The World Cup Discussion Thread (OOC, version II)

[Aguazul]

Would someone please explain why a roleplay about a stadium jointly owned by Capitalizt SLANI and Jasĭyun, home to Sokojito Dosi Gyulhabdwen (COM) and Sokojito Dosi Dalamjwijĭ (JSY), as well as hosting some home matches of both Capitalizt SLANI and Jasĭyun, four World Cups (26, 36, 39, 45) hosted by Capitalizt SLANI, the Jasĭyun Kub final, and another World Cup (51) hosted by the PSC, which counts both Capitalizt SLANI and Jasĭyun among its members, should have been posted with any particular account?

In this particular case? The roleplay was posted between the announcement of the mid-qualifying friendly matches and the Matchday 10 scores. Capitalizt SLANI, and not Jasĭyun, participated in a mid-qualifying friendly, heralded as the Sokojito Überdome's final match prior to renovation, ninety-eight years and four months after it opened.

The roleplay itself read,

...we must remember that today is not the end of the stadium, but only of its first chapter. Though the many twists and turns in the saga may have been more than enough to satisfy us for the last ninety-eight years, four months, ten days, nine hours, and three minutes, there is still more drama to be seen after we turn the page.

To me, this suggests that the post was in the broad sense about the stadium as a whole, but in the narrow sense a specific commentary on the match between Capitalizt SLANI and Krytenia, one better expressed as coming "from" Capitalizt SLANI than "from" Jasĭyun. Had neither entity qualified for the World Cup, and Jasĭyun but not Capitalizt SLANI been invited to the Cup of Harmony, I would have questioned that decision. As it is, I'm happy to respect the hosts' choice; it's not necessarily what I would have done in their place, but it's certainly reasonable.

[Commerce Heights]

Would someone please explain why a roleplay about a stadium jointly owned by Capitalizt SLANI and Jasĭyun, home to Sokojito Dosi Gyulhabdwen (COM) and Sokojito Dosi Dalamjwijĭ (JSY), as well as hosting some home matches of both Capitalizt SLANI and Jasĭyun, four World Cups (26, 36, 39, 45) hosted by Capitalizt SLANI, the Jasĭyun Kub final, and another World Cup (51) hosted by the PSC, which counts both Capitalizt SLANI and Jasĭyun among its members, should have been posted with any particular account?

In this particular case? The roleplay was posted between the announcement of the mid-qualifying friendly matches and the Matchday 10 scores. Capitalizt SLANI, and not Jasĭyun, participated in a mid-qualifying friendly, heralded as the Sokojito Überdome's final match prior to renovation, ninety-eight years and four months after it opened.

The roleplay itself read,

...we must remember that today is not the end of the stadium, but only of its first chapter. Though the many twists and turns in the saga may have been more than enough to satisfy us for the last ninety-eight years, four months, ten days, nine hours, and three minutes, there is still more drama to be seen after we turn the page.

To me, this suggests that the post was in the broad sense about the stadium as a whole, but in the narrow sense a specific commentary on the match between Capitalizt SLANI and Krytenia, one better expressed as coming "from" Capitalizt SLANI than "from" Jasĭyun. Had neither entity qualified for the World Cup, and Jasĭyun but not Capitalizt SLANI been invited to the Cup of Harmony, I would have questioned that decision. As it is, I'm happy to respect the hosts' choice; it's not necessarily what I would have done in their place, but it's certainly reasonable.

You’ve made a case that Somewhereistonia and Queer Poco el Mono Ara shouldn’t have invited Jasĭyun to the Cup of Harmony. That has nothing to do with the question you were purporting to answer.

[Aguazul]

You’ve made a case that Somewhereistonia and Queer Poco el Mono Ara shouldn’t have invited Jasĭyun to the Cup of Harmony. That has nothing to do with the question you were purporting to answer.

...you're right. Sorry for complicating things.

[Krytenia]

I make no such claim; I have no particular interest in roleplaying bonuses. I’m claiming that, if the hosts of the World Cup or Cup of Harmony require that a particular post be attributed to a particular team for their own purposes, then it is their responsibility to make that determination. In this instance, Somewhereistonia and Queer Poco el Mono Ara made such a determination, Newmanistan disputed it, and somehow this resulted in accusations by Candelaria And Marquez, Sarzonia, Bears Armed (implicitly), Krytenia, and Daehanjeiguk that I was wrong to post with “the wrong nation” because of a determination made by the Cup of Harmony hosts.

I did not accuse you of posting as the wrong nation; merely suggested a way of helping out the hosts (let's face it, you have no "nation" to post as the "wrong" one, such is the...unique structure of Paripanan sport). If you do not want to follow my advice, fair enough; the hosts will just need to make judgment calls on who to score the RPs for, which they have done perfectly well in the past and will, I'm sure, continue to do for the future. I, for one, have no problem with SOM's inclusion of Jasiyun, based on their interpretation of that RP. Personally, I would have counted it as a SLANI RP instead, but that's just my take on the RP, and I am (to repeat myself) fully supportive of Jasiyun's participation in the Cup of Harmony.

[Yafor 2]

EDITed, in light of what has occurred. Didn't want to get involved in any mess. Am really sorry if I caused anybody any harm.

Besides, my post was pretty unnecessary, since it didn't make a point, attack anybody, or really mean anything.

[Krytenia]

Perhaps it's time to remove the hard and fast rules of "qualification" for the Cup of Harmony, and add it to the "hosts are responsible for any and all screw-ups" caveat. In other words, the hosts having the say over who to invite (or not invite).

[Valanora]

Perhaps it's time to remove the hard and fast rules of "qualification" for the Cup of Harmony, and add it to the "hosts are responsible for any and all screw-ups" caveat. In other words, the hosts having the say over who to invite (or not invite).

I would be happy to live with that as long as the bid threads would specify a general outline of the methodology for inviting the nations.

[Krytenia]

Perhaps it's time to remove the hard and fast rules of "qualification" for the Cup of Harmony, and add it to the "hosts are responsible for any and all screw-ups" caveat. In other words, the hosts having the say over who to invite (or not invite).

I would be happy to live with that as long as the bid threads would specify a general outline of the methodology for inviting the nations.

Agreed.

[Sarzonia]

Perhaps it's time to remove the hard and fast rules of "qualification" for the Cup of Harmony, and add it to the "hosts are responsible for any and all screw-ups" caveat. In other words, the hosts having the say over who to invite (or not invite).

I would be happy to live with that as long as the bid threads would specify a general outline of the methodology for inviting the nations.

I'd also agree with that.

Perhaps if I launched a future bid, I could specify that the teams being invited are the ones with the best records in qualifying that failed to advance to the proper OR the ones that had the highest RP ratings that failed to qualify for the proper.

Adopting Krytenia's suggestion would give a prospective host the flexibility to decide either option or an option not already listed. It might also prevent future kerfluffles like this one.

On another note, I find it shocking, SHOCKING I tell you that I agree with Valanora on something!

[Krytenia]

If you're not careful, Sarz, we may end up with a consensus. That never happens!

[Sarzonia]

If you're not careful, Sarz, we may end up with a consensus. That never happens!

Never say never, lad. NEVER say never.

On another note, it's not mandatory, but I'd appreciate it if either Septentrionia or Pays de Horreur (yes, I know it's QPeMA, but PdH is in my group, so chill ) would respond ICly to the request made here. If you both decide you're not feeling the inspiration to do so, fine, but it might be worth an RP angle.

[The Weegies]

Finally, something I can agree on here without being dragged into another gorram argument

[Starblaydia]

As a much grander, unrelated and fairly melancholic point, I think that since the days when the WC was in its teens, we've steadily 'professionalised' the World Cup into something of a streamlined meatgrinder of tournaments, championships and gearing people to aim for a particular brand of randomly-generated 'achievement'.

Some conform to what we've created, others deliberately rail against it, while most have gone with the flow. Whether that's a good thing, or not, I'm not one to judge.

[Toiletdonia]

As a much grander, unrelated and fairly melancholic point, I think that since the days when the WC was in its teens, we've steadily 'professionalised' the World Cup into something of a streamlined meatgrinder of tournaments, championships and gearing people to aim for a particular brand of randomly-generated 'achievement'.

Some conform to what we've created, others deliberately rail against it, while most have gone with the flow. Whether that's a good thing, or not, I'm not one to judge.

The world cup may now be to big for it boots (At least I think that is the expression) maybe some healthy rivalry is fine. The only thing I think is wrong is how heated the discussion thread can become and arguments break out. In the end the only thing were arguing about is a small aspect of an online forum which is a little bit much.

[Sarzonia]

And then it happened. Sexton was well tackled by Bundy, who sent a long clearance forward; Johnson's header out only found Jeff Tipps, who, with four defenders and no attackers ahead of him, hit a hopeful shot from thirty yards. It lacked pace, but Arian failed to get fully behind it, and the ball flapped off his hand, and bobbled embarrassingly into the net. Two-one.

Don't you mean Robert Green?

Brought to you courtesy of the Red, White and Blue.

[Krytenia]

And then it happened. Sexton was well tackled by Bundy, who sent a long clearance forward; Johnson's header out only found Jeff Tipps, who, with four defenders and no attackers ahead of him, hit a hopeful shot from thirty yards. It lacked pace, but Arian failed to get fully behind it, and the ball flapped off his hand, and bobbled embarrassingly into the net. Two-one.

Don't you mean Robert Green?

Brought to you courtesy of the Red, White and Blue.

Meh, write what you know.

[Newmanistan]

Perhaps it's time to remove the hard and fast rules of "qualification" for the Cup of Harmony, and add it to the "hosts are responsible for any and all screw-ups" caveat. In other words, the hosts having the say over who to invite (or not invite).

I would be happy to live with that as long as the bid threads would specify a general outline of the methodology for inviting the nations.

Perhaps it is, Kry. Perhaps some positive can come out of all of this. As long as the caveat mentioned by Valanora here is included, I am for it as well.

[Daehanjeiguk]

Incidentally, I'm just here to rebut one statement:

... and somehow this resulted in accusations by Candelaria And Marquez, Sarzonia, Bears Armed (implicitly), Krytenia, and Daehanjeiguk that I was wrong to post with “the wrong nation” because of a determination made by the Cup of Harmony hosts...

Precisely tell me where I stated that CH was wrong to post with the "wrong nation".

The only thing that I stated was that you should have posted with JSY to satisfy RP requirements. As it stands, neither Somewhereistonia nor QPeMA have stated that they are rescinding their earlier invitation (and at this point, I would consider it moot, having already expressed later in detail what my views about exclusion are). And as I have no real interest in making them change their minds, I don't think it would be helpful to make accusations in turn against people who are merely making assertions. Perhaps you misread my intentions, but I don't think I've ever really stated anything to effect of "you are wrong". If anything, it was more a concession that I was wrong (when presented with facts about the situation).

Anyway, to answer CH's question: "why a roleplay ... should have been posted with any particular account?"

The simple answer is to provide proper attribution for any RPs to any association. If you suddenly decided in all earnestness to hack Sorthern Northland's account and posted an RP in your inimitable style, no doubt Sorth might have some conflicting feelings about the whole thing (thanks for the RP, but WTH hacking my account?!?); but, if there were some circumstance that required a clear and concrete post from a particular account (i.e. a sign-up) and (a) the attribution is absent; (b) the attribution is at best nebulous or at worst fallacious; or (c) all of the above, then there is no reason why anyone else should provide or even assume that the circumstance's requirements are/were/will be satisfied.

In layman's terms, if you can't 100% prove that you posted it and/or intended it to be anything, then you can't have the expectation that anyone else will share the same interpretation. Whether or not you want that expectation is for you to decide.


Nonetheless, if CH wishes to avert this issue in future circumstances, I think the solutions to CH's are really obvious:

(1) designate an NS account for use as Capitalizt SLANI and another one for use as JSY;
(2) continue as you are, and risk getting misread by another host's interpretation of the freakishly weird UCS associations (especially if you have any intention to have any RP attributed to any particular association);
(3) make an ooc marker for each post, detailing which posts should be attributed to SLANI, to JSY, or to just the random millionaire's pot because you don't want it attributed to any one and/or thing).

I'll admit that I'm quite partial to the first one, but it's really your choice. And yes - while it might be the fault of the hosts for making a bad choice or judgment, if the hosts are asked to make a call on an ambiguous situation, you can't fault them if you made the situation ambiguous. This is the same thing I said to Newmanistan about the ambiguous scenario question during the CoH43 bid. As you have stated yourself, the hosts made a decision, and really, there's nothing that directly told them what choice to make at the time.



So I suppose the rule of thumb - if you want to write like James Joyce, do so at your own risk.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to check on some C&M RPs.

[Sorthern Northland]

...If you suddenly decided in all earnestness to hack Sorthern Northland's account and posted an RP in your inimitable style, no doubt Sorth might have some conflicting feelings about the whole thing (thanks for the RP, but WTH hacking my account?!?);...

I'm rather concerned that you've managed to hack into my brain and discover what I'm thinking to tell the truth.

[Commerce Heights]

Precisely tell me where I stated that CH was wrong to post with the "wrong nation".

The only thing that I stated was that you should have posted with JSY to satisfy RP requirements.

To say that I should have done something necessarily implies that I shouldn’t have done otherwise.

Anyway, to answer CH's question: "why a roleplay ... should have been posted with any particular account?"

The simple answer is to provide proper attribution for any RPs to any association. If you suddenly decided in all earnestness to hack Sorthern Northland's account and posted an RP in your inimitable style, no doubt Sorth might have some conflicting feelings about the whole thing (thanks for the RP, but WTH hacking my account?!?); but, if there were some circumstance that required a clear and concrete post from a particular account (i.e. a sign-up) and (a) the attribution is absent; (b) the attribution is at best nebulous or at worst fallacious; or (c) all of the above, then there is no reason why anyone else should provide or even assume that the circumstance's requirements are/were/will be satisfied.

In layman's terms, if you can't 100% prove that you posted it and/or intended it to be anything, then you can't have the expectation that anyone else will share the same interpretation. Whether or not you want that expectation is for you to decide.

I didn’t intend anyone to interpret anything at all. It was just a roleplay.

Nonetheless, if CH wishes to avert this issue in future circumstances, I think the solutions to CH's are really obvious:

(1) designate an NS account for use as Capitalizt SLANI and another one for use as JSY;
(2) continue as you are, and risk getting misread by another host's interpretation of the freakishly weird UCS associations (especially if you have any intention to have any RP attributed to any particular association);
(3) make an ooc marker for each post, detailing which posts should be attributed to SLANI, to JSY, or to just the random millionaire's pot because you don't want it attributed to any one and/or thing).

I’m not trying to do anything “as Capitalizt SLANI” or “as JSY,” with the possible exception of signups—option 1 does not solve this problem. Option 2 is obviously not intended to solve anything, and the latter portion of option 3 also does not solve this problem.

And yes - while it might be the fault of the hosts for making a bad choice or judgment, if the hosts are asked to make a call on an ambiguous situation, you can't fault them if you made the situation ambiguous. This is the same thing I said to Newmanistan about the ambiguous scenario question during the CoH43 bid. As you have stated yourself, the hosts made a decision, and really, there's nothing that directly told them what choice to make at the time.

I’m not faulting the hosts, other people are. I don’t care about their decision one way or another, other people do. I do care a great deal when people assert that I “should” have done something, and continue arguing the matter for days while completely failing to support their claim.

[Daehanjeiguk]

...If you suddenly decided in all earnestness to hack Sorthern Northland's account and posted an RP in your inimitable style, no doubt Sorth might have some conflicting feelings about the whole thing (thanks for the RP, but WTH hacking my account?!?);...

I'm rather concerned that you've managed to hack into my brain and discover what I'm thinking to tell the truth.

You left it open

EDIT: my last response to this unless CH or anyone else begs it.

Precisely tell me where I stated that CH was wrong to post with the "wrong nation".

The only thing that I stated was that you should have posted with JSY to satisfy RP requirements.

To say that I should have done something necessarily implies that I shouldn’t have done otherwise.

Verily. So you are equating "should not" with "must not"?

Anyway, to answer CH's question: "why a roleplay ... should have been posted with any particular account?"

The simple answer is to provide proper attribution for any RPs to any association. If you suddenly decided in all earnestness to hack Sorthern Northland's account and posted an RP in your inimitable style, no doubt Sorth might have some conflicting feelings about the whole thing (thanks for the RP, but WTH hacking my account?!?); but, if there were some circumstance that required a clear and concrete post from a particular account (i.e. a sign-up) and (a) the attribution is absent; (b) the attribution is at best nebulous or at worst fallacious; or (c) all of the above, then there is no reason why anyone else should provide or even assume that the circumstance's requirements are/were/will be satisfied.

In layman's terms, if you can't 100% prove that you posted it and/or intended it to be anything, then you can't have the expectation that anyone else will share the same interpretation. Whether or not you want that expectation is for you to decide.

I didn’t intend anyone to interpret anything at all. It was just a roleplay.

Then I presume that the RP Bonus is just a pointless exercise for you? I suppose then you wouldn't mind it if future hosts simply read your RPs without applying any particular bonus to it, since it is not intended for anyone to attribute it to anything except as a hopefully enjoyable read. Let me ask this question then: do you personally have any expectation that any host will read your RPs and simply read them for their reading value and not attribute an RP bonus to it?

Nonetheless, if CH wishes to avert this issue in future circumstances, I think the solutions to CH's are really obvious:

(1) designate an NS account for use as Capitalizt SLANI and another one for use as JSY;
(2) continue as you are, and risk getting misread by another host's interpretation of the freakishly weird UCS associations (especially if you have any intention to have any RP attributed to any particular association);
(3) make an ooc marker for each post, detailing which posts should be attributed to SLANI, to JSY, or to just the random millionaire's pot because you don't want it attributed to any one and/or thing).

I’m not trying to do anything “as Capitalizt SLANI” or “as JSY,” with the possible exception of signups—option 1 does not solve this problem. Option 2 is obviously not intended to solve anything, and the latter portion of option 3 also does not solve this problem.

Begging your pardon, but your response to option 1 creates an unsustainable double standard. You might as well be posting with a n00b account every World Cup.
Option 2 is merely the status quo - whether it solves anything is up to the people around you.
Option 3 does solve a problem, whether you want to solve it or not.

EDIT3: I should also add that I do not believe that this list is mutually exclusive and that there are certainly alternatives, of which I think CH's position is such that people should simply accept it for what it is when in practice they cannot (especially the hosts).

And yes - while it might be the fault of the hosts for making a bad choice or judgment, if the hosts are asked to make a call on an ambiguous situation, you can't fault them if you made the situation ambiguous. This is the same thing I said to Newmanistan about the ambiguous scenario question during the CoH43 bid. As you have stated yourself, the hosts made a decision, and really, there's nothing that directly told them what choice to make at the time.

I’m not faulting the hosts, other people are. I don’t care about their decision one way or another, other people do. I do care a great deal when people assert that I “should” have done something, and continue arguing the matter for days while completely failing to support their claim.

I was using "you" in the plural sense, as in the community. Moreover, I was not referring to this specific incident, but to future incidents, using the present incident as an example. Nonetheless, you have answered the question of apathy.

[Bazalonia]

I didn’t intend anyone to interpret anything at all. It was just a roleplay.

It's an RP in a sports RP thread, by posting it there by definition you intend it to be seen by participants of the sport that the RP thread belongs to and the host. Sure it may not of been your aim to have the RP interpreted but you should know as well as anyone that in such a situation it doesn't matter.

Whatever you intended the hosts are going to try to interpret it anyway, it is apart of their duties as hosts to take ranks, apply an RP Bonus and run them through the scorinator. We're not asking you to change why you post your RPs, I actually think posting RPs because their fun is a better reason for posting RPs than for the Bonus you get for doing so. However things are going to be interpreted by the hosts and it is simply a matter of courtesy. An OOC Note isn't hard to do or there are other options as Dae's specified.

EDIT: Anyway, there is no point in arguing about this any further. We all have our points of view, there is nothing to say that CH has to follow our suggestion as basically that amounts to all they are. The hosts have the job of RPinating and in the end even an OOC note or other signifiers mean nothing unless the hosts decide to give them meaning.

[Jeruselem]

Ultimately, it's all down to the host's discretion and how they see the rules and implement things. There is always going to be grey areas in this sort of thing.

[Yafor 2]

Verily. So you are equating "should not" with "must not"?

Depends on how far we accept Kantian moral philosophy and his conception of "ought" (or "should", which tends to equate to "ought" due to both words having a moral weight behind them) as a moral imperative.

[Somewhereistonia]

As I've thought about this, the more the argument seems silly. Had I been hosting the world cup, I would have taken the RP as being both from Jasiyun and Capitalizt SLANI - awarding half of the bonus to each - as the rp in question is clearly about both 'nations'. Therefore, under the way I would have awarded bonuses should I have been hosting the world cup - Jasiyun would have gained some form of bonus for a roleplay outside of their roster i.e. they ropeplayed.

Would other people have awarded it differentially? Maybe. I would have split the rp, given the nature of the Paripanan states and the mentions in the RP to both. Some may have decided to award all of the bonus to Capitalizt SLANI - that would be their hosting decision and I wouldn't go on about it.

Now, CH does have an unusual system in this respect but I don't think that he's 'getting away' with anything. He gains no special advantage from this, I would award no more in total bonus points from the RP than I would otherwise, it isn't any more work to split the RP as a host would already have to decide on what bonus to award - and I fail to see how that might benefit CH anyway.

Other nations that are split ICly, I wouldn't award points for in this way. Yes Paripana has an unusual state of affairs, but it is precisely this sort of intrigue which makes this sub-forum what it is. Forcing CH to either post an rp twice under two accounts to win some bonus or to meet the requirements of one persons interpretation over what the Cup of Harmony entrants should be, seems nonsense to me. Where in all of this lies a problem? CH posted an rp which was partly about part of his nation which happens to constitute his 'puppet' entry to the world cup - that rp (or half of it?) I saw to meet the requirements posted in the bid for the Cup of Harmony. I know most people have dropped this, apparently deciding to 'bear in mind his decision and his actions' and I feel that some might still sense that I have explaining to do.

I invited a nation to a tournament I was elected to run, you may not agree with the invitation, you may feel that lower ranked nations might find it harder to win (Somewhereistonia is ranked lower than Jasiyun iirc anyway so by that logic this would be to my personal loss anyway), but I invited a nation to a tournament. I felt that that nation had fulfilled the requirements than I and QP set - had CH not posted a roster for Jasiyun and gained special entry or had CH's rp clearly been about SLANI or had I rejected others who filled the criteria (which I didn't, save for the now entered Taeshan and Kosovoe), thenI would understand the concern.

Let me show you the list of nations that made some progress towards meeting the requirements and did not get in:

Roster but no rp:
Odinex
Iglesian Archipelago
Mantwenic
Westmeadow Tavern
Palatazze
Mount Shavano
Die Adler
Tonarius
Bostopia
Achtervolging
Balida
Kryosis

RP but no roster:
Tretskivucia
Loonaterian
Kanvers

The list of those who gained some sort of special entry:
Western Cuba - posting of numerous rps with no roster, it seemed unfair to exclude him when others granted invitation had roleplayed less.
Taeshan - granted late entry to fill numbers; initially excluded because only rp was late and there to get into CoH.
Kosovoe - granted late entry to fill numbers; initially excluded because only rp was late and there to get into CoH.

As far as I can see, Western Cuba is the only one I show favour to out of all of this. Should I be criticised for letting his in? I think not, as my bid says "Minor variations to this (such as highly detailed rosters) will be made as we see fit." I saw fit to make a variation that seemed fair.

So, have I gone about this the right way? Was I right to trawl through the Rosters and Roleplay threads to work out exactly who posted rps, whether someone like Western Cuba had posted enough to get past having no roster, attempting to work out whether any of those without rps but with rosters had done enough solely on the rosters (they had not, although Caf could easily have got in via this method ). Should I have done something different? I think not. I think I have acted accordingly here and now I feel that I have defended myself appropriately, I'll shut up.

As an aside, I don't think the current CoH entry rules need to be changed, some people need to relax about it a bit more. The only thing I might change is in the bit stating that you need to post an rp, which may or may not include a roster in my eyes, be changed to "rp and/or a roster" and then leaving the rest to the hosts to decide and describe in their respective bid threads.