NationStates

Chromatik Sports Magazine The Rebel is putting on a 150,000 NMS (100,000 NSD) prediction contest to predict the WC 87 Qualification Playoffs.

For all interested please fill this out: (Thanks to Poafmersia)

Remember: Away goals rule applies!

Scoring will be as follows:

*1 point per correct result per leg (either predicting the winner or a draw)
*3 points per correct winner

Ties will be broken as follows:

*Total number of ties predicted correctly
*Total number of legs predicted correctly
*Total number of legs predicted with the correct GD
*Total Goal Differential predicted correctly
*Example: James Norrison and Richard Bigby are tied. James predicted Aland to beat Btopia by a score of 2-1, 3-2 (5-3). Richard predicted Aland to beat Btopia by a score of 2-0, 1-0 (3-0). The actual score was Aland over Btopia, 3-2, 3-1 (6-3). Both James and Richard get 2 points for picking the right winner per leg and 3 points for picking the right winner overall. If there were no other matches, Richard would win because he got the correct GD correctly (Aland, +3). In the event of a tie between two submissions, the overall GD of their predictions will be compared against the overall GD of the results for all eight matches, and whoever came closest to the over GD will win.

Please send me such info by 6:00 PM Pacific tomorrow night if you want your selection to be among those RPed.

W h e w .

Okay, OOC breath of relief aside, I'd like to point something out that's come up in a few RPs. While I'm happy it's become a talking point, Daniella Strauss wasn't fired from the Cormorants, but resigned because she didn't see a way to reverse the tailspin. Surprisingly, only three Nepharan managers (Shale, Fegelein, Brosque) have been sacked. By contrast, six Brenecians (Hemingway, Slatesaver, Granger, Bale, Cullen and Reid) have met that fate.

I deeply appreciate people mentioning me, because I am an irrepressible egomaniac, and have zero judgement for anyone making that slip - it's not realistic for anyone to have total knowledge of everything going on in qualifiers and I'm not going to pretend I do, either - but just wanted to nip that in the bud before, like, group previews got written about a slightly inaccurate narrative.

More generally, thanks to the hosts for a near-seamless qualification scorination, and for their openness and transparency throughout.

I stress that I have no grounds for complaint about the World Cup 87 outcome given that the tiebreakers were explicitly listed in the hosts' bid, and that this scenario was specifically catered for.

All the same.... I would suggest that future hosts try and avoid a repeat of this:

Ethane wrote:

                         Pld    W   D   L    GF   GA   GD   Pts 
 1 Trolleborg             18   14   0   4    52   29  +23    42
 2 The Holy Empire        18   13   3   2    48   25  +23    421
 3 Twicetagria            18   10   3   5    39   25  +14    33
 4 Maccian                18   10   2   6    45   30  +15    32
 5 Waisnor                18    8   3   7    30   32   −2    27
 6 Megistos               18    7   6   5    28   23   +5    27
 7 Red Kelp               18    6   4   8    30   38   −8    22
 8 Sulsuland              18    5   3  10    25   36  −11    18
 9 Yerapia                18    2   3  13    18   47  −29     9
10 Mand Blustopia         18    0   3  15    16   46  −30     3

1: The Holy Empire ties with Trolleborg on H2H Results, H2H Goal Difference, and Goal Difference. Therefore, Trolleborg finish first by winning the coin-flip (RP Bonus).

My concerns are that including the RP bonus as a tiebreaker - even as the final tiebreaker - introduces an element of subjective judgement in determining placement, which opens hosts up to having that judgement contested (which absolutely isn't happening here), while also potentially punishes people for having RL intervene. In my own case, I had a health issue that stopped me from posting my planned 'Tzimisces the Barbarian' RP yesterday. In the grand scheme of things, dealing with that health issue was far more important than random numbers in an online game; but all the same I find myself wondering this morning whether posting that RP would have made a difference.

I would suggest that in future that if it comes down to H2H Results, H2H Goal Difference, and Goal Difference all being identical - and it's worth remembering how startlingly unlikely this scenario actually is - that the hosts use a literal coin flip. It can't go to goals scored as that would favour teams choosing an attacking style modifier; a literal coin flip would be fairer.

Other than that, I would like to congratulate Trolleborg for qualifying top of the group, and thank him for the opportunity of contributing (in a very small way) to his excellent RP campaign.

First of all, I hope you're feeling better, THE.

With regards to the situation above: Wins is also a perfectly acceptable tiebreaker, which would have kept Trolleborg ahead of THE.

While I've always preferred 'RP Bonus' as an in-character coin-flip, I hadn't considered the situation above.

Perhaps another way of doing the flipped coin would be for the hosts to scorinate a match between the two teams in question, and use the winner as the winner of the coin flip. Straight up having a playoff by the tiebreaker would also work. also we need to use alphabetical order more

Audioslavia wrote:With regards to the situation above: Wins is also a perfectly acceptable tiebreaker, which would have kept Trolleborg ahead of THE.

An excellent point; that would very much work as an additional tiebreaker, and one which would minimise the chances of putting hosts in what could become an awkward position.

While I've always preferred 'RP Bonus' as an in-character coin-flip, I hadn't considered the situation above.

Perhaps another way of doing the flipped coin would be for the hosts to scorinate a match between the two teams in question, and use the winner as the winner of the coin flip.

There are undoubtedly a range of randomised mechanisms that would work, and which would avoid using RP bonuses as a final tiebreaker. I don't think we need be too prescriptive about the specific mechanism; I would merely recommend using a randomised mechanism over a subjective category for the final tiebreaker for the reasons outlined above. There are simple solutions to what's an unusual problem that hopefully won't happen too often.

And yes, I obviously recognise that we all accept that subjective judgements over RP bonuses impact the generation of random numbers; but using RP bonus only as the final tiebreaker means that said final tiebreaker is solely subjective, and is also potentially impacted by an individual's temporary inability to fully participate.



Two final points for clarity:

1) I stress again that I'm not remotely criticising our hosts for simply implementing a solution that's explicitly outlined in their bid. And yes, I freely acknowledge that it's only being personally impacted by how it works in practice that's made me question the implications.

2) I don't want to know what my RP bonus is, I certainly don't want to know what Trolleborg's RP bonus is, and I entirely trust our hosts' judgement on this specific point. I'm strongly against revealing what RP bonuses are, whether cumulative across a tournament or for individual matchdays, precisely because doing so opens up hosts to criticism about their judgement. My raising this issue is in part to protect future hosts against second-guessing of how they assign RP bonuses.

If I didn't know THE better, I would think that part of his complaint had to do with the difference in RP bonus between him and Trolleborg.

Having said that, I haven't been following this World Cup since I withdrew from it, so I wouldn't be in a position to fairly evaluate the two respective RPs, and I'm not sure I'd be able to even if I did.

As for not using total number of victories as a tiebreaker, that was part of the bid for whatever reasons the hosts had. I support the notion of using RP bonus as a final pre-RL coin flip as I have used that with tournaments I've hosted lately. Yes, it's subjective at times, but the only times I would potentially have been in position to apply it would have been between an active RPer and a non-active one.

It's pretty hard to do a direct search on "lots," "tiebreakers," "coin," etc. so please let me know if there is a useful precedent to cite here. But in our discussions, the WC85 host team noted that, while indeed this situation is rare, it's also the case that not every comparable situation will involve two active RPers. In the case where one participant with an equal record had posted a roster and several RPs, while the other had not, I think many of us can imagine it would be frustrating for the first to see the second advance on a coin flip. So once considerations of "default to the team with the roster bonus" are taken into account, then it's like, "where do you draw the line." (I'm not sure the line is impossible to draw, fwiw; I think you could IC-ify "roster bonus if only one team had it, else playoff" somehow.)

Also, in a situation like this, there are a couple cases where playoff seeding requires splitting ties between multiple teams with equal points and GD across different groups, and doing another pre-playoff playoff feels redundant, so it makes sense to have an alternate scheme. (In this particular "playoff seeding" case, where both teams are going to the playoffs anyway, I personally would be fine with literal drawing of lots/coin flip.)

I would definitely want any tie I was involved in, with all other criteria being equal, to be decided by something relevant to the competition, like cumulative RP bonus over something completely arbitrary and random like an actual flip of a coin or any other 100% random determination.

Sarzonia wrote:If I didn't know THE better, I would think that part of his complaint had to do with the difference in RP bonus between him and Trolleborg.

Again, absolutely not. I entirely trust our hosts, and I've gone out of my way to stress that I'm in no way questioning their judgement (while also freely acknowledging that I likely wouldn't have noticed if it hadn't happened in my group). They've simply done what their bid states they would do in this situation.

But I can see situations where this outcome might leave hosts exposed.

Newmanistan wrote:I would definitely want any tie I was involved in, with all other criteria being equal, to be decided by something relevant to the competition, like cumulative RP bonus over something completely arbitrary and random like an actual flip of a coin or any other 100% random determination.

I can respect that point of view too.

On that basis I like Audio's suggestion of generating a single scorinated match between the two parties as the equivalent of a simulated coin flip (and if it generates a draw, go to penalties). So, in this example, if Trolleborg had won the simulated 'match' 2-1, then they win the coin flip. That's a good middle ground that incorporates an RP bonus component while also mitigating against full subjectivity in the final determiner.

But I also very much like Audio's suggestion of adding 'matches won' as an additional tie-breaker - which would have still won the group for Trolleborg.


None of this is in any way a suggestion that we change any NSWC rules; but I hope it forms part of a constructive discussion on how tiebreakers are structured in bids moving forward.

Hope you're feeling better, THE.

Zwangzug wrote:So once considerations of "default to the team with the roster bonus" are taken into account, then it's like, "where do you draw the line." (I'm not sure the line is impossible to draw, fwiw)

Seconding this; using a one-game scorinated playoff as the "coin flip" has also been something I've seen in the past.

Nephara wrote:W h e w .

Okay, OOC breath of relief aside, I'd like to point something out that's come up in a few RPs. While I'm happy it's become a talking point, Daniella Strauss wasn't fired from the Cormorants, but resigned because she didn't see a way to reverse the tailspin.

That's me! I've corrected the error, b/c I believe in being accurate to others narratives. It's lazy prep, and I admit to not re-reading the circumstances. I did add a bit of critical license to cover up the mistake (media pressure).

The best solution for a final tiebreaker is a one-game playoff of an entirely different sport. Removes rank, because of course your football team doesn't know how to play baseball, but keep roster and RP bonus.

Behold! Yet one more weighted coin flip in an endless sea of weighted coin flips.

Alasdair I Frosticus wrote:Again, absolutely not.

If I can betray my slight irritation here, I clearly wrote "if I didn't know THE better," which should be an indication that I knew full well that didn't enter into your comments about the tiebreaking procedure chosen by the hosts. There was no need for a denial when I specifically said I wasn't accusing you of anything.

As much as I feel overall wins could have played a role in the tiebreaking procedures, it didn't, and that was part of the bid. Would I have preferred it factor in? Yes, though not ahead of head-to-head results. But we run a risk of enforced formulaic bids if we start requiring that all bids require certain tiebreaking procedures.

I prefer head-to-head results be the first tiebreaking procedure. Others don't. Let's not tie future hosts' hands more than we already are.

Sarzonia wrote:If I can betray my slight irritation here, I clearly wrote "if I didn't know THE better," which should be an indication that I knew full well that didn't enter into your comments about the tiebreaking procedure chosen by the hosts. There was no need for a denial when I specifically said I wasn't accusing you of anything.

To be honest, plenty of people (including myself) yes the "If I didn't know you better..." to raise that we have suspicions that they may be doing it for a particular reason but don't want to outright accuse them because it normally isn't something they do.

Which as you say isn't what you meant at all but different meanings in different parts of the world and also hard to sometimes gauge intent when written down

Mriin wrote:The best solution for a final tiebreaker is a one-game playoff of an entirely different sport. Removes rank, because of course your football team doesn't know how to play baseball, but keep roster and RP bonus.

Behold! Yet one more weighted coin flip in an endless sea of weighted coin flips.

I adore this (assuming it actually happens ICly too). Even better, make it a home-and-away playoff with each side choosing the sport for their home leg.

Tikariot wrote:Quick question concerning the playoffs.

1) Will pre or post WCQ87 KPBs applied?
2) Will the RP bonus from the WCQ carried over into the playoffs?

Thank you!

We will be using the pre-WCQ87 ranks, because in our view the playoffs are still part of the qualifiers. Rank usage should be consistent between different world cups and as far as we know, the pre-WCQ ranks have always been used in the case of playoffs - this precedent won't be broken now and I'd argue shouldn't be broken.

All RP bonus accrued during the WCQ will carry over into the playoffs.

Sarzonia wrote:As much as I feel overall wins could have played a roll in the tiebreaking procedures, it didn't, and that was part of the bid.

Just to be clear, when I suggested using Wins above, I had future tournaments in mind. I wasn't trying to influence this cup.

Savojarna wrote:

Mriin wrote:The best solution for a final tiebreaker is a one-game playoff of an entirely different sport. Removes rank, because of course your football team doesn't know how to play baseball, but keep roster and RP bonus.

Behold! Yet one more weighted coin flip in an endless sea of weighted coin flips.

I adore this (assuming it actually happens ICly too). Even better, make it a home-and-away playoff with each side choosing the sport for their home leg.

What you are describing there is literally how we used to score Calvinball.

Perhaps its time for another Hobbes Trophy?

Congratulations to our new President, Vice President and the Cup of Harmony hosts!

Tikariot & I appreciate the votes we received for our bid, and both of us wish nothing but the best to Cassadaigua & Northwest Kalactin.
The four of us took an unprecedented step of cooperating on the preliminary research--after the process of voting began--to identify potential invitees to the COH. Hopefully that will allow the winning bid to expedite the process of arranging the field.

Many thanks and much respect to our outgoing President, and well done to all 190 entrants to World Cup Qualifying.

Barunia wrote:What you are describing there is literally how we used to score Calvinball.

Perhaps its time for another Hobbes Trophy?

Did someone say Hobbes Trophy?

And with the Season 3 finale finally posted in olympics RP thread, with possibility for Season 6 (with different charcters) being raised as well:

The Wanderer's Guide to Somewhere megathread is finally up to date with the pieces from Season 4, which have taken place so far only in the WCQ87.

It's been an interesting experience- a bit shorter progression-wise but at least what's getting done was done. Let's see where they will head Playoff Leg 2. Of course, feel free to DM or TG me if you have questions about the series.

San Ortelio wrote:

Barunia wrote:What you are describing there is literally how we used to score Calvinball.

Perhaps its time for another Hobbes Trophy?

Did someone say Hobbes Trophy?

Yes please.

If anyone would like their nation's future to host Juan Tzimisces leading the Seven Cyber Samurai - basic plot shamelessly ripped off from The Seven Samurai / The Magnificent Seven - then TGs to this account, please.

Any additional details warmly welcomed; first-come first-served, as always.

Hey guys. The World Cup Finals Draw will take place on Sunday, at 2230 UTC/1730 EST on Discord. Hope to see you there!