The World Bowl Discussion Thread (OOC)

[Delaclava]

A few more votes have come in, but would it be prudent to send TG's to all of the Committee members who have yet to vote? If so, I can take care of it.

[Dancougar]

I'm curious, but why does almost every proposal submitted have group stage games being played in the participating countries rather than the host? How did this trend get started?

The home-and-away format is pretty standard for qualification, and there's an implicit assumption here that teams are playing what amounts to once a week. More abbreviated formats like Babbage's are short enough that hosting everybody in one nation is sensible.

[The Babbage Islands]

I'm curious, but why does almost every proposal submitted have group stage games being played in the participating countries rather than the host? How did this trend get started?

The home-and-away format is pretty standard for qualification, and there's an implicit assumption here that teams are playing what amounts to once a week. More abbreviated formats like Babbage's are short enough that hosting everybody in one nation is sensible.

Funny that this should come up. This was one of my considerations in designing the WB VIII format -- how to hold qualifying all in the host nation and still maintain a veneer of realism.

I suspect that if I tried to achieve the same object in a future WB bid I'd go with five rounds of Swiss or King-of-the-Hill pairings, with rigid rules for pairing within score groups. Five rounds is about the longest group stage that makes sense to do in the host nation, that's 29 IC days from game one to game five.

[Dancougar]

Hopefully we were able to spark a late round of voting with yesterday's activity, so I'll go ahead and ask if Delaclava would post the results of the voting sometime this evening. You can continue to send in votes, if you haven't already, until said post marks the polls closing.

[Delaclava]

Hopefully we were able to spark a late round of voting with yesterday's activity, so I'll go ahead and ask if Delaclava would post the results of the voting sometime this evening. You can continue to send in votes, if you haven't already, until said post marks the polls closing.

I am able to post the results now, unless you would like me to leave the voting open until the evening?

[Dancougar]

I am able to post the results now, unless you would like me to leave the voting open until the evening?

Unless everyone eligible has already voted, I'd say to hold off to give the stragglers one last chance.

[Delaclava]

I am able to post the results now, unless you would like me to leave the voting open until the evening?

Unless everyone eligible has already voted, I'd say to hold off to give the stragglers one last chance.

Sounds good.

By the way, one non-Committee member voted. So it seems that the whole committee thing isn't exactly clear to everyone.

[Dancougar]

Sounds good.

By the way, one non-Committee member voted. So it seems that the whole committee thing isn't exactly clear to everyone.

It they weren't on the explicit list of eligible voters, I don't know what to say except gently remind them that they haven't met the requirements to become a voting member. I had to do that last I collected votes, so it's nothing new.

In case there is any confusion, participation in two straight World Bowls gets you in. "Participation" is defined as at least one IC-post in the appropriate tournament threads, such as a roster. Once you are a member of the committee, you retain membership and voting rights unless you fail to participate in two consecutive tournaments (three if you're a former host). Or you get booted for some other reason, said reasons being undefined at the moment.

And if people want to read the entire constitution, i linked to it when I wrote down things on the ballot. It's over here.

[Delaclava]

It would seem that it's time to reveal the voting!

1. World Bowl Host Voting
- Accept the Dancougar bid: 6 votes
- Accept the Free Austin bid: 1 vote
- Reopen the process: 1 vote

Therefore, Dancougar will host World Bowl X. Congratulations!

2. Baptism of Iron Host Voting
- Accept the Sarzonia bid: 8 votes
- Reopen the process: 0 votes
- Officially abstain: 1 vote

Therefore, Sarzonia will host Baptism of Iron V. Congratulations!

3. Puppet Amendment in the WB Committee Constitution Voting
- Approve the measure: 6 votes
- Reject the measure: 4 votes

The measure has gained 60% approval, failing to meet the necessary 66.6% percent; the World Bowl Committee has therefore, as a whole, rejected the measure.

Thanks to those who voted!

[Newmanistan]

I'm curious, but why does almost every proposal submitted have group stage games being played in the participating countries rather than the host? How did this trend get started?

Going along what is said: the group stages are considered qualifying. The knockouts are the World Bowl itself.

I'm surprised by that puppet vote. What are the nos telling us? You don't want puppets at all? Unlimited puppets? Or just better rules on it?

[Free Austin]

I'm surprised by that puppet vote. What are the nos telling us? You don't want puppets at all? Unlimited puppets? Or just better rules on it?

For me, I felt that the puppet rule should be determined by the hosts. The football World Cup is the only one really big enough that lots of complex external laws are required: the World Bowl Committee, and particularly the World Bowl Committee members who are active, is a small group.

Plus, the sheer number of non-RPing puppets people - including, of course, myself - throw into competitions is souring on me. So I'd rather not have a host forced to accept entries such as - well, I can think of certain prominent WCC nations whose puppets haven't RPed in years.

[Dancougar]

For me, I felt that the puppet rule should be determined by the hosts.

Well, that's the way it'll be for now it seems. I'll just stick to precedent, then, and only accept puppets for the World Bowl if we really need to make up numbers.

Signups will remain open until the hosts decide to close them.

[Sarzonia]

For me, I felt that the puppet rule should be determined by the hosts.

Agreed. Plus, I felt the puppets rule was sloppily written.

Thanks to everyone who voted for me to host the Baptism of Iron! I'm looking forward to making this a memorable tournament!

Last I saw, there were 11 nations signed up for the Baptism of Iron. I'd like to get at least a few more, preferably at least 16, before I close sign ups.

[Delaclava]

For me, I felt that the puppet rule should be determined by the hosts.

Agreed. Plus, I felt the puppets rule was sloppily written.

This was my reasoning. EDIT: Also, having sufficiently participating puppets as non-voting Committee members seemed just a tad bit unnecessary.

[Rennidan]

I am looking forward to the RP implications of the Brutes possibly travelling to Dancougar.

[Callidon]

Can someone post the list of people who've signed up for the Baptism of Iron?

I'm not ready to close sign ups yet since as I recall there've only been 11 sign ups, but I'd like to see the list anyway. Thanks.

[Delaclava]

Silver Beach
Virabia
Ract
Lithatrius
Toiletdonia
Undeadzombiee
Izraal
Queer Poco el Mono Ara
Tazzioli
Amalfi and Capri
Quattrablegia

[Callidon]

Grácias.

[Sarzonia]

Now we have 14 sign ups, including three puppets.

I'd like to get to 16 if possible. If we can't by Friday, I'll close with what we do have and I'll come up with a workable format.

[Sarzonia]

The Baptism of Iron V's Rosters/RP/Scores thread is now up and running!

[Sarzonia]

A reminder to all Baptism of Iron competitors: PLEASE set your offense/defence preferences before the Matchday 1 RP cutoff. If you don't have one listed, I will use 50/50 when I compile scores.

[Bluth Corporation]

I voted for Sarzonia's bid (because I didn't realize this would happen), but I'd like to suggest that in the future any BOI host bids be structured such that there are more than three group-stage games (even if that means teams play each other more than once). As it is, after just two games we've already got one team locked in, four teams locked out, and one game coming up that we already know is guaranteed to be essentially a play-in game. This just seems like too much for only two games, and it doesn't give teams an opportunity to make a late run for a playoff spot--no real drama there.

[Delaclava]

I voted for Sarzonia's bid (because I didn't realize this would happen), but I'd like to suggest that in the future any BOI host bids be structured such that there are more than three group-stage games (even if that means teams play each other more than once). As it is, after just two games we've already got one team locked in, four teams locked out, and one game coming up that we already know is guaranteed to be essentially a play-in game. This just seems like too much for only two games, and it doesn't give teams an opportunity to make a late run for a playoff spot--no real drama there.

Yes, but how much drama should we put in for the RPers, and how much effort should the host put in, if the participants don't participate? This is the worst RPing I've ever seen from a previously existing tournament, and this isn't the host's fault.

[Sarzonia]

Bluth's comment about the short duration of the group stage is fair. In fact, I gave the matter a lot of thought when I put together the hosting bid. I also gave thought to changing to a double round-robin group stage where the teams would play each other twice for a total of six matches before ultimately deciding to stick with the single match per opponent.

In retrospect, I'd also given thought to creating two groups of eight or having three groups with one group having six teams, but none of those appealed to me as much as having a symmetrical four groups of four.

The reason for the short period of group play is that interest in the World Bowl itself seemed to be at a peak, but at the time the host bids were voted upon, only 11 teams were signed up. Many of those teams signed up long before we actually had a tournament for them. In other words, I was trying to strike while the iron was hot, to borrow an old cliche. Obviously, if sign ups hadn't seemed to drag on forever, I wouldn't have felt a need to get through the group stage so quickly.

Whether it's three matches or six or whatever the number may be, there's only so much a host can do to encourage people to roleplay. The system I implemented for this World Bowl gives competitors a chance to directly affect the outcome of their matches with a roleplay, perhaps having a greater impact on the results of their match than an identical RP would have in the World Bowl itself.

Obviously, the goal behind a Baptism of Iron is to use it as a proving ground for new players to enter their first World Bowl with a better chance to do well than they would have had if the Baptism of Iron hadn't existed. Toward that end, I'm trying the best I can. But as Delaclava said, there's only so much a host can do in an effort to encourage RP. A host can play some role in the success of a tournament, but some of that success is also dependent upon the players themselves.

[The Fanboyists]

Quite simply, if I may note, the number of puppets probably doesn't help. I volunteered one to help fill a need, but if low turnout becomes a regularity for the BoI, perhaps we should readopt the plan to hold it only when necessary, or else reduce it to accomodate the smaller numbers.