The World Cup Discussion Thread (OOC, Version IV)

[The Archregimancy]

I also hope that special precautions are taken to ensure that San Jose Guayabal and Gregoryisnotgodistan are not drawn together.

This would run counter to procedure.

In order to guarantee neutrality, group draws are generally solely determined by rank and the identity of the hosts; IC RP issues are not a factor.

[Eura]

<snip> I think the results speak for themselves <snip>

This is your WCQ on SQIS

In both the sims, seven first-seeded nations finished second and had to go to a playoff. In both the sims, four of the seven nations that beat out the top seed for the top position RPed more.

I don't think its a good idea to go by 'RPing more' alone; who are you referring to specifically that RPed more than the top seed they beat? Its just you're confidently asserting that it was four out of seven for both and it would be nice to see how you came to this figure. For example, with non-first seeds who came top in the SQIS test, did Kandorith RP more than PIS, did SUS RP more than me, Sargossa more than THE? Or are these not the four you mention? I think this is worth asking.

And how do you factor in the subjective input of quality of RP? You don't know what RP bonuses ESF gave out. It might well be that X user RP'ed more than another user they finished ahead of in X sim, but the host won't give the same bonus to every RP.

Also, I have to agree that your comment about Vilita was unfair. You don't know their real life circumstances and maybe it would be better to withdraw that comment. That would be like saying PIS has been just intending to coast on rank when he's not RP'ed much in some recent cycles, when really its because he has major IRL commitments.

[Apox]

So in short: both scorinators have their flaws; someone is always screwed over; RL>NS; it's in the enjoyment, not the winning with NS.

Crikey, seriously heavy stuff over the last few pages - my response is to have a beer with my feet up after a long days work

Anyway, congrats to those who have thus far qualified, and to KryBec for becoming the hosts of the CoH. Good luck to all those in the play-offs and big thanks and congratulations to Valanora for doing all of the scorinating for qualifying!

[Eura]

So in short: both scorinators have their flaws; someone is always screwed over; RL>NS; it's in the enjoyment, not the winning with NS.

Crikey, seriously heavy stuff over the last few pages - my response is to have a beer with my feet up after a long days work

Anyway, congrats to those who have thus far qualified, and to KryBec for becoming the hosts of the CoH. Good luck to all those in the play-offs and big thanks and congratulations to Valanora for doing all of the scorinating for qualifying!

You're too reasonable, El Presidente.

[Stellonia]

I second Yttribia's proposal, by the way.

[Yttribia]

I second Yttribia's proposal, by the way.

Thanks for that, but sadly you cannot second my proposal due to the fact you are not a member of the WCC.

[Free Republics]

I second Yttribia's proposal, by the way.

Thanks for that, but sadly you cannot second my proposal due to the fact you are not a member of the WCC.

The requirement for membership, of course, being posting a roster in the 2 most recently completed World Cups (currently World Cups 70 and 71).

[Krytenia]

Thanks for that, but sadly you cannot second my proposal due to the fact you are not a member of the WCC.

The requirement for membership, of course, being posting a roster in the 2 most recently completed World Cups (currently World Cups 70 and 71).

Unless, of course, you've previously hosted the damn thing. Yup, as soon as I'm done getting my host on, I can get my votes on.

Also, thanks to the eight people who voted for me, and also thanks to the six who voted for someone else in what was otherwise a miserable turnout.

[Yttribia]

Kry, you're great, but I have a terrible feeling this will be you after MD 3 of the World Cup Finals.

[Krytenia]

Kry, you're great, but I have a terrible feeling this will be you after MD 3 of the World Cup Finals.

(Image)

Hmm...maybe I should get drawn with Pasarga to "conquer the streak".

[Flardania]

As the people on IRC know, but as an experiment, I ran two scorinations throughout the qualifiers, one with NSFS as the official and the other with SQIS, using the same RP bonus and modifiers, to compare the two. I think the results speak for themselves and why I prefere NSFS, though both are flawed creations as I said a few days ago.

This is your WCQ on SQIS

Yay still finished fourth

[Flardania]

Kry, you're great, but I have a terrible feeling this will be you after MD 3 of the World Cup Finals.

(Image)

Yas the WWE references lol

[Polar Islandstates]

So in short: both scorinators have their flaws; someone is always screwed over; RL>NS; it's in the enjoyment, not the winning with NS.

Crikey, seriously heavy stuff over the last few pages - my response is to have a beer with my feet up after a long days work

Anyway, congrats to those who have thus far qualified, and to KryBec for becoming the hosts of the CoH. Good luck to all those in the play-offs and big thanks and congratulations to Valanora for doing all of the scorinating for qualifying!

You're too reasonable, El Presidente.

...elect.

[Gregoryisgodistan]

Due to Valanora's successful scorination of the World Cup Qualifiers on her own, I would like to repropose an amendment to the Constitution in Subsection 2.3.2, regarding hosting of the World Cup.

2.3.2 Hosting
i) Any nation that has previously participated in a World Cup, and participated in its most recently completed edition, may bid to host the World Cup, except if the user has co-hosted the previous World Cup.
ii) Two-host bids are the preferred format, though any number of hosts are acceptable.
iii) The WCC will be directed by the President to vote: a) for one of the offered bids, b) to officially abstain, or c) to re-open the process for new bids.
iv) 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.[/blocktext]

Obviously, the WCC will prefer that two nations bid, but I do not see the problem in users such as Valanora, Krytenia, Saintland/FFR hosting the World Cup on their own.

I almost certainly wouldn't vote for a solo bid for the World Cup, even unopposed, but I support this for a few reasons.

1. If people don't want a solo host, then said host won't win. It's like previous motions to ban certain formats, all of which failed even though a majority of people didn't like the format in question. Only in reverse.
2. It clears up any doubt as to whether Valanora solo hosting in the event EQS is still AWOL would be legal.

In any case, seconded.

I also hope that special precautions are taken to ensure that San Jose Guayabal and Gregoryisnotgodistan are not drawn together.

This would run counter to procedure.

In order to guarantee neutrality, group draws are generally solely determined by rank and the identity of the hosts; IC RP issues are not a factor.

Indeed, and we have been drawn in a group with SJG multiple times in the past, including the most recent Cup of Harmony. Likewise with Saintland and Free Republics. Of course, I will honor my opponent's RP Permissions, Enemy List or not, and would expect them to honor mine. Not that my RP permissions are very restrictive - just don't do anything if you're not OK with me reciprocating (which is usually implied anyway) and don't kill Lord Almighty Gregory. That being said, I have assassinated a head of state in an RP once, but that was with FFR's permission (in fact, it was his idea) and we both knew he wouldn't reciprocate due to the fact that nobody believes us IC-ly. They all believe it was either Feministvs Sanctvsterra or a false flag by the Holy Party.

[Krytenia]

I swear, I've been the subject of more stuff in the WCDT in the last 48 hours than in the last decade.

Seriously, it's good to be back. I've missed you guys.

[San Jose Guayabal]

Seconding Yttribia's proposal for Constitutional Amendment.

In both the sims, seven first-seeded nations finished second and had to go to a playoff. In both the sims, four of the seven nations that beat out the top seed for the top position RPed more.

I don't think the results speak for themselves. At all.

Remember a couple of things, nations from the 6th or 7th place of the rankings to 32nd or 33rd have among themselves little difference ranking-wise, second, the effort factor, some of those second seeded teams RPed a lot during Qualifying and taking advantage of the little difference compared to a 65-70% of Pot 1 teams, such gap could have receive an overcome during the WC Qualifiers (depends on the amount of bonus gave from ESF), I say that because I'm one of those four of seven second pot nations who RPed more and a seven KPB points gap with constant and decent RPing could be overcome easily, in my opinion.

I was clearly against NSFS but this WCQ made me change my mind and demonstrated that NSFS is a reliable formula for WC, well, at least in the sim, I'm on the same position with the same amount of points, but unbeaten

Indeed, and we have been drawn in a group with SJG multiple times in the past, including the most recent Cup of Harmony. Likewise with Saintland and Free Republics. Of course, I will honor my opponent's RP Permissions, Enemy List or not, and would expect them to honor mine. Not that my RP permissions are very restrictive - just don't do anything if you're not OK with me reciprocating (which is usually implied anyway) and don't kill Lord Almighty Gregory. That being said, I have assassinated a head of state in an RP once, but that was with FFR's permission (in fact, it was his idea) and we both knew he wouldn't reciprocate due to the fact that nobody believes us IC-ly. They all believe it was either Feministvs Sanctvsterra or a false flag by the Holy Party.

Regarding to the situation that Stellonia raised, it's not a major deal, as GGS said, I always respect RP permissions (There has been accidents before but that's because the rival RP's before me and I have been writing my RP hours before, considering that I do a grammar check of them because I'm not a native English speaker) and I'd not be against them, I normally shoot TG's before RPing to have joint RP plans and avoid any kind of problem, specially with GGS and also, he does the same, both of us reciprocate.

[Lons]

On SQIS:

P  Group 13                           Pld    W   D   L    GF   GA   GD   Pts
1 The Holy Republican Empire          14   10   2   2    37   20  +17    32
2 Eastfield Lodge                     14    9   4   1    39   21  +18    31
3 Buyan                               14    8   5   1    24   13  +11    29
4 Cosumar                             14    7   2   5    34   25   +9    23

I thought SQIS was meant to be less random...

Meanwhile NSFS puts Lons in fourth... It's random all around~

[Vilita]

Due to Valanora's successful scorination of the World Cup Qualifiers on her own, I would like to repropose an amendment to the Constitution in Subsection 2.3.2, regarding hosting of the World Cup.



Obviously, the WCC will prefer that two nations bid, but I do not see the problem in users such as Valanora, Krytenia, Saintland/FFR hosting the World Cup on their own.

I almost certainly wouldn't vote for a solo bid for the World Cup, even unopposed, but I support this for a few reasons.

1. If people don't want a solo host, then said host won't win. It's like previous motions to ban certain formats, all of which failed even though a majority of people didn't like the format in question. Only in reverse.
2. It clears up any doubt as to whether Valanora solo hosting in the event EQS is still AWOL would be legal.

In any case, seconded.

I think people are forgetting one thing here. Maybe not, but just going to bring it up.

We're currently all worked up (in a positive way) about a single host World Cup. But the World Cup hasn't even started yet. The World Cup is the 32 team tournament that is going to start next week. Typically in a two-host World Cup, a host does not score their own matches. The proposed wording would open the door for that to be eliminated, which may not be as widely supported a thing as the idea of a solo host scorinating an entire qualification term that they are not participating in, or participate in only with a puppet nation as was the case here.

So, before we go down the path of changing the constitution, I'd recommend putting some context around the situation. While I'm certain that there are users among us capable of successfully Solo hosting a large group stage competition and/or a standard format 32 team tournament, opening the door for a host months or years in the future to solo-scorinate themselves to the World Cup title may be an overlooked unintended consequence of trying to retrofit the constitution for this likely one-off situation.

[New Wolfopolis]

I almost certainly wouldn't vote for a solo bid for the World Cup, even unopposed, but I support this for a few reasons.

1. If people don't want a solo host, then said host won't win. It's like previous motions to ban certain formats, all of which failed even though a majority of people didn't like the format in question. Only in reverse.
2. It clears up any doubt as to whether Valanora solo hosting in the event EQS is still AWOL would be legal.

In any case, seconded.

I think people are forgetting one thing here. Maybe not, but just going to bring it up.

We're currently all worked up (in a positive way) about a single host World Cup. But the World Cup hasn't even started yet. The World Cup is the 32 team tournament that is going to start next week. Typically in a two-host World Cup, a host does not score their own matches. The proposed wording would open the door for that to be eliminated, which may not be as widely supported a thing as the idea of a solo host scorinating an entire qualification term that they are not participating in, or participate in only with a puppet nation as was the case here.

So, before we go down the path of changing the constitution, I'd recommend putting some context around the situation. While I'm certain that there are users among us capable of successfully Solo hosting a large group stage competition and/or a standard format 32 team tournament, opening the door for a host months or years in the future to solo-scorinate themselves to the World Cup title may be an overlooked unintended consequence of trying to retrofit the constitution for this likely one-off situation.

A solution to this could be adding in an addendum of a required third-party scorinator. This, of course, would add more language, and I agree with Vilita that we can probably go around the constitution for a situation not likely to come up again.

[Free Republics]

Would it not also be possible for somebody to solo bid for the BoF and scorinate their puppet to a BoF title or solo bid for the CoH and scorinate their nation to a CoH title? Is it not also possible for the host of a World Bowl or a World Cup of Hockey or a World Baseball Classic or an IBC or a Rugby World Cup to scorinate themselves to a title?

If a solo host is refusing to allow a third party scorinator, its the job of the voters to vote down the bid if that is stated in the bid or of the EWCC to remove the host if this is revealed mid-tournament. By the time you're experienced enough and trusted enough to be allowed to bid solo for the World Cup, you would know that you're expected to find a third party scorinator if you advance to the knockout rounds.

The main value of allowing solo bids, as I see it, is for those emergency situations where there is only one person interested in bidding for the World Cup or somebody who has strong objections to a bid wishes to put forward a competing bid. Its easier to get votes against a bid if there's an alternative to vote for and its certainly easier to get a bid in a timely manner if a prospective host can solo bid rather than having to wait for a co-host when they find no interest.

[Vilita]

I find it far more likely that people will neglect to put something in their bid about third party scorinators, and the generally-accepting populous would neglect to ask about it, then I would expect us to be in a situation where we can only find a solo bid for the World Cup and the need to accept that solo bid is so urgent that it couldn't wait the week for the WCC to, at that time, approve a temporary modification to the constitution to consider and allow it; which would probably be the far more prudent approach. No tournament can wreak more havoc on rankings, and the entire core of this game than the World Cup finals themselves. The BoF and CoH are mere drops in the bucket, minor competitions with minimal impact on anything in the grand scheme of things.

I think I'd rather force folks a year, 2 years, 3 years from now to consider the implications of a solo host by being forced to stop, think about it, and discuss whether it is appropriate in that situation, at that time, then I would to constitutionally give them the ability to not give the situation the diligence it deserved.

While people have gotten excited over the idea of a Solo host world cup, lets face the facts. We just *happened* to have this situation fortunately occur in a cup that was incidentally co-hosted, and thereby solo-hosted by the single user who has hosted the World Cup more times than any other single user, ever, in its history.

Take note: This literally was the best possible scenario for a solo-host world cup. Any future scenario would at absolute best be identical, could not be any more fortuitous in any situation, and would in all likelihood be less desirable than the situation we ended up with this cup. We've experienced what could only be described as the pinnacle of Solo-hosting, not by any means a 'median' case that should be used as justification for swooping constitutional changes to be applied to all future tournaments and prospective hosts.

As such, while I supported this amendment originally, I'm changing my position, and I think it would be most prudent if we let the WCC decide, at that future point that a solo host is actually needed, if it is truly required and/or appropriate given their circumstances, and not open the door for anyone to attempt to ignore the 2-host process which is in place for reasons that go beyond a users trustworthyness or experience at hosting a tournament, but also to account for such extenuating circumstances as we saw here.

If anything, World Cup 72 is a shining example of why the system is the way it is, and why it works as is, not why it should be changed. The only reason we're having the conversation is because EQS went AWOL just before MD1, instead of just after it.

[Gregoryisgodistan]

I almost certainly wouldn't vote for a solo bid for the World Cup, even unopposed, but I support this for a few reasons.

1. If people don't want a solo host, then said host won't win. It's like previous motions to ban certain formats, all of which failed even though a majority of people didn't like the format in question. Only in reverse.
2. It clears up any doubt as to whether Valanora solo hosting in the event EQS is still AWOL would be legal.

In any case, seconded.

I think people are forgetting one thing here. Maybe not, but just going to bring it up.

We're currently all worked up (in a positive way) about a single host World Cup. But the World Cup hasn't even started yet. The World Cup is the 32 team tournament that is going to start next week. Typically in a two-host World Cup, a host does not score their own matches. The proposed wording would open the door for that to be eliminated, which may not be as widely supported a thing as the idea of a solo host scorinating an entire qualification term that they are not participating in, or participate in only with a puppet nation as was the case here.

So, before we go down the path of changing the constitution, I'd recommend putting some context around the situation. While I'm certain that there are users among us capable of successfully Solo hosting a large group stage competition and/or a standard format 32 team tournament, opening the door for a host months or years in the future to solo-scorinate themselves to the World Cup title may be an overlooked unintended consequence of trying to retrofit the constitution for this likely one-off situation.

And that's one of several reasons I would never vote for a solo bid for the World Cup or Cup of Harmony under any circumstances. But if it's what the majority of WCC members want, so be it. Valanora hosted the CoH solo a few cycles ago, the last cycle before I got WCC membership, and if I had a vote, I would have voted for RoN as it was only running against another solo bid. No offense to Valanora, she was plenty qualified, but I would not vote for a solo bid no matter what. But if it's what the majority of voters want, or there's an emergency like now, I see no issue with allowing it.

As I said earlier, this is the reverse of motions to ban the Casararan, or two matchday per real day formats. It's to permit something that a majority of people probably don't want to happen. But if you don't want a solo bid, don't vote for a solo bid. Vote for RON over a solo bid if you have to. I would. I would vote for RON over a format proposing multiple matchdays per real day too, and over a Casaran bid as well. But motions to ban those formats have failed and haven't come close to passing. The lesson learned is there's no reason not to allow a format that people don't like when they can just not vote for it.

[Vilita]

But this has nothing to do with format, and everything to do with ensuring future hostbids have 2 users with access to the main files, so if one of them unexpectedly disapears during qualifying, the WC machine marches on.

Format & Number of hosts are not the same topic. Format is independent of the number of users who are executing it.

Theres nothing broken with the system, and the constitution, as written, did its job perfectly in World Cup 72. We protected ourselves from delays by ensuring there were two hosts, not just one. If this were elected as an EQS Solo-Bid World Cup, we would all be regretting right now changing the constitution for something that was never needed before.

Yes, people *could* just not vote for a solo WC bid. But if we open the door to not having co-hosted bids, and it becomes the norm, its going to eventually bite us in the ass, and we'll revert to re-writing the constitution again to require co-hosts for the exact same reason it was originally done.

I'd rather allow a host to continue on a solo-basis only as an emergency measure, then to accept it as the norm by allowing it in the constitution. Again, the system, as defined in the constitution, worked this cup *because* we require co-hosts, not in spite of it. Changing the constitution as a result is an improper reaction.

[Alasdair I Frosticus]

After careful consideration, I'm going to vote against the proposed amendment for the reasons outlined by Vilita.

We've been exceptionally lucky that we had a co-host go missing when the other co-host was the most experienced host in WC history - and we should all be very grateful to Valanora/ESF for stepping in like this - but taking the long view, I'm not sure how many people realise that we've dodged a bullet here.

For those in favour of the amendment on the basis of Valanora's excellent solo hosting job here in WC72, let me ask you three questions of varying importance relating to a single host tournament:

1) Other than moral pressure, how do you guarantee that the host won't self-scorinate?

2) What do you do if the host announces half-way through qualification that due to unexpected RL pressures, the rest of the tournament is going to be delayed by another three weeks?

3) What do you do if the host goes completely AWOL half-way through qualification taking all of the relevant scorination files - particularly, but not exclusively, the RP bonuses - with him/her?

This isn't a matter of giving everyone more choice in hosting formats - it's a fundamental logistical issue in ensuring the smooth operation of this forum's longest-running and most successful tournament.

All due credit to Valanora for rescuing us from a difficult situation here in WC72, but I'm not sure that we really want to consider this a viable precedent.



Granted, I've solo hosted a tournament before, but that was all the way back in WC2, we didn't have qualifiers or RP bonuses, and all I had to do was roll dice to generate scores; following the no self-scorination precedent I personally established in WC1, when I rolled the dice for Ariddia's results, Ariddia generated my results for me. Things are very different twelve years on.

[Flardania]

I can't vote since I will not be on the committee until after this cup of Harmony . However I must urge everyone to not jump to conclusions and assume a solo host would be beneficial for all the reasons above. If you don't find co-hosting realistic enough, find a cohost bid that has all the games played in one nation even though their are two people scorinating or something. But a solo bid should only be an emergency not a potential standard.