The World Cup Discussion Thread (OOC, Version IV)

[Krytenia]

Aye but you were probably standing next to Snub while he was writing them.

An SN38 reference.

In 2020.

Truly we live in mysterious times.

[Legalese]

Aye but you were probably standing next to Snub while he was writing them.

An SN38 reference.

In 2020.

Truly we live in mysterious times.

Nah, it's when the reference slowly declines from Snub Nose 38 to Snub Nose 1 that you know we've got a slight issue

[NSWC Signups]

Host Vote & Amendment Results

[Newmanistan]

On behalf of my co-host, Drawkland, I would like to thank everyone who voted for our bid to host World Cup 86. We look forward to putting on a great tournament for everyone!

[Drawkland]

Wow, that was a close decision! Thanks to everyone who voted for us and commiserations to all the other bidders - I would've been proud to participate no matter who ended up hosting.

[Legalese]

Close, indeed -- I'm looking forward to attempting to qualify in the first all-double MD scorination qualifying! Congrats to Newmenistan and Drawkland.

Thank you as well to everyone who voted for our bid, and especially to my co-bidder Krytenia, whose push to enact The Plan inspired me to put my name forward for the first time in awhile.

[Sarzonia]

Close, indeed -- I'm looking forward to attempting to qualify in the first all-double MD scorination qualifying! Congrats to Newmenistan and Drawkland.

That's one of the things I had issues with in this bid. Not a fan.

I'm re-considering whether I'm going to participate.

[Audioslavia]

Close, indeed -- I'm looking forward to attempting to qualify in the first all-double MD scorination qualifying! Congrats to Newmenistan and Drawkland.

That's one of the things I had issues with in this bid. Not a fan.

I think there are a few users who've gotten the wrong impression about double-scorinations.

One of the misconceptions is that users would have to write twice as much, for some reason. I don't see where that's coming from. Users would write as much as they normally write. The hosts have said that their approach to RP bonuses is going to be fairly traditional. If someone wants to write twice as much as they normally would, or wants to post an RP every day, that's on them. The law of diminishing returns suggests they wouldn't be getting that much more RP bonus than if they were to post their usual quality/quantity RP. The onus is, as usual, on making something readable and interesting for both the reader and the writer.

More importantly, having double matchday scorinations finally fixes a weirdly unrealistic aspect of World Cup qualifying, which is that individual matches were being treated as individual matches. In real life football, qualifiers have been coming in batches of two for the last fifty years. Throughout the RL regular club season there are international breaks in which a National Team has to play twice over the space of three to five days, typically one match in their home stadium against one groupmate and one match away from home against another groupmate. Should one of those matches be a bye-day, a friendly is usually arranged. The media tends to view these games as double-headers. Any weekly episodic sports TV show / podcast would preview and analyse these games as double-headers. The NT uses the same squad for both games. They are and always have been taken together. Scorinating matches in batches of two means we can treat double-headers as such without posting as much filler. If you're posting the more-or-less traditional match-report style RP, it's one introduction, one analysis and one summary/prediction. Maybe you'll be writing a bit more for the analysis part, but you won't be spending as much time on the rest - the formatting, sign-off, headers etc. It's less work for the same reward.

From an NS perspective, it means we get a longer window in which to RP, and with fewer RP cut-offs there should be fewer filler or last-minute I-should-do-justice-to-this-game RPs.

I literally don't see any disadvantage of double scorinations.

[Alasdair I Frosticus]

While RL events distracted me from my host vote (I'm leaving Egypt and returning to the UK on Thursday), I would note that I likewise have no problems with double scorination.

And I write that as someone who's been a staunch defender of NSWC traditions for quite some time.

[Valladares]

Chromatika and I would like to thank those EWCC members who, with their vote, expressed their support to our bid to host the upcoming Baptism of Fire. We're looking forward to offer our first-timers an enjoyable tournament!

In that regard, an official host announcement regarding the BoF has been made.

[Kelssek]

I'm re-considering whether I'm going to participate.

Further to Audioslavia's excellent points, not only is it in your interest to give it a fair go (not being set back by losing a whole cycle of KPB points), if you try it and really don't like it, you then have all the legitimacy to complain drawing on your direct experience.

[Saltstead]

Congratulations to the elected hosts. While I’ve made my opinion on the bid’s double-matchday plan crystal clear—it is a distinction without a difference as far as I’m concerned—, that point will not affect my plans regarding this World Cup.

My real worry here is that double-matchdays will be a mechanism that allows groups and campaign lengths to bloat in size even further. Our hosts made no commitment to capping the length of qualifying in their bid and that really concerns me. I sincerely hope that the hosts will resist the urge to foist yet another 20+ matchday trudge on us.

Nonetheless, I hope the World Cup goes well and I wish the hosts luck.

[Krytenia]

Congratulations to Newmanistan and Drawkland - and many thanks to Delaclava and Legalese, I'm sorry we couldn't quite manage to get either bid over the line.

And now, some ranting.

Firstly, I'm still absolutely livid about when signups started. Both Krytenian bids expressed a wish for a three-week signup window; I have now learned that signups were started because EQS saw two bids, and opened signups without actually reading them. I feel there was a lack of due diligence on EQS' part, and I'm not happy about it. But, c'est la vie, what's done is done.

Secondly, I'm in the "against" column for full double-scorination matchdays as my thinking is that we should be reducing the point-to-point timescale of the World Cup cycle, which double matchdays do nothing to remedy. I can see the points others are making, and we shall see if this makes a difference in that regard when we come to the final matchday of qualifying.

Thirdly, Sarzonia. You know I respect you, even if I disagree with you. But double matchdays are not a hill worth dying on. By all means voice your disagreement, but threatening to pull out because of it just comes off as petty and closed-minded.

OK, rant over. We now return to your regularly scheduled slightly insane mechanoid.

[Kelssek]

As I was vocal in advocating that the time between the previous World Cup ending and the signups being opened should be minimized (as I think it provides impetus to get things moving), I am sincerely curious why you want to insist on this three-week thing. I don't think the WCC president should be bound by what one of the bids wants in an area of their prerogative.

[Krytenia]

As I was vocal in advocating that the time between the previous World Cup ending and the signups being opened should be minimized (as I think it provides impetus to get things moving), I am sincerely curious why you want to insist on this three-week thing. I don't think the WCC president should be bound by what one of the bids wants in an area of their prerogative.

It's more the lack of due diligence. Fair enough opening the signups; but the complete lack of acknowledgement is what's got my goat as it was specifically stated. The WCC Pres isn't beholden to my whims, but as I'd messaged EQS to request this before posting either bid, and getting zero feedback on this until after the host vote was closed - and that indirectly through another player (even a simple "sorry, no" at the time would have sufficed) feels like a bit of a slap in the face.

Indeed, I even mentioned that the three week signup window was not entirely in our hands in both bids.

[Nephara]

Another great advantage of double-scorination is that ... not all matches are worth RPing? There's less need to scrabble for inspiration to avoid focusing on a 3-1 win over a rosterless side with one post in its history; 'in!'. But, hell, as Audio says you literally don't need to do anything differently to before. It's more flexibility with literally zero downside.

[Equestrian States]

I'm still absolutely livid about when signups started. Both Krytenian bids expressed a wish for a three-week signup window; I have now learned that signups were started because EQS saw two bids, and opened signups without actually reading them. I feel there was a lack of due diligence on EQS' part, and I'm not happy about it. But, c'est la vie, what's done is done.

A few thoughts here. First, I'll admit I made a mistake there, and I do apologize for that. However, in my defense, I feel I should point out that, historically speaking, the signup period is rarely (if ever) mentioned in bids, and as such it was not a problem I was anticipating dealing with. I did read through the bids shortly after posting the thread, but at that point it was too late to change anything.

Second, when the signup period begins is not typically within the purview of the bidding parties, but the WCC President. However, the bidders do generally have the ability to somewhat influence when signups open through when they choose to post their bids. By posting your bids at the time that you did, I believed (apparently incorrectly) that you were thus in favor of starting signups immediately. I'll also point out that the text of your bids does not explicitly mention a later start to signups, merely that you wanted a shorter period for signups.

Third, two other bids were posted within a day of your own, neither of which expressed support for a three-week signup window, and one of which specifically mentioned an earlier start to signups in its own text. Given that information, in hindsight, I would have delayed opening signups by a few days or so, but not past that week. However, given widespread community support for signups starting roughly a couple weeks after the WC85 Final regardless of if there was a bid and the explicit endorsement of an earlier start by one of the bidding parties, I would have opened signups at the end of that week.

Finally, I should point out that as an attempt at a compromise, I started the voting period earlier than I had initially intended to, to allow for your reduced signup period to be followed within reason as closely as possible.

---

And since there's been another post, I'll deal with that here, as well:

It's more the lack of due diligence. Fair enough opening the signups; but the complete lack of acknowledgement is what's got my goat as it was specifically stated. The WCC Pres isn't beholden to my whims, but as I'd messaged EQS to request this before posting either bid, and getting zero feedback on this until after the host vote was closed - and that indirectly through another player (even a simple "sorry, no" at the time would have sufficed) feels like a bit of a slap in the face.

When you first messaged me in June regarding a shorter signup window, it was while I was dealing with a series of RL problems. I likely simply forgot to respond to it, and I did not receive any follow-up messages from you pressing the matter after that. Furthermore, I did reach out to you directly about the three-week window after signups were opened while trying to decide when to open host voting, so I don't think it's entirely fair to say that you got zero feedback on the issue.

[Krytenia]

Thanks for the reply. Having read what you've written, the points you made are fair ones. I think we've been at cross-purposes here, but it is what it is, and as far as I'm concerned the matter is now dealt with.

Also, I had completely forgotten about the Discord message you sent me on that front, so again, matter dealt with, and please accept my apologies for the misinformation that's led to on my part.

Lessons learned on my part, and again, sorry for any ill-feeling I may have caused.

[Krytenia]

Moving swiftly on, it might be an idea for people to share what they liked and disliked about each bid. As we had a number of radical ideas across all four bids, it would be interesting to see what things people might be receptive to as a guide to future bidders.

Part of the reason I was involved in two bids was to bring this sort of conversation to the fore, after all.

[Squornshelan Remnant States]

Moving swiftly on, it might be an idea for people to share what they liked and disliked about each bid.

I am cautiously curious about BAR. I have to admit, I'm really uncertain about public RP bonus. I see the potential for it to open a real can of worms as far as disagreement with RP grading goes. If hosts want to open themselves up to that, so be it, but if it became the norm, it could discourage some prospective hosts. That said, for those who are able to take constructive criticism, it could be a useful tool for improving.

I am cautiously optimistic about Dual Scorination Days. Having twice as much time to prepare for each RP would make such a huge difference to me with regard to burnout. I just can't go every single day for three weeks, I don't have that in me.

I am not sure about the apparently vehement opposition to qualifying formats with more than 15 groups. I personally would much rather have a slightly shorter qualifying run. I think 18 Groups or 20 groups could be good options. 18 groups in particular seems like a decent compromise between avoiding playoffs, which many people seem to hate, accommodating as many signups as possible, and keeping group size down so that qualifying doesn't stretch beyond 3 weeks.

I do not like the idea of a rosterless penalty, but I liked the increased roster bonus discussed in New Drawk. I flat out oppose giving anyone a penalty to rank or RP bonus for any reason other than misconduct, be it plagiarism or otherwise. I also don't think threatening such a penalty will have the desired effect of encouraging more rosters to be posted. The people who are not bothering to post rosters or RP are probably also not reading bids or announcement posts in any detail, and many will not even be aware that they are being penalized. Rather, I think it's a better idea to reward those who do at least post rosters than attempt to punish those who do not.

You can now probably deduce who I voted for, and in what order.

[Zwangzug]

Krytenia-Legalese: I liked the approach to RP bonus so it wasn't strictly cumulative, as well as the willingness to adjust it based on some of the possible backfire issues that were mentioned in thread.

Krytenia-Delaclava: I think the main "radical" idea here was the non-roster penalty, which was also implemented in the Kry-LGL bid. This is something I'm fairly agnostic on; I don't mind the fact that it could potentially go away after a certain number of matchdays leading to slightly unbalanced schedules, because all schedules are going to be uneven/erratic to some extent. Ultimately I voted for the Kry/LGL bid above this one because I thought the BAR bonus structures was more interesting/innovative.

Taeshan/Eastfield Lodge/Tequilo/Reçueçn: I want to quote this paragraph from the bid thread because I think it makes a great point:

In particular we feel that having additional users involved provides for security coverage in the unlikely - but in the present global climate not impossible - event of any one host facing RL difficulties; and adds additional oversight and transparency to decision-making. All three events in the last cycle benefited directly from having more than the traditional 2-2-2 host format.

The RL pandemic is terrible, but one of the few upsides has been a resurgence in online communities like ours, and speaking as a "junior" host, the 85 cycle was enormous. Doing even 1/4 of the qualifiers was a lot of work for me, and doing 1/2 would have been more than twice as stressful. So independently of the individuals or mechanics involved in any particular bid, I endorse more Vilitan plans going forward!

Newmanistan/Drawkland: I am one of the people who is cautiously skeptical but definitely open to the idea of 2 MDs every 48 hours, instead of 1 every 24. The double-scorinations last cycle were not the end of the world, as a participant or host. I am used to the routine of "write a little something about every game every day, even if it's just tacking on a list of goalscorers at the end of a character-based story," and sometimes changing routines that I'm used to is jarring for me, but on principle I definitely recognize that "doing something this way because we've always done it" is not great. I was around when the WBC went from single scorinations to series-at-a-time, and for me that didn't help RP--I often had tried to do a little blurb about every game, and I find that I didn't enjoy the series format as much. But a lot of people will attest that it was good for the vitality of the tournament in the long run! So, while the 2/48 thing isn't what I'd most advocate for, I'm excited to see how it will play out and of course think Newmanistan and Drawk are very experienced hosts.

[Northwest Kalactin]

Moving swiftly on, it might be an idea for people to share what they liked and disliked about each bid.

Well, I’m going to start with saying that I love all the radical ideas that were put forward during the bidding period this cycle, and hope it happens more often.

1. KRY-LGL
My favorite bid out of all 4 for many reason. If you have read ay of my own host bids lately you know that I like Public RP Bonus, it is a good way to ensure transparency and help them identify possible mistakes. I like the BAR system a lot also, because it helps “summarize” all of your RPs, rather than just adding them all up.

2. NewDrawk
I feel that this was the most conventional bid out of all of them, and I like the idea of no uneven groups. I like 2 MDs/48 Hour scorination, and I feel it solves much of the burnout problem. Not a ton of radical ideas but a bid that checks all the boxes for me.

3. KRY-DEL
The no roster penalty is great, and I feel it should be used more often. (Okay maybe a bit of bias from last cycle.) Another bid that isn’t THAT radical but checks a lot of boxes for me.

4. TELTR
Nothing personal against you guys, but I didn’t love this bid. I think a larger roster bonus than 2 KPB would’ve helped the bid more. I also don’t like that many of the formats promised uneven groups.

[Mriin]

++ Giving BAR a try
Seems neat and practical. Worth a shot!

++ Roster penalty that is removed when a roster is provided
My brainchild, so yeah. Encourage the absolute baseline level of participation and try to inhibit completely AFK rank coasting (ex: what I did in WCs 70-72).

++ 2 games per 48 hours
maximum flexibility! do you want to:
1) write a match report each day, like always
2) write a longer piece over two days
3) write a normal piece on one day and not have to worry about it every other day
4) write for a different nation each day
5) write on one day, edit and post the next
The possibilities are endless!

+ group size <= 10
yea sure

~ public RP bonus
it'll be good to do once or twice with willing hosts, but doesn't need to be a regular fixture

- uneven groups
arg blarg

-- not trying new things
we've got too many cool ideas to try to keep doin' the same ol' same ol'

[Kelssek]

I continue to be against public RP bonuses and this was a factor for me. Although I do think it would be a good idea for hosts to allow participants to ask about their RP bonus and be told privately what it is and where they stand overall and be given feedback.

RP bonus is inherently subjective. It is a matter of taste, and there is a wide variety of RP genres. While everyone can probably agree on the difference between a 1/10, 5/10, and 9/10, it gets really thorny deciding between a 4 or 5, a 9 or 10. When it boils down to something so personal as, essentially, I like this more than the other one, and this one a little bit more than this other one... to put it all out there to be picked over and compared about I think is just a good way to inject strife and drama where there shouldn't be.

As a participant, I also do not like the idea of my efforts being publically ranked against others'. I don't think of myself as being the type who is worried about how others judge me, but I know it'll still be an irritant if check and end up thinking "how come X is rated 1.2 better than mine, their stupid RPs aren't even funny, ugh". As a host, I have real anxiety about whether I'm being fair or not when it's private, and WC hosting is time-consuming enough already without having to deal with people arguing and demanding reasons why you gave X this and Y that and you say that but Z also did this and you rated that... etc.

Uneven groups are a non-starter for me. They're unfair both in IC and OOC terms.

I am ok with no-roster penalties. No roster is something that's clearly detrimental to other participants, and a spot in the final 32 is so coveted that it's not a good look when teams without rosters qualify.

[Commonwealth of Baker Park]

Congrats to the winning bidders, and thanks to the others who submitted bids. This was the most difficult choice I've made, so much so that I waited to almost the end of the voting b/c I wanted to go through all of them a second time.

I won't add much here, because I think Audio made a very good case for the double MD scorination. I think this is an idea that's worth trying in practice to see how it works. The same way I think that BAR should have it's day somewhere down the line. I think Mriin summed up my feelings on the other ideas also.