The World Cup Discussion Thread (OOC, version III)

[United Gordonopia]

Well, we could always clear up the issue...

Haven't proposed an amendment before, so if I'm doing anything wrong, let me know

---

I propose the following changes to the World Cup Constitution (changes in red).

Amendment on the Requirements for Entering the Baptism of Fire

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.

Current Version for Reference

2.2.1 Entry
The conditions for entry into the BoF are:
i) A nation must not have previously participated in a 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

[Saugeais]

If officially proposed, I'd vote to let D2R into the next BoF.

Edit: I'd second Gordo's proposal.

[Equestrian States]

I propose the following changes to the World Cup Constitution (changes in red).

Amendment on the Requirements for Entering the Baptism of Fire

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.

Current Version for Reference

2.2.1 Entry
The conditions for entry into the BoF are:
i) A nation must not have previously participated in a 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

Officially thirded.

[Jeruselem]

Poor Slembana, three goals but ... still get thrashed

Slembana 3–6 New Montreal States

[Vilita]

If officially proposed, I'd vote to let D2R into the next BoF.

Edit: I'd second Gordo's proposal.

We could simply vote a motion specifying that those who participated in BoF for WC12 have not forfeited their BoF eligibility, and keep that as a note

[Liventia]

[sarcasm]Yeah, the underlined part is the MOST IMPORTANT PART of that though..

But If Starblaydia can join a BoF after winning multiple NSWC titles, then why not have D2R do the same? In fact, can re-try my BoF?[/sarcasm]

Sarcasm or not — your emphasis that it was sarcasm probably made things worse — that comes across wrong and makes you look like a dick. Given your past with the WCC (puppetgate, WC50 hostbiasgate, et cetera), I don't think you're helping yourself.

[Falcania]

Speaking in my personal capacity (though as an EWCC member and four-time host), I'd be supportive of your entry into the BoF. You certainly meet the spirit of the rules, if not the actual wording of them.

[sarcasm]Yeah, the underlined part is the MOST IMPORTANT PART of that though..

But If Starblaydia can join a BoF after winning multiple NSWC titles, then why not have D2R do the same? In fact, can re-try my BoF?[/sarcasm]

Frankly I really don't care one way or the other.

You must be great fun at parties.

[The Babbage Islands]

TBI also endorse the proposed amendment from United Gordonopia.

[Qazox]

[sarcasm]Yeah, the underlined part is the MOST IMPORTANT PART of that though..

But If Starblaydia can join a BoF after winning multiple NSWC titles, then why not have D2R do the same? In fact, can re-try my BoF?[/sarcasm]

Sarcasm or not — your emphasis that it was sarcasm probably made things worse — that comes across wrong and makes you look like a dick. Given your past with the WCC (puppetgate, WC50 hostbiasgate, et cetera), I don't think you're helping yourself.

If D2R has competed before in a WCC-sanctioned BoF then they shouldn't comepete in any more. If not, then they're eligible.

and you're one to talk about saying things that "makes you look like a dick"; as many, many, MANY. things you say on here could be considered flame-bait. Like the part I'm quoting above.

[Kiryu-shi]

Come to realise that it ain't how many you concede, its when and who to.

...as long as you don't draw 0-0 three times in a row...



Also, even though I was unable to compete in an BoF upon my return, I think it is very much within the spirit of the rules for D2R to be able to participate in the upcoming BoF, and fully support any move to allow their participation.

[Free South Califas]

Sarcasm or not — your emphasis that it was sarcasm probably made things worse — that comes across wrong and makes you look like a dick. Given your past with the WCC (puppetgate, WC50 hostbiasgate, et cetera), I don't think you're helping yourself.

If D2R has competed before in a WCC-sanctioned BoF then they shouldn't comepete in any more. If not, then they're eligible.

and you're one to talk about saying things that "makes you look like a dick"; as many, many, MANY. things you say on here could be considered flame-bait. Like the part I'm quoting above.

Both of these players are entirely correct about each other. Though to be fair, it's a little rich for one of them to accuse the other of flamebaiting at this point in the conversation.

[Bears Armed]

A 2-1 victory over bears armed?i expected a huge blowout loss.
I am in disbelief.

We usually seem to get one such upset per qualifying campaign... and, as I'm going to mention in today's RP, we find losing to a team that did well in the latest BoF definitely less embarrassing than losing to a team around that same sort of rank but without such a history.

And of course you had the home field/crowd advantage for that match: Just wait until your team comes to visit urrs, instead...

Sorry for the lack of RP on my part, but I've been very busy recently. Guess I'm doing just fine though: tied with BA for first in group 14!

*(grrowls)*

[Falcania]

If D2R has competed before in a WCC-sanctioned BoF then they shouldn't comepete in any more. If not, then they're eligible.

and you're one to talk about saying things that "makes you look like a dick"; as many, many, MANY. things you say on here could be considered flame-bait. Like the part I'm quoting above.

Both of these players are entirely correct about each other. Though to be fair, it's a little rich for one of them to accuse the other of flamebaiting at this point in the conversation.

Seems to me if Qazox wants to get in a pissing contest with Liventia he's going to need to drink a lot more water

[Socialist States Owen]

Speaking in my personal capacity (though as an EWCC member and four-time host), I'd be supportive of your entry into the BoF. You certainly meet the spirit of the rules, if not the actual wording of them.

[sarcasm]Yeah, the underlined part is the MOST IMPORTANT PART of that though..

But If Starblaydia can join a BoF after winning multiple NSWC titles, then why not have D2R do the same? In fact, can re-try my BoF?[/sarcasm]

Frankly I really don't care one way or the other.

Your grasp of sarcasm is superb.

[Birolika]

Margret seems to hate me as far as World Cup qualifying goes, although it might help if I RPed everyday…

[Andossa Se Mitrin Vega]

Ok Guys and Gals. Lets's everyone take a deep breath and relax.

There is absolutely no point in continuing the Qazox vs Liventia line of commentary from anyone. They will agree to disagree and will probably bash each other a bit more - hopefully not. The comments from everyone else seem to me to be little more than baitng the argument to continue. Let's drop it before it gets out of hand.




AS for D2R, I would include them in the BoF but I agree more with Vil that we should juat add a sidenote to allow the BoF participants from WC12 entry into one sanctioned BoF. The original wording need not be changed.

[Audioslavia]

I have a minor quibble, here.

No-one minded when Audioslavia (first WC participation: pre BoF) entered the BoF before WC59.
No-one seems to mind (myself included) D2R (first WC participation, during the BoF's infancy) entering the BoF for the next tournament.
If we were to get some returning users who debuted in the WC20s or 30s, under the current rules AND those being mooted by Gordonopia, they still wouldn't be eligible for the BoF.

I'd just like to ask: Do we really need rule 2.2.1i: ' A nation must not have previously participated in a Baptism of Fire' ? I don't think there's any moral reason why a user shouldn't be able to enter the BoF again, assuming their rank has depreciated to zero after three or four tournaments without participation.

[New West Guiana]

in relation

Why must a new (presuming that nation is new) must enter both the BoF and WC, why not allowed at their choosing? Why yes of course that new nation wouldn't be able to enter in a BoF next time round, but this interesting loop hole D2R found that once new nation would be able to enter down the road once their rank pts equal 0

[Liventia]

in relation

Why must a new (presuming that nation is new) must enter both the BoF and WC, why not allowed at their choosing?

This isn't even the case. They can choose not to enter the BoF anyway, thus allowing themselves the chance to take part in a BoF should they leave and return in future.

[New West Guiana]

This isn't even the case. They can choose not to enter the BoF anyway, thus allowing themselves the chance to take part in a BoF should they leave and return in future.

Thanks you that's what I meant. (of course I drag it out then get everyone confused)

[Andossa Se Mitrin Vega]

I have a minor quibble, here.

No-one minded when Audioslavia (first WC participation: pre BoF) entered the BoF before WC59.
No-one seems to mind (myself included) D2R (first WC participation, during the BoF's infancy) entering the BoF for the next tournament.
If we were to get some returning users who debuted in the WC20s or 30s, under the current rules AND those being mooted by Gordonopia, they still wouldn't be eligible for the BoF.

I'd just like to ask: Do we really need rule 2.2.1i: ' A nation must not have previously participated in a Baptism of Fire' ? I don't think there's any moral reason why a user shouldn't be able to enter the BoF again, assuming their rank has depreciated to zero after three or four tournaments without participation.

I almost agree with you. However it is the spirit of the rule that keeps me from doing so. The BoF was designed for new nationa. Without rule 2.2.1 who is to say that Star (just an example) might win the BoF. drop out. Enter and win again - over and over. Thus he could have multiple BoF titles. That was never the intention of the BoF.

[Audioslavia]

Without rule 2.2.1 who is to say that Star (just an example) might win the BoF. drop out. Enter and win again - over and over. Thus he could have multiple BoF titles. That was never the intention of the BoF.

It takes three and a half or so cycles for a departed nation's KPB ranking to reset to zero. I very much doubt that any user would want to enter a BoF every 9-12 months to the exclusion of the main football tournaments. However, as Aels pointed out a similar worst-case-scenario on #nssport, then in an effort to pre-empt this hypothetical and maniacal nation from taking time out, once a year, to enter and re-enter the BoF, then a limit of ten or so cycles - or three IRL years - could be put in place.

The BoF was never originally intended for returning users, because back in the day there weren't any that wouldn't have been elligble for the BoF upon their return. The likes of myself and D2R did/will enter the BoF via a loop-hole that, in the name of clarity, needs to be shut. I'd like to make re-entry into the World Cup easier for a nation that's been away for 3+ years, by means of the rankings and confidence boost of a BoF berth, and the ability to create rivalries and interactions between other new nations before the comparatively more imposing World Cup starts.

The alternative would be to close the BoF to returning users entirely, regardless of whether they pre-date the tournament or not. I don't see why nations from editions 1-15 should have an advantage over nations that came on the scene afterwards.

[Farfadillis]

The alternative would be to close the BoF to returning users entirely, regardless of whether they pre-date the tournament or not. I don't see why nations from editions 1-15 should have an advantage over nations that came on the scene afterwards.

I agree in some way, but the reason for this minimal advantage is because they didn't have it back on the day, so they'd be otherwise slighlty disadvantaged.

[Audioslavia]

The alternative would be to close the BoF to returning users entirely, regardless of whether they pre-date the tournament or not. I don't see why nations from editions 1-15 should have an advantage over nations that came on the scene afterwards.

I agree in some way, but the reason for this minimal advantage is because they didn't have it back on the day, so they'd be otherwise slighlty disadvantaged.

That slight advantage wasn't needed back in the day, as a number the old-old users comfortably qualified on their first attempt, what with only 30-40 participants of a World Cup returning cycle after cycle.

[Farfadillis]

I agree in some way, but the reason for this minimal advantage is because they didn't have it back on the day, so they'd be otherwise slighlty disadvantaged.

That slight advantage wasn't needed back in the day, as a number the old-old users comfortably qualified on their first attempt, what with only 30-40 participants of a World Cup returning cycle after cycle.

It isn't needed now either, because of how minuscule it is. There's been World Cup champions with no BoFs, I believe Cassadaigua was one, for example.