The World Cup Discussion Thread (OOC, Version IV)

[Strike]

Journalists are taught not only to avoid a conflict of interest, but to avoid anything that might APPEAR to be a conflict of interest. We might do well to follow that example.

While this is true, I will point out a difference in the comparison.

Journalists report to the general public - a public who doesn't have much of a choice in the news that is presented to them. Journalists aren't hand-picked and vetted every time they write a new story by the specific audience that is going to be reading that story. Thats what we do here. We, the people who will be receiving the scores, are hand picking every cycle the person(s) who are delivering those scores, and don't allow them to deliver those scores until we have a vote and approve them to do so. To Krytenia's point, If they propose scoring a portion of their own qualifying matches, and you don't trust them to do it, then you simply don't vote for them and give them permission to do it.

[Squornshelan Remnant States]

I think my viewpoint on the issue of puppet scorination has been in essence nicely stated by Kry. If this issue is of high importance to any particular WCC voter, they should feel free to question and vote against hosts who do not enumerate how they will avoid scoring their puppets' matches.

Enshrining an absolute proscription of scorinating any of one's puppet's matches as a host adds new logistical requirements to hosting. If two co-hosts' availabilities for scorination do not coincide, cutoff scheduling becomes more complicated for the affected groups. The possibility of a host needing to turn to third party scorination by a user or users not originally named in the bid arises, and idea that I am not entirely comfortable with. Even a Vilitan Plan bid would not be immune from these difficulties, as measures would, under the proposed amendment, need to be taken to ensure that the helping co-hosts as well as any puppets of theirs were not drawn into the same qualifying group. For these reasons, and those listed by others above, I oppose the amendment in its current form.

[Cassadaigua]

The possibility of a host needing to turn to third party scorination by a user or users not originally named in the bid arises, and idea that I am not entirely comfortable with.

This is the reason I will be voting against the proposal as written. Anyone that scorinates a users entire WCQ group needs to be named in the bid, or at least have the approval of all users within that group. This ventures away from, "X shouldn't scorinate the group of their puppet" so we'll fix it to now creating, "Z voted for X and Y to be hosts, so why is Q is scorinating all their games?" Fixing one "problem", creating another one.

[Graintfjall]

Could always just not enter a puppet for a cycle when hosting, neatly dodges the question entirely.

[Krytenia]

Could always just not enter a puppet for a cycle when hosting, neatly dodges the question entirely.

That entirely depends on how much effort one puts into their secondary nations. A numbers puppet won't be missed, a SWEN or an Alierave may be an acceptable skip, but if you look at how much work has been put into the likes of Turori or Pasarga, I can't see Vilita or Valanora sacrificing them to host.

It's not a terrible idea, just one that perhaps isn't suitable for all.

[Sarzonia]

Could always just not enter a puppet for a cycle when hosting, neatly dodges the question entirely.

That entirely depends on how much effort one puts into their secondary nations. A numbers puppet won't be missed, a SWEN or an Alierave may be an acceptable skip, but if you look at how much work has been put into the likes of Turori or Pasarga, I can't see Vilita or Valanora sacrificing them to host.

It's not a terrible idea, just one that perhaps isn't suitable for all.

Yeah, there's a world of difference between the worldbuilding Valanora has done with Pasarga and a numbers puppet.

I'm sure there's a way to adjust the group draw so that in a situation where Valanora and Pasarga are both in the proper, we can ensure that Valanora isn't generating results for Pasarga. Whether we trust her or not is both not an issue; otherwise, she wouldn't have been part of a multitude of World Cup hosting bids and it's central to why this conversation is taking place.

[Farfadillis]

A counterpoint to "the community will work things out by itself": the community has on more than one occasion been very bad at working things out by itself. I'll limit myself to giving one uncontroversial example so as not to be incendiary: hosts are actively prohibited from scorinating friendlies because the community failed miserably to regulate itself over something as meaningless as, well, friendlies.

The risk here is handing an entire WC qualifying group to someone willing to rig it. What's more, this is a subject that cannot properly be discussed in the bidding process. Suppose someone bids for the WC and I don't trust them because of evidence X, Y and Z. Suppose most people are not aware of X, Y and Z. I can't just peacefully bring those things up. "Hey, I know you want to scorinate your puppet's games but also I think you're going to rig them because of [not well-known evidence]" is a non-starter.

The amendment would prohibit (a specific kind of) foul play while very slightly limiting host maneuverability. Worst-case scenario, you can just list a third-party scorinator when bidding, if circumstances somehow make it absolutely impossible for you to otherwise avoid scorinating your puppet's games. These circumstances would necessitate that one host be completely unavailable during a critical time window, by the way, so any bid that's incapable of guaranteeing a host not scorinating their puppet's games is most likely just as incapable of guaranteeing emergency-proofness, so to speak.

I do agree it's best if third-party scorinators are named ahead of time, for what it's worth, so that could be a separate amendment if the community is so inclined (though I do think it's very low down in the list of priorities). Also, I would like to point out that there's precedent for a World Cup final being scorinated by a third party with nobody batting an eye*.

*: just in case, I'd like to clarify that I fully trust both Valanora and Aguazul and agree with the decision taken regarding the scorination of the World Cup 61 final.

[The Archregimancy]

Re: hosts (not) scorinating their puppet's games.

This might actually merit an amendment

Nah.

We've realised the issue with this since I suggested (as the Holy Empire) to Ariddia allllll the way back in WC 1 that I should probably scorinate (with dice!) his matches for him.

I think formal regulation of the issue via constitutional amendment is unnecessary.

There are plenty of mechanisms for addressing this short of a formal amendment, and even in the present case the reaction has been so strong the bid was withdrawn; so it became moot.

Anyway, I'll be voting against any amendment on the issue because I don't believe it's necessary.

[Farfadillis]

There are plenty of mechanisms for addressing this short of a formal amendment, and even in the present case the reaction has been so strong the bid was withdrawn; so it became moot.

Valanora has gone on the record (on Discord, mind, so you couldn't have known) to say this was not the reason for withdrawing the bid. But even if the bid had been withdrawn over the questions raised about host integrity: is that... really the kind of thing we would like to see happening? Two esteemed members of the community feeling they have to withdraw their bid because they've come under fire over an issue they weren't even aware was an issue?

I'm really failing to see the "positives" of self-regulation here, even in this purported good-case scenario.

Re: hosts (not) scorinating their puppet's games.

This might actually merit an amendment

Nah.

We've realised the issue with this since I suggested (as the Holy Empire) to Ariddia allllll the way back in WC 1 that I should probably scorinate (with dice!) his matches for him.

Also, could you explain the supposed issue with this? Is this a quip about third-party scorinators using dice or am I completely misreading you here?

[Eastfield Lodge]

A counterpoint to "the community will work things out by itself": the community has on more than one occasion been very bad at working things out by itself. I'll limit myself to giving one uncontroversial example so as not to be incendiary: hosts are actively prohibited from scorinating friendlies because the community failed miserably to regulate itself over something as meaningless as, well, friendlies.

The risk here is handing an entire WC qualifying group to someone willing to rig it. What's more, this is a subject that cannot properly be discussed in the bidding process. Suppose someone bids for the WC and I don't trust them because of evidence X, Y and Z. Suppose most people are not aware of X, Y and Z. I can't just peacefully bring those things up. "Hey, I know you want to scorinate your puppet's games but also I think you're going to rig them because of [not well-known evidence]" is a non-starter.

The amendment would prohibit (a specific kind of) foul play while very slightly limiting host maneuverability. Worst-case scenario, you can just list a third-party scorinator when bidding, if circumstances somehow make it absolutely impossible for you to otherwise avoid scorinating your puppet's games. These circumstances would necessitate that one host be completely unavailable during a critical time window, by the way, so any bid that's incapable of guaranteeing a host not scorinating their puppet's games is most likely just as incapable of guaranteeing emergency-proofness, so to speak.

I do agree it's best if third-party scorinators are named ahead of time, for what it's worth, so that could be a separate amendment if the community is so inclined (though I do think it's very low down in the list of priorities). Also, I would like to point out that there's precedent for a World Cup final being scorinated by a third party with nobody batting an eye*.

*: just in case, I'd like to clarify that I fully trust both Valanora and Aguazul and agree with the decision taken regarding the scorination of the World Cup 61 final.

Wouldn't a valid alternative amendment be something along the lines of "More than one co-host must be scoring throughout the tournament", in other words basically forcing groups to be split between both hosts for the duration of qualifying instead of splitting matchdays? Would cover both the puppet issue and the issue of emergency host availability you mentioned?

[The Archregimancy]

Nah.

We've realised the issue with this since I suggested (as the Holy Empire) to Ariddia allllll the way back in WC 1 that I should probably scorinate (with dice!) his matches for him.

Also, could you explain the supposed issue with this? Is this a quip about third-party scorinators using dice or am I completely misreading you here?

You're wildly misreading me.

The reference to dice was simply a historical reference - not even a quip - to the actual fact that in WCs 1 & 2 we literally used dice to scorinate matches. Nothing else should be read into that specific comment.

Spreadsheets were introduced in WC3 by Total n Utter Insanity. I opposed them at the time; I was wrong to do so.

[Krytenia]

A counterpoint to "the community will work things out by itself": the community has on more than one occasion been very bad at working things out by itself. I'll limit myself to giving one uncontroversial example so as not to be incendiary: hosts are actively prohibited from scorinating friendlies because the community failed miserably to regulate itself over something as meaningless as, well, friendlies.

That's not entirely accurate.

Scorinated friendlies became A Thing at some point, and remained A Thing that was mentioned in bids etc until World Cup 50, when the hosts (as mentioned in their bid) decided that no, they weren't obliged to do so, and never had been. This is what led to debate on the issue, and the decision that friendlies were a no-go.

That may be what ends up happening here. It's not a failure to self-regulate, it's a (potential) change in the community way of thinking.

[Strike]

Could always just not enter a puppet for a cycle when hosting, neatly dodges the question entirely.

Wouldn't be so hard with a skip cycle in the rankings...

[Ko-oren]

As we get closer to a bid deadline, I'll ask which of the two proposed amendments are still supported: a hasty proposal and two immediate 'seconds' before any kind of discussion took place doesn't sit right with me. For now, I'm reading along. If any original proposal is changed through the discussion, let me know what the final version is before it's put to a vote.

[Farfadillis]

Wouldn't a valid alternative amendment be something along the lines of "More than one co-host must be scoring throughout the tournament", in other words basically forcing groups to be split between both hosts for the duration of qualifying instead of splitting matchdays? Would cover both the puppet issue and the issue of emergency host availability you mentioned?

The problem that comes to my mind with this is that it's an unnecessary restriction on hosts who don't have puppets, if I'm understanding you correctly. Hosts might want to relax during one half of qualifying and only have to do things in case of an emergency. However, if we deem emergency availability to be vital, I think that would be one of the best ways to go about it. But this is the kind of thing that I'd rather not amend the constitution for.

A counterpoint to "the community will work things out by itself": the community has on more than one occasion been very bad at working things out by itself. I'll limit myself to giving one uncontroversial example so as not to be incendiary: hosts are actively prohibited from scorinating friendlies because the community failed miserably to regulate itself over something as meaningless as, well, friendlies.

That's not entirely accurate.

Scorinated friendlies became A Thing at some point, and remained A Thing that was mentioned in bids etc until World Cup 50, when the hosts (as mentioned in their bid) decided that no, they weren't obliged to do so, and never had been. This is what led to debate on the issue, and the decision that friendlies were a no-go.

That may be what ends up happening here. It's not a failure to self-regulate, it's a (potential) change in the community way of thinking.

Yes, but the point is the community was self-regulating very poorly (I was not around for it so I personally find it extra insane that there ever was a friendlies arms race), and things stopped once a constitutional amendment was put in place.

You're wildly misreading me.

Thankfully. However, the following passage

We've realised the issue with this since I suggested (as the Holy Empire) to Ariddia allllll the way back in WC 1 that I should probably scorinate (with dice!) his matches for him.

would appear to indicate that you know what the issue with the proposal is, yet the post is otherwise devoid of any description of any issue besides the potential use of dice by a third-party (well, second-party, in this case, I guess). Since it's not what I deciphered by wildly misreading your post, could you at least enlighten us as to what the issue is, which was apparently realized around the time I was learning to read?

As we get closer to a bid deadline, I'll ask which of the two proposed amendments are still supported: a hasty proposal and two immediate 'seconds' before any kind of discussion took place doesn't sit right with me. For now, I'm reading along. If any original proposal is changed through the discussion, let me know what the final version is before it's put to a vote.

I'll hold off from re-seconding/thirding the puppet scorination amendment for now in case someone points out a flaw in the wording, but if nobody proposes a new version consider this to be me seconding it.

[Tinhampton]

I'm Saint Eleanor, I'm still pushing the BoF deamendment and I've apparently made the 500,000th post in NSS history

[PotatoFarmers]

For the record, I am neutral on the BoF de-amendment, neutral (leaning against) Cass' proposal on trying to restrict bids by a pair of hosts with my concerns here still up, as well as being extremely against trying to put into law that hosts should not scorinate their own matches, whichever the context.

I refuse to believe that any competent host would rig a set of results in favour of their puppet, though I believe hosts should generally incline towards finding a third-party scorinator especially for matches in the Proper. If we start to believe a host would go to the extent of rigging the results for their puppet, we are probably going to start wondering if they rigged the results for certain users over another. I find it extremely ridiculous to entertain such thoughts. Even if we do suspect such things and are not convinced by their third-party scorination plans, we can simply just re-open nominations to show our disagreements. The voting system is in place for a reason.

Also, imo, expecting hosts to 100% avoid scoring their puppet's matches is a bonus, but I would think it doesn't make sense all the time especially in a non-Vilitan plan World Cup Qualifying, unless they go on discord/forums and ask for a third-party at cutoff for, well, 7 to 11 matchdays (or possibly up to 22 if both co-hosts have a puppet).

[Milchama]

Snip
Yes, but the point is the community was self-regulating very poorly (I was not around for it so I personally find it extra insane that there ever was a friendlies arms race), and things stopped once a constitutional amendment was put in place.

NSS has always had a move towards more and more realism ever since WC 3 with spreadsheets instead of dice has been a move to make the NSWC as "realistic" as possible. That doesn't mean non-fantastical because, well, it's not fun otherwise, but the move has always been to make things, at least around the lines, more realistic.

Since international teams, at least circa 2011/2012 (Nations Leagues have curbed this practice IRL), played friendlies in/around WC qualifiers having friendlies would make NSS more realistic because better teams would always schedule friendlies. Hosts, for wanting to get votes, accommodated that request and off to the races we go. However, obviously, it made hosting much harder so we self-regulated to stop it.

I'm probably marginally against the no puppets amendment but don't really care that much. I 100% support the BoF de-amendment and want it voted on ASAP.

[Huayramarca]

I'd like to propose the following amendment to the Constitution going forward :

2. WCC-Sanctioned events
2.1 Overview

vi) When bidding for a WCC event, the exact same bidders are not permitted to submit multiple bids for the same tournament.

The wording is chosen this way so that A could make one bid with B and one bid with C for the same tournament, but not two bids with B.

Against. This limits the capability of bidders to offer a variety of alternatives to the way they could host a tournament, something that can be clearly put to vote with modifications to the current WCC Constitution without affecting the appearance of competing bids. My proposal is to incorporate a clause where we can vote first for the bidding formulas and then, if a bidder formula has two different options to format the tournament, vote for the structure that could be the preferred amongst voters. pretty much like a two-question ballot with a conditional clause (hosting method) that would activate and be considered as official if the bidding formula with two different structures wins the first vote.

This proposal won't hinder the capability of voters to choose their alternatives based on IC narratives proposed by the bidders, such as the argument made by Poafmersia said, since they could host the tournament without any kind of limitations, as many of the bids are based on IC connections between nations and could enhance their future RP arcs or experience between them.

[The Archregimancy]

You're wildly misreading me.

Thankfully. However, the following passage

We've realised the issue with this since I suggested (as the Holy Empire) to Ariddia allllll the way back in WC 1 that I should probably scorinate (with dice!) his matches for him.

would appear to indicate that you know what the issue with the proposal is, yet the post is otherwise devoid of any description of any issue besides the potential use of dice by a third-party (well, second-party, in this case, I guess). Since it's not what I deciphered by wildly misreading your post, could you at least enlighten us as to what the issue is, which was apparently realized around the time I was learning to read?

Simples: people shouldn't scorinate their own results.

In the early days, we didn't have co-hosts, so in the very first two World Cups, Ariddia and I generated each others' results. Since then, we've come up with more elaborate mechanisms to deal with the issue, and puppets have also become a factor, but the basic principle remains the same.

We've managed to maintain this principle for 19 years, so I think a constitutional amendment specifying that the principle applies to puppets is - while no-doubt well-intentioned - unnecessary.

I thought that was clear enough; apologies if not.

[Ceni]

My proposal is to incorporate a clause where we can vote first for the bidding formulas and then, if a bidder formula has two different options to format the tournament, vote for the structure that could be the preferred amongst voters. pretty much like a two-question ballot with a conditional clause (hosting method) that would activate and be considered as official if the bidding formula with two different structures wins the first vote.

I'm a little confused here; isn't that just what would happen this cycle anyway? (f we had a third bid, say, with a "normal" structure but different hosts, voters would be making their preference on both hosts and structure clear by the way that they ranked the various bids. So I'm not sure what we gain by editing STV out to have multiple rounds when, in fact, STV accomplishes the same thing on one ballot.

I'm also not sure why Ko and Mertagne posting two bids has produced such a vehement response that an amendment was proposed to fix this "problem" when, in fact, it is the first time that such a scenario has come up that I can remember. I'm not convinced that in this particular scenario, it's a problem; I think that it could actually encourage innovation since bidders can feel more free to propose potentially unconventional formats and have those formats get discussed by the community. I do agree that it might be a problem if there are multiple bids with only minor differences on rather subjective points, but that's a hypothetical at this point and I won't be supporting this amendment until we get a raft of bids actually doing this.

On the puppet scorination amendment: I think that both sides have raised some legitimate points. For one, I agree with the argument that I've partially espoused now, that "why is this such a problem now?"

But on the other hand, there certainly seems to be some inconsistency in whether hosts have scorinated their puppets' qualifying groups or not; in WC79, for instance, Drawkland and I specifically made a point of splitting the groups by half so that we would avoid scorinating our own puppets' groups. My question, therefore, is: what is the point when a host becomes trusted enough to be trusted to scorinate their own puppet's groups? Is that just a community thing that should be decided on an ad hoc basis? Because there seems to me to be a difference here between "we trust them to scorinate the World Cup" and "we trust them to not rig their own results in the qualifying" because if there wasn't this difference, then every World Cup host would just scorinate their own puppets' groups. So I think I'm leaning to supporting this amendment, if only to make a clear standard for every host.

As to the points about "what makes the World Cup different from regionals?" This is the biggest event on the forum, much bigger than the regional tournaments, and qualifying for the World Cup is certainly a big deal (especially if the puppet isn't already as established as Brenecia or Pasarga, say). So it makes sense that the WC is a little less liberal than regional tournaments on this question.

I'll also go ahead and second the BoF deamendment, if only because I'm selfish and want the chance to vote on it; however, I do hope that the vote on this deamendment does close the debate on this if it goes the way I think it's going to go.

[Farfadillis]

Simples: people shouldn't scorinate their own results.

In the early days, we didn't have co-hosts, so in the very first two World Cups, Ariddia and I generated each others' results. Since then, we've come up with more elaborate mechanisms to deal with the issue, and puppets have also become a factor, but the basic principle remains the same.

We've managed to maintain this principle for 19 years, so I think a constitutional amendment specifying that the principle applies to puppets is - while no-doubt well-intentioned - unnecessary.

I thought that was clear enough; apologies if not.

Ok, but what started this discussion is the fact that there have been plenty of cases in the past in which hosts have scorinated their own puppet's games (feel free to go back and read Audio's rundown in the ESF/SRS bid thread). So... have we actually managed to maintain this apparently ancient, obvious principle for 19 years?

[Huayramarca]

My proposal is to incorporate a clause where we can vote first for the bidding formulas and then, if a bidder formula has two different options to format the tournament, vote for the structure that could be the preferred amongst voters. pretty much like a two-question ballot with a conditional clause (hosting method) that would activate and be considered as official if the bidding formula with two different structures wins the first vote.

I'm a little confused here; isn't that just what would happen this cycle anyway? (f we had a third bid, say, with a "normal" structure but different hosts, voters would be making their preference on both hosts and structure clear by the way that they ranked the various bids. So I'm not sure what we gain by editing STV out to have multiple rounds when, in fact, STV accomplishes the same thing on one ballot.

If we go by logic, it would be the best course of action. Although, there's no a clear procedure in the Constitution that covers this situation, hence, there's need to write it down and settle evidence for future happenings according to the current situation.

[Audioslavia]

Yo, I haven't been around too much in recent days. What little NS time I had was spent creating the following two pence.

The concept of ‘trust’ has been thrown around over the last couple of pages, but 'trust' is a big, heavy word.

When we trust a host, we trust that they’ll be able to scorinate regularly and punctually, that they’ll be able to grade RPs fairly and consistently, that they know the ins and outs of the scorinator, that they’ll be diligent with saves and back-ups and that they’ll have an eye for detail so as to minimise errors. The way a user proves that they’re trustworthy is to take part in competitions, run a smaller tournament and/or run a domestic competition of some sort. If you want to prove that you’re trustworthy, it’s easy.

If a host makes an error, there’s a decent chance we’ll know about it. Take the slew of 0-0 draws that pointed to an input error in World Cup 85 or the Cycle 77 Holy Empire team whose away form and goal-scoring exploits were totally possible in the NSFS system, but a 1,500,000 to one shot using the SQIS system the hosts had said they were using. Both are forgiveable human errors that can be detected and learned from.

When we’re talking about trusting another user to scorinate matches involving their own team it is an entirely different level of trust, and one that I would argue none of us can step up to.

What is there to stop a user re-simming a match their team lost? One answer is ‘their own sense of decency and the fact that it’s a massive taboo’, but how exactly could someone prove that they have ‘decency’? Take someone who is resolutely honest and someone who says they’re resolutely honest but will use any opportunity to manipulate the odds in their favour. The both act the same. Via text they're fundamentally indistinguishable.

An NS Sport where nobody re-sims losses for their own side is basically indistinguishable from an NS Sport where everyone does it. You could have all the numbers and stats you like and you still can’t prove anything. If a host has a lowly-ranked puppet that goes 9-0-0 in their half of qualifying but 2-2-5 in the co-host’s half, that might raise eyebrows but it’s certainly not enough data to prove foul-play. And what about a puppet ranked in the top 30 or the top 10? If they go 9-0-0 in that host’s half of qualifying but 4-2-3 in their co-hosts half, it proves even less. All you can do is ask them how they came to those scores and the only thing that accomplishes is start a shitfight.

Trust depends entirely on context. I’ve dealt with a self-inflicted addiction to nicotine for all my adult life (that I deserve no sympathy for). I haven’t smoked a cigarette since March 2021. Do you trust me not to smoke a cigarette today or tomorrow? Probably, yeah. Do you trust me not to smoke a cigarette if there’s one sitting next to me while I drink a beer after a difficult day at work, if nobody would know about it, if I knew it would have no adverse effect on my health and if I figured I deserved it after some perceived bad luck? Of course you can’t. You can’t trust *anyone* in that situation.

If someone’s had a bad day and they’re hosting a World Cup as their long-term puppet, and they scorinate a final-day loss for their main that eliminates them from the last 32 and consigns them to a cycle or two on the fringes of international football, do you trust them not to re-sim? Would you trust yourself? In my opinion, it’s a trick question. The real answer is that if you were truly trustworthy you would not have put yourself in that position in the first place.

It probably sounds like I’m in favour of the amendment, but I’m not. I think in the overwhelming majority of cases the host either doesn’t have a puppet or has one they aren’t invested in. If you have a random numbers puppet or, more commonly, a temporary puppet through which you’re going on a short three-cycle adventure, the motivation to make them do well simply isn’t there. When you have a long-term puppet that you’ve put years of work into, whose good results you openly delight in and whose poor results you openly shake your proverbial fist at, there is a motivation to re-sim the results. It’s not whether or not I want a cigarette - I *always* want a cigarette - it’s whether or not there’s one right there in front of me and how I feel at that particular moment. So what I do is simply not put the cigarette there in the first place

What I want to see is this: Users with long-term puppets - the Brenecias and Pasargas and Turoris of the multiverse - acknowledge that scorinating their puppet is a zero-risk, high-reward opportunity that they have a clear motivation to take. I don’t care whether or not they have ever acted or would ever act on this. The motivation is there, the opportunity is there, there is zero risk, there is high reward, and you are a human.

As for ‘how’ someone would do this, a designated third-party scorinator for qualifying or dividing qualifying between groups rather than matchdays would work. As for ‘why now’, I’ve never particularly liked *anyone* scorinating their own matches, even first round games in minor/regional tournaments, and it's something I had figured the community had already started to move away from.

tl;dr I'm not voting for any of the proposals, and that I feel there's a handful of users who should not be scorinating games for their puppets has nothing to do with their character at all.

Finally, I apologise for the tone of my post in ESF and Squorn's bid thread. It's the *thing* that I feel strongly about, not the people doing the thing.

[Independent Athletes from Quebec]

An apology to bidding party that likely came too late in terms of timing.

Also an error is an error, but sometimes bringing same old things up again, even if an error people love to discuss dozens of cycles on, can be tiring. But that may be because of the weight of a multi-sport competition I'm wrapping up on cohosting, I don't know.

Anyways, I believe we have enough seconds for all three of said (de-)amendments, and it can be tiring to find them in middle of a massive pile of comments and replies. I have also heard that there is a possible World Cup 92 bid currently in plans by a very reputable user and host.

Is it possible to get a list of all three that is on table on a single post or should we wait until when the voting period occurs?