WC 69 Bid - Apox & The Holy Empire "The Cup for Chaps"

[The Archregimancy]

The Bidding Nations

Apox

IC: The mundy nation of Apox is most certainly well equipped for a chap, our chaps winning the first Imperial Chap Olympiad, and the leader of that team, Sir Charles Smith-Smythe-Smith is one of the Apoxian bid's high profile members, having somehow managed to persuade the country of Apox to side with those chaps over in The Holy Empire. With regards to the actual sport which will be hosted here, Apox has a grand and improving football tradition, with a number of suitable stadiums at our disposal. Located in the centre of Esportiva, we are very much excited to be bidding to host again after our failed bid in World Cup 66.

OOC: Apox has been part of Nationstates and the NSSports sub-forums since joining in June 2012, nearly two years ago now. Since then, he has been involved in every World Cup since World Cup 61, qualifying for the 64th, 65th and 67th editions of the tournament. He also has plenty of hosting experience, hosting Baptism of Fire 50 and Cup of Harmony 56, along with two Campionato Esportiva's, two Friendly Cups. In addition to this, he has hosted GCF Cricket Season 4 and the World T20 Championships II, as well as running 14 seasons of domestic football and 12 seasons of domestic rugby.

The Holy Empire:

IC: The Imperial Secretariat of the Purple Inkwell, on behalf of his Imperial Majesty the Basileus, invites the mundy nations of Ordinary Reality back to the Dreamed Realm for the fourth World Cup to be co-hosted in our nation. We will keep reality stable (mostly) during your visit, and will do our best to adhere to linear conceptions of time for the duration. Facilities will be just what a chap would expect: club houses for the discerning gentleman, lady, and miscellaneous other; free gin and tonics; an ample supply of servants of your preferred species and ethnicity; and multiple opportunities to shout at foreigners. The stadia will be quite nice too. The Holy Empire Football Association, Imperial Secretariat of the Purple Inkwell, and State Bureau of Imperial Security look forward to welcoming you back to our nation.

OOC: The user behind the Holy Empire has hosted or co-hosted World Cups 2, 28, 34, and 50; he’s also co-hosted past Cups of Harmony and/or Baptisms of Fire, as well as the Chap Olympiad. Despite this extensive experience, he openly concedes that most of his hosting experience was “back in the olden days”, before NSFS and Xkorinate were much of a thing. This is why Apox is currently giving him full support with Xkorinate, and the two hosts are running a variety of simulations behind the scenes.

For clarity, the Holy Empire is the puppet of a moderator account; anyone concerned that this potentially causes a conflict of interest should feel free to object in this thread; their concerns will be taken on board.

Format
With this cup looking like it will reach 180-200 sign-ups, it is clear that this will be a big cup, numbers wise. We would prefer smaller groups and a shorter qualification format, though we'll adapt the precise format to the number of sign-ups; we welcome questions on hypothetical sign-up numbers and the impact on the format of qualification groups. Smaller groups and shorter qualification campaigns will, however, likely necessitate some form of playoff system; it’s here that the precise number of participants will have the most impact.

RP Bonuses
RP bonus will be cumulative and not carry over from the qualifiers to the finals. RP's will be judged on a flexible scale (by flexible we mean scores such as 0.4, 1.52 and 1.234 are all possibilities). RP will be judged on creativity and effort, with quality carrying weight over quantity. That being said, while you don't need to write a full length novel to gain a high bonus, two lines of RP along the lines of “my team won today and my best player scored both goals; this makes me happy” will clearly not achieve much of a bonus.

Scorinator
We would use the most recent version of Xkoranate, with the SQIS formula. We would be using a full range of additive styles modifiers ranging from -5 to +5.

Tiebreakers
Points
Head to head points
Goal difference
Goals scored

Extra RP Incentives
It’s a World Cup for chaps. Rah. No one will be forced to engage with the RP theme, and no extra bonus will accrue to nations that do, but opportunities will be provided during the finals – not least via the provision of chap-themed training and accommodation facilities for finalists – to engage in suitably chap-like activities. We hope this will provide some extra RP colour without in any way constraining participants who want to take a specific RP approach.

“Chap” is considered gender- and species-neutral in this context, though some nations may choose to refer to “chapettes” for female participants. AIF will run the second edition of the Imperial Chap Olympiad for 16 nations during the Baptism of Fire so as to provide additional sporting context.

We welcome any questions you might have over the specifics of this bid.


Edit: I co-hosted WC 34, not 36; d'oh.

[Patistan]

Why Xkoronate ? Not that I am objecting it.

[Liventia]

Why Xkoronate ? Not that I am objecting it.

Um… surely you meant to ask why SQIS. Xkoranate is the catch-all scorinator for football, after all; it's the three different formulae within it that matter.

[Patistan]

Why Xkoronate ? Not that I am objecting it.

Um… surely you meant to ask why SQIS. Xkoranate is the catch-all scorinator for football, after all; it's the three different formulae within it that matter.

Yes I do mean why SQIS,thanks for correcting me.

[Yttribia]

Strong bid, but quick question on the tiebreaker. What if both teams are tied after goals scored? Will the team with a higher RP bonus go on, or a play off match take place? Or whoever uses the word "chaps" more often in their RPs move on?

[Saintland]

I'm not particularly concerned that one of the bidders is the puppet of a moderator and would probably consider that an asset (because a moderator, like a host, must stay impartial). I've also voted for a previous World Cup bid from Apox in the past, so I have no concerns regarding either bidder hosting the World Cup. Who would have thought that the only bid so far, for either tournament, that didn't take a shot at the Casaran format is the bid which includes a bidder who actually proposed an (unsuccessful) Constitutional amendment to ban the format?

My questions are regarding timing, format and opening/closing of the signup thread. How long after the signup thread is frozen (this weekend) would you, ideally, prefer to start World Cup qualifying? If we're looking at a month or more until the World Cup starts, would you have reopen the signup thread for an additional period of time or keep it closed? Do you consider a run on the signup thread likely 2 days from now, when the RL World Cup starts? If so and if it becomes clear that we're going to see a record field (larger than last summer's 202), what would be your upper limit for signups? Would any of the nations that are currently entered for the World Cup be excluded for purposes of holding the numbers down?

I also have an IC question, for the hosts, involving my other nation. Would any Republican players or staff be subject to arrest, in the event that they qualify for the WC finals, for any past crimes that they may or may not have committed?

[Absurdly Polite Gentlemen]

Considering my nation name, this bid makes me very happy. Although I don't have a vote, good luck to you. (Although, surely chaps use excel, not this new fangled stuff ).

[The Sarian]

Considering my nation name, this bid makes me very happy. Although I don't have a vote, good luck to you. (Although, surely chaps use excel, not this new fangled stuff :p).

Excel! A gentlemen uses his wit and infinite knowledge to scorinate.

[Valanora]

No concerns really, it's a solid looking bid, though I am a bit curious as to your choice for having SQIS, again, as well as having head to head over goal difference in the tiebreakers.

[Buyan]

Format
With this cup looking like it will reach 180-200 sign-ups, it is clear that this will be a big cup, numbers wise. We would prefer smaller groups and a shorter qualification format, though we'll adapt the precise format to the number of sign-ups; we welcome questions on hypothetical sign-up numbers and the impact on the format of qualification groups. Smaller groups and shorter qualification campaigns will, however, likely necessitate some form of playoff system; it’s here that the precise number of participants will have the most impact.

As demanded by them jolly chaps, what will the format on 180 teams (I suppose in groups of six, but with or without play-offs?) and 192 teams (I suppose ye good old 24x8?)?

[Western Sunrise Islands]

Y'know. *looks at logo* It's because of people like you that people like me and Wolfie are starving.

I don't have any problem with this as long as you don't have any problem with me winning it.

[Free Republics]

I don't have any problem with this as long as you don't have any problem with me winning it.

That won't happen.

Western Sunrise Islands has a KPB of 0, so...

[Nova Anglicana]

No concerns really, it's a solid looking bid, though I am a bit curious as to your choice for having SQIS, again, as well as having head to head over goal difference in the tiebreakers.

Why wouldn't you want H2H over GD? If two teams have the same record, then one should look at how they did against each other. If you use GD, it penalizes teams for not running up the score when they can, especially teams with negative style modifiers. A win is a win, no matter how much you win by.

Everything else looks good to me. Toodle pip and all that.

[Super-Llamaland]

No concerns really, it's a solid looking bid, though I am a bit curious as to your choice for having SQIS, again, as well as having head to head over goal difference in the tiebreakers.

Why wouldn't you want H2H over GD? If two teams have the same record, then one should look at how they did against each other. If you use GD, it penalizes teams for not running up the score when they can, especially teams with negative style modifiers. A win is a win, no matter how much you win by.

Everything else looks good to me. Toodle pip and all that.

Small sample size.

I mean, why would you penalize a team for losing, in the case of the World Cup Finals, one game? That's just opening things up to randomness more than a RD tiebreaker would.

Tiebreakers aside, a solid bid.

[Liventia]

I mean, why would you penalize a team for losing, in the case of the World Cup Finals, one game?

So in the second round, quarter-finals, semifinals and final we shouldn't penalise a team for losing one game? That argument makes no sense. There are legit arguments for GD over H2H but that is not one.

[Nephara]

No concerns really, it's a solid looking bid, though I am a bit curious as to your choice for having SQIS, again, as well as having head to head over goal difference in the tiebreakers.

Why wouldn't you want H2H over GD? If two teams have the same record, then one should look at how they did against each other. If you use GD, it penalizes teams for not running up the score when they can, especially teams with negative style modifiers. A win is a win, no matter how much you win by.

It does penalise teams for not winning 4-0 instead of 1-0. Why is this a bad thing in any way? A 4-0 win is generally speaking a fairly crushing one, 1-0 a narrow one.

[Nova Anglicana]

Why wouldn't you want H2H over GD? If two teams have the same record, then one should look at how they did against each other. If you use GD, it penalizes teams for not running up the score when they can, especially teams with negative style modifiers. A win is a win, no matter how much you win by.

It does penalise teams for not winning 4-0 instead of 1-0. Why is this a bad thing in any way? A 4-0 win is generally speaking a fairly crushing one, 1-0 a narrow one.

Because a win is a win, and fluky **** can happen to make a 4-0 win a 4-0 win, or a team could win 1-0 with five shots off the crossbar. If you win, you get the three points and that's all that should matter, especially when the score is generated by a program. Additionally, it penalizes teams with negative style mods, who are less likely to win by many goals. You should want teams to have an equal chance of advancement regardless of style. The simplest argument I can make is that you shouldn't see a team you beat advance in front of or instead of you when you have the same number of points.

[Nephara]

It does penalise teams for not winning 4-0 instead of 1-0. Why is this a bad thing in any way? A 4-0 win is generally speaking a fairly crushing one, 1-0 a narrow one.

Because a win is a win, and fluky **** can happen to make a 4-0 win a 4-0 win, or a team could win 1-0 with five shots off the crossbar. If you win, you get the three points and that's all that should matter, especially when the score is generated by a program. Additionally, it penalizes teams with negative style mods, who are less likely to win by many goals. You should want teams to have an equal chance of advancement regardless of style. The simplest argument I can make is that you shouldn't see a team you beat advance in front of or instead of you when you have the same number of points.

A 4-0 win almost always means a more convincing victory than a 1-0 win. That 'fluky shit' can just as easily turn a 1-0 win into a 1-1 draw, so it's not really a valid point.

IIRC style modifiers don't actually change the difference in goals in the win? Just whether it's 2-0 or 4-2? I could be wrong on that point, but it's what I've heard.

Either way - we're derailing the point. Particularly as H2H isn't exactly a dealbreaker for me, and I'm still very happy to vote for this bid.

[Alasdair I Frosticus]

Apox and I haven't forgotten you - we're just consulting quickly via e-mail over the questions you raise so as to make sure we're on the same wavelength.

We both think consultation and communication between the hosts are key to a successful hosting experience, and don't want to answer unilaterally.

But on one point...

Considering my nation name, this bid makes me very happy. Although I don't have a vote, good luck to you. (Although, surely chaps use excel, not this new fangled stuff ).

Excel?

EXCEL?

Back in my day, we used dice, old chap.

[Equestrian States]

IIRC style modifiers don't actually change the difference in goals in the win? Just whether it's 2-0 or 4-2? I could be wrong on that point, but it's what I've heard.

No, that's a common misconception, but style modifiers do have an impact on the margin of victories/defeats, not just how many goals are scored in a match. A team with a +5 style mod is far more likely to be involved in a blowout than one with a -5 style mod. That misconception probably is fueled by the results of draws, where a +5 team might have a 3-3 draw, while a -5 team might have a 0-0 draw.

Anyways, in regards to the bid itself, it has my full support.

[Zwangzug]

Style mod discussion here. Additive system, which this bid is proposing, does not usually change GD, except on the lowest-scoring end.

Both experienced and qualified, thanks for bidding, huzzah chaps, and all that.

[Jeckland]

What will your RP scale be?


Good bid though. Thanks for saving us all

[Mizuyuki]

I say, chaps, absolutely spiffing job setting this up. Chapeau to you.

Goes without saying that you have our chaps' full support.

[Absurdly Polite Gentlemen]

Apox and I haven't forgotten you - we're just consulting quickly via e-mail over the questions you raise so as to make sure we're on the same wavelength.

We both think consultation and communication between the hosts are key to a successful hosting experience, and don't want to answer unilaterally.

But on one point...

Considering my nation name, this bid makes me very happy. Although I don't have a vote, good luck to you. (Although, surely chaps use excel, not this new fangled stuff ).

Excel?

EXCEL?

Back in my day, we used dice, old chap.

Dice? Dice? A gentleman is inclined to preserve noble traditions, not barbaric ones like dice.

[Alasdair I Frosticus]

Answers to most of the questions raised so far (following consultation between the bid partners):

1) SQIS - This was Apox's decision as the proposed co-host most familiar with Xkoranate. Based on his own personal experience, he thinks it provides the right balance of rank, random and RP. If others disagree, we obviously fully respect that; but until Commerce Heights finishes programming his fully sentient AI scorinator, we're all likely to have preferences one way or another. We hope that those who prefer a different formula will nonetheless not see this as a deal-breaker.

2) Saintland's various points - Some of these are hypotheticals, but we'll do our best. We have no way of knowing how, or even if, the brief overlap between the RLWC starting and sign-ups closing will have any impact on sign-ups. Our current hypothetical preferred upper limit would be 210 nations (30 groups of 7), with a current mild preference for 192 (24 groups of 8 ). Whether we open sign-ups again depends on where we stand this weekend when sign-ups close. We would very much prefer not to remove signed-up nations if at all possible. If, however, this becomes necessary, we would first ask for volunteer puppet withdrawals (first come, first served); if these are not forthcoming, then we would start removing puppets starting with the most recent sign-up. Timing's not entirely in our hands - it in part depends on the BoF; but our preferred start would be in the second half of July. IC'ly, the Holy Empire's security bodies wouldn't deign to consider alleged mundy crimes carried out in mundy realities to be in any way significant; Apox may see things differently, of course. If we missed something there, please let us know.

3) H2H v. goal difference - As Zwangzug has pointed out, Xkoranate doesn't have as much impact on goal difference as is sometimes assumed. However as A) there's a possible small impact in certain circumstances and B) there's a widespread perception that it does make a difference, we think starting with H2H results makes marginally more sense in the specific context of the NSWC (though not necessarily in RL, where AIF certainly prefers goal difference). Doing so may help slightly mitigate against a rush to use high style modifiers in the mistaken belief that this offers an advantage.

But realistically, H2H v. goal difference is largely a matter of taste so long as the scorinator doesn't overly reward high style modifiers; and Xkoranate doesn't - though colour this co-host slightly surprised that it's the issue that seems to have raised the most debate (even if no one really considers it a deal-breaker).

4) Tie-breakers - in the highly unlikely event that we need a tie-breaker to decide first and second group placements after goals scored, we would hold a one-match playoff in a neutral venue (likely one of the hosts), not use RP bonus. RP bonus is an OOC in-game mechanic, and using it would break the fourth wall in a way that might make many participants uncomfortable. It would also force us to publicly announce which nation was the better RP'er in our opinion, making qualification dependent on the subjective judgement of the hosts. That would be an uncomfortable precedent.

5) Hypothetical qualification formats - at this point we consider 180 an unlikely number of sign-ups; we're already at 182 nations, and we'd prefer to go up if at all possible, as already outlined. Our preferred format for 192 nations would be as follows:
- 24 groups of 8
- top 12 group winners (decided on the basis of, in order: points, goal difference, most goals scored, fewest goals conceded) qualify automatically
- remaining 12 group winners and all 24 second-placed teams go into a traditional home and away playoff to choose remaining 18 qualifiers
- playoffs would be seeded on strict basis of rank; so highest-ranked playoff team would play against the lowest-ranked, second-highest against second-lowest, and so on.

6) RP scale - I typically refuse to outline the quantified specifics of the RP system (broad outlines, fine) as this potentially causes a small minority of nations to think of ways in which they can RP to the best advantage of their nation's results rather than RPing for fun.

Do please let us know if we've inadvertently forgotten something....


And the most crucial point of all:

Dice? Dice? A gentleman is inclined to preserve noble traditions, not barbaric ones like dice.

I must respectfully disagree, old chap. When resting in the evening after a hard day spent shooting defenceless big game, as one's punkawallah does his utmost to keep the group cool, there's nothing that quite beats a gentleman's wager over a G&T. It was quite the fashion under the Prince Regent, you may recall, and one which I regret has gone slightly out of fashion in these more straitlaced times. It's even frowned upon these days to seduce the punkawallah's daughter, which I'm sure you'll agree is the primary cause of those frequent sighs of regret among the chaps back at the club.