Iturributa and Ossidiacqua BoF48 Bid

[Ossidiacqua]

BID THREAD
The Republics of Iturributa and Ossidiacqua humbly present to you all a bid for the 48th Baptism of Fire for your consideration and approval

WHO?
Iturributa and Ossidiacqua are puppets of Astograth and Polar Islandstates respectively, both of whom are experienced and respected members of the NSSport community. Astograth's experience includes Cup of Harmony 48, Baptism of Fire 45, Copa Rushmori VIII, the first edition of the Campeonatos Rushmori de la Juventud (and their organisation from then onwards) as well as the Rumiatzi Open from the ITA. Polar Islandstates' experience includes World Cup 59, Cup of Harmony 49, the Ellismare Preliminara (a hefty cycling event), the CdlP, the Cuppets I and II and their organisation from here on, as well as Sokhorosk Linii Amateur Shield and regular editions of the Seasogs Rugby Union Championship Trophy.

OKAY, BUT WHY YOU?
Both users are committed to the idea of host participation in tournaments such as this, particularly with the Baptism of Fire holding the significance for new users as it does. As we think can be proven with Astograth's contributions in the World Cup History series with Kagdazka and Pazhujebu in BoF45, and with Polar Islandstates' Host Information post for WC59, we are both enthusiastic when it comes to interaction with the teams visiting our nations, and with Iturributa's recent split from Astograth, and Ossidiacqua's complex transition from Oasirica to the nation it is today (as documented in RPs that would be linked to), there is certainly no shortage of history and RP potential for participants to tap into should they wish. Both nations would be committed to aiding in an OOC aspect as well, with telegram boxes being open and receptive to questions from any user.

SO HOW WOULD IT WORK?
Obviously, format will depend on the number of signups, and the needs to be a certain amount of fluidity involved with the bid, but both nations have a preference for groups of six, as this would give even the teams that are knocked out in the group stage five games each with which to RP and participate, and plenty of time to accumulate bonus for the knockout stages, which would ideally start from a round of sixteen.

There is a preference for an equal number of teams from each group to go through to the round of sixteen and have it drawn from the start - (Winner A vs Runner-Up B and so on) - eliminating the need to take "best third place teams" and seed the knockout stages. However, both hosts are aware that asking for eight groups of six or even five in the group stages might be wishful thinking, and so in the event that the final format chosen requires the seeding of teams for the knockout draw, this seeding would be according to RP bonus and participation so far, rather than group stage performance. This will have the effect of allowing the most active teams the chance to stay in the tournament longer and meet up more in the closing stages.

Similarly, there is a wish for the teams to be allowed to some time to roster and RP before the group stage draw is made. This would allow us to "seed" the teams into pots of those teams that have RPed so far, and those who have not, again with the aim of avoiding groups of insanely active users contrasting with groups of no activity.

So, in summary, ideally six teams per group and as large a knockout round as feasible, though we would cut back on the knockouts/resign ourselves to a seeded knockout stage if there aren't enough signups.

Tie-breakers would be head-to-head results, head-to-head goal difference, wins, goals for, and finally, a play-in match with extra time and penalties, though obviously this is a last resort.

AND HOW WOULD YOU DO THAT?
Scorination would be done with the most recent version of xkoranate, being 0.3.3, using the SQIS formula. Cutoffs would come first for teams in the Acquan half, coming at 11pm BST (10pm UTC) as the user behind Ossidiacqua is UK-based. The cutoff for the other half of the draw would come three hours later, at 9pm EST (1am UTC). Both users will post a "24hour warning" post 24 hours before their respective first cutoffs, to alert those that may be confused by time zones as to the cycle they're getting into, for whom this link may also be useful.

HOW DO I SCORE BONUS?
Both hosts will always be looking to award bonus rather than take it away. The scoring system will be a cumulative five-tier one, scored on quality, creativity, and length, in that order. Respect for your opponent's RP permissions will not be something the RP itself is graded on as such, but bonus scores will be penalised if permissions are not respected. The RP bonus will degrade over time, promoting and rewarding participation, though it will never degrade to zero. The creation and provision of a roster will be scored the same as a matchday's worth of RP, though this bonus will never decline with time, and multiple RPs per matchday from any nation will be grouped together and scored as one. The absolute system will be used.

DO I GET TO CHOOSE THE STYLE?
No, style modifiers have traditionally not been a part of the Baptism of Fire, and we wouldn't operate with them here.

SOUNDS GOOD, I LOVE IT.
Good, we thought you would.

Any questions welcomed.

[Cassadaigua]

The scoring system will be a cumulative five-tier one, scored on quality, creativity, and length.......
The RP bonus will degrade over time,

So is it cumulative or degrading? It's either one or the other!

[Iturributa]

The scoring system will be a cumulative five-tier one, scored on quality, creativity, and length.......
The RP bonus will degrade over time,

So is it cumulative or degrading? It's either one or the other!

It's both. Bonuses accumulate, but the ones for older MDs are worth less.

[New West Guiana]

So is it cumulative or degrading? It's either one or the other!

It's both. Bonuses accumulate, but the ones for older MDs are worth less.

So rp bonuses in the early going will be worth more pts, than those in the latter days?

[Iturributa]

It's both. Bonuses accumulate, but the ones for older MDs are worth less.

So rp bonuses in the early going will be worth more pts, than those in the latter days?

I'm not sure what you're thinking, but not in theory, no.

To exemplify with purely fictional values: If the nation USSR earns the maximum points on MD1, say 10, it'll be scaled to fit the xkoranate bonus system of decimal numbers; in this case, 1, the maximum. On MD2 the maximum points he could have obtained will now be 20, though because the MD1 bonus deteriorates at, say, a 50% rate, the maximum possible bonus is in fact 15. So his first RP, graded for 10 points, is now worth 5, and if he gets another 10 points on his MD2 RP then he'll again have the maximum bonus anyone could attain at that point in the competition.

I hope this is clear, not easy to word it right.

[Camwood]

So, the RP Bonus range is one to ten or one to five?

[New West Guiana]

Ah I see now how it both is cumulative and degrading. Confusing, but now after further explanation much more clear, very nice.

[Qazox]

So why are you using puppets instead of the master nations?

[Ossidiacqua]

So, the RP Bonus range is one to ten or one to five?

Neither, really. As there are no ranks to compare the RP bonus to, numerical values only have a certain amount of application in this description, but simply put, a five tier system just means we're quantifying it so RPs will be given one of five scores, for arguments sake let's say its 1 to 5. We don't have RPs graded as 2.3 recurring, or half way between a 3 and a 4, its one of those values. The maths that then reduces this to a 0-1 score for the scorinator isn't really that interesting or controversial.

As for the degrading/accumulating debate, my understanding of degrading bonus was a system whereby an RP eventually stops counting altogether, something that won't happen with this bid, where an RP will always be worth something, even if its seven matchdays old. Though, I admit the wording is a bit ambiguous in that respect. It degrades, yes, but never to zero,and so always accumulates in some way. I'm going to stop typing now as it is 4am, but hopefully that didn't make things any foggier at least

[Ossidiacqua]

So why are you using puppets instead of the master nations?

We were asked this question not so long ago on irc, so I'm copying(and adding to) this across from there - so if the phrasing is a bit odd, that's why...

Can't speak for Asto but for me i just like ossidiacqua as a mental place to RP with or in. a) I think its a more interesting place for people come to and RP as a first timer than polar islandstates, which is a bit run of the mill in terms of nations go, really, apart from the obvious "Oh it's cold here" thing. And b) i'm hoping it will unlock new ways for me to get into it and RP it myself.

Compare
"Where's my match? Oh, a town called Surtsey in a regular stadium. that will be about two lines in my RP then."
With
"Where's my match? a town called Collindiana where the stadium is suspended over a RAVINE on wires?! that's going to need more than a few lines to write about."

Not to mention that in ossidiacqua there is no national grid, electronic and mechanical devices are fixed by priests, largely with "hit it and hope" tactics supplemented with prayer, the running water from springs runs black, and there is no rain. I just think it would be a more fruitful setting for RPs than Polar Islandstates would be.

And in the case of Astograth/Iturributa:
"I basically want Iturributa to be known and to develop it as its own self-sustaining nation."

There is precedent also, with Bazalonia's Miceland hosting the BoF25 on its own, where the Pazhujeb Islands beat Starblaydia in the final.

[Qazox]

So why are you using puppets instead of the master nations?

We were asked this question not so long ago on irc, so I'm copying(and adding to) this across from there - so if the phrasing is a bit odd, that's why...

Can't speak for Asto but for me i just like ossidiacqua as a mental place to RP with or in. a) I think its a more interesting place for people come to and RP as a first timer than polar islandstates, which is a bit run of the mill in terms of nations go, really, apart from the obvious "Oh it's cold here" thing. And b) i'm hoping it will unlock new ways for me to get into it and RP it myself.

Compare
"Where's my match? Oh, a town called Surtsey in a regular stadium. that will be about two lines in my RP then."
With
"Where's my match? a town called Collindiana where the stadium is suspended over a RAVINE on wires?! that's going to need more than a few lines to write about."

Not to mention that in ossidiacqua there is no national grid, electronic and mechanical devices are fixed by priests, largely with "hit it and hope" tactics supplemented with prayer, the running water from springs runs black, and there is no rain. I just think it would be a more fruitful setting for RPs than Polar Islandstates would be.

And in the case of Astograth/Iturributa:
"I basically want Iturributa to be known and to develop it as its own self-sustaining nation."

There is precedent also, with Bazalonia's Miceland hosting the BoF25 on its own, where the Pazhujeb Islands beat Starblaydia in the final.

Fair enough.

[Free South Califas]

No dog in this fight (unless I found myself with time to RP this and a puppet, which seems doubtful), but how long would the group stage be? That detail seems to be missing from the thread, unless I missed something.

[Iturributa]

No dog in this fight (unless I found myself with time to RP this and a puppet, which seems doubtful), but how long would the group stage be? That detail seems to be missing from the thread, unless I missed something.

That would depend on the format we decide on, pending the final signup list. A tentative proposal is in the main bid body, under "So How Would It Work?".

[Free South Califas]

OK, I re-read it...

SO HOW WOULD IT WORK?
Obviously, format will depend on the number of signups, and the needs to be a certain amount of fluidity involved with the bid, but both nations have a preference for groups of six, as this would give even the teams that are knocked out in the group stage five games each with which to RP and participate, and plenty of time to accumulate bonus for the knockout stages, which would ideally start from a round of sixteen.

There is a preference for an equal number of teams from each group to go through to the round of sixteen and have it drawn from the start - (Winner A vs Runner-Up B and so on) - eliminating the need to take "best third place teams" and seed the knockout stages. However, both hosts are aware that asking for eight groups of six or even five in the group stages might be wishful thinking, and so in the event that the final format chosen requires the seeding of teams for the knockout draw, this seeding would be according to RP bonus and participation so far, rather than group stage performance. This will have the effect of allowing the most active teams the chance to stay in the tournament longer and meet up more in the closing stages.

Similarly, there is a wish for the teams to be allowed to some time to roster and RP before the group stage draw is made. This would allow us to "seed" the teams into pots of those teams that have RPed so far, and those who have not, again with the aim of avoiding groups of insanely active users contrasting with groups of no activity.

So, in summary, ideally six teams per group and as large a knockout round as feasible, though we would cut back on the knockouts/resign ourselves to a seeded knockout stage if there aren't enough signups.

Tie-breakers would be head-to-head results, head-to-head goal difference, wins, goals for, and finally, a play-in match with extra time and penalties, though obviously this is a last resort.

I don't see any mention of any specific number of rounds, days, matchdays or anything like that.

[Saugeais]

Exactly, cuz they don't know how many people are signing up! That'll be fleshed out once the final tally comes in, I assume.

[Free South Califas]

Fair enough, I was just wondering what the bidders' preference was. I guess "largest" could be interpreted as most game instead of most numbers in the group...but I get that this is a fluid thing.

[Ossidiacqua]

Fair enough, I was just wondering what the bidders' preference was. I guess "largest" could be interpreted as most game instead of most numbers in the group...but I get that this is a fluid thing.

Preferences were indicated clearly in the paragraph you yourself quoted, but as Saugeais said, we have to work with what we're given to a certain extent.

Preference for groups of six would indicate preferably 5 group stage MDs, and starting with a round of 16 as mentioned preferably leads to 4 knockout stage MDs. If that was the case then that might be 10 days in total. But, who knows yet. Signups are still wide open, so in practise this is just a guideline at best so far.

SO HOW WOULD IT WORK?
Obviously, format will depend on the number of signups, and the needs to be a certain amount of fluidity involved with the bid, but both nations have a preference for groups of six, as this would give even the teams that are knocked out in the group stage five games each with which to RP and participate, and plenty of time to accumulate bonus for the knockout stages, which would ideally start from a round of sixteen.

There is a preference for an equal number of teams from each group to go through to the round of sixteen and have it drawn from the start - (Winner A vs Runner-Up B and so on) - eliminating the need to take "best third place teams" and seed the knockout stages. However, both hosts are aware that asking for eight groups of six or even five in the group stages might be wishful thinking, and so in the event that the final format chosen requires the seeding of teams for the knockout draw, this seeding would be according to RP bonus and participation so far, rather than group stage performance. This will have the effect of allowing the most active teams the chance to stay in the tournament longer and meet up more in the closing stages.

Similarly, there is a wish for the teams to be allowed to some time to roster and RP before the group stage draw is made. This would allow us to "seed" the teams into pots of those teams that have RPed so far, and those who have not, again with the aim of avoiding groups of insanely active users contrasting with groups of no activity.

So, in summary, ideally six teams per group and as large a knockout round as feasible, though we would cut back on the knockouts/resign ourselves to a seeded knockout stage if there aren't enough signups.

Tie-breakers would be head-to-head results, head-to-head goal difference, wins, goals for, and finally, a play-in match with extra time and penalties, though obviously this is a last resort.