Advertisement
by Red Blackiland » Sat Aug 13, 2016 5:05 pm
by Audioslavia » Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:59 pm
2.2 The Baptism of Fire
The Baptism of Fire is the first event in the World Cup cycle, being a pre-World Cup tournament for newcomer nations. It is a warm-up event that has continually unearthed the best new nations in world football. And the worst. In fact, all of them, regardless of quality.
2.2.1 Entry
The conditions for entry into the BoF are:
i) A nation must not have previously participated in a WCC-sanctioned Baptism of Fire
ii) A nation must have zero KPB points at the beginning of the World Cup cycle
iii) A nation must have signed up for the World Cup in the appropriate Signup Thread and also indicated a wish to enter the Baptism of Fire.
by New West Guiana » Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:56 pm
by Starblaydia » Mon Aug 15, 2016 9:40 pm
Audioslavia wrote:Getting 'Di Bradini' on the back of that shirt may very well be the nerdiest thing ever done, yet somehow it's also the coolest thing Star has ever done.
by Bonesea » Mon Aug 15, 2016 9:49 pm
Audioslavia wrote:The next time I see a Fluminense shirt, I'm buying it and putting Branson/Ryan/Eiger/Styrn/Whomever on the back.
by Gadirya » Mon Aug 15, 2016 9:56 pm
by Ilyseum » Mon Aug 15, 2016 10:16 pm
by Tomikosan » Mon Aug 15, 2016 11:51 pm
by Saintland » Tue Aug 16, 2016 4:52 am
Tomikosan wrote:Can I be part of this organization? I wanted to join one in the next World Cup that I am planning and preparing to join.
by Starblaydia » Tue Aug 16, 2016 4:53 am
Tomikosan wrote:Can I be part of this organization? I wanted to join one in the next World Cup that I am planning and preparing to join.
by Tomikosan » Tue Aug 16, 2016 5:46 am
by Gadirya » Tue Aug 16, 2016 12:00 pm
Ilyseum wrote:Gadirya wrote:Just realized this is gonna be the second time you and I will be in the same BoF.
Maybe this time you won't get eliminated before the knockout stages.
And hopefully your new nation will actually win some matches against my new nation.
I'm surprised, tbh, that Felix never beat the FFR in a WCC match. I mean, even I wanted to see that!
by New West Guiana » Tue Aug 16, 2016 1:48 pm
by Valanora » Tue Aug 16, 2016 2:00 pm
by Nephara » Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:02 pm
by Northern Sunrise Islands » Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:10 pm
Audioslavia wrote:Getting 'Di Bradini' on the back of that shirt may very well be the nerdiest thing ever done, yet somehow it's also the coolest thing Star has ever done. The next time I see a Fluminense shirt, I'm buying it and putting Branson/Ryan/Eiger/Styrn/Whomever on the back.
by Ilyseum » Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:13 pm
Nephara wrote:Given a couple of situations we've had where WCC/UICA rank has been transferred over to a supposed 'successor' nation and then, well, no IC connection established, I think we need to formalise a rule for when rank should and should not be transferred. Specifically, unless the nation is actually The Same Nation With A Change Of Name (like, well, my own - the nation was identical, there was just a formal name change) there should need to be very good reasons as to why one nation justifies taking on the old nation's ranking, a very strong connection. As it stands, it feels like the rule - or lack thereof - is ripe for exploitation.
by San Jose Guayabal » Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:16 pm
Nephara wrote:Given a couple of situations we've had where WCC/UICA rank has been transferred over to a supposed 'successor' nation and then, well, no IC connection established, I think we need to formalise a rule for when rank should and should not be transferred. Specifically, unless the nation is actually The Same Nation With A Change Of Name (like, well, my own - the nation was identical, there was just a formal name change) there should need to be very good reasons as to why one nation justifies taking on the old nation's ranking, a very strong connection. As it stands, it feels like the rule - or lack thereof - is ripe for exploitation.
by Farfadillis » Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:19 pm
Ilyseum wrote:Nephara wrote:Given a couple of situations we've had where WCC/UICA rank has been transferred over to a supposed 'successor' nation and then, well, no IC connection established, I think we need to formalise a rule for when rank should and should not be transferred. Specifically, unless the nation is actually The Same Nation With A Change Of Name (like, well, my own - the nation was identical, there was just a formal name change) there should need to be very good reasons as to why one nation justifies taking on the old nation's ranking, a very strong connection. As it stands, it feels like the rule - or lack thereof - is ripe for exploitation.
Why do we need a new rule when the existing arrangement has worked perfectly well in the past? I'm unaware of any such situations and I see no need to create an unnecessary hassle for people who want to change the IC name of their nation that might discourage people from RPing and if somebody does frivolously transfer their ranks over to new nations that have little or no connection to their old nations, is that really a big deal when, due to the decreasing frequency of World Cups and the custom of very low RP bonuses for the World Cup, it now takes about a year and a half for most new nations to have a realistic shot of qualifying? Maybe, people wouldn't want to exploit loopholes if it didn't take so long to build a ranking high enough to actually be competitive. Besides, isn't the ability to enter the BoF (and possibly win a BoF title) a pretty good incentive for those who want to switch to RPing with a new nation to start out without any rank rather than inheriting their old rank?
by Ilyseum » Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:21 pm
Farfadillis wrote:Ilyseum wrote:
Why do we need a new rule when the existing arrangement has worked perfectly well in the past? I'm unaware of any such situations and I see no need to create an unnecessary hassle for people who want to change the IC name of their nation that might discourage people from RPing and if somebody does frivolously transfer their ranks over to new nations that have little or no connection to their old nations, is that really a big deal when, due to the decreasing frequency of World Cups and the custom of very low RP bonuses for the World Cup, it now takes about a year and a half for most new nations to have a realistic shot of qualifying? Maybe, people wouldn't want to exploit loopholes if it didn't take so long to build a ranking high enough to actually be competitive. Besides, isn't the ability to enter the BoF (and possibly win a BoF title) a pretty good incentive for those who want to switch to RPing with a new nation to start out without any rank rather than inheriting their old rank?
Contrary to what you may be thinking at the moment, Nephara's proposal is not aimed at you; West Saintland would be an appropriate successor of Saintland as far as ranking goes and also as far as most of us are concerned (I imagine).
The case where the unwritten rule has not worked out as intended is the Armeia -> Anglatia case.
by Nephara » Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:24 pm
Ilyseum wrote:Why do we need a new rule when the existing arrangement has worked perfectly well in the past?
I'm unaware of any such situations and I see no need to create an unnecessary hassle for people who want to change the IC name of their nation that might discourage people from RPing and if somebody does frivolously transfer their ranks over to new nations that have little or no connection to their old nations, is that really a big deal when, due to the decreasing frequency of World Cups and the custom of very low RP bonuses for the World Cup, it now takes about a year and a half for most new nations to have a realistic shot of qualifying?
Maybe, people wouldn't want to exploit loopholes if it didn't take so long to build a ranking high enough to actually be competitive.
Besides, isn't the ability to enter the BoF (and possibly win a BoF title) a pretty good incentive for those who want to switch to RPing with a new nation to start out without any rank rather than inheriting their old rank?
I never said or thought that it was and I fail to see anything wrong with Armeia's name change to Anglatia. Still strongly opposed to a pointless and unnecessary proposal.
by Ilyseum » Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:29 pm
Nephara wrote:Ilyseum wrote:Why do we need a new rule when the existing arrangement has worked perfectly well in the past?
90-something% of nation successions are entirely legitimate, no grey area, and won't be affected in the slightest.I'm unaware of any such situations and I see no need to create an unnecessary hassle for people who want to change the IC name of their nation that might discourage people from RPing and if somebody does frivolously transfer their ranks over to new nations that have little or no connection to their old nations, is that really a big deal when, due to the decreasing frequency of World Cups and the custom of very low RP bonuses for the World Cup, it now takes about a year and a half for most new nations to have a realistic shot of qualifying?
wow this is all one sentence It's not too hard to think of times where excuses that a connection would be established are made and ultimately failed to materialise. Yes, when it happens, it's a big deal. IC doesn't get to be thrown out the window when someone wants to pick and choose what 'a fresh start' means. Successors are successors, new nations are new nations.Maybe, people wouldn't want to exploit loopholes if it didn't take so long to build a ranking high enough to actually be competitive.
Time, patience and diligence are rewarded.Besides, isn't the ability to enter the BoF (and possibly win a BoF title) a pretty good incentive for those who want to switch to RPing with a new nation to start out without any rank rather than inheriting their old rank?
One would think so, yes.I never said or thought that it was and I fail to see anything wrong with Armeia's name change to Anglatia. Still strongly opposed to a pointless and unnecessary proposal.
It's not a name change. Nothing links the two nations together apart from maybe one or two ex-pats.
by Northern Sunrise Islands » Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:33 pm
Ilyseum wrote:Nephara wrote:90-something% of nation successions are entirely legitimate, no grey area, and won't be affected in the slightest.
wow this is all one sentence It's not too hard to think of times where excuses that a connection would be established are made and ultimately failed to materialise. Yes, when it happens, it's a big deal. IC doesn't get to be thrown out the window when someone wants to pick and choose what 'a fresh start' means. Successors are successors, new nations are new nations.
Time, patience and diligence are rewarded.
One would think so, yes.
It's not a name change. Nothing links the two nations together apart from maybe one or two ex-pats.
What I'm puzzled by is why this issue is coming up now when I had thought it was settled months ago. Did Anglatia do something to piss off #nssport today or something?
by Nephara » Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:34 pm
by Farfadillis » Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:35 pm
Ilyseum wrote:What I'm puzzled by is why this issue is coming up now when I had thought it was settled months ago. Did Anglatia do something to piss off #nssport today or something?
Advertisement
Advertisement