can only host if you host it like this." Again, you and I both know which format the vast, vast, vast majority of tournaments will end up getting run with - the fact that Audio/TIS' shorter format was seen as something of a departure is proof of that if it were ever needed - but I don't see why we can't have that choice. Just strikes me as a tremendously unnecessary amendment. The finals are constitutionally limited in format, let's leave it at that.

[Qazox]

I see no problem with the Swiss-style qualification; because it's never been tried before/it's not like any format we've ever used is no excuse to actively denigrate the bid. Was there this much "outrage" at the first NS World Cup to have group qualification? Or at the first one to have a play-in/playoff?

The only qualification format in my time here that was controversial in anyway was the two-stage World Cup 54 hosted by Babbage Islands and Cassadaigua. At the end, it wasn't the end of the world, and it was overall one of the better World Cups I've been in.

In the 12 cups since then, the format has been practically the same and to be honest boring as hell. So why not shake it up a bit, try something new and if it works, then kudos to all involved. If not, well chalk it up to a learning experience.

No disrespect to Cassadaigua and Equestrian States, who have a great bid themselves and both of whom I like... but I will be voting for Legalese and Saintland.

[Alasdair I Frosticus]

There is nothing against the rules in the Legalese / Saintland bid, but given the level of controversy this always causes, given the extent to which it rewrites many of underlying assumptions of our tournament, potential hosts should be actively banned from proposing a Swiss/Casaran-style qualification process for the World Cup proper via constitutional amendment. Current informal conventions on "single confederation" qualification based on teams playing each other home and away within their qualification group should be written into the constitution, while nonetheless maintaining host flexibility of the number and size of groups, how many teams qualify from the group, and whether or not playoffs will be necessary.

I 100% disagree with you on this part.

Is this really a controversy? It looks to me like some people debating the relative strengths and weaknesses of a tournament style, and discussing whether they'd like to use it or not. I see no controversy here at all. Merely some newer users saying they didn't like it, some other newer users saying they did like it, and some older users claiming its a controversial subject and objecting to it so strongly that they've just proposed banning it altogether. I'd agree that it is a tournament style better suited for smaller tournaments, but hell, why do we need to ban it? It's just a discussion about a tournament style...

If it's so bad, it'll lose the vote. And if the objection here is how different it is to the 'UEFA model' of RL WC qualifying, why single out only Swiss/Casaran style qualification processes? Why not eliminate CONCACAF style qualification as well? Or CONMEBOL?

That's not my objection.

The objection isn't the difference with the UEFA model; the objection is that the Swiss/Casaran model has no RL precedent.

For clarity, I'm calling for the banning of any system that has no RL precedent rather than specifically singling out the Swiss/Casaran system; but I concede that my last post was badly phrased there, particularly where I wrote "Current informal conventions on "single confederation" qualification based on teams playing each other home and away within their qualification group should be written into the constitution, while nonetheless maintaining host flexibility of the number and size of groups, how many teams qualify from the group, and whether or not playoffs will be necessary." That part was likely both unnecessary and distracting.

CAF, AFC, CONCACAF, and CONMEBOL qualification formats would all be legitimate RL precedents that I wouldn't object to on these grounds. Though you'd have to be mad to actually try any of them in an NSWC since most of them would present serious KPB rank calculation issues, and the only one that wouldn't - CONMEBOL - would see the hosts organising a 238 match day qualification where every team played each other home and away across a single qualifying group.

We tend to default to 'UEFA-style' because of a combination of RL precedent and practicality. But it's the real life precedent that's the important part to me. I'm happy for potential hosts to suggest another system with RL precedent where it proves practical. I'm not happy for people to propose a system that not only has no real life World Cup precedent, but which is usually associated with Scrabble, chess, badminton and hardcourt bike polo.

For all of these reasons, the Swiss/Casaran system has no place in the NSWC, and should be constitutionally banned.

And here's my specific proposed amendment:

Proposal to amend the header of part 2.3 of the WCC Constitution

2.3 The World Cup
The World Cup is the second, and most important, event in the World Cup Cycle. It will always consist of 32 teams (including the co-hosts), who have been whittled down by the Qualifying Process to turn scores of hopeful countries into thirty relieved ones and countless disappointed ones. The qualification format must follow a model based on a RLWC continental confederation qualification format in so far as is practical. It is the longest running sports competition on Nationstates, dating back to early 2003 when internet piracy barely existed, and Max Barry was still trying to simply promote a book.

I need three other people to second that to allow it to go to a vote.

[Alasdair I Frosticus]

I see no problem with the Swiss-style qualification; because it's never been tried before/it's not like any format we've ever used is no excuse to actively denigrate the bid. Was there this much "outrage" at the first NS World Cup to have group qualification? Or at the first one to have a play-in/playoff?

<snip>

In the 12 cups since then, the format has been practically the same and to be honest boring as hell. So why not shake it up a bit, try something new and if it works, then kudos to all involved. If not, well chalk it up to a learning experience.

You seem to have missed the point.

The objection has never been "it's never been tried before" or not wanting to "shake things up a bit". The objection is as follows:

A Swiss/Casaran system has absolutely no precedent in World Cup qualification formats. As the Wiki article on Swiss systems notes, it's a system most commonly associated with games and sports like badminton, chess, Go, bridge, Scrabble, hardcourt bike polo, ultimate frisbee, and South African esports. I note that none of these involve association football.

Introducing the Casaran system may sound like a lark, and a bit of a fun change, but it's a fundamental rewriting of the organisational basis which supports the NSWC.

And one of the reasons we adhere to the RL system as closely as possible - in both the NSWC and the NS Olympics - is to avoid precisely this type of argument; it ensures a consistent understanding of the tournament's basic organisational framework. For precisely the same reason, we cap the maximum number of tournament participants at 32 in keeping with RL organisation. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? What's to stop someone proposing a tournament with single-elimination / knock-out qualification for 64 finalists? Or a Scheveningen system with 16 qualifiers?

[Liventia]

The proposal is seconded.

[Apox]

I'm for the casaran qualifying system - I'd find it gloriously refreshing in my case, as the shorter qualifying was this time (although depressingly terrible for the Apox National Team). But then again, I am a crazy radical (I support the Green Party for crying out loud!) who has a one point advocated two-tier qualification, the scrapping of the Globe Cup, regional qualification for the WC etc.

[Qazox]

I see no problem with the Swiss-style qualification; because it's never been tried before/it's not like any format we've ever used is no excuse to actively denigrate the bid. Was there this much "outrage" at the first NS World Cup to have group qualification? Or at the first one to have a play-in/playoff?

<snip>

In the 12 cups since then, the format has been practically the same and to be honest boring as hell. So why not shake it up a bit, try something new and if it works, then kudos to all involved. If not, well chalk it up to a learning experience.

You seem to have missed the point.

The objection has never been "it's never been tried before" or not wanting to "shake things up a bit". The objection is as follows:

A Swiss/Casaran system has absolutely no precedent in World Cup qualification formats. As the Wiki article on Swiss systems notes, it's a system most commonly associated with games and sports like badminton, chess, Go, bridge, Scrabble, hardcourt bike polo, ultimate frisbee, and South African esports. I note that none of these involve association football.

Introducing the Casaran system may sound like a lark, and a bit of a fun change, but it's a fundamental rewriting of the organisational basis which supports the NSWC.

And one of the reasons we adhere to the RL system as closely as possible - in both the NSWC and the NS Olympics - is to avoid precisely this type of argument; it ensures a consistent understanding of the tournament's basic organisational framework. For precisely the same reason, we cap the maximum number of tournament participants at 32 in keeping with RL organisation. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? What's to stop someone proposing a tournament with single-elimination / knock-out qualification for 64 finalists? Or a Scheveningen system with 16 qualifiers?

Just because there is no RL precedent for it? That's your main reason why the Swiss-style format can't be used? Just making sure before I fully respond.

[Legalese]

And you know what? The format Saintland and I proposed is still,in many ways, acceptable. After all, look at CONCACAF qualifying. Multiple elimination stages, followed by a double-round-robin - two, actually. In order to make it practical for the NSWC, we tweaked the elimination aspect to use a format that works like an elimination tournament, but gives teams a number of matches to be worthy of usage - and levels the field by eliminating the early stage byes - and removed the second group stage, since we have a good many more sides qualifying than CONCACAF does.

Now, was it the intent to mimic it? I'll let you all speculate ;-)

My point, however, is that what you propose does next to nothing to actually do what you want it to do, as people will find a way to conform while remaining practical. Bids should be able to live or die on their merits, and not require the level of headstanding and stretching that I had to do above to conform to a standard that ignores that we are in a reality where we also cannot follow true continental qualifying, because the only geography available is IC and easily adjustable.

To vote against a bid because you don't like the format is a fair and respectable decision. To move forward with this proposal ignores where the NSWC diverges from RL.

[Ko-oren]

I disagree with the proposal: one because RL implementation or not should not matter in my opinion, and two because there is always a vote before a bid is accepted. I think it is up to the voters to decide, and I fully trust them to pick the single best bid.

[Polar Islandstates]

CAF, AFC, CONCACAF, and CONMEBOL qualification formats would all be legitimate RL precedents that I wouldn't object to on these grounds. Though you'd have to be mad to actually try any of them in an NSWC since most of them would present serious KPB rank calculation issues, and the only one that wouldn't - CONMEBOL - would see the hosts organising a 238 match day qualification where every team played each other home and away across a single qualifying group.

We tend to default to 'UEFA-style' because of a combination of RL precedent and practicality. But it's the real life precedent that's the important part to me. I'm happy for potential hosts to suggest another system with RL precedent where it proves practical. I'm not happy for people to propose a system that not only has no real life World Cup precedent, but which is usually associated with Scrabble, chess, badminton and hardcourt bike polo.

For all of these reasons, the Swiss/Casaran system has no place in the NSWC, and should be constitutionally banned.

And here's my specific proposed amendment:

Proposal to amend the header of part 2.3 of the WCC Constitution

2.3 The World Cup
The World Cup is the second, and most important, event in the World Cup Cycle. It will always consist of 32 teams (including the co-hosts), who have been whittled down by the Qualifying Process to turn scores of hopeful countries into thirty relieved ones and countless disappointed ones. The qualification format must follow a model based on a RLWC continental confederation qualification format in so far as is practical. It is the longest running sports competition on Nationstates, dating back to early 2003 when internet piracy barely existed, and Max Barry was still trying to simply promote a book.

I need three other people to second that to allow it to go to a vote.

If you're proposing a constitutional amendment to enforce a model based on a RLWC continental confederation qualification, and have just as good as eliminated CAF, AFC, and CONCACAF on KPB grounds, and CONMEBOL on length, then are we not in effect left just with UEFA and the OFC as viable in your eyes? And I suspect the OFC would fall in with the same basked as CAF, AFC, and CONCACAF anyway.

If you're moving to a constitutional amendment to avoid having to discuss the Casaran system in future (which seems like a cop-out to me, but there we go), then presumably you can have no objections in the future should somebody propose a system modelled almost entirely on the OFC? After all, it is a RLWC continental confederation qualification that could be practically run in the NS multiverse. Plus, it has the bonus of not having an amendment written specifically to eliminate it.

This seems at best like a poorly written, and at worst like an incredibly petty amendment, and I for one would have hoped that the WCC could resolve the issue of what hosting format to use with a vote, like we always have done.

[Starblaydia]

the only one that wouldn't - CONMEBOL - would see the hosts organising a 238 match day qualification where every team played each other home and away across a single qualifying group.

How about if we did that idea, only shrink it down to, say, ten or twelve matches, and after each Matchday your opponent is scheduled based on having a similar W-D-L record to you? Then we take, I dunno, Top 30 plus hosts? Top 60 and a play-off plus hosts?

Or is that too facetious?

[Mytannion]

Completely disagree with the proposal. Limiting the choice of hosts on the qualifying system they want to run isn't something I'm a fan of and especially on the basis of this particular system not having real life precedent. It seems to be a proposal made purely on the basis of not liking the system to me.