The World Cup Discussion Thread (OOC, version II)

[Dancougar]

My instinct is to leave them in the draw in Pot 9 and score all of their games as forfeitures. It is also reasonable to draw them in Pot 9 and scorinate the games normally. I do not think it is wise to reopen entries for a replacement, or to remove the entry entirely and proceed with 136. Your thoughts? And is there applicable precedent?

This is a tough call. I myself would tend away from forfeitures, because the points gained from the "victories" would affect the rankings of the other teams in its group, although I'm not sure if it would be by enough to matter. I think it's still perfectly reasonable to include them in the draw and leave the results of their games up to luck the the RP bonus its opponents scrape together, since that level of participation is still what you'd expect from a team that CTEs during the tournament given the time gap involved since their last login, and then the -80 penalty is applied at the end.

[Valanora]

Personally, I'd leave them in. Given how easy it is to resurrect nations now, it would not surprise me in the least if the nation in question would not be CTE by the end of qualifying. In the case that they are still non existent, then it is simply a matter of docking them the standard point penalty.

[Callidon]

We're not at a point where we have many new players clamoring to get in who are blocked by the ceased nations. Rather than create a logistical nightmare by adding forfeitures or bye weeks where none would exist, let the nations who have ceased play. If one of them actually qualified, the next team below them in the table would qualify in their stead.

[Jeruselem]

Personally, I'd leave them in. Given how easy it is to resurrect nations now, it would not surprise me in the least if the nation in question would not be CTE by the end of qualifying. In the case that they are still non existent, then it is simply a matter of docking them the standard point penalty.

Yeah, it's easier that way ... no changing scoring or schedules. If they don't exist at the end, they get removed from finals contention.

[The Babbage Islands]

I'll see what my co-host thinks, but the discussion has me now leaning toward letting them play on. Certainly that is simplest. Thank you, everyone, for the comments.

[Jeruselem]

I'll see what my co-host thinks, but the discussion has me now leaning toward letting them play on. Certainly that is simplest. Thank you, everyone, for the comments.

I think it's what most hosts have done recently.

[Newmanistan]

I'll see what my co-host thinks, but the discussion has me now leaning toward letting them play on. Certainly that is simplest. Thank you, everyone, for the comments.

Let 'em play. Then they enjoy their -80 point penalty if they are not revived.

[Vephrall]

On that note, why is the silly 80-point penalty still on the books? Simple disqualification (in the already unlikely event that they would even finish in a qualifying spot) works perfectly fine.

[Newmanistan]

On that note, why is the silly 80-point penalty still on the books? Simple disqualification (in the already unlikely event that they would even finish in a qualifying spot) works perfectly fine.

You know, I just read over the Constitution, and the bit about the 80-point penalty is not there. So we probably have to say that this can not, technically, be enforced, until (unless) it becomes part of the Constitution.

[Sarzonia]

I disagree with that interpretation.

We're getting into that area of the law when we start talking about established legal precedents. The letter of the law doesn't always guide judges when they make decisions. Sometimes, they go back and see how other courts interpreted previous rulings.

In this case, the 80-point penalty is engrained in our collective culture.

As for Veph's original question, I think it was originally put in place because of the inconvenience a nation ceasing would cause the World Cup if, say, a team qualified and ceased prior to qualifying. That might have been before we had specified procedures for filling a spot vacated by a ceased nation, however.

I would support revising the penalty for ceason to simply resetting a ceased nation's KPB points to zero rather than docking them 80 points for the reasons outlined above.

[Vephrall]

I believe (and I may be wrong, as IIRC this was first done about 30 or 40 Cups ago and my memory isn't what it used to be) that, at least initially, it was simply done as a method of ensuring that that particular nation would not qualify. I don't think there was any other rationale behind it.

There should, of course, be some sort of language in the Constitution explicitly stating what should happen if a nation CTEs during the tournament. A simple disqualification from advancement to the next stage should suffice with no additional penalty. After all, if the nation ceased, it's (more likely than not) not intending to return anyway, so imposing a penalty is really nothing more than flexing our collective ego (yeesh, I'm starting to sound like Yaf here ).

[Somewhereistonia]

(yeesh, I'm starting to sound like Yaf here ).

Is that a bad thing?

[Taeshan]

I know it's illegal, But I would love my new puppet of NASCAR Start and Parks to enter.
.

Yes it is. End of discussion lasting less then a Dave Blaney race.

Oh my god that was almost funny. But seriously their are others out their and don't blame any of it on Dave, its not his fault. Anyways at least they've run a few with funding. Now back to actual soccer stuff.

[Cafundeu]

I, personally, am against the 80 point penalty rule. That's why in World Cups 42 and 48, for example, the ceased nations didn't suffer this penalty. Instead they only lost all the points won in the qualifiers (which doesn't resets their KPBs to 0, btw), which completely eliminated their chances of qualifying.

So, if punishing a nation with -80 points was something necessary, then these two cups did illegal procedures.

The point is that, when this question was raised during the big discussion about what to do with ceased nations, with that case involving Sel Appa too (WC41, wasn't it?), the general consensus was that the hosts would have full authority in deciding their own punishment to the ceased nations. They could just disqualify them without further punishment, remove points conquered or imposing a point penalty. I think it's fine for the hosts to decide.

[Taeshan]

I, personally, am against the 80 point penalty rule. That's why in World Cups 42 and 48, for example, the ceased nations didn't suffer this penalty. Instead they only lost all the points won in the qualifiers, which completely eliminated their chances of qualifying.

So, if punishing a nation with -80 points was something necessary, then these two cups did illegal procedures.

The point is that, when this question was raised during the big discussion about what to do with ceased nations, with that case involving Sel Appa too (WC41, wasn't it?), the general consensus was that the hosts would have full authority in deciding their own punishment to the ceased nations. They could just disqualify them without further punishment, remove points conquered or imposing a point penalty. I think it's fine for the hosts to decide.

I think its unfair because if they do come back in the n ext few cups they are burdened, and even more st up to fail then most newbies are in the first place. I mean if Star CTed in the middle of the cup what would we do?

[Nethertopia]

I disagree with that interpretation.

We're getting into that area of the law when we start talking about established legal precedents. The letter of the law doesn't always guide judges when they make decisions. Sometimes, they go back and see how other courts interpreted previous rulings.

In this case, the 80-point penalty is engrained in our collective culture.

As for Veph's original question, I think it was originally put in place because of the inconvenience a nation ceasing would cause the World Cup if, say, a team qualified and ceased prior to qualifying. That might have been before we had specified procedures for filling a spot vacated by a ceased nation, however.

I would support revising the penalty for ceason to simply resetting a ceased nation's KPB points to zero rather than docking them 80 points for the reasons outlined above.

Actually, as a lawstudent, I disagree with you. According to the stare decisis, also known as the common-law tradition, what previous judges have decided is the law for cases in the future.

As a Nssports persion, I completely agree with you. The 80-point penalty is outdated, a disqualification would suit so much better ^_^

[Nethertopia]

I think its unfair because if they do come back in the n ext few cups they are burdened, and even more st up to fail then most newbies are in the first place. I mean if Star CTed in the middle of the cup what would we do?

Prolly do what we should do: Disqualify him. And wait until he gets back at us.

[Cafundeu]

I think its unfair because if they do come back in the n ext few cups they are burdened, and even more st up to fail then most newbies are in the first place. I mean if Star CTed in the middle of the cup what would we do?

That's exactly why I oppose the -80 points rule. Not because of a nation coming back "in the next few cups", but right in the next one, as it would force (ok, not necessarily, but...) a nation to wait for 3 WC cycles to return in case they are revived after being punished. But in the case of other punishments, as losing points conquered in the qualifiers or being simple disqualified, they won't have negative KPBs. In fact, with this they'll still have positive KPB points, so they would be able to return right in the next WC if they get revived. Yes, of course they'll lose some ranking spots in the case it's considered that they won 0 points in their last qualifying/WC proper, but I see this as deserved, letting their nation cease in the middle of competition.

And, on another point, a country would only suffer this punishment if it is ceased after one phase of the competition ends. If it ceases during the middle of the cup and gets revived before it, nothing happens. So, "if Star CTed in the middle of the cup", it'd only be punished if it stays non-existent after the cup ends, at the point which I believe some punishment would be fair. But I prefer something that isn't radical as giving them -80 points.

(not related to the discussion, but another reason why I prefer to just strip them of the points won during the phase in which they have ceased is because this makes them leave the ranks more quickly [well, not much, but they do] if they don't return to the WC)

[Schiavonia]

Always was a stupid rule. Whoever thought it up should be slapped with a wet fish.

Can I appeal for 74 of my 80 points back from WC36 second round, then?

[Yafor 2]

Actually, as a lawstudent, I disagree with you. According to the stare decisis, also known as the common-law tradition, what previous judges have decided is the law for cases in the future.

Isn't NSWC a civil-law system?

Actually, I think it's been established that the NSWC is whatever system I want to argue at the time.

(yeesh, I'm starting to sound like Yaf here ).

Is that a bad thing?

Yeah, I *am* President atm.

If someone wants, I can draft up a fixy-fix to the constitution. I didnae write it, but I do interpret it.

(in other words, I'll be impartial, although I'll point to the fact that Vephrall really *did* sound like me as evidence for what I really believe)

[Newmanistan]

We will not impose the 80 point penalty. My earlier statement that it would be imposed was based on my experiences on what I have seen done in the past for at least half the Cups. But given it is not indoctrinated in the Constitution, most of the above posts, and my agreement with the concept of those posts, it is unnecessary to impose it.

[Nethertopia]

Actually, as a lawstudent, I disagree with you. According to the stare decisis, also known as the common-law tradition, what previous judges have decided is the law for cases in the future.

Isn't NSWC a civil-law system?

Actually, I think it's been established that the NSWC is whatever system I want to argue at the time.

If it was a civil-law system we wouldn't have a WCC, EWWC and a President, right? ^_^

[Vephrall]

Always was a stupid rule. Whoever thought it up should be slapped with a wet fish.

If memory serves, it was a Rejistania invention.

[Schiavonia]

I think I've slapped Rejis with various aquatic creatures over the years. One more probably won't make much difference.

[The Archregimancy]

Add me to the list of people who think the -80 penalty is overly harsh.

I suppose the rationale is to discourage CTE during the cup, even if the nation subsequently comes back - but it unnecessarily punishes people who may have difficult RL issues that may have to take precedent, but who still want to return to WC participation once RL permits.


Oh, and congrats to New Zealand - Peisandros must be very happy!