World Baseball Classic Discussion Thread

[Liventia]

"For a Council vote to be considered valid, at least one more than one half of the total number of members of the Council (50%+1) must have voted on the motion or election at hand."

Just curious, would all the recent votes have been valid under this criteria? I can imagine a case where there's an unopposed vote or several inactive voters don't have opinions on (for instance) Council membership, I wouldn't want a vote to be thrown out for lack of a quorum.

It's simply my interpretation of the current: "Section 2: For the purposes of this amendment, a "quorum" shall be defined as one more than half the current voting membership of the Council." I wouldn't be able to tell you exactly if all recent votes have been carried out this way.

[The Sherpa Empire]

I'm OK with clearing up the withdrawal rules or rewording things to be more clear and readable, but I don't see a need to change the council membership process.

[Super-Llamaland]

Changes to VI and VII look good. I personally like the current process where we vote on council members, however, and don't see a need to change that - especially since recent council voting results have generally seemed reasonable to me.

[Sarzonia]

Changes to VI and VII look good. I personally like the current process where we vote on council members, however, and don't see a need to change that - especially since recent council voting results have generally seemed reasonable to me.

I agree with this.

In general, it's helpful to follow standard precedents and protocols, but this one can be one area that's unique to the WBC.

[Banija]

With a couple of people launching domestic leagues up, I wonder if there would be interest for some sort of a domestic baseball champions league equivalent?

Obviously there's no RL equivalent, but that hasn't stopped RUCT/Champions Bowl/IUBC/IDLO/etc... From making competitions. I do wonder how many would participate, but I think we could get at least half-decent participation.

Also, I support both of Liv's amendments, although I question the need for any sort of quorum requirement on council votes at all. If the Council becomes not that active, and there isn't quorum, the WBC could be in a position where it couldn't do anything- let people onto the council, hold host votes, etc... And that would obviously be problematic.

[Barnettsville]

With a couple of people launching domestic leagues up, I wonder if there would be interest for some sort of a domestic baseball champions league equivalent?

Obviously there's no RL equivalent, but that hasn't stopped RUCT/Champions Bowl/IUBC/IDLO/etc... From making competitions. I do wonder how many would participate, but I think we could get at least half-decent participation.

Also, I support both of Liv's amendments, although I question the need for any sort of quorum requirement on council votes at all. If the Council becomes not that active, and there isn't quorum, the WBC could be in a position where it couldn't do anything- let people onto the council, hold host votes, etc... And that would obviously be problematic.

I think there is one, or used to be at one point. Not sure which.


I'm not a voting member again, but the quorum seems like it would be extremely problematic.

[Chromatika]

Here is the link to the latest one that did stop a while back.

[Liventia]

As a reminder, the quorum exists in the currently-active Constitution, it's just a question of both interpretation and application (or lack of).

[The Sherpa Empire]

As a reminder, the quorum exists in the currently-active Constitution, it's just a question of both interpretation and application (or lack of).

It should probably get dumped.

[Zwangzug]

"For a Council vote to be considered valid, at least one more than one half of the total number of members of the Council (50%+1) must have voted on the motion or election at hand."

Just curious, would all the recent votes have been valid under this criteria? I can imagine a case where there's an unopposed vote or several inactive voters don't have opinions on (for instance) Council membership, I wouldn't want a vote to be thrown out for lack of a quorum.

It's simply my interpretation of the current: "Section 2: For the purposes of this amendment, a "quorum" shall be defined as one more than half the current voting membership of the Council." I wouldn't be able to tell you exactly if all recent votes have been carried out this way.

Thanks, good catch. I'd also support formally removing this part.

[Sarzonia]

Then what do you propose instead?

I can see a problem with declaring a vote invalid if, say nine Council members vote for it and we need 11 for a quorum, but what if we get something like three or four votes out of 20? That's hardly a good sample size for Council sentiment.

[Zwangzug]

I would propose this as an adjustment to Liventia's draft Article VII.

Article VII: Voting Procedures

Section 1: Any option on a motion or election that receives the most votes after a set period of voting shall be approved.

Section 2: Votes may be held over any duration of time as specified by the person opening the vote, except where provided for by the Constitution. However, if a measure receives the votes of one more than half the active Council membership, voting on that item may end early at the collector's discretion.

Section 3: If two or more options on a motion or election are tied following the set period of voting, the tied options shall be voted on again by the Council for a time period half that of the original.

[Liventia]

I would propose this as an adjustment to Liventia's draft Article VII.

Article VII: Voting Procedures

Section 1: Any option on a motion or election that receives the most votes after a set period of voting shall be approved.

Section 2: Votes may be held over any duration of time as specified by the person opening the vote, except where provided for by the Constitution. However, if a measure receives the votes of one more than half the active Council membership, voting on that item may end early at the collector's discretion.

Section 3: If two or more options on a motion or election are tied following the set period of voting, the tied options shall be voted on again by the Council for a time period half that of the original.

I'd be happy to go with this.

[Cassadaigua]

While I am in favour of voting in new Council members (i.e. the status quo), for the sake of playing Devil's Advocate and considering the WBC is one of the few tournaments that has a restricted voting pool, I am proposing the following changes to the Constitution (proposed changes in red strikeout or blue). Thoughts and comments are welcome.

---

Article I: Council Eligibility

Section 1: To be an eligible member of the Council, a nation must have fulfil at least one of the following criteria:
Clause a. Participated (meaning posted a roster and at least ONE RP) in each of the previous 2 Classics and be approved by a simple majority vote of the current Council. (ie: if there are currently 10 or 11 voting members are on the council, then 6 members would have to approve, etc.) This is to limit the number of members of the Council to the truly active participants. Both the roster and RP must be posted in a timely manner, prior to the nation's elimination from that Classic.
Clause b. Hosted or co-hosted one of the last 3 Classics, even if the nation has not posted a roster and at least one RP in the last 2 Classics.

Section 2: Any member of the Council that no longer meets one of the criteria outlined in Section 1 shall cease to be a member of the Council, and can only regain that status by meeting Section 1 once more. To maintain membership, a nation must fulfil at least one of the following criteria:
Clause a. Hosting (or co-hosting) a Classic, (if possible), within the next 3 Classics.
Clause b. Participate (meaning post a roster and at least ONE RP) in the subsequent Classic.

Section 3: If a Member of the Council fails to maintain its membership (by failure to fulfill any of the above criteria), it shall have 1 Classic to retain membership (by fulfilling any of the above criteria). If the Member does not do so, then it shall not be eligible for membership on the Council for a minimum of one Classic.

Section 4: Any previous hosts of the Classic within the last three WBCs are also eligible, pending a simple majority vote of the current Council.

Rationale: Make membership of the Council automatic; merge Section 4 into Section 1.

Article II: Rights and Responsibilities of the Council

Section 1: The Council shall be the voters for the next Host of the Classic and shall choose from the available bids.

Section 2: The Council shall be the determining body for changes, (ie: repealing, amending or introduction of new rules), to the WBC Constitution. A two-thirds majority shall be needed to amend or repeal any part of the WBC Constitution, but a simple majority vote shall be sufficient for introduction of new rules to the Constitution.

Section 3: Any member of the Council can withdraw from the Council without prejudice, but shall be subject to the above eligibility guidelines if they seek re-instatement.

Section 4: Council members may "go on vacation" (ie: take a NS break) for a maximum of two Classics; but shall be subject to the above eligibility guidelines if they seek re-instatement if they are gone for more than two consecutive Classics.

Section 5 4: The Council is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the Classic and for advertising of the same.

Section 6 5: The Council shall be held to any subsequent rights and/or responsibilities that are created henceforth into the WBC Constitution.

Rationale: Since the changes would make Council membership automatic, it stands to reason that nations taking a hiatus would regain their membership again as soon as they meet the criteria, rather than needing to be voted in, therefore there is no need to freeze their Council membership.

Article IV: Impeachment Procedures

Section 1: In order to initiate impeachment and/or removal from office proceedings against a current member of the World Baseball Classic Council, another member in good standing must motion for impeachment. If a different member seconds the motion, the member is considered impeached.

Section 2: In the event that a Council member is impeached, the full Council shall have one RL week to discuss whether or not to remove the impeached member. During that period, the impeached member is still considered a full voting member of the Council on any items other than those involving the impeachment proceedings.

Section 3: The council president shall initiate the removal vote, which shall only take place in the event two thirds of votes cast are in favour of removal from office. If the president is the one being impeached, the vice-president shall serve the same role as the president for the purposes of this section.

Section 4: In the event that two-third of votes cast are in favour of removal from office, the Council member shall be removed from the Council with immediate effect for a period of two World Baseball Classics. At the end of the two World Baseball Classic period, t The member may petition to rejoin the Council and initiate a plan to address any concerns outlined in the impeachment proceedings after a minimum of 2 Classics, providing that they also meet one of the criteria outlined in Article I, Section 1.

Section 5: Any Council member removed due to impeachment proceedings must be nominated to rejoin the Council and must be formally seconded. If that occurs, the Council may vote on readmission when votes for new Council members are being taken. If a simple majority of votes cast are in favour of readmission, the impeached member shall rejoin the Council with immediate effect.

Rationale: Tweak wording since membership would be automatic.

Article VII: Voting Procedures

Section 1: For a Council vote to be considered valid, [color=blue]at least one more than a quarter of the total number of members of the Council (25%+1) must have voted on the motion or election at hand. a motion must have a simple majority of votes cast provided that a quorum of Council members votes in favour of or against the motion at vote.

Section 2: For the purposes of this amendment, a "quorum" shall be defined as one more than half the current voting membership of the Council.

Section 3: Any option on a motion or election that receives the most votes the active Council membership shall be automatically approved.

Section 3: Votes may be held over any duration of time as specified by the person opening the vote, except where provided for by the Constitution.

Section 4: If two or more options on a motion or election are tied following the set period of voting, the tied options shall be voted on again by the Council for a time period half that of the original.

Rationale: Clean up clunky wording with possible doubt due to differences in US/UK English; lower quorum requirement since membership would be automatic and grow large; add voting duration section; add tiebreak protocol for votes

---

Even if we decide the proposed changes are unnecessary, I would put the following separate amendment to the Constitution forward:

Article VI: Tournament Sportsmanship

Section 1: Teams may withdraw from the World Baseball Classic after it has started, but will only be removed from the competition following the conclusion of the round the team is in at the point of withdrawal. Games will not be forfeited. No team may voluntarily forfeit games or entire series after a World Baseball Classic has started.

Section 2: Only nations that have ceased to exist during the World Baseball Classic before being eliminated are deemed as forfeiting.

Section 3: Forfeited games due to CTE by a nation are automatic victories for the opposing team and should be scorinated as such.

Rationale: Bring WBC Constitution in line with forum-wide rules allowing teams to withdraw, within reason.

This has been seconded, and will go to a vote. (Although edits of the proposal can still occur)

I would propose this as an adjustment to Liventia's draft Article VII.

Article VII: Voting Procedures

Section 1: Any option on a motion or election that receives the most votes after a set period of voting shall be approved.

Section 2: Votes may be held over any duration of time as specified by the person opening the vote, except where provided for by the Constitution. However, if a measure receives the votes of one more than half the active Council membership, voting on that item may end early at the collector's discretion.

Section 3: If two or more options on a motion or election are tied following the set period of voting, the tied options shall be voted on again by the Council for a time period half that of the original.

This edit has been seconded, and can go to a vote. (May still be edited)

This vote will not occur until the conclusion of the WBC, but will occur prior to the next Council vote, since Council voting is something that will be voted upon. Both of these proposals can still be fine-tuned in the meantime, but this is where we stand on them.

[Zwangzug]

Someone better find the tune to "The World Turned Upside Down" real quick.

Is this a challenge?

[Sarzonia]

Someone better find the tune to "The World Turned Upside Down" real quick.

Is this a challenge?

Mmmmm maybe

[Sarzonia]

I loved the RP, Zwangzug!

[Zwangzug]

I loved the RP, Zwangzug!

Thank you for the inspiration!

[Newmanistan]

Thanks for knocking out Llama, South Newlandia. They were starting to worry me.
Hosting has been excellent. My RP juices weren't flowing for this, and it probably showed. I got what I deserved!

[Sarzonia]

Thanks for knocking out Llama, South Newlandia. They were starting to worry me.
Hosting has been excellent. My RP juices weren't flowing for this, and it probably showed. I got what I deserved!

We all go through dry spells. I didn't kick into gear until Tikariot swept me at home. At least I got him back in the knockout rounds!

[Barnettsville]

I was bouncing back and forth day to day with motivation, mostly trying to get my background stuff up, to get myself back into "current day".

[Hapilopper]

Hey gang, first off, to all of you, I am sorry for leaving so suddenly. I had hoped I'd keep being able to RP to my standard for the WBC. However, I went through a very sudden (but positive) change in my life involving a new job and I haven't been able to dedicate anywhere near the time I've been able to in the past to NS, largely due to the commute I have every day. As a result, I've had to drop away from NS for the time being.

But I'll be back! I'll be back to here and to the discord before long, once I'm able to straighten out the commute issue. I'll be back for the next WBC hopefully and certainly when NSSCRA gets going again. I don't want to leave my characters behind.

I'll see you then.

[Sarzonia]

Congrats on the new job, Hap!

Commuting can be a major PITA, so I get it. I hope the job brings you fulfillment and joy.

[The Sherpa Empire]

Hey gang, first off, to all of you, I am sorry for leaving so suddenly. I had hoped I'd keep being able to RP to my standard for the WBC. However, I went through a very sudden (but positive) change in my life involving a new job and I haven't been able to dedicate anywhere near the time I've been able to in the past to NS, largely due to the commute I have every day. As a result, I've had to drop away from NS for the time being.

But I'll be back! I'll be back to here and to the discord before long, once I'm able to straighten out the commute issue. I'll be back for the next WBC hopefully and certainly when NSSCRA gets going again. I don't want to leave my characters behind.

I'll see you then.

I missed your RPs!

But I'm glad to hear that you're doing well IRL and that you'll be back.

[Sarzonia]

Congrats Banija on the title! Commiserations to South Newlandia on just falling short, but great job to you and Tikariot on hosting!