World Baseball Classic Discussion Thread

by **Equestrian States** » Sat Nov 04, 2017 5:50 pm

Zwangzug wrote:I know I'm not active here anymore, but for what it's worth, my opinion on the above: I'm opposed to the CBC amendment. I don't think it's fair to demand the the WBC host(s) take on extra scorination responsibilities (for a competition that is unlikely to produce RP) as a condition of their hosting. I also don't think it's fair to demand that participation be linked to WBC signups/RPing/success. (Some users might find it easier to scorinate and post domestic leagues on their own schedule than to consistently sign up and RP for a national team competition like the WBC.)

Independently bring back a club baseball tournament if you want to, or recognize that scorinating domestic leagues might not be a viable long-term prospect, but I advise against forcibly linking it to the WBC.

I also don't have a vote in this at the moment, but I'm opposed to linking the CBC to the WBC. I obviously don't have a problem with a club competition existing, but I see no reason why we should constitutionally link a national team competition to a club team one.

by **The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp** » Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:43 pm

Schiltzberg wrote:
Super-Llamaland wrote:
We're #1! also #40

Also I'm strongly opposed to the idea of TGP entering the Hall of Fame in any context - having them even remotely close to the HoF, while kind of funny, basically invalidates the idea of the HoF being a place to honor those who have achieved great things in the WBC.

Yes, you are. And yes, Herp, he did. I agree with you that TGP should not actually be in the HOF. If that is what Ethane's amendment(s) are trying to achieve, I will not support them.

Wow! That must have been amazing to see!

by **Union of Socialist Alpine Republics** » Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:53 pm

Well... who'se The Great Pound and why some wants to admit him to the HoF even if he don't deserve it because he only has 4 pts?

by **Ethane** » Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:10 pm

The CBC should not be linked with the WBC.

by **Free Republics** » Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:17 pm

Equestrian States wrote:
Zwangzug wrote:I know I'm not active here anymore, but for what it's worth, my opinion on the above: I'm opposed to the CBC amendment. I don't think it's fair to demand the the WBC host(s) take on extra scorination responsibilities (for a competition that is unlikely to produce RP) as a condition of their hosting. I also don't think it's fair to demand that participation be linked to WBC signups/RPing/success. (Some users might find it easier to scorinate and post domestic leagues on their own schedule than to consistently sign up and RP for a national team competition like the WBC.)

Independently bring back a club baseball tournament if you want to, or recognize that scorinating domestic leagues might not be a viable long-term prospect, but I advise against forcibly linking it to the WBC.

I also don't have a vote in this at the moment, but I'm opposed to linking the CBC to the WBC. I obviously don't have a problem with a club competition existing, but I see no reason why we should constitutionally link a national team competition to a club team one.

I'm pretty sure I'm still a Council member and as long as I'm in the Council, I will vote against any amendment officially linking a domestic competition with the WBC. I'm all in favor of reviving the domestic baseball newswires but it should be separate from the WBC just as UICA is separate from the NSWC. To add extra work onto the WBC host would only serve to reduce the number and frequency of host bids (and the last thing we want is to have the WBC be delayed repeatedly because bids aren't getting posted in a timely manner, a problem that has plagued other tournaments in recent years).

I'm also 100% opposed to putting The Great Pond in the HoF as doing so would make a complete mockery out of the idea of a HoF and also because I'm still not happy about my only semifinals appearance to date resulting in a loss to such an undeserving opponent. We should not be honoring the symbol of the randomness era of the WBC.

The other amendments proposed by Ethane, relating to mandating specific lengths for votes, are also something that I'm opposed to since I can't figure out why they could be seen as necessary or what they would actually change.

by **Schiltzberg** » Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:39 pm

Union of Socialist Alpine Republics wrote:Well... who'se The Great Pound and why some wants to admit him to the HoF even if he don't deserve it because he only has 4 pts?

The Great Pond was kind of a phenomenon. You kind of had to be there. What happened was that the scorinator we used to use had way too much randomness in its way of deciding who wins games, and so this random nation called The Great Pond that had never played before and only RPed once made it all the way to the finals and almost won the finals (before yours truly put them down

). Anyway, ever since that happened, they have kind of been a meme in this discussion thread.

by **Newmanistan** » Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:50 pm

While I am in favor of having the Club Baseball Tournament, I do not believe it should be tied into the WBC Constitution. The Great Pond being in the HoF is for humor punch lines only. It should not be considered seriously at all.

These are personal opinions and not a Presidential statement, however.

by **Ethane** » Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:50 pm

I did these amendments primarily because I got bored. They might work though. Commentary is in brackets.

(Amendment One)
Article IV: Impeachment Procedures
[...]
Section 3: The Council President shall initiate the removal vote, which will be open for a period of between 120 hours and 168 hours as set by the President before voting begins. By President, the Constitution is referring to the elected Council President, unless the President is under vote for impeachment in which case the Vice-President temporarily takes up the role of President.

This one is more of a small change, I guess. Distinguishes a time period for the vote, and removes the unneeded reference to 2/3 needing to vote for removal (this is laid out in the next section).

(Amendment 3)
Article VII: Voting Procedures
[...]
Section 4: Unless otherwise defined in the Constitution, all vote durations are set by the President, and must last between 72 hours and 168 hours.

This one is also more of a change I guess. It lays out a specific time period for all vote durations. Basically ensures that a vote cannot be made short or long to potentially manipulate a result.

I would just like to say that this amendment is not a way of allowing The Great Pond into the Hall of Fame at all, despite that partially inspiring the amendment (I do not wish for The Great Pond to enter the Hall of Fame itself). The amendment allows the time limitation of the third method of entry, which I dislike as a method of entry beyond previous entrants into the WBC from history who were significant, and creates a semi-independent institution of the Hall of Fame for the recognition of those who played some semi-important role in WBC History, but do not in any way deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. I wish to preserve the Hall of Fame, and am trying to somewhat strengthen it, not dismantle or weaken it. I repeat, I do not want The Great Pond to enter the Hall of Fame.

In relation to time limits - they are not necessary, but they are useful.

Edit: I also just wanted to draft some amendments. They could work, but feel free to rip them to pieces as they were only done as a bit of practice/fun.

by **Schiltzberg** » Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:07 pm

Ethane wrote:I did these amendments primarily because I got bored. They might work though. Commentary is in brackets.

(Amendment One)
Article IV: Impeachment Procedures
[...]
Section 3: The Council President shall initiate the removal vote, which will be open for a period of between 120 hours and 168 hours as set by the President before voting begins. By President, the Constitution is referring to the elected Council President, unless the President is under vote for impeachment in which case the Vice-President temporarily takes up the role of President.

This one is more of a small change, I guess. Distinguishes a time period for the vote, and removes the unneeded reference to 2/3 needing to vote for removal (this is laid out in the next section).

(Amendment 3)
Article VII: Voting Procedures
[...]
Section 4: Unless otherwise defined in the Constitution, all vote durations are set by the President, and must last between 72 hours and 168 hours.

This one is also more of a change I guess. It lays out a specific time period for all vote durations. Basically ensures that a vote cannot be made short or long to potentially manipulate a result.

(Amendment Two)
Article IX: Hall of Fame (mix of change and amendment)
[...]
Section Two: There are three official (change of language) ways to reach the Hall of Fame.

2.1: A nation can enter the Hall of Fame through reaching 20 points on a scale which awards points based on previous performances. If a nation reaches 20 points on this scale, there is no need for a Council vote on this nation as they are automatically inducted into the Hall of Fame. (Cleaning up of language + format)

2.1.1 The scale referred to in Section 2.1 provides points towards a nation's Hall of Fame tally is as follows:
- 6 points per championship win
- 4 points for a runner-up position
- 2 points for third place
- 1 point for fourth place
- 3 points for hosting
- 4 points for a full term as Council President. By full cycle, the Constitution means a period of 3 World Baseball Classics.
- 2 points for partial term as Council President. By partial term, the Constitution means more than 1 but less than 3 World Baseball Classics.

2.2: A nation can enter the Hall of Fame if their entrance is approved by a quorum of Council members, and the nation has reached the requirements as listed below. By quorum the Constitution means one more than half the current voting membership of the Council. (cleaning up of language)

2.2.1 The user behind a nation must have participated in a minimum of 10 World Baseball Classics.
2.2.2 The nation must have acquired a minimum of 10 points in the Hall of Fame tally as shown in Section 2.1.1

2.3: If a nation is denied entry into the Hall of Fame through a quorum of voters, then their entrance may be looked upon again after said nation has participated in a further 5 World Baseball Classics, eg. 15/20/25 WBCs, or if a Council member suggests a nation with over 10 points be added to the Hall of Fame, and that suggestion is seconded by another Council member once one of the requirements in Section 2.4 have been met. This is then put to a vote after the WBC following. (addition of nomination as a different way to reach the Hall of Fame if denied by Council at large the first time without having to participate in another 5 WBCs - further details outlined tomorrow as per requirements to proceed with this requirement - should we consider putting a limit on entry attempts into the HoF?)

2.4: If a nation loses a vote on their entry into the Hall of Fame, then said nation cannot be proposed for entry into the Hall of Fame until either
2.4.1 They reach 20 points on the Hall of Fame tally and are automatically inducted into the Hall of Fame.
2.4.2 A period of 10 World Baseball Classics has passed. If 10 WBCs does pass, then the process outlined in 2.3 may be completed again. (clarifies what happens in the case of a denied vote on entry into the Hall of Fame)

2.5: A CTE - Ceased-to-Exist - nation can enter the Hall of Fame through nomination under exceptional circumstances. A Council Member, or a nation which participated in the World Baseball Classic between editions 1-20, may nominate a nation that has between 10 and 20 points and has not participated in the minimum of 10 World Baseball Classics outlined in Section 2.4. After a nation has received nomination, the nomination must be seconded by another nation fitting within the restrictions listed above. (This means that the nomination of a nation to enter the Hall of Fame must pass a more stringent test than nomination by 1 user to be put to a vote. Means the Council avoids unnecessary nomination votes. Also outlines allowance of WBC entrants in WBC 1-20 to nominate and vote, rather than just Council members.) If the nation reaches the nomination benchmark, then the entry of the nation into the Hall of Fame is put to a vote at the end of the following World Baseball Classic. If the nation receives a majority of votes from nations which fit the restrictions above, then said the nation is inducted into the Hall of Fame. (allows WBC 1-20 entrants to vote on the nomination of CTE nations - focused on earlier nations - to the Hall of Fame)
2.5.1 By 'exceptional circumstances', we mean a circumstance in which a nation which fits the restrictions above believes that a previous user, who made a significant contribution to the World Baseball Classic and doesn't reach the Hall of Fame requirements other than the 10 points on the tally, should be inducted into the Hall of Fame. (outlines what is meant by exceptional circumstance)
2.5.2 This process is only valid until World Baseball Classic 50. (puts a time limit on the process so that this is only used as a way of inducting older, influential nations into the WBC. Prevents this being used as a loophole, and means that all future nominees for the Hall of Fame after WBC50 would have committed to the WBC, not only through RP which allowed them to win, but also through time commitment (10 WBCs to show that they have been influential and involved in the History of the WBC)).

Section Three: There can only be one nation in the Hall of Fame per user - by 'user', we mean owner of one or more nations on NationStates. (cleaning up of language and defining 'user')

Section Four: Votes on entrance into the Hall of Fame will take place at the end of the following World Baseball Classic after they have been nominated. All automatic inductions into the Hall of Fame will also be after the World Baseball Classic in which they meet the requirements for entry. (sets and clarifies specific time for Hall of Fame events - cleaning up of language).

Section Five: A nation that has Ceased to Exist (hereby referred to as CTE) may still be admitted into the Hall of Fame through the process outlined in Section 2.5 if they had enough points to qualify for the Hall of Fame before they CTE. (little change)

Section Nine becomes Section Six. (change of Section numbers)

Section Seven: A nation held in World Baseball Classic mythology or held in high-esteem by the community, but does not reach any of the requirements for entry into the Hall of Fame, may be granted unofficial honorary membership of the HoF. This does not mean they are in the Hall of Fame officially but are noted as an influential nation in World Baseball Classic History within the HoF.
7.1 To be granted honorary membership, a nation only has to meet the requirements below.
7.1.1 A nation under consideration for an honorary Hall of Fame membership must have entered in at least 1 World Baseball Classic.
7.1.2 The nation must be nominated by a Council Member and then seconded by another Council Member. The nation must then be voted upon by the whole council and reach a quorum (50%+1).
7.1.3 If a nation is not admitted to the Hall of Fame as an honourary partial-member upon the first vote, then they may not be nominated for entry again.
7.2 This measure may be used for any main nation (by 'main', the Constitution means primary nation of a 'user').
7.3 You cannot be an honorary Hall of Fame member and a full Hall of Fame member.
7.4 The Honorary list is to be used for nations which will not reach the requirements for entry into the Hall of Fame. Therefore, if you enter the honorary Hall of Fame, you cannot be inducted on to the full Hall of Fame list through any other method than that listed in Section 2.1.
7.4.1 A non-CTE nation must provide permission if being nominated to the honorary Hall of Fame list, to prevent the abuse of the list.
7.4.2 If a nation is CTE upon induction into the honorary Hall of Fame list and returns to the WBC after entry, then they may request withdrawal from the honorary Hall of Fame list. (proper amendment - this limited loophole allows nations which the Council wish to recognise as playing an important or even mythological role in the History of the WBC without actually placing them in the Hall of Fame itself. Effectively creates a semi-separate list to the Hall of Fame as a sort of 'honorary member'. This allows nations such as The Great Pond, who do not deserve to be in the Hall of Fame itself but have played an important role in the WBC's history, to be placed in a position of recognition. This also somewhat makes up for the placing of a time limit upon the method of entry outlined in section 2.5, as it allows for nations which did reach between 10 and 20 points but didn't participate in 10 WBCs to be placed in a position of recognition - they don't necessarily deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, but deserve to be recognised in WBC history. Would be happy to have this called something like the 'Wall of Recognition' or something along those lines instead of alluding to the idea they are semi-in the Hall of Fame. If this idea is also unpopular, I would also be happy to have this as a separate amendment to the rest of the change/amendment, in order to allow the rest of it to pass if there is more consensus on everything without this).

Section Eight: To enter the Hall of Fame, a nation must have not been impeached and then removed from the Council as outlined in Article IV. (Prevents those who have been impeached and removed from the Council to be entered into the Hall of Fame - the HoF is about honour in the WBC's history, and being impeached and removed is anything but honourable.)

I would just like to say that this amendment is not a way of allowing The Great Pond into the Hall of Fame at all, despite that partially inspiring the amendment (I do not wish for The Great Pond to enter the Hall of Fame itself). The amendment allows the time limitation of the third method of entry, which I dislike as a method of entry beyond previous entrants into the WBC from history who were significant, and creates a semi-independent institution of the Hall of Fame for the recognition of those who played some semi-important role in WBC History, but do not in any way deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. I wish to preserve the Hall of Fame, and am trying to somewhat strengthen it, not dismantle or weaken it. I repeat, I do not want The Great Pond to enter the Hall of Fame.

In relation to time limits - they are not necessary, but they are useful.

Edit: I also just wanted to draft some amendments. They could work, but feel free to rip them to pieces as they were only done as a bit of practice/fun.

Honestly, I do not see a need for the proposed amendment to Article IV. I don't think it is necessary, and I don't think we should have an amendment just for the sake of having one. The proposed amendment to Article VII I can see kind of... Hmmmm... Maybe necessary? I mean, it is basically trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist and hasn't ever existed but could possibly exist in the future, so I guess... Honestly, I don't think this one is really necessary either. Then, the one about the hall of fame in my opinion simply just makes the whole process unnecessarily complicated and I do not see a reason why the changes suggested are needed.

by **Ethane** » Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:21 pm

I'm going to separate out the second amendment into 2 parts then. The extra Wall of Recognition-style thing will be a separate amendment (Amendment 4, if you will).

I will withdraw Amendments 1 and 3 (as it has been highlighted by multiple people that they are unneeded).

Amendment 2 will effectively be all that is remaining of the amendment bar the Wall of Recognition part (honorary Hall of Fame).

I believe that the third way into the HoF should be a time-limited feature, which is why I am still pushing ahead with this amendment. Also, nations who have been impeached should not be allowed to enter the HoF in my opinion. Continue as you were.

by **Drawkland** » Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:30 pm

Newmanistan wrote:The Great Pond being in the HoF is for humor punch lines only. It should not be considered seriously at all.

As the person who initially "suggested" it, I'd like to make it clear that it was completely satire. I hope nobody thought I actually wanted Great Pond in the HoF.

by **Ethane** » Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:40 pm

Drawkland wrote:
Newmanistan wrote:The Great Pond being in the HoF is for humor punch lines only. It should not be considered seriously at all.

As the person who initially "suggested" it, I'd like to make it clear that it was completely satire. I hope nobody thought I actually wanted Great Pond in the HoF.

I don't.

by **Ethane** » Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:44 pm

I withdraw amendment 4. Leaving only amendment 2 bar Wall of Recognition bit etc.

by **Maklohi Vai** » Sun Nov 05, 2017 2:19 am

Three things to discuss.

First, memes are memes, not worthy of HoF recognition. TGP is a great meme. Let's keep it that way.

Second, the WBC should be the international team competition, and not linked to the proposed club cup. I completely agree with Free Republics on this; we don't want to add more duties onto the host. We did have domestic baseball cups a while back, and I miss them fondly, mostly because I was actually able to win them. However, they just sort of fizzled out, and I think forcibly trying to bring them back is a dubious proposition.

Third, on the remaining amendment that Ethane is proposing.

On the wording changes for 2.1 and 2.2: no issue
On 2.3: I appreciate the spirit behind this, but I think there does need to be a cooldown period after a failed admission in the hall. I'd currently vote against this proposal. Perhaps we can shorten the 5 WBC provision, but again, I think there needs to be a buffer.
2.4 seems contradictory to 2.3 as written. If a nation loses a vote on entry, do they have to wait 5 or 10 cycles before reconsideration?
2.5 general: I oppose allowing old WBC participants to vote on HoF admission if they're not on the council. I think that the nominations provision is fine, similar to provisions for the American pro sports procedures, but you should have council membership to vote on these things.
2.5.2 isn't a bad idea, except for the fact that a legislative body cannot bind the actions of its successors. So I'd vote against this as well.

Section Three: support the concept. I don't like the use of "we." Constitutions should be written as declarative documents without self-reference by the authors. Instead how about the following? "There can only be one nation in the Hall of Fame per user. 'User' is defined as the OOC owner of one or more nations on NationStates."

Section Four: seems fine to me.

Section Five: why is this separate from what's outlined in 2.5?

Section Seven: I'm presuming this is what you were referring to when you said you'd be withdrawing the "Wall of Recognition bit"

Section Eight: I'm unsure about this one. I think this probably divides people along the same lines as the Pete Rose question, and there's a reason that the MLB hasn't really set a codified policy on this. They're clearly on one side, sure, but they don't want to launch the final strike and disturb a tense debate.

by **The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp** » Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:55 am

It's been said before, but I don't think the CBC and the WBC should be linked.

RP's do two times the work and the host is worked down.

by **The Northwestern Expanse** » Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:50 pm

When is the next WBC?

by **The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp** » Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:56 pm

The Northwestern Expanse wrote:When is the next WBC?

About three months from now + Waiting around for another event to end/star

by **The Northwestern Expanse** » Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:04 pm

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
The Northwestern Expanse wrote:When is the next WBC?

About three months from now + Waiting around for another event to end/star

:-/

by **The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp** » Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:06 pm

The Northwestern Expanse wrote:
The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
About three months from now + Waiting around for another event to end/star

:-/

It takes awhile, but it's worth it.

by **Newmanistan** » Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:30 pm

CONCERNING THE NEXT COUNCIL VOTE:
(PLEASE DOUBLE CHECK FOR ACCURACY!)

Following the Council vote after WBC 40, and BEFORE WBC 41; the WBC Council consisted of:

Nations Providing a Roster, and RP’ing at least once in WBC 41:

Due to not posting a roster and RP in WBC 40 & 41, the following are no longer part of the Council:
Anglatia
South Yerfilag

All of the listed Council members, minus these two, retain membership.

The following must post a RP and roster in WBC 42, or will lose membership:
Abanhfleft
Darmen
Free Republics/Saintland
Frenline Delpha
Ko-oren
Maklohi Vai
Mount Pleasant
Zwangzug

The Following are nations that RP'd and provided a roster in WBC 40 and 41 are NOW eligible to be voted on:
Equestrian States (Due to successfully hosting WBC 41)
New Danican
Tenburg

(yeah, that's it!)

by **Newmanistan** » Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:32 pm

Zwangzug wrote:I know I'm not active here anymore, but for what it's worth, my opinion on the above.

Just want you to know, just in case: You DO have a voice, still. You were elected into the Council after WBC 40, and per the constitution, would not be automatically removed until after WBC 42. There is the one Classic grace period, so you CAN vote, if you wanted too.

by **Lycrabon** » Mon Nov 06, 2017 3:17 pm

Schiltzberg wrote:
Lycrabon wrote:

Just for the record: Counting my WBCs as Barnettsville, this was my 15th Classic. Throw those out, it was #12.

I apologize for this error. TBH, I did not realize that Barnettsville was your puppet. It has been fixed now, and you will also be up for vote this time around. So note to the president, Equestrian States and Lycrabon will be on the ballot this time.
Newmanistan wrote:
I agree with this, particularly because you're (Ethane) proposal is a bit unexpected.
Please highlight what is a change, and mention what is an amendment, since the proposal seems to do both.

I'll get Council voting line up in a few days.
I agree with this. Also, I think that if we are going to vote on an amendment, we might as well vote on it during the council/HOF voting, just so it is all voted on at the same time.

As in HoF? I would prefer - if that is what you're saying I'm now on the ballot for - to not be on the ballot until 42, just for 2-classic rule sake.

As a former Council member, I agree with all of the sentiment of not putting a CBC with the main competition. If nothing else, let 2 different hosts have it, so there is no host burn out.

by **Newmanistan** » Tue Nov 07, 2017 12:59 pm

Is there any official seconding of the proposals put forth by Ethane and/or Super-Llamaland to put the matters to a vote?

Most of the reaction appears negative to both at this time, so I'd like to see if there is more support to put one or both proposals up to a vote.

by **Frenline Delpha** » Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:59 am

I do not agree with Super Llamaland's proposal, and would pretty much parrot the same sentiment expressed already in this thread.

On Ethane's proposal, it's a hit-or-miss with it. I don't have any particular problems with Amendment 1 and 3. Section 2 of Article IX is fine, but then there's that problem with 2.3 and 2.4, given that there's a contradiction in the language of those two articles. "after said nation has participated in a further 5 World Baseball Classics" and "A period of 10 World Baseball Classics has passed," respectively. I'm wondering what Ethane meant here, as these two articles clearly contradict each other. And then, like others, I have a problem with allowing participants of WBC 1-20 to vote, as I believe this reduces the point of the council somewhat. The voting and nomination of proposed hall of famers is something should be earned, and just participating in the earlier WBCs isn't what I call earning that privilege. What makes the participants of WBC 1-20 more important than the participants of 21-40? If a participant of WBC 1-20 wants to vote for the HOF, they should have to earn it just like everyone else has. Then there's that whole WBC 50 remark, which I for the life of me don't understand. What loophole does the WBC 50 restriction close, in particular? The unofficial honorary HOF is an odd idea, but not one I am completely opposed to, honestly. No problems there. And then there's that Section VIII... hmm. I honestly believe that if someone has earned the right to be in the hall of fame, they should not be denied entry unless the crime they committed was egregious in a way yet to be seen in the WBC.

by **Ethane** » Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:42 am

Frenline Delpha wrote:I do not agree with Super Llamaland's proposal, and would pretty much parrot the same sentiment expressed already in this thread.

On Ethane's proposal, it's a hit-or-miss with it. I don't have any particular problems with Amendment 1 and 3. Section 2 of Article IX is fine, but then there's that problem with 2.3 and 2.4, given that there's a contradiction in the language of those two articles. "after said nation has participated in a further 5 World Baseball Classics" and "A period of 10 World Baseball Classics has passed," respectively. I'm wondering what Ethane meant here, as these two articles clearly contradict each other. And then, like others, I have a problem with allowing participants of WBC 1-20 to vote, as I believe this reduces the point of the council somewhat. The voting and nomination of proposed hall of famers is something should be earned, and just participating in the earlier WBCs isn't what I call earning that privilege. What makes the participants of WBC 1-20 more important than the participants of 21-40? If a participant of WBC 1-20 wants to vote for the HOF, they should have to earn it just like everyone else has. Then there's that whole WBC 50 remark, which I for the life of me don't understand. What loophole does the WBC 50 restriction close, in particular? The unofficial honorary HOF is an odd idea, but not one I am completely opposed to, honestly. No problems there. And then there's that Section VIII... hmm. I honestly believe that if someone has earned the right to be in the hall of fame, they should not be denied entry unless the crime they committed was egregious in a way yet to be seen in the WBC.

I withdrew the honorary HoF idea because of a general bad reaction towards it. Apparently it was seen as me trying to get The Great Pond into the HoF, which I am opposed to. If there is enough support outside the context of The Great Pond then that's great, but otherwise it's out.

With 2.3 and 2.4, the key distinction is that with the 5 WBC's, the nation is participating in the WBC whereas with the latter 10 WCs, that is only for CTE nations (so not participating in the WBC at the time).
I'm happy to remove the 1-20 voting rights, but I believe that the 3rd way into the HoF is too easy to reach, and is primarily to enter older nations which didn't reach 20 in but maybe should have been in the HoF. Happy to remove this as well if needed, but I would prefer a time limit on the 3rd way into the Hall of Fame.
Section 9 - I still think impeached nations should not be allowed to enter the HoF. If someone earns the right to be in the Hall of Fame, then they should be in the Hall of Fame. However, I believe being impeached and removed from the Council should mean you cannot earn the right to enter the HoF. Impeachments are clearly rare, so this wouldn't really affect many nations at all.

World Baseball Classic Discussion Thread

Who is online