Independent Associations Championship Discussion Thread

[IAC Organising Committee]

INDEPENDENT ASSOCIATIONS CHAMPIONSHIP
DISCUSSION THREAD

---

IAC-1 | IAC-2 | IAC-3 | IAC-4 | IAC-5
IAC-6 | IAC-7 | IAC-8 | IAC-9 | IAC-X
IAC-11 | IAC-12 | IAC-13 | IAC-14 | IAC-15
IAC-16 | IAC-17 | IAC-18 | IAC-19

Welcome to the OFFICIAL Independent Associations Championship (more popularly known as the Independents Cup) Discussion Thread! This is where we'll discuss things regarding rankings, new formats, timing of signups, and other various conversations relating to the tournament. In all honestly, this probably won't get a whole lot of activity, but it's better we have a dedicated thread instead of having to dig up the most recent signup thread to say something.

None of the other regions have a discussion thread for their regional cups as far as I know, but that's because they're not cool enough all in the same region so they can just use their regional RMB for regional cup-related discourse.

WHAT IS THE IAC?
The IAC (Independent Associations Championship) is the "5th regional" of the NS Sports world. There are 4ish big sporting regions on NationStates: Atlantian Oceania, Esportiva, Rushmore, and Anaia. While these regions have held regional football tournaments for many years, for a long time any nations outside of these regions were left alone to twiddle their thumbs between World Cups. Thankfully, the football association of Bonesea took the liberty of starting a Cup for Independent nations - and thus the IAC was born. At the time of this writing, there have been well over a dozen editions contested, with an elite class of champions having been crowned.

Now with the IAC in the mix, the Independent presence in the NSWC meta is stronger than ever before, with more nations realizing that they don't need to join the exclusive sporting regions to have fun and be competitive.

HOW DO I JOIN?
Watch this thread! Between World Cups (about every 3-4 months), the regional tournaments are held. This includes the IAC! If you want to join the next edition, keep an eye on this thread. Whoever is in charge of opening signups will likely post a message and a link here so that you know exactly when you can sign up. Alternatively, you could just wait for a thread that says "Independents Cup <#> Sign-Up Thread" to show up on the forum every few months, and join that way!

This is just a discussion thread, so no signups, rosters, RPs, or results will be posted here.

[Drawkland]

Welcome everyone to this new discussion thread!

*sniffs* gotta love that new thread smell.

Anyway, discussion about the possibility of rankings/etc. should go here instead of the old signup thread. Also, I'll continue to update the OP with links to the old tournaments and the "hall of champions" graphics. The IAC-X (or IAX, whatever) graphic will be added when I make it (probably right before the IAC-11 signups go up).

Enjoy!

[Megistos]

First post for the real peeps (Drawk just posted a main post, not like an actual discussion)!

Anyway, about rankings. I don't really have a side on this, but I slightly still support my original support back in the signup thread. Comments?

[HUElavia]

Being a regular contender at the IAC, I am in full support of Omerica's (KitKat's) ranking that was used for IAX. I think it's worth to use it moving forward with future tournaments.

[Recuecn]

I like KitKat's proposal from last time too, but iirc not the version that actually ended up being used in the tournament. I think the original suggestion was to make the IAC's worth as much as the KPB's and then pick each nation's better one, but then during the tournament the value of the IAC rank was doubled so that very few nations actually used their KPB rank. Am I remembering that correctly? My bias is obvious, as a nation that has been regularly making it to the world cup, but I'd prefer to keep a bit more equity between the two tournaments. The World Cup should be the bigger tournament, and by using KPB there's more in-context cohesiveness; nations' ranks don't vary as much from tournament to tournament.

My excuses if I'm misremembering the way KitKat's system worked.

[Indusse]

Good to see a IAC discussion thread.

[Quemorr Isles]

Hello, this is an Independent puppet of Sylestone. I also very much like this discussion thread as we don't have an RMB to discuss on.
I also liked the system KitKat used for the IAX, especially with the KPB ranks added on to it. This is just my opinion, and I certainly think that set in stone ranks are the way forward.

[Omerica]

I’d like to give a quick shout-out to the regions that have so far produced IAC winners: Tyran, Wide Enness Ocean, Lunia, Novapax, Sonnel, Social Liberal Union, the West Pacific, International Democratic Union and the North Pacific. And speaking of IAC winners, I eagerly await the formal induction of our IAC X winners into the Hall of Champions!

---

Reçu is absolutely correct to note that I revised my replacement bonus system ahead of the start of IAC X: instead of scaling down KPB by a factor of 2, I scaled it down by a factor of 23/7. Nothing about the IAC part of the algorithm changed: it was still calculated on a points-per-game basis from the last three IACs, with a 4–2–1 weighting system chosen to parallel the KPB system’s method of weighting cycles.

The revision was based on the valid criticism levelled by ESF and VilTur that my original implementation created a glass ceiling for non-WCC nations and would ultimately erase the possibility of nations being competitive at the IAC unless they also took part (and frankly excelled in) in the World Cup. I wanted to avoid that, so I adjusted the way I scaled KPB. The specific number I chose was based on what would scale the maximum KPB (69) down to the number of points three perfect IA Championships in a row would be worth (21), thus completely eliminating the gap between the max WCC nations and non-WCC nations could achieve.

In contrast, my original scaling would guarantee that any nation with more than 42 KPB points would be ranked higher than all non-WCC nations, even one who went on three perfect IAC runs in a row. As of the end of WC86 qualifying, the top six World Cup nations—Banija, Nephara, Vilita, Valanora, Eura and Turori—exceeded the glass ceiling, with Baker Park and the Holy Empire coming within one KPB point of it. I don’t think we can sustain a system where the max rating some players can achieve is nearly two-thirds greater than what others can reach and where a select group come in with an unassailable head start.

[Zwangzug]

From an IC perspective, how would people feel about entering a "sub-national entity" (along the lines of the bygone Cuppet)? They would not inherit Zwangzug's rank, and they would probably be my only entry, although I believe I am eligible to enter two teams.

If this was feasible, would it be better to create a second account or just post as Zwangzug with the understanding the team was a sub-nation instead?

[Tequilo]

From an IC perspective, how would people feel about entering a "sub-national entity" (along the lines of the bygone Cuppet)? They would not inherit Zwangzug's rank, and they would probably be my only entry, although I believe I am eligible to enter two teams.

If this was feasible, would it be better to create a second account or just post as Zwangzug with the understanding the team was a sub-nation instead?

Ah the Cuppet, that was one of my all time favourite competitions...

Speaking only for myself but with a modicum of history in this competition, I wouldn't be opposed; the philosophy had always been 'this is the tournament for everyone else' and the sign-up rules I feel are quite welcoming to puppets of established powers from the big three; so I don't see why not. Perhaps for clarity a second account would help, but it's not for me to say.

EDIT: ICly I suppose for want of a Cuppet or Aspirationally Independent Associations Championship then this would be a place for the North Dumpling Sealand Republic to at least try to get some international recognition.

[Drawkland]

Tequilo signs up and seconds this...

[...] proposes that in addition to eventually selecting a host, the host voting pool make a formal vote on adopting a permanent ranking system.

Thanks for the reminder.

To this end, I think it would be great if Omerica could post an explicit and full explanation of their formula here so that we can have it marked down. That way it'll be easier to discuss and vote on. Ideally you could also include the current rankings via whatever spreadsheet I assume you're using for the calculations.

If anybody else has ideas for a potential ranking system, you should post here in the same manner. Sooner rather than later, please! It would be great to have this voted on alongside host voting.

[Omerica]

To this end, I think it would be great if Omerica could post an explicit and full explanation of their formula here so that we can have it marked down. That way it'll be easier to discuss and vote on. Ideally you could also include the current rankings via whatever spreadsheet I assume you're using for the calculations.

As the World Cup finals are over and all IAC-eligibile nations have been knocked out of the Cup of Harmony, the pre IAC-11 “rankings” are set. (Please do notify me if there are any mistakes.)

There are two formulas, one for IAC results and one to scale down KPB. Teams that have competed in one of the last three IACs are ranked by whichever value is larger.

IAC results

4×(PPG in IAC n) + 2×(PPG in IAC n–1) + (PPG in IAC n–2)

Where n is the latest edition of the IAC. The 4–2–1 weighting system mirrors the weighting system used by KPB, where the most recent cycle is worth twice the one before it and quadruple the one before that.

Scaled KPB

KPB×7/23

The max possible KPB is 69, while the points for three perfect IAC runs is 21. 7/23 thus scales the max KPB down to the value of three perfect IAC runs. (If a change were made to the KPB formula that altered the max possible KPB, the scaling factor will be adjusted to keep the IAC rating cap at 21 points.)

In the last three IACs (X, 9 and 8), teams could play a maximum of 8, 7 and 9 games respectively. At these IACs, Omerica earned 7, 3 and 13 points respectively.

4×7/8 + 2×3/7 +  13/9
3.500 +  .857 + 1.444
                5.801

Omerica’s post-CoH KPB is 13.73, which comes to 4.179 when scaled down. This is smaller than Omerica’s IAC points-per-game total, so Omerica are ranked according to their IAC results.

In the last three IACs (X, 9 and 8), teams could play a maximum of 8, 7 and 9 games respectively. At these IACs, Juvencus earned 0, 3 and 3 points respectively.

4×0/8 + 2×3/7 +   3/9
  .00 +  .857 +  .333
                1.190

Juvencus’s post-CoH KPB is 12.03, which comes to 3.661 when scaled down. This is larger than Juvencus’s IAC points-per-game total, so Juvencus are ranked according to their scaled KPB.

---

I welcome alternatives, but there are a set of conditions that they must fulfil to win my support:

• Consistent cycle decay—any system that factors in KPB as it stands must weight IAC cycles on a 4–2–1 basis. If the IACs are weighting on a 3–2–1 basis (as the Copa Rushmori does), WCC results must be reweighted to match (which Rushmore does not do).
• One-step weighting system—No weighting past editions, then dividing the sum total by something like the Coppa Esportiva does. The weighting should be done in a single step.
• Minimal gap between caps for WCC and non-WCC nations—weighting must not give WCC nations an insurmountable advantage. A nearly 50% edge for god-tier WCC teams like my original scaling provided is unacceptable.

[Recuecn]

I'm going to play devil's advocate for the previous iteration of KitKat's rankings, where KPB's were divided by 2 rather than 23/7. Or maybe I'm just straight up advocating for the old version. I'm not sure: I do take KitKat's point about making things fair to all users and I think that's very important. But the version where KPB's were worth a bit more had a few advantages in my opinion, which I'll try to enumerate, in no particular order:

1. The World Cup is more important than the IAC. I think it's only fair that it could be worth more points. It's the most prestigious there is. Relatedly:

2. IC, doing well in the WC should mean doing well in the IAC. I get that OOC, this can make things more boring, but IC it makes sense, and increases the verisimilitude, realism, and cohesiveness of the shared multiverse we're rping about. IRL, if a nation wins the world cup, you expect them to do well in, say, the Euro Cup or whatever their tournament is. Nations that regularly qualify in the global tournament should tend to do okay in regionals.

3. You'd have to do *really* well in the World Cup to outpace the max rank from the IAC alone. Currently only 7 nations (no indies) have enough KPBs that even when divided by two, you wouldn't be able to catch up to them with the proposed IAC rank points alone. Banija, multiverse #1, would only be ~6 points above someone with the perfect IAC score. And then of course, talking about the 'perfect' score is kind of ridiculous: no one will ever get that. Even winning a threepeat doesn't guarantee that. So the actual numbers will be lower (for both WCC and IAC).

4. People who aren't entering the WC itself are presumably just Big 3 puppets. I'm all for including them as full members, but I don't think we need to specifically cater our ranking system to them. They've made their choice. Other regions' rank systems require nations to be in the WC to get 'full credit', so KitKat's either/or idea is already an improvement. The WC is already open to anyone, just like the IAC: it's sort of the original IAC. Why treat it as some foreign thing?

5. Dividing by 2 is so much more elegant. Not only is it just a nice round number, but it also makes the value of the most recent IAC exactly equal to the value of the most recent World Cup. The other KPB points come from qualifiers, plus a small flat bonus for qualifying to make sure it's never worse to go the the WC than the CoH. Obviously we don't have qualifiers for the IAC, so we just don't have that part of the rankings. But the symmetry of setting our tournament equal to the world cup is nice, and it makes sense to earn more points for a tournament that involves more parts.

I feel like there was another point I had, but I've forgotten what it was, or maybe I've covered it. I've tried to keep this as just some brief thoughts instead of rambling on on each point, but it still feels a bit long, so I guess I'll put a TL;DR: I do really like the idea of making it possible for *anyone* to do well in the IAC and the value of having a level playing field for everybody. But on the other hand, honoring WCC rankings makes IC sense, and besides, if you make it to the top 10 of the KPB, haven't you earned it? I'll be thinking about this more I guess.

[Drawkland]

I kinda have to agree with Resu here. I don't understand the reluctance to make WCs weighted higher than the IAC, at least not to such an extreme level. In the "perfect KPB" case, you're looking at a nation which has won three straight World Cups without losing or even drawing a single game in that time period. Are you telling me a nation which is on a 50+ game winning streak against the multiverse's best nations should be on the same level as a nation that goes undefeated in three straight IACs? It's way easier to go undefeated and win the IAC - literally half of the IAC champions crowned so far had perfect runs to do so.

Obviously these edge cases - winning an IAC with a perfect record is not very difficult, if you're good enough to win it anyway. Doing this back to back to back is obviously much harder ... we haven't even had back to back champions yet, much less with perfect records. Still, winning the World Cup with a perfect record is even more difficult. Just off the top of my head, I think the only time that's happened was one of Valanora's title runs. In any case, the chances for doing three perfect cycles in the IAC or WCC are both extremely slim, but the latter is astronomically more difficult.

Once again we're talking about scenarios which will likely never happen, but we're debating the philosophy here. I understand the want to make sure the IAC-only nations have the opportunity to compete against the World Cup participants and have a bit of skill continuity there. I agree with this sentiment, we pretty much all do, that's why we're talking about making a ranking system at all. I just can't get behind the "nerf the World Cup to being nearly irrelevant" line of thinking. There's a reason that the KPB ranks had been used since the first edition - it keeps a standard continuity that makes sense.

I realize now that I'm basically repeating everything Resu said but more haphazardly. Consider this post me seconding Resu's points. I have no problems with the KPBs being divided up so as to not be so overpowered (especially if we come back to the days where we had giants like prime Schottia and Bonesea competing in the IAC), but making them basically a fallback option for nations who miss an IAC cycle is not the right implementation, imo.

By the way, the only nations that use their 7/23 KPB instead of their IAC rank in the current form are nations who either missed IAC X (Zwang, Kelssek, FFR), or are just exceptionally shitty in the recent IACs (Juvencus, Sajnur). The two exceptions to this are Indusse and Sharktail, who only just started the IAC last cycle and haven't built up an IAC rank yet.

[Squornshelan Remnant States]

I remain undecided on the KPB scaling matter, but I do have a couple of points to bring up in response to Resu and Drawk.

1. While the World Cup is indeed a more important tournament, and the vast majority of IAC nations are also WCC nations, it doesn't necessarily follow, to me, that the WC should be worth more in the IAC rankings. A team that has been unbeatable, or nearly so, over the past 3 IACs should be top ranked, regardless of their World Cup form, or anyone else's. Verisimilitude, though fun to say and often a good point of reference for planning tournaments and leagues, is not always the main goal. For me, the unexpected, unusual, or even the impossible is often more fun.

2. 1/2 and 7/23 are both entirely arbitrary numbers. I see nothing inherently more desirable about the former used as a multiplier than the latter. I don't think a vague sense of aesthetics should govern decisions that will have a concrete effect on this tournament for the foreseeable future.

3. The situations where a nation's adjusted KPB could exceed the maximum possible for the IAC alone are extremely unlikely, as both Drawk and Resu have pointed out. However, this, for me, is not the only potential problem with giving KPB greater weight than IAC performance. I haven't looked into any simulations yet, but it seems to me that effective having two completely separate ranking systems and allowing a team to use whichever is best will lead to a more entrenchment at the top of the list. A new team that goes on a hot run in the IAC could pick up a lot of points in that half of the rankings, but if the teams they upstage are still leaning on vastly superior KPB, they're not going to gain so much ground as they would otherwise.

4. In the end, the WC is an unrelated tournament, and I'm not sure I like the idea that good performance in an unrelated tournament could allow someone to be the top ranked team for the IAC regardless of their performance, or even their participation in past IAC editions, however unlikely the situation may be.


I also think that we don't necessarily have to settle this here, but that it could be put to a vote.

[Drawkland]

Finally, a host bid!

We are currently sitting at 43 signups, if I've counted right. Things are starting to get rolling around here. I didn't specify a cutoff for host bids, so I say I'll give anyone wanting to bid until Saturday of this week to post a bid. I'll open host voting on Sunday, unless somebody posts a bid exactly on Saturday (I'll bump the voting a day or two later to allow for appropriate amounts of bid discussion).

I would also like to hold voting for adopting a new ranking system at the same time. Omerica's already posted their proposal in the discussion thread. If anybody else has any other system cooking, now is the time to post it so that we can all have a good look at it and complain without offering concrete solutions

Signups wise, we're approaching the cleaner number of 48 ... let's hit that!

Crossposting for more attention!

[Omerica]

4. In the end, the WC is an unrelated tournament, and I'm not sure I like the idea that good performance in an unrelated tournament could allow someone to be the top ranked team for the IAC regardless of their performance, or even their participation in past IAC editions, however unlikely the situation may be.

In retrospect, a top KPB team that has stopped playing in the IAC would be able to hold on to top spot for a couple of cycles (provided they hold onto their KPB), then pop back into the Championship like nothing happened, which is not a contingency I had considered. And given that Mercedini could pop in for a IAC 11, bomb out in the group stage and still be highly seeded for IAC 12, I reckon it’s a loophole ripe for abuse.

Yeah, I’m going to have to admit this idea was a flop. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Vykta]

4. In the end, the WC is an unrelated tournament, and I'm not sure I like the idea that good performance in an unrelated tournament could allow someone to be the top ranked team for the IAC regardless of their performance, or even their participation in past IAC editions, however unlikely the situation may be.

In retrospect, a top KPB team that has stopped playing in the IAC would be able to hold on to top spot for a couple of cycles (provided they hold onto their KPB), then pop back into the Championship like nothing happened, which is not a contingency I had considered. And given that Mercedini could pop in for a IAC 11, bomb out in the group stage and still be highly seeded for IAC 12, I reckon it’s a loophole ripe for abuse.

Yeah, I’m going to have to admit this idea was a flop. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Not necessarily, I think if we put some sort of rule that prevents that loophole as best as we can, for example requiring a team to use the lowest of the two systems for at least two consecutive entries after missing two cups in a row (unless they'd be unranked in either system (so they'd use the highest for one cup, then one more at lowest system or IAC rank, whichever is greater) or the two consecutive entries are spanned by a two cup break (which resets the rule to two consecutive entries)) would go some way to closing that loophole. I mean, while the major regional cups might not factor KPB as much, the IAC being in the shared multiverse would make more IC and OOC sense to continue the KPB weighting in some form.

[Tequilo]

Of course I am not on Discord so this may be redundant if people have more information than me on what is happening with Havynwilde's host bid. I will put this here rather than in the sign-up thread as it is not a competing bid but a back up.

---

UNIÓN PITXI de TEQUILO
EMERGENCY HOSTING BID FOR INDEPENDENT ASSOCIATIONS CHAMPIONSHIP 11

---

In the event that Havynwilde, the only bidder for hosting IAC-11, is unable to fulfil hosting of this competition, the UPT or simply Unión (that would be the Tequiloan FA to you and me) has prepared this emergency bid to step in and deliver the competition, should the IAC Organising Committee so decree such action is necessary. Please note this is not a competing bid to Havynwilde's bid, but stands only if the IAC-OC decides that plan cannot be fulfilled in a timely manner.

---

OOC BID DETAILS
Scorination

---

Havynwilde's bid for IAC-11

As this is not a competitive bid, I will endeavour to fulfill the principle plans of Havynwilde from their bid submission and in that case, will use Xkorante using NSFS formula set on additive style mods, with home field advantage turned off. Per the original bid, RP bonus will be generous including a sizeable roster bonus.

In a change from the original bid, whilst I may provide RP prompts each matchday, I will not offer bonuses for fulfilling RP challenges, as this would disadvantage those who don't wish to follow prompts.

I will also not be creating all-star teams.

A third party will be sought to scorinate Tequilo results past the group stage should that become necessary.

As a ranking system is yet to be officially ratified, I propose to use the one applied in the last IAC, unless any competing nation has a strong objection to that.

---

OOC BID DETAILS
Scheduling

---

The Unión stands ready to go at short notice.

At the time of posting, we are on 49 entries. I would look either for one additional sign-up, or one voluntary puppet withdrawal, and run with group sizes proposed by Havynwilde, but with a larger qualification field:

48 nations: 8 groups of 6; Top four nations in each group qualify for knockout rounds
50 nations: 10 groups of 5; Top three nations in each group plus two best fourth-placed nations
Tiebreakers per Havynwilde's bid: Points, GD, GS, H2H Pts, HTH GD, HTH GS, 'Fair Play' (ICly - OOCly is RP bonus rather then fair play table)

In each case, 32 teams will qualify for the knockout stages.

As the IAC has fallen somewhat behind in the WC off-season schedule, I propose reducing RP windows to 24 hours through the group stage, followed by a 48-hour window between group and the round of 32; then resuming 24 hour windows again until the semi-finals have been completed, with 24 hours to the TTPO and another 24 to the final. From the point of ratification, I would open the thread with 48 hours to the first scorination - thus, in total, delivering the tournament in around 14 days from the opening of the competition thread.

Furthermore, Tequilo is willing to hand the tournament back to Havynwilde, ICly and OOCly, should they return during the competition, at certain break points - this would likely be at the end of the group stage, and potentially after the quarterfinal stage, if they are ready to host and wish to complete the tournament.

Cut-off times will likely be 22:00-23:00 UTC

---

OOC BID DETAILS
Experience

---

The user behind this bid, in the various guises of Tamarindia, Wight and Bonesea has hosted a number of prestige tournaments, including two World Cups (with New Montreal States and Cosumar), a Cup of Harmony (with New Montreal States), a Di Bradini under-21 World Cup, an Indoor Football World Championship and a World Cuppet; was the founder of the Independent Associations Championship and host of the first edition; founded and ran three editions of the Brevity RP Challenge Cup; and also founded and ran the first three editions of the Galacticos Index multiversal player of the season Awards.

If I can be of assistance here, call me... I can be ready to go asap!

[Drawkland]

The emergency bid is much appreciated, Tequilo. I am in contact with Havynwilde and a decision regarding IAC-11's hosting will be made over the next day or so.

[Havynwilde]

Live draw starts in 2 minutes here

[Havynwilde]

Information of Havynwilde is up, welcome to Havynwilde.

[IAC Organising Committee]

Who decided Havynwilde was going to host this without a vote?

I did.

As per the signup OP (this has been the exact text of the bidding section since IAC-4):

Single or joint host applications are welcome, from users who have experience in hosting competitions of this scale. Bidders must be signed up for the present competition and users behind the nation must have competed in one of the previous installments, even if under a different flag. Host bids should be posted in this thread and include the usual details including methodology, formulae, and indicative scheduling - please read guidance on expectations for format and scorination further down this post. A vote may be organised if more than one bid is received. Currently signed up nations with at least one previous user entry will likely be eligible to vote.

More than one bid was not received for this tournament, therefore a vote was not going to be held. Technically under this text, there's no obligation for me to hold a host vote even with multiple bids, but I'd do it anyway out of convention. Before you mention Tequilo's bid, allow me to highlight this part of it:

In the event that Havynwilde, the only bidder for hosting IAC-11, is unable to fulfil hosting of this competition, the UPT or simply Unión (that would be the Tequiloan FA to you and me) has prepared this emergency bid to step in and deliver the competition, should the IAC Organising Committee so decree such action is necessary. Please note this is not a competing bid to Havynwilde's bid, but stands only if the IAC-OC decides that plan cannot be fulfilled in a timely manner.

With the power vested in me as the IAC-OC, I gave the hosting rights to Havynwilde. The lack of timely communication on this front is absolutely my fault, and all criticism for that should be directed to me. Still, I did mention on this thread over a week ago the reasoning for me dragging my feet: no other bids were forthcoming so there was no reason to hold a vote, and Havynwilde was without power IRL due to issues with the utility company in his area, so I was hesitant to automatically award him hosting rights if he wasn't going to be able to host anytime soon.

Once Havyn indicated he had power and was able to host, he got to posting the thread right away. Hence my announcement confirming him as host was a little late. However (as I said earlier), I think it's unfair for people to complain about Havyn being given the hosting job, considering that nobody (besides Tequilo, who specifically requested to not be considered a competing bid) posted a bid to compete with him.

If anybody has any further issues with how this went down, direct them to me. None of this is Havynwilde's fault, and the reason for delay was certainly way out of his control. I would prefer that we use this specific thread for any further discussion.

As far as Omerica's withdrawal: since it occurred after the group draw, I believe (under my interpretation of the below rule) that Havynwilde does not have the obligation to remove them from the draw. If they did, it would require a redraw, since Omerica is a ranked nation and can't just be switched out without changing the pots. If Havyn is okay with redoing the group draw (which would be okay, if a little annoying. The one victim here would be Squidroidia, who's already RP'd about the draw), then they could perhaps move forward with a 48-team format, removing Omerica and A Flock of Seagulls (Plough's puppet who he said could be disregarded if necessary).

If a participating nation wants to withdraw from an event while the event is in progress*, or if a participating nation CTEs during an event, then it must fulfill its published fixtures before being removed from the competition.

*By 'in progress' we mean the fixtures for first/next phase of the tournament have already been finalised at the point of the participant withdrawing. If a nation withdraws before fixtures have been finalised, then it should be withdrawn immediately.

This message has been crossposted from the IAC-11 signup thread. I would prefer any replied or discussion occur here rather than there (don't want to keep bumping a signup thread in case people try to keep signing up).

[Terre Septentrionale]

Who decided Havynwilde was going to host this without a vote?

I did.

As per the signup OP (this has been the exact text of the bidding section since IAC-4):

Single or joint host applications are welcome, from users who have experience in hosting competitions of this scale. Bidders must be signed up for the present competition and users behind the nation must have competed in one of the previous installments, even if under a different flag. Host bids should be posted in this thread and include the usual details including methodology, formulae, and indicative scheduling - please read guidance on expectations for format and scorination further down this post. A vote may be organised if more than one bid is received. Currently signed up nations with at least one previous user entry will likely be eligible to vote.

More than one bid was not received for this tournament, therefore a vote was not going to be held. Technically under this text, there's no obligation for me to hold a host vote even with multiple bids, but I'd do it anyway out of convention. Before you mention Tequilo's bid, allow me to highlight this part of it:

In the event that Havynwilde, the only bidder for hosting IAC-11, is unable to fulfil hosting of this competition, the UPT or simply Unión (that would be the Tequiloan FA to you and me) has prepared this emergency bid to step in and deliver the competition, should the IAC Organising Committee so decree such action is necessary. Please note this is not a competing bid to Havynwilde's bid, but stands only if the IAC-OC decides that plan cannot be fulfilled in a timely manner.

With the power vested in me as the IAC-OC, I gave the hosting rights to Havynwilde. The lack of timely communication on this front is absolutely my fault, and all criticism for that should be directed to me. Still, I did mention on this thread over a week ago the reasoning for me dragging my feet: no other bids were forthcoming so there was no reason to hold a vote, and Havynwilde was without power IRL due to issues with the utility company in his area, so I was hesitant to automatically award him hosting rights if he wasn't going to be able to host anytime soon.

Once Havyn indicated he had power and was able to host, he got to posting the thread right away. Hence my announcement confirming him as host was a little late. However (as I said earlier), I think it's unfair for people to complain about Havyn being given the hosting job, considering that nobody (besides Tequilo, who specifically requested to not be considered a competing bid) posted a bid to compete with him.

If anybody has any further issues with how this went down, direct them to me. None of this is Havynwilde's fault, and the reason for delay was certainly way out of his control. I would prefer that we use this specific thread for any further discussion.

As far as Omerica's withdrawal: since it occurred after the group draw, I believe (under my interpretation of the below rule) that Havynwilde does not have the obligation to remove them from the draw. If they did, it would require a redraw, since Omerica is a ranked nation and can't just be switched out without changing the pots. If Havyn is okay with redoing the group draw (which would be okay, if a little annoying. The one victim here would be Squidroidia, who's already RP'd about the draw), then they could perhaps move forward with a 48-team format, removing Omerica and A Flock of Seagulls (Plough's puppet who he said could be disregarded if necessary).

If a participating nation wants to withdraw from an event while the event is in progress*, or if a participating nation CTEs during an event, then it must fulfill its published fixtures before being removed from the competition.

*By 'in progress' we mean the fixtures for first/next phase of the tournament have already been finalised at the point of the participant withdrawing. If a nation withdraws before fixtures have been finalised, then it should be withdrawn immediately.

This message has been crossposted from the IAC-11 signup thread. I would prefer any replied or discussion occur here rather than there (don't want to keep bumping a signup thread in case people try to keep signing up).

Thanks for answering. I really really don't like how it went. First, Havynwild have an history of messing things up and is not a reliable host. I was glad when Tequilo stepped up, and I thought he was going to host. Then, without warning us, Havinwild is back and the group draw is already done. There's a good chance that if I had time to do it before the draw, I would have withdrawn from the tournament either, considering I don't trust Havynwild and what happened in hockey.

[Drawkland]

Thanks for answering. I really really don't like how it went. First, Havynwild have an history of messing things up and is not a reliable host. I was glad when Tequilo stepped up, and I thought he was going to host. Then, without warning us, Havinwild is back and the group draw is already done. There's a good chance that if I had time to do it before the draw, I would have withdrawn from the tournament either, considering I don't trust Havynwild and what happened in hockey.

Yeah, I understand the situation was handled poorly, but that was 100% on me for not being more clear about the situation. Again though, Tequilo made it quite clear in his bid that he was only going to host if Havynwilde was not able to. It was an emergency bid, after all.

Also, what happened in hockey has pretty much nothing to do with the IAC, so I don't feel like that should be a factor in your decision-making. Still though, I have the utmost trust in Havynwilde to deliver a solid tournament, which is why I had no problems with confirming him as the host.

Good luck to everyone in the upcoming tournament!