Nationstates Olympic Games Discussion Thread

[Dancougar]

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/5610/olympic.png

Posting in an epic bid?

[Newmanistan]

Other OOC bits
The Starblaydi "Golden League" scorinator (Excel, and dating from 2006) will be used, in conjunction with various versions of NSFS, and Basketsim for basketball - unless a GUI version of Xkoranate becomes available in the meantime. Demonstration events will, of course, be allowed, at the discretion of AOCOG.

At the moment, I'm leaning towards voting for your bid, but this concerns me. It concerns me because my ultimate voting for you would be because your using the the Excel scorinator and NSFS. I would hate to see you win the vote and then turn around and use xkoranate is such version did come available as in my opinion your use of that makes you no better then the other two bids. (I'm sure I'm on record somewhere as not being a fan of xkoronate).

Would it be possible for more clarification here. If that version did come out, what are you going to do?

[Commerce Heights]

(I'm sure I'm on record somewhere as not being a fan of xkoronate).

Can you elaborate? (Did it eat your kittens? I’m afraid the “thinking scorinator” part doesn’t quite understand the human concept of cuteness yet, but it’s being worked on! )

[Sorthern Northland]

Yes, the idea of adding beer pong is clearly the most hilarious thing I have ever heard, hahahaha oh how I laughed,

but I hate to point out 30 Rock got there first, along with octuplets tennis, tetherball, synchronised walking, and women's soccer.

Yup, don't really have anything relevant to add. Sorry.

[Newmanistan]

(I'm sure I'm on record somewhere as not being a fan of xkoronate).

Can you elaborate? (Did it eat your kittens? I’m afraid the “thinking scorinator” part doesn’t quite understand the human concept of cuteness yet, but it’s being worked on! )

Sure, to start, it's not as if I completely dislike it, but when there is competition between scorinating methods, the one not using it will usually get my vote, if all else seems equal. I'll still have no problems joining competitions in which it is the only choice for scorination.

My reasoning for this is that, comparatively speaking, it seems to provide more random results then its competition. I believe the main concept behind this was the use of ratios, to where a team with a value of 49 would have the same chance of beating a team with value of 7 as that 7 team would a value of 1. I'm just not sold that this is happening. The 49's seem to be beating the 7's at the level in which they should, but they amount of "upsets" by 1's over 7's seems to greatly exceed that. I think the recent World Cup of Hockey shows this, as well as the last two World Cups showing this trend. I believe that NSFS, and spreadsheet scorination, in the long run, seem to produce the results in which seem to more accurately reflect the balance between ranks of teams, and RP bonuses which would have applied. In the recent World Bowl, which uses NSFS, the results in which it produced show that balance better. While each tournament had its share of random, head scratching results, when stacking the two up against one another, I like what NSFS is doing better. Having used spreadsheet scorination for baseball, lacrosse, and presently racing, I believe that in the long run, the results it provides are a better reflection of the balance between randomness, roleplay, and rank.

I have no numeric statistical data to back anything up. It's just the way things seem to be going when comparing the different methods, from my point of view. There's nothing wrong with xkoronate in my opinion, just when give a choice, I'm going to lean away from it. Feel free to prove me wrong with numeric data, I can be won over.

[Commerce Heights]

Sure, to start, it's not as if I completely dislike it, but when there is competition between scorinating methods, the one not using it will usually get my vote, if all else seems equal. I'll still have no problems joining competitions in which it is the only choice for scorination.

My reasoning for this is that, comparatively speaking, it seems to provide more random results then its competition. I believe the main concept behind this was the use of ratios, to where a team with a value of 49 would have the same chance of beating a team with value of 7 as that 7 team would a value of 1. I'm just not sold that this is happening. The 49's seem to be beating the 7's at the level in which they should, but they amount of "upsets" by 1's over 7's seems to greatly exceed that. I think the recent World Cup of Hockey shows this, as well as the last two World Cups showing this trend. I believe that NSFS, and spreadsheet scorination, in the long run, seem to produce the results in which seem to more accurately reflect the balance between ranks of teams, and RP bonuses which would have applied. In the recent World Bowl, which uses NSFS, the results in which it produced show that balance better. While each tournament had its share of random, head scratching results, when stacking the two up against one another, I like what NSFS is doing better. Having used spreadsheet scorination for baseball, lacrosse, and presently racing, I believe that in the long run, the results it provides are a better reflection of the balance between randomness, roleplay, and rank.

I have no numeric statistical data to back anything up. It's just the way things seem to be going when comparing the different methods, from my point of view. There's nothing wrong with xkoronate in my opinion, just when give a choice, I'm going to lean away from it. Feel free to prove me wrong with numeric data, I can be won over.

You’re talking about the SQIS formula, which is but one formula that xkoranate provides for but one sport, football. The current development version now also supports the NSFS formula for football and certain other sports; it is the NSFS formula that was used for the World Cup of Hockey. The generic system used in xkoranate for the majority of sports (e.g., athletics, volleyball) is absolutely unrelated to SQIS and does not use the ratio of ranks/skills.

We (or at least I) don’t seem to know much about the scorinator Kry’s using, so maybe you can take this nice brown paper bag and direct your criticism over there

[Newmanistan]

Sure, to start, it's not as if I completely dislike it, but when there is competition between scorinating methods, the one not using it will usually get my vote, if all else seems equal. I'll still have no problems joining competitions in which it is the only choice for scorination.

My reasoning for this is that, comparatively speaking, it seems to provide more random results then its competition. I believe the main concept behind this was the use of ratios, to where a team with a value of 49 would have the same chance of beating a team with value of 7 as that 7 team would a value of 1. I'm just not sold that this is happening. The 49's seem to be beating the 7's at the level in which they should, but they amount of "upsets" by 1's over 7's seems to greatly exceed that. I think the recent World Cup of Hockey shows this, as well as the last two World Cups showing this trend. I believe that NSFS, and spreadsheet scorination, in the long run, seem to produce the results in which seem to more accurately reflect the balance between ranks of teams, and RP bonuses which would have applied. In the recent World Bowl, which uses NSFS, the results in which it produced show that balance better. While each tournament had its share of random, head scratching results, when stacking the two up against one another, I like what NSFS is doing better. Having used spreadsheet scorination for baseball, lacrosse, and presently racing, I believe that in the long run, the results it provides are a better reflection of the balance between randomness, roleplay, and rank.

I have no numeric statistical data to back anything up. It's just the way things seem to be going when comparing the different methods, from my point of view. There's nothing wrong with xkoronate in my opinion, just when give a choice, I'm going to lean away from it. Feel free to prove me wrong with numeric data, I can be won over.

You’re talking about the SQIS formula, which is but one formula that xkoranate provides for but one sport, football. The current development version now also supports the NSFS formula for football and certain other sports; it is the NSFS formula that was used for the World Cup of Hockey. The generic system used in xkoranate for the majority of sports (e.g., athletics, volleyball) is absolutely unrelated to SQIS and does not use the ratio of ranks/skills.

We (or at least I) don’t seem to know much about the scorinator Kry’s using, so maybe you can take this nice brown paper bag and direct your criticism over there

That's actually very good to know, thank you.

Kry, what competitions have your (well Star's) spreadsheet been used for?

[Qazox]

(ooc: this is VERY MUCH A tongue-in-cheek post do not take seriously! PLEASE!)

Warning using xkoronate may result in: Loss of RP skill, Margaret infestations and mass bouts of hysteria. Please consult your doctor before use.

Warning using NSFS may result in: Taeshani Colored RP's, Long bouts of Daehanjeiguk reading and Qazoxian Tourette's Syndrome. Please consult your doctor before use.

Warning using Leagion, may result in: Pruxian delusions, Dream-Realm Dementia and Gnome disease. Please consult your doctor before use.

[Quintessence of Dust]

A very brief bit of analysis of the first 5 days/50 events of the Winter Olympics, the most recent to have used xkoranate, shows the following:

Gold medals/1st place (some were just heats)

Skill modifier of 1.0: 28
0.8 - 0.99: 12
0.6 - 0.79: 7
0.4 - 0.59: 0
0.2 - 0.39: 1
0.01 - 0.19: 1
0.0: 1

Silver medals/2nd place

Skill modifier of 1.0: 25
0.8 - 0.99: 14
0.6 - 0.79: 10
0.4 - 0.59: 0
0.2 - 0.39: 1
0.01 - 0.19: 0
0.0: 0

Bronze medals/3rd place (one extra result, as there was a shared bronze)

Skill modifier of 1.0: 28
0.8 - 0.99: 9
0.6 - 0.79: 6
0.4 - 0.59: 4
0.2 - 0.39: 3
0.01 - 0.19: 0
0.0: 0

Olympic records (6)

Skill modifier of 1.0: 3
0.95: 2
0.9: 1

Disclaimers: Doesn't account for RP bonus or overall field strength, or include hockey and curling results, or use a very big sample size (because it's not arranged in a user friendly format).

[Taeshan]

(ooc: this is VERY MUCH A tongue-in-cheek post do not take seriously! PLEASE!)

Warning using xkoronate may result in: Loss of RP skill, Margaret infestations and mass bouts of hysteria. Please consult your doctor before use.

Warning using NSFS may result in: Taeshani Colored RP's, Long bouts of Daehanjeiguk reading and Qazoxian Tourette's Syndrome. Please consult your doctor before use.

Warning using Leagion, may result in: Pruxian delusions, Dream-Realm Dementia and Gnome disease. Please consult your doctor before use.

Its the Olympics it is Time for the Team with a Dream in Blue Again. Also Dae usually doesnt enter the olympics.

[Bears Armed]

Here is our bid.

*snip*

I also have an ALARMING CONTROVERSIAL IDEA, which will see delegations of fewer than 30 entries or participation in fewer than 10 events (these numbers subject to, probably downwards, revision) given a very small overall bonus.

That might improve the "dramatic" aspect of things, sIightly, I suppose... although of course it might encourage some players who couldn't be bothered to create larger delegations & who wouldn't have bothered to enter the Games at all otherwise to send small delegations along, which might or might not be a good thing. (Increased participation vs more delegations to keep track of & list in the tables...) Okay, this would be acceptable to me, now what do other people here think?

EDIT: Afterthoughts _
1/ However i think that this suggested bonus should only apply if that small delegation's members have a "reasonable" spread of ability ratings: for example, any nation that sends the maximum number of entrants for one or two sports and gives these all ratings of 1.0, balanced by an equivalent number of 0.0-rated entrants for other sports, probably has a good enough chance of winning medals in their favoured events already...
2/ I reserve the right to withdraw my approval of this idea if so many 'small' delegations turn up and win medals that the larger delegations -- who, reflecting their homelands' probably greater investments in sports, should probably have the largest totals of medals won -- get significantly over-shadowed by them...

t this stage it's important to introduce a second ALARMING CONTROVERSIAL IDEA, which would see the games remain on a compressed schedule of, probably, 18 days, spaced over about 21 days to allow for an opening day, and a couple of reserve days in case I am not able to scorinate - Tuesdays can be problematic. (Don't worry, we'll organize karaoke for the athletes.)

The argument for this is my observation of the Winter Olympics, which saw a huge drop-off in RPing. While a shorter Games could mean having hundreds of your athletes competing on any one day, it will hopefully preserve interest.

And this would also reduce the extent of any temporal overlap with other events, such as Soccer tournaments...
Okay, again, this is fine by me.

Ideally the Games would begin the first week of August. Sign-ups would therefore need to open almost immediately on the bid decision, with a cut-off of a few days beforehand.

In which case, I suspect that my two delelegations -- for 'Bears Armed' itself and 'Roumberre' -- would probably have significantly fewer changes from those that were sent to the third Summer Olympics than would be the case if I had a few weeks longer OOC (as both of the other bids offer...) in which to get them ready... but on the other paw, August is a lot better than September for me in terms of free time to spend on NS, so that's good.

There will be no substantial changes in the events from Columbia. I will lay down and die to defend the honour of rhythmic gymnastics. However, I will join on the "softball gave me cooties and shot JFK" bandwagon and drop it like I chop it. (Freestyle rap will, despite huge public pressure, not be included.)

Would you consider upgrading any of the sports that were only 'demonstration' ones at Columbia to 'medal' status at these Games?

Demonstration events have a little more scope, dependent on ability to scorinate. Yes, the idea of adding beer pong is clearly the most hilarious thing I have ever heard, hahahaha oh how I laughed, but I hate to point out 30 Rock got there first, along with octuplets tennis, tetherball, synchronised walking, and women's soccer.

Maybe just have 'Soccer', and leave it up to the nations concerned which genders their players are?

More serious possibilities include rugby sevens, which it'd be nice to see return.

The male Ursines agree...

Summer vigil fasting would absolutely not be included,

IC: That's a pity.../OOC;

Also, the presence of non-humans on the roster of nearby FC Drongosnort,

Hr'rmm? Do you mean their Ursine players?

*(Does sums...)*

Bears Armed revealed its existence to the outside world in 2006AD (This date is definitely fixed.) and entered a delegation in the First Summer Olympics later on in that same year: at four years per Oympiad (I had previously considered the NS Olympics to be an annual event IC, at least as far as the Bears are concerned, to match both the OOC flow of time and the IC flow of time for matters of international politics, but changing to 4-year Olympiads would only require fairly minor retconning...) these next Games would therefore be taking place in 2018, but this bid to host them would presumably be being made somewhat earlier than that.
'Baptism of Fire 31' was in 2008AD by the Bears' reckoning (IC as well as OOC), so that at four years per World Cup cycle the arrival of [the first] Ursine players at that club -- which took place between WC45 & the start of qualifiers for WC46 -- would have been in about 2016. (I suppose these dates could be moved backwards in time by one year, if absolutely necessary, but that's the limit...)
Okay, that just about works for consistency in the Bears' time-line... If you're bidding to host these Games less than 2 years before they're due to take place: Otherwise, I'll have a bit of a paradox to deal with... and my nation's extensive Gambling industry could have problems with leakage of information across time!

[Quintessence of Dust]

I should note I don't really expect to win, given the strengths of the other bids, so please consider my answer as courtesy, not presumption.

That might improve the "dramatic" aspect of things, sIightly, I suppose... although of course it might encourage some players who couldn't be bothered to create larger delegations & who wouldn't have bothered to enter the Games at all otherwise to send small delegations along, which might or might not be a good thing. (Increased participation vs more delegations to keep track of & list in the tables...) Okay, this would be acceptable to me, now what do other people here think?

EDIT: Afterthoughts _
1/ However i think that this suggested bonus should only apply if that small delegation's members have a "reasonable" spread of ability ratings: for example, any nation that sends the maximum number of entrants for one or two sports and gives these all ratings of 1.0, balanced by an equivalent number of 0.0-rated entrants for other sports, probably has a good enough chance of winning medals in their favoured events already...
2/ I reserve the right to withdraw my approval of this idea if so many 'small' delegations turn up and win medals that the larger delegations -- who, reflecting their homelands' probably greater investments in sports, should probably have the largest totals of medals won -- get significantly over-shadowed by them...

Given this is basically the only distinct feature of my bid, I hope you don't mind me answering at slightly greater length, beginning by emphasising that this would only be a small bonus - probably less than a single RP bonus, and would only apply to very small delegations.

I don't personally think creating an Olympic roster is a great deal of hassle, so I'm not sure creating only a small one is an indication of not being "bothered". I agree it can take a long time, but it's not especially creatively demanding. Unlike, say, a football roster, which can contain all sorts of RPed stuff, Olympic rosters tend to be absolute bare bones: no details about the competitors save name and skill modifier. So, compared with a roster that lists player ages, positions, height & weight, biographies, uniforms, and so forth, it's relatively easy to create a large delegation. Typographically complex names might slow things down a little. But I don't think it'd be rewarding sloth.

I also don't have a problem with people targetting a couple of sports with 1.0 modified entries. Let's say a Japanese-themed nation wants to win some judo medals, and submits some token 0.0 rated athletes as well. There's nothing wrong with that, and if anything it makes the whole thing slightly more realistic: IRL, some nations are obviously better at certain events (Ethiopian long distance runners, Cuban boxers, British cyclists, Norwegian sailors, etc.)

My aim is not to give people a chance to manipulate the system, but to encourage those who have a particular interest in only one or two sports. At the end of the day, winning medals is still more probable if you have many entries.

Would you consider upgrading any of the sports that were only 'demonstration' ones at Columbia to 'medal' status at these Games?

Can't speak for the others, but probably not unless anyone particularly lobbies for such. The only candidates (because they're the only ones I have the xml files for) are gridiron, lacrosse, cliff diving, and wheelchair racing. The only one I'd really consider promoting is lacrosse, but in all probability the Olympics will clash with the WLC, so that might not be a good idea.

Basically, no.

Hr'rmm? Do you mean their Ursine players?

If it screws with your timetable, you can interpret as "FC Drongosnort's desire to hire non-humans"; their "presence" could be the Bears trying out at practice a while before the bid. (In the astonishingly unlikely event I actually win the vote, though, I'll sort it out more clearly.)

[Bears Armed]

I also don't have a problem with people targetting a couple of sports with 1.0 modified entries. Let's say a Japanese-themed nation wants to win some judo medals, and submits some token 0.0 rated athletes as well. There's nothing wrong with that, and if anything it makes the whole thing slightly more realistic: IRL, some nations are obviously better at certain events (Ethiopian long distance runners, Cuban boxers, British cyclists, Norwegian sailors, etc.)

My aim is not to give people a chance to manipulate the system, but to encourage those who have a particular interest in only one or two sports. At the end of the day, winning medals is still more probable if you have many entries.

As long as we don't see "too many" sports targeted by [separate] small delegations whose players are following this policy, sure... It wasn't a matter of deep concern for me, just something that I thought might need to be considered.

Would you consider upgrading any of the sports that were only 'demonstration' ones at Columbia to 'medal' status at these Games?

Can't speak for the others, but probably not unless anyone particularly lobbies for such. The only candidates (because they're the only ones I have the xml files for) are gridiron, lacrosse, cliff diving, and wheelchair racing. The only one I'd really consider promoting is lacrosse, but in all probability the Olympics will clash with the WLC, so that might not be a good idea.

Basically, no.

Ah. in that case, please consider this to be me "particularly lobbying" for both Tug-of-War (which, apart from being particularly liked by the Bears, really was a 'medal' sport at some of the earlier RL Olympics) and Croquet...
Surely your own nation could find a 'Prezza'-like politician to compete in the latter?

Hr'rmm? Do you mean their Ursine players?

If it screws with your timetable, you can interpret as "FC Drongosnort's desire to hire non-humans"; their "presence" could be the Bears trying out at practice a while before the bid. (In the astonishingly unlikely event I actually win the vote, though, I'll sort it out more clearly.)

Okay, thanks. It isn't so much the potential existence of a time-paradox itself that would be the problem, it's what access to information from several years in the future would let unscrupulous people do to our 'boardies' (i.e. "bookies")...

[Taeshan]

a uestion i have come up with looking at the last summer olympic results thread is this. Will you keep sports or events into their specific sex. such as in Gymnastics. I myself won my only medal in the last olympics in Mens Blance Beam which does not exist.

The real line is hear
Mens
Vault
Floor
Pommel
Parrallel Bars
Rings
high Bar

Womens
Vault
Floor
Balance beam
uneven bars

Is this likely to happen in your bid.

2. Wil Baseball be an only mens sport and softball a Womens if it is included in your olympics. I see it that in the last one it was both both. I dont see why we should discriminate by teams in those sports, and it should be like in real life.

[Kelssek]

The assessors are ready to make their report with the time for bid submissions exipring in the next 24 hours, but I can already say that there will be a need for voting. At this time, here is the procedure we will use:

All players who participated in the Games of the III Olympiad (Columbia), or the IV Olympic Winter Games (Alavaria) are eligible to vote. You may vote by telegram or e-mail. No more than one vote per player will be counted (i.e., you don't get another vote because of your puppets.)
EDIT: Yes, in response to CH's query below, candidates may vote.

TO VOTE BY TELEGRAM
Send the nation name of the bid you are supporting to Laurentienne (if your nation name starts with A-M) or Kakhozia (if your nation name starts with N-Z). You must use the account you competed with.

EDIT: Please do not send telegrams to Kelssek.

TO VOTE BY E-MAIL
Send your vote to kelssek@hotmail.co.uk with the name of the bid and the name of the nation you competed with. Post in this thread "Vote sent by e-mail" so I know to expect it and to authenticate the vote.

I will close the voting at 12:00 UTC on 17 July 2009 and post the results as soon as possible. At least 24 hours before the vote closes, I will also post a list of nations whose votes have been counted to ensure I don't miss any and to allow for puppets I may have missed to be challenged.

Please also be aware that from 12-16 July I will likely be completely offline.

[Commerce Heights]

Not to repeat myself or anything, but I find it worrying that we still know absolutamente nada (yes, I’ve been watching too much coverage of la Copa de Oro ) about Krytenia’s scorinator. He has declined to respond to questions on at least two occasions (when I asked on IRC for details, he said “I will [answer], once i’ve tweaked the damn thing”; Newmanistan’s post here has received no reply at all), yet he intends to have it completely set up for ~350 events just thirty-seven days from now, while also creating a schedule and taking sign-ups.

On an unrelated note, Kelssek, could you clarify whether the candidates are permitted to vote (the tradition in the World Cup is that they are not)? It’s only a minor detail, but we might as well have a definitive answer.

[Kelssek]

According to reports from assessors, the Kelssekian Olympic Committee is pleased to reccomend that the bids from Commerce Heights (Aeropag), Krytenia (Avida) and Quintessence of Dust (Nowy Orpington) be accepted for voting, while at the same time noting serious reservations to the Krytenian bid, most notably serious deficiencies in the facilities for events in martial arts, tennis, wrestling, and weightlifting. Votes for the Krytenia bid will be accepted, but will be considered invalid and not counted until such time as that NOC provides a satisfactory plan for their completion*.

At this time, we declare the voting officially open. The two votes already received prior to this notice will be counted in the tally. Please refer to my previous posting for voting instructions and closing date.

---

*Important note, particularly for Krytenia OOC: That's just an IC way of saying I don't see any way of scorinating those events from the information I see in your bid. If I'm wrong and you can scorinate those events with what you have please let me know soon. If I'm still not satisfied by Saturday 11 July 00:01 UTC (which is Friday night in North America, 1am in Europe, and Saturday morning in East Asia/Oceania) I will withdraw the approval of your bid and have your voters choose someone else.

[Taeshan]

My one question wasnt replied to either Com.

[Commerce Heights]

My one question wasnt replied to either Com.

Are you referring to viewtopic.php?p=206430#p206430? When I first read it, I thought you were addressing QoD; now it seems you either intended it for me, or for Krytenia. Could you please clarify?

[Taeshan]

It was for all of you i guess. I know you probally know the dividing line between mens and Womens Gymnatics. I was just wondering is it a matter that you have to do them in all the categories of both groups apparatus. Because i won a Mens Balance Beam medal and of course that is not actually competed at the olympics. It may just be something you have to do with the scorinator, but i was wondering if you would differentiate between Mens and Womens sports as some of thgem are very different, like in Gymanstica. In your case niether Baseball/Softball will be competed, but if they were i was kindoff put off by the fact that you had both as a mens and womens sport. In real life of course in the Olympics they were not so it was a question as to wether ou would take these specific things and change them.

[Commerce Heights]

It was for all of you i guess. I know you probally know the dividing line between mens and Womens Gymnatics. I was just wondering is it a matter that you have to do them in all the categories of both groups apparatus. Because i won a Mens Balance Beam medal and of course that is not actually competed at the olympics. It may just be something you have to do with the scorinator, but i was wondering if you would differentiate between Mens and Womens sports as some of thgem are very different, like in Gymanstica.

I’ll follow the RL set of events in artistic gymnastics (i.e., men’s high bar, floor exercise, parallel bars, pommel horse, rings, vault; women’s balance beam, floor exercise, uneven bars, vault). I don’t remember my reasons for setting it up the way I did in Querzakhi, and merely copied and pasted that list for Columbia.

In your case niether Baseball/Softball will be competed, but if they were i was kindoff put off by the fact that you had both as a mens and womens sport. In real life of course in the Olympics they were not so it was a question as to wether ou would take these specific things and change them.

The inclusion of women’s baseball and softball was largely because I was under the impression that baseball and softball were more different than they actually are, and because they are organized by separate federations IRL and therefore considered distinct sports. If baseball/softball is included as a demonstration event, as it almost surely will be, there would only be two events, though whether the women’s event should be “softball” or “baseball” is something the baseball geeks are much more qualified to determine than me.

Other non-RL events included in Columbia, e.g., women’s boxing and men’s synchronized swimming, will be retained unless a compelling reason is given to augment them.

[Cassadaigua]

The inclusion of women’s baseball and softball was largely because I was under the impression that baseball and softball were more different than they actually are, and because they are organized by separate federations IRL and therefore considered distinct sports. If baseball/softball is included as a demonstration event, as it almost surely will be, there would only be two events, though whether the women’s event should be “softball” or “baseball” is something the baseball geeks are much more qualified to determine than me.

Ya know, there are more difference between softball and baseball then it may appear..... ah, screw it always a losing argument. (I played softball four years in high school!)

[Krytenia]

It was for all of you i guess. I know you probally know the dividing line between mens and Womens Gymnatics. I was just wondering is it a matter that you have to do them in all the categories of both groups apparatus. Because i won a Mens Balance Beam medal and of course that is not actually competed at the olympics. It may just be something you have to do with the scorinator, but i was wondering if you would differentiate between Mens and Womens sports as some of thgem are very different, like in Gymanstica. In your case niether Baseball/Softball will be competed, but if they were i was kindoff put off by the fact that you had both as a mens and womens sport. In real life of course in the Olympics they were not so it was a question as to wether ou would take these specific things and change them.

Ooooops, didn't notice that in the Columbia event list. Avidia's bid will also follow the RL events with regards to Gymnastics.

[Krytenia]

Well, I've made a right mess of the scorinator.

Avidia withdraws, unfortunately.

[Kelssek]

It is with regret that we note the withdrawal of the Krytenian bid.

The NOCs which have already voted for that bid may now change their vote by sending another telegram to the appropriate nation accounts.

Thank you.