The World Bowl Discussion Thread (OOC)

[Michael VII]

World Bowl Host bid that I'm none too confident about is up.

On a side note, I'm not really sure how to link directly to New West Guiana's hosting bid. All I managed was to link it to the page...

Basically you'll see a set of numbers when you hover over the quote button right?

For example, when I press it over your post in THIS thread, the url is: posting.php?mode=quote&f=7&p=13233509 (These numbers become important)

And the url of the entire thread is: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1144&start=3600, so now you just have to put this next to the entire url: #p13233509

So viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1144&start=3600#p13233509 should be the way to link to your post in this thread. As for West Guiana, just get the URL for the Signup thread, and put #p(numbers at the end when you hover over the quote button of his bid).

-If anyone knows a faster way to do this, please tell AS (and me!) this, as it is certainly an annoying part of hosting doing this reasonably arduous task to link roster posts to the OP.

[New West Guiana]

[1]World Bowl Host bid that I'm none too confident about is up.

[2]On a side note, I'm not really sure how to link directly to New West Guiana's hosting bid. All I managed was to link it to the page...

[1] Yes two bids that will raise many eyebrows
[2] For future reference, click on the avatar(flag) which will take you to such players nation page, scroll down to "view forum posts" and search either scrolling up or down or using the search tab. But here's the link: West Guiana BoI bid

[Darmen]

-If anyone knows a faster way to do this, please tell AS (and me!) this, as it is certainly an annoying part of hosting doing this reasonably arduous task to link roster posts to the OP.

There is a button next to the place where it says "by [nation]" that looks like a piece of paper with a folded corner. Click on that and then copy the url.

[World Bowl]

Thank y'all kindly for the help.
And that one worked the best, Darmen. Thanks. It's all fixed. Also, sign-ups are updated through Bluth. Maybe we'll see Cass swing by, too.

[Michael VII]

-If anyone knows a faster way to do this, please tell AS (and me!) this, as it is certainly an annoying part of hosting doing this reasonably arduous task to link roster posts to the OP.

There is a button next to the place where it says "by [nation]" that looks like a piece of paper with a folded corner. Click on that and then copy the url.

Damn it, why didn't I find this out earlier! haha, thanks for that, I guess I just learned to do it the hard way...

[Cassadaigua]

scrolling up or down or using the search tab. But here's the link: West Guiana BoI bid

Not sure if I have a vote because off hand I'm not sure how many World Bowls I missed, but I remember being one of your biggest critics before. That's all a thing of the past for me and I would support your bid.

[New West Guiana]

scrolling up or down or using the search tab. But here's the link: West Guiana BoI bid

Not sure if I have a vote because off hand I'm not sure how many World Bowls I missed, but I remember being one of your biggest critics before.. That's all a thing of the past for me and I would support your bid.

I think you've missed one, But you'd still have a vote for your hosting of WB 16. Thanks for the support my descion to take a leave from thinking about hosting as helped what little reputation I may have.

[The Fanboyists]

Speak of the devil...

Good to see you back, Cass.

Btw, I have a request for previous hosts: take a look at what I'm planning on using for RP bonus and the scale for it. Input on whether that seems workable would be much appreciated because, probably ill-advised, if I end up hosting, this would be my first go-round as a host in any proper tournament.

[Michael VII]

Btw, I have a request for previous hosts: take a look at what I'm planning on using for RP bonus and the scale for it. Input on whether that seems workable would be much appreciated because, probably ill-advised, if I end up hosting, this would be my first go-round as a host in any proper tournament.

I think for WB17 I used an obscenely large bonus, so you haven't outdone me there...haha

For WB19 I used a 0-2 RP scale which seemed to work well, provided it's a cumulative bonus. If it isn't cumulative you'll have a bit of a problem there.

Looks as if you've gone for a cumulative and decaying bonus, so you should be alright with a 0-2 scale, however if the ranks have increased by a reasonably large margin since between World Bowls, then a larger bonus (0-3 for example) could be looked into. Depends on how much strength you want to give to rank, and how much you want to give to RP, seeing as you can't exactly control the randomness...

[The Fanboyists]

Well, if I was going to be biased, I'd give more weight to rank... XD

But really, in the interest of fairness, I'd like RP to have a pretty fair amount of power. Rank's important, and should have major weight, but there should always be pretty sizable value in RPing regularly. So...the other side to that is: have I understood the way decaying bonus works? And does the decay amount seem reasonable?

[Vettrera]

On another note, when will rankings be out?

[Alkoul2]

On another note, when will rankings be out?

NWGs other puppet.

That's truly a good questions, I think the WB hasn't had anyone that would update the rankings regularly since TBI stopped around WB17(?) WB 18-19 Qzox has volunteered but in truth there isn't anyone who is supposed to do it.

Which about two-three weeks ago I proposed an amendment to the WB Constitution to change this so it would be updated right after every WB.

I don't really remember if finally some one has taken charge of the updating of the rankings(or not) but here's the formula (for the 100th time). So there wont be a wild goose chase trying to find it.

TBI Foreign Service wrote:
There's no problem here. Unlike the WCC-cycle events and the World Baseball Classic, the revised World Bowl formula doesn't care about how many games everyone else played; it uses straight winning percentage, multiplied by 10 for non-playoff teams and 15 for teams that advanced. (And yes, I treat ties as 1/2 win and 1/2 loss, just as the NFL did back in the day.)
[/b]

Also with WB 20 comes the election of a new WB President, but that isn't the point here (big deal still, not like anyone didn't know). However though concerning [F] any World Bowl Committee member which is some one who's posted a roaster for the last two WBs. So my amendment to the World Bowl Constitution is around concerning the official bearer of up dating the rankings. It derives heavily from the WC Constitution as it is one of the most organized Constitutions of its kind in NS Sports then again there are as I know of (which is minimum) only two.

Rankings
[1]
1) Every World Bowl shall use the World Bowl Rankings
2) The formula for the rankings must be public.
3) The updated rankings shall be displayed publicly in a organized fashion.
[1.1[]
Updating the Rankings

1) The rankings must be updated no more than two weeks after the latest World Bowl and no more than one week after the latest Baptism of Iron

I would post more but i'm tried as it is.

e) The World Bowl Committee will have a President that will be the spokesperson for the competition during their tenure, which will last three World Bowl Cycles. Once the World Bowl Committee is officially formed, nominations for the President can be made on this thread by WBC members. Any person receiving two nominations will be put in a vote. The winner of the vote is elected President, and the second place finisher shall serve as the vice-president. Only WBC members may vote.
f) Amendments to this document need to be requested by three WBC members within a span of two weeks. If so, it will go to a vote and must be passed by a 2/3rds majority.

[spoiler=and this]And by the way while searching around the thread I came upon this which I don't think was ever put up to a vote.

EDIT: Added clarification that to Rules Clause regarding default overtime rules.

Revised:

[/quote][/spoiler]

[Karditan]

And now a somewhat more confident World Bowl bid is up.

Someone should really get on those ranks... cough

[New West Guiana]

Someone should really get on those ranks... cough

Do I hear a volunteer?

[Equestrian States]

And now a somewhat more confident World Bowl bid is up.

Someone should really get on those ranks... cough

Well, I was almost done with them...

But then that fun little computer issue came up.

[New West Guiana]

And now a somewhat more confident World Bowl bid is up.

Someone should really get on those ranks... cough

Well, I was almost done with them...

But then that fun little computer issue came up.

I would do them, but i'm sick of doing rankings for tournaments doing two different rankings for two semi-largely know tournaments. And both were a pain the second one mainly.

Scorination: Will be done using the latest version of xkoranate, SQIS formula, IFAF overtime

Bolded I do think M7 used that and it did cause a bit of controversy in his WB17 bid. And really another damn pony nation...ugh! Also even though my knowledge of xk is limited; with soccer the use of SQIS many point to it's randomize I forget does the same hold true with football?

[Karditan]

The accusations of SQIS being too random are baseless. I'd like to remind everyone that the whole "this is too random!" argument seems to pop up every other WC, regardless of which formula is being used. And the kerfuffle over overtime is all about preferences; I highly dislike the idea of sudden death in a game like football. Just my opinion.

Also, a question: I don't believe the Allamunnic bid specifies which formula he's going to use, just says that he's going to use xkoranate. If I'm not misreading what he said, can we get some clarification on that?

Edit: And I've been a pony nation since I got on here. Not my fault if you didn't notice that

[Qazox]

And now a somewhat more confident World Bowl bid is up.

Someone should really get on those ranks... cough

Well, I was almost done with them...

But then that fun little computer issue came up.

I can't, due my computer problems from January which took my entire database for the WBC and World Bowl with it.

[The Fanboyists]

The accusations of SQIS being too random are baseless. I'd like to remind everyone that the whole "this is too random!" argument seems to pop up every other WC, regardless of which formula is being used. And the kerfuffle over overtime is all about preferences; I highly dislike the idea of sudden death in a game like football. Just my opinion.

Also, a question: I don't believe the Allamunnic bid specifies which formula he's going to use, just says that he's going to use xkoranate. If I'm not misreading what he said, can we get some clarification on that?

Edit: And I've been a pony nation since I got on here. Not my fault if you didn't notice that

NSFS formula. I'll go add that to the bid information. And as noted, I will not be using IFAF overtime, because the consensus has been that sudden-death overtime is the preferred method, on the whole (I know there's bitter partisans for both, but I'm not reopening that can of worms, and frankly I hate the score-inflation that comes with IFAF overtime). The official World Bowl Constitution position is that it is at the host's discretion, so long as the host names a preference. Otherwise, the assumption is the same rules as the RL National Football League.

[Powersith]

The accusations of SQIS being too random are baseless. I'd like to remind everyone that the whole "this is too random!" argument seems to pop up every other WC, regardless of which formula is being used. And the kerfuffle over overtime is all about preferences; I highly dislike the idea of sudden death in a game like football. Just my opinion.

Also, a question: I don't believe the Allamunnic bid specifies which formula he's going to use, just says that he's going to use xkoranate. If I'm not misreading what he said, can we get some clarification on that?

Edit: And I've been a pony nation since I got on here. Not my fault if you didn't notice that

NSFS formula. I'll go add that to the bid information. And as noted, I will not be using IFAF overtime, because the consensus has been that sudden-death overtime is the preferred method, on the whole (I know there's bitter partisans for both, but I'm not reopening that can of worms, and frankly I hate the score-inflation that comes with IFAF overtime).

If this were a real game of football, we could bring in the question of fairness regarding sudden-death OT, but with the scorinator one's not really any less fair than the other. I'll double check, but I'm not sure if there's any ruling one way or another on IFAF of SD OT rules being required.

We can use the NFL rules when it comes to Overtime.

[World Bowl]

On a side-note: Sign-ups and hosting bids updated through Cassadaigua and Karditan, respectively.

[Karditan]

-snip-

We can use the NFL rules when it comes to Overtime.

It's the hosts' discretion which overtime rules to use, as the Fanboyists just edited into his post.

[World Bowl]

NSFS formula. I'll go add that to the bid information. And as noted, I will not be using IFAF overtime, because the consensus has been that sudden-death overtime is the preferred method, on the whole (I know there's bitter partisans for both, but I'm not reopening that can of worms, and frankly I hate the score-inflation that comes with IFAF overtime).

If this were a real game of football, we could bring in the question of fairness regarding sudden-death OT, but with the scorinator one's not really any less fair than the other. I'll double check, but I'm not sure if there's any ruling one way or another on IFAF of SD OT rules being required.

We can use the NFL rules when it comes to Overtime.

That is the default, Powersith, in the event that the chosen host does not express a clear preference. In both cases here, the potential hosts express a preference for one or the other.

Again, we are not reopening this can of worms. We voted on an entire amendment to make this an issue of host discretion, and that is how it will stay. If people feel strongly about it, say so with your votes, please, and not with endless bickering.

[Commerce Heights]

We can use the NFL rules when it comes to Overtime.

You can if you come up with a scorinator that does that.

[Michael VII]

We can use the NFL rules when it comes to Overtime.

Well it is up to whatever the host wants. I used IFAF in WB17 but sudden-death in WB19. Most people tend to like sudden-death here, but I definitely prefer the IFAF/College Football style of Overtime. If we make it so the hosts can't choose which OT form they want to use, then we take out a possibility for difference in host bids, and differences are good.

If you're a vocal opponent of IFAF, then vote for sudden-death, if you're a vocal opponent of sudden-death, then vote for IFAF. Simple. I'm a vocal opponent of sudden-death, however I'll vote for the more competent bid in all circumstances to be honest. If you want to bring up an amendment for it again, you can try, but we have quite a lot of WBA members who like IFAF overtime too.

Also, NFL OT is NOT the same as sudden-death, as Commerce Heights has said time after time when this debate comes up.

The sudden-death rules are just whenever someone scores, whether it be a Field Goal or Touchdown, even a safety. But the NFL rules are that if the first team scores a Field Goal in OT, the other team gets the ball and get the opportunity to score points, a TD wins them the game, but a Field Goal keeps the OT period going. But if the first team scored a TD, or nothing but the second team scores points of any kind, the game ends.

---

The accusations of SQIS being too random are baseless. I'd like to remind everyone that the whole "this is too random!" argument seems to pop up every other WC, regardless of which formula is being used. And the kerfuffle over overtime is all about preferences; I highly dislike the idea of sudden death in a game like football. Just my opinion.

In American Football, I've always found that the NSFS formula is too random, that SQIS is more realistic, and for the longest time NSFS didn't incorporate style modifiers either, (with the 3.0.1a update it changed that I believe), so SQIS was always preferred, at least in NSCF circles.

These days I don't think it matters, and neither formula is inherently wrong.