The World Cup Discussion Thread (OOC, version II)

[The Archregimancy]

I was very happy that this amendment did NOT pass. I like the friendlies, they add a sense of fun to the WC cycle where an upset win can be RPed funnily, can be written off and give a sense of hope to lower ranked teams. (I beat a top 80 team in my first ever friendly).

It also gives us a chance to play other rivals and other top ranked teams, so I want the friendlies to say, I like them.

And I think this is a common misunderstanding - that those of us who would like to see the removal of friendlies from host scorination duties want to see them abolished.

This isn't, and has never been, the case.

What we want to see - or rather, what I want to see, anyway - is for hosts to be relieved of the responsibility for friendly scorination. I'd be perfectly happy to see a formal friendlies thread started by the hosts, and for friendlies to have a formal place in the NSWC qualification schedule as defined by the hosts, and for the hosts to set a limit on the maximum number of friendlies per nation - but I want to see nations who want friendlies arrange their own scorination rather than rely on the hosts, and I want to see the removal of the peer pressure that leads potential hosts to feel obligated to include friendlies in their hosting bids.

I think only those of us who've hosted a number of World Cups across a range of eras (and with 2, 28, 34, and 50 under my belt, I have a broader range of experience than most) fully appreciate just how onerous hosting a World Cup has become, and to what extent friendlies are a significant unnecessary added burden to host duties.

But the solution isn't to abolish something that people enjoy: it's to simply shift responsibility for friendly scorination to third parties. Which, when you think about it, also gives those third parties an excellent opportunity to gain informal scorinator experience in a low-pressure environment.

Realistically, everyone wins.

[Osarius]

I'd be perfectly happy to see a formal friendlies thread started by the hosts, and for friendlies to have a formal place in the NSWC qualification schedule as defined by the hosts, and for the hosts to set a limit on the maximum number of friendlies per nation - but I want to see nations who want friendlies arrange their own scorination rather than rely on the hosts, and I want to see the removal of the peer pressure that leads potential hosts to feel obligated to include friendlies in their hosting bids.

The amendment proposal would have prohibited that, though, wouldn't it?

"...Co-hosts may not include as part of their proposal, or actively participate in the organization or scorination of any additional matches..."

If not, then I'd say the wording would have needed clarification. It looks as though the proposal sought to effectively prohibit co-hosts from doing anything to do with friendlies... which may be the reason it didn't pass. *shrug*

[Wight]

Perhaps the host nations sign up a couple of junior partners to 'outsource' scorination of friendlies during the WC cycle? Kind of what Arch said, but slightly more formalised.

[The Archregimancy]

I'd be perfectly happy to see a formal friendlies thread started by the hosts, and for friendlies to have a formal place in the NSWC qualification schedule as defined by the hosts, and for the hosts to set a limit on the maximum number of friendlies per nation - but I want to see nations who want friendlies arrange their own scorination rather than rely on the hosts, and I want to see the removal of the peer pressure that leads potential hosts to feel obligated to include friendlies in their hosting bids.

The amendment proposal would have prohibited that, though, wouldn't it?

"...Co-hosts may not include as part of their proposal, or actively participate in the organization or scorination of any additional matches..."

If not, then I'd say the wording would have needed clarification. It looks as though the proposal sought to effectively prohibit co-hosts from doing anything to do with friendlies... which may be the reason it didn't pass. *shrug*

Fair enough - I'd obviously misremembered the specifics of the amendment. My apologies.

So how about the following as a subtly revised formal proposal that attempts to find a middle way between the two extremes. It still bans co-hosts from including or discussing friendlies in bid threads - which I think is crucial - but allows for some basic organisational role while still clarifying that they don't have to do the actual scorination.

Constitutional amendment for friendlies:

"Friendlies are not the responsibility of the hosts beyond basic organisation. Co-hosts may not include as part of their proposal any information on the organisation of friendlies, nor may they answer questions on friendly organisation. Co-hosts may choose to start a thread for friendly organisation, may choose to schedule slots in World Cup qualification for friendlies, and may limit the number of friendlies; but there is no presumption that co-hosts will scorinate any friendly matches, and nations holding friendlies should assume that they are responsible for arranging their own friendly scorination unless otherwise specified."

[Valanora]

I second the motion, as it falls heavily in line with my own train of thought.

Friendlies are meaningless matches essentially, though they can provide certain things for certain nations (ie i enjoy having an "Elven Cup" now and then with D&S or a rivalry match with Starblaydia), but they have become such a heavy burden on hosts now that it would be irresponsible to continue to require the hosts to do them. Having hosted the WC in several different eras (39, 43, 45, 47, 53, and 56) I can tell you that the workload for them and the tournament has increased exponentially. My duty as a host is to see through the tournament properly, not the friendlies. Now if I have the time and want to, I will scorinate friendlies, but it should not be my duty to.

[The Babbage Islands]

Constitutional amendment for friendlies:

"Friendlies are not the responsibility of the hosts beyond basic organisation. Co-hosts may not include as part of their proposal any information on the organisation of friendlies, nor may they answer questions on friendly organisation. Co-hosts may choose to start a thread for friendly organisation, may choose to schedule slots in World Cup qualification for friendlies, and may limit the number of friendlies; but there is no presumption that co-hosts will scorinate any friendly matches, and nations holding friendlies should assume that they are responsible for arranging their own friendly scorination unless otherwise specified."

TBI also endorse bringing this amendment for vote.

I don't have the cross-era experience of Arch or Valanora, but I do have two Cups behind me. The pressure to compete in bidding by volunteering to increase workload through friendlies is simply crazy given the size of the tournament. It was an issue in WC 49, where my senior partner Newmanistan judged that we needed to be willing to do a lot of friendlies as part of getting two first-time Cup hosts a shot. It was an issue in WC 54, where Cassie and I risked built-in limits so we could focus on the untested two-tier qualifying scheme. It's been an issue in every contested Cup bid for over two RL years, and it detracts from the principal responsibility of the hosts: to deliver a timely, fair, and enjoyable tournament.

[Vilita]

I'd be perfectly happy to see a formal friendlies thread started by the hosts, and for friendlies to have a formal place in the NSWC qualification schedule as defined by the hosts, and for the hosts to set a limit on the maximum number of friendlies per nation - but I want to see nations who want friendlies arrange their own scorination rather than rely on the hosts, and I want to see the removal of the peer pressure that leads potential hosts to feel obligated to include friendlies in their hosting bids.

The amendment proposal would have prohibited that, though, wouldn't it?

"...Co-hosts may not include as part of their proposal, or actively participate in the organization or scorination of any additional matches..."

If not, then I'd say the wording would have needed clarification. It looks as though the proposal sought to effectively prohibit co-hosts from doing anything to do with friendlies... which may be the reason it didn't pass. *shrug*

The idea of the part you quote was

A) Friendlies are not to be a determination in deciding what bid to vote for
B) Not to burden the hosts with actually scorinating

AIF's response says hosts might open a thread for friendlies, but suggests nations should find their own means of scorination, not rely on the hosts, which is consistent with what was proposed in the referendum.

[Aguazul]

I will fourth and put it up to vote during the next round of votes (bids, anyone?)

[Osarius]

The idea of the part you quote was

A) Friendlies are not to be a determination in deciding what bid to vote for
B) Not to burden the hosts with actually scorinating

AIF's response says hosts might open a thread for friendlies, but suggests nations should find their own means of scorination, not rely on the hosts, which is consistent with what was proposed in the referendum.

I get that, but going by the actual wording of the proposal, that wasn't entirely clear... which is why I suggested this might have been the reason it didnt pass.

[Starblaydia]

So I just opened WC59 Signups, wrote a witty (well, as witty as I can manage on a daily basis) sign-up, thought about it, and then closed the window before hitting submit. I was that close to re-joining, as it's been around four months since I did my 'Laters, marks' post.

A lot has happened in those four months in my life, most of it ultimately negative. Things are looking up, though, and I have a lot of free time on my hands now.

As a couple of people have asked, I would actually love to come back and host WC60, for what it's worth as a declaration now from someone outside of the NSWC bubble. Something about WC20, 40 & 60 just speaks to me. Whether that's as Starblaydia, or whoever, I don't know yet. I need to justify it to myself as much as any of you before I even consider doing it seriously.

So yeah, fair warning to the lot of you - you might have to put up with me again full-time. Not sure when, but soon enough.

[Yesopalitha]

So I just opened WC59 Signups, wrote a witty (well, as witty as I can manage on a daily basis) sign-up, thought about it, and then closed the window before hitting submit. I was that close to re-joining, as it's been around four months since I did my 'Laters, marks' post.

A lot has happened in those four months in my life, most of it ultimately negative. Things are looking up, though, and I have a lot of free time on my hands now.

As a couple of people have asked, I would actually love to come back and host WC60, for what it's worth as a declaration now from someone outside of the NSWC bubble. Something about WC20, 40 & 60 just speaks to me. Whether that's as Starblaydia, or whoever, I don't know yet. I need to justify it to myself as much as any of you before I even consider doing it seriously.

So yeah, fair warning to the lot of you - you might have to put up with me again full-time. Not sure when, but soon enough.

I have heard enough good things about you to last a lifetime...
Please do come back.

[Audioslavia]

So I just opened WC59 Signups, wrote a witty (well, as witty as I can manage on a daily basis) sign-up, thought about it, and then closed the window before hitting submit. I was that close to re-joining, as it's been around four months since I did my 'Laters, marks' post.

A lot has happened in those four months in my life, most of it ultimately negative. Things are looking up, though, and I have a lot of free time on my hands now.

As a couple of people have asked, I would actually love to come back and host WC60, for what it's worth as a declaration now from someone outside of the NSWC bubble. Something about WC20, 40 & 60 just speaks to me. Whether that's as Starblaydia, or whoever, I don't know yet. I need to justify it to myself as much as any of you before I even consider doing it seriously.

So yeah, fair warning to the lot of you - you might have to put up with me again full-time. Not sure when, but soon enough.

"Only someone with the genuine arrogance of a Rimbaud or a Cantona could declare their retirement and actually mean it. To make a single return to the stage is to reveal oneself a mere applause-monkey" :- Don Paterson

Ignore Don. Do it. Come back. Don't make me do the sexy beckoning come-hither dance.

EDIT: Just seen PIS's masterful take on the Polandball comics and I'd like to make it known to the thread that I pissed myself laughing. Bravo!

I now, after 27 years or ignorance, know for sure that a three-bar fire is the world's greatest plot device.

[Kiryu-shi]

In regards to the friendly discussion - not as a part of an official amendment to the rules - I feel like it would be interesting if for potential WC hosts to include a third team as part of a bid whose only responsibility is to host friendlies. It could be an effective way of introducing less experienced teams to the scorination process with absolutely no effect on team rankings (as opposed to the BoF). Something that I hope interested parties might consider in the future, especially if people vote for hosts with the expectation for friendlies to take place.

[Polar Islandstates]

I now, after 27 years or ignorance, know for sure that a three-bar fire is the world's greatest plot device.

It was something I had always suspected, if I'm honest. Just needed the courage to test the hypothesis.

[Eastfield Lodge]

I now, after 27 years or ignorance, know for sure that a three-bar fire is the world's greatest plot device.

It was something I had always suspected, if I'm honest. Just needed the courage to test the hypothesis.

One of the best RPs I've ever seen.

[Yesopalitha]

Well I am 3 of 4 in my predictions so far....
Gratz to Qazox for proving me wrong

[Jeruselem]

Great cartoon Polar

Penalty kicks SUCK!

[Qazox]

It was something I had always suspected, if I'm honest. Just needed the courage to test the hypothesis.

One of the best RPs I've ever seen.

Yes... yes it was.

[Andossa Se Mitrin Vega]

Congrats to all 8 quarterfinalists. And thank you to those who have been knocked out thus far. There haas been some great RP from those who have posted. PI, that was one of the best RPs I have ever seen. Keep up the awesome work.

[Valanora]

So, Ro16, an undefeated nation. ~ Check
Quarterfinals, a rematch with the #2 nation that just beat us in a mini tournament final. ~ Oh Elune, why?!
Potential Semi opponent, rematch with group champion that tied for our worse loss in our history, as well as being the #1 nation and defending champion. ~ Nothing is ever easy is it?
Final, oh who the heck are we kidding, we're not making it.

this is clearly meant to be a joke and not a whine, if there is any confusion <_<

[Qazox]

So, Ro16, an undefeated nation. ~ Check
Quarterfinals, a rematch with the #2 nation that just beat us in a mini tournament final. ~ Oh Elune, why?!
Potential Semi opponent, rematch with group champion that tied for our worse loss in our history, as well as being the #1 nation and defending champion. ~ Nothing is ever easy is it?
Final, oh who the heck are we kidding, we're not making it.

this is clearly meant to be a joke and not a whine, if there is any confusion <_<

Hey... I might beat Aguazul ...

[Homelands our]

So, Ro16, an undefeated nation. ~ Check
Quarterfinals, a rematch with the #2 nation that just beat us in a mini tournament final. ~ Oh Elune, why?!
Potential Semi opponent, rematch with group champion that tied for our worse loss in our history, as well as being the #1 nation and defending champion. ~ Nothing is ever easy is it?
Final, oh who the heck are we kidding, we're not making it.

this is clearly meant to be a joke and not a whine, if there is any confusion <_<

Hey... I might beat Aguazul ...

You will, this is your year!

[Alasdair I Frosticus]

So, Ro16, an undefeated nation. ~ Check
Quarterfinals, a rematch with the #2 nation that just beat us in a mini tournament final. ~ Oh Elune, why?!
Potential Semi opponent, rematch with group champion that tied for our worse loss in our history, as well as being the #1 nation and defending champion. ~ Nothing is ever easy is it?
Final, oh who the heck are we kidding, we're not making it.

this is clearly meant to be a joke and not a whine, if there is any confusion <_<

There's no doubt our half of the draw is a tough one... The Holy Empire and Valanora have easily been the two most consistently successful teams since WC45 (at least in terms of reaching quarterfinals), and Aguazul are, of course, the defending champions.

No doubt Krytenia will still contrive to find a way to not reach the final, despite avoiding all three of us.

[Qazox]

So, Ro16, an undefeated nation. ~ Check
Quarterfinals, a rematch with the #2 nation that just beat us in a mini tournament final. ~ Oh Elune, why?!
Potential Semi opponent, rematch with group champion that tied for our worse loss in our history, as well as being the #1 nation and defending champion. ~ Nothing is ever easy is it?
Final, oh who the heck are we kidding, we're not making it.

this is clearly meant to be a joke and not a whine, if there is any confusion <_<

There's no doubt our half of the draw is a tough one... The Holy Empire and Valanora have easily been the two most consistently successful teams since WC45 (at least in terms of reaching quarterfinals), and Aguazul are, of course, the defending champions.

No doubt Krytenia will still contrive to find a way to not reach the final, despite avoiding all three of us.

And rest assured that Qazox will once again choke in the quarterfinals... thereby preserving the ICly high ratings from either an Aguazul-Holy Empire or Aguazul-Valanora match.

[Yesopalitha]

Qaz, what's the furthest you've ever gone in a WC?