The World Cup Discussion Thread (OOC, version III)

[Felix]

You sure? I searched it before and it didn't show up. Maybe it was edited by the time I posted my earlier post.

it's a conspiracy, I tell you.

No, no edits. You're in the middle of the flipping thing.

And even if I did forget you, the World Cup isn't starting tomorrow - plenty of time for edits. Chill, Winston.

Sorry. >.>

[Krytenia]

Bears Armed has signed up.

Armed Bears has not signed up, and is not going to do so. This means that
1/ If The Equestrian States want to keep the Ursine-Equine (or 'Equine-Ursine') Challenge going then they'll need to play against Bears Armed -- who are willing to participate -- instead.
2/ We are releasing Ug-Ug from his managerial contract.

Wow. That caveman gets around.

[Free South Califas]

You have to edit the player into the NSwiki article I believe

And the criteria are listed on said page too. One entrant per 7 qualifying attempts, 4 successful Finals qualification, or every World Cup championship won.

Hey, I get one after WC66

Seems like it's gotta be Bela Ceh, even if other players have been producing in foreign leagues. Anyone (who knows/cares about FSC football) disagree?

[Osarius]

Seems like it's gotta be Bela Ceh, even if other players have been producing in foreign leagues. Anyone (who knows/cares about FSC football) disagree?

*coughcough* they don't have to be an FSC national........

[Bears Armed]

Bears Armed has signed up.

Armed Bears has not signed up, and is not going to do so. This means that
1/ If The Equestrian States want to keep the Ursine-Equine (or 'Equine-Ursine') Challenge going then they'll need to play against Bears Armed -- who are willing to participate -- instead.
2/ We are releasing Ug-Ug from his managerial contract.

Wow. That caveman gets around.

He's been there for three World Cup cycles.

[Free South Califas]

Congratulations to Wight, and commiserations to PIS; I honestly couldn't have chosen which of you I wanted to win, as I know both of you deserved it as much as the other

I'm pretty late, but I couldn't have said it better myself. Oddly enough, I only just found out about this WCF last night. I had a bit of an unexpected hiatus there.

Seems like it's gotta be Bela Ceh, even if other players have been producing in foreign leagues. Anyone (who knows/cares about FSC football) disagree?

*coughcough* they don't have to be an FSC national........

Oh right, that! Well, I certainly have to take "El Loco" into consideration, then.

[Free South Califas]

*looks at the rank differences between my nation and those 3*

Waaaa?

Oh, well. I wasn't that active until this cycle(not a huge soccer fan) snd didn't even submitvm a RP in a WC Everything thread prior to WC65....

EDIT: Now I see how did I start so low in WC. I probably didn't play in a BoF.

You didn't. I had looked into that for my CoH preview RP. You signed up for 59 (World Cup only) and would have been ranked (and thus ineligible) prior to 62 when you next entered a World Cup.

Its surprising to me that almost everybody from my BoF is already gone. Both Bearded Moose and Nenets have CTEd. Glascovia (who I barely beat for 2nd in my group) disappeared shortly after the BoF. There's myself, New Sideburn, Barunia, Schmiegelland, Kriegiersien, Sova, Kinzar, Levivania and Zackalantis that are still active (I think).

Aw, Nenets Autonomous Okrug was one of my favorite nation names. Okrug is one of the world's best names for a kind of geopolitical division, anyway.

[Ossidiacqua]

A bit of competition for you. WC66 Bid.

[Saintland]

With 3 strong host bids for the upcoming World Cup and the likelihood that the winning bid will receive a plurality, not a majority of the vote, I propose an amendment to the WCC Constitution.

4.2 Definitition of: "The (E)WCC may vote..."
i) When an EWCC or WCC vote is initiated by the President, a plurality vote (first past the post/most votes wins system) of that committee is required to make a decision, unless otherwise mandated.
ii) When a WCC vote to select a World Cup bid is initiated by the President, a majority vote of that committee is required to make a decision. If no majority is obtained on the first vote, a second vote will be held. The 2 options that receive the most votes in the first round of balloting, including the option to re-open the process for new bids but excluding the option to officially abstain, will be the only 2 options in this run-off round.
iii) Any proposal by a WCC member can, if supported by three other WCC members, be put to a WCC-wide vote.

The proposed amendment is in bold. For reference, the current language is:

4.2 Definitition of: "The (E)WCC may vote..."
i) When an EWCC or WCC vote is initiated by the President, a plurality vote (first past the post/most votes wins system) of that committee is required to make a decision, unless otherwise mandated.
ii) Any proposal by a WCC member can, if supported by three other WCC members, be put to a WCC-wide vote.

I also propose a minor amendment to correct a typo in the current WCC Constitution (changed text is bolded):

4.2 Definition of: "The (E)WCC may vote..."

---

After the 3rd bid went up this morning, I checked the WCC Constitution to see what voting system would be used to vote on World Cup bids. While it is understandable to use FPTP for the BoF and CoH, so as not to unnecessarily lengthen the process, this is not an issue with the World Cup proper. World Cup bids are voted on at the same time as BoF bids, but the BoF runs for several weeks before the World Cup is held. Delaying the selection of a World Cup host by a few more days, when there are a large number of competing World Cup bids, is worth it to ensure that the hosts of the World Cup have the support of the majority of the WCC.

When I copied the text of section 4.2 into the posting box to propose this amendment, my browser's spell check caught that typo, so I proposed the second amendment to correct the typo.

[Liventia]

I'm not massively in favour. It's useful to have the WC and BoF hosts confirmed at the same time as the two pairs of hosts will need to liaise with each other on entry numbers. To extend the WC vote further would complicate matters with the BoF starting, thus delaying the entire cycle anyway.

[Polar Islandstates]

I think a typo can be sorted without amendments, but I'm not sure if the first amendment is necessarily the best way to do it. The BoF voting and the WC voting isnt always at the same time, and the current voting/signups idea I'm currently implementing isn't codified in any way at all.

However, it is actually advantageous to have them chosen at the same time, and this is because a consensus generally needs meeting between the two sets of elected hosts when it comes to deciding on a dialogue to end signups at an appropriate numerical place for both tournaments. So to have this drawn out may not be such the advantage you think it is. I would also hesitantly suggest that were any change in voting process required, that one in line with the Presidential voting procedures might be more advisable.

[Farfadillis]

to end signups at an appropriate numerical place for both tournaments.

I'm not particularly in favour or against the proposal, but I don't see the problem here, as the BoF hosts can cut-off sign-ups for their tournament by themselves, without cutting-off sign-ups for the WC. I remember this well because I signed up for WC60 a bit too late for the BoF.

However, I think this change might be a bit impractical, considering it's not all that likely that the voting outcome changes after the second round, and considering that it may cause a few complications in the process.

[Polar Islandstates]

to end signups at an appropriate numerical place for both tournaments.

I'm not particularly in favour or against the proposal, but I don't see the problem here, as the BoF hosts can cut-off sign-ups for their tournament by themselves, without cutting-off sign-ups for the WC. I remember this well because I signed up for WC60 a bit too late for the BoF.

This is true, but if a BoF host cuts signups off at a point where any unelected WC host is going to have to wait for nineteen non-BoF sign-ups to get a workable number then that's not practical. A dialogue is still required, imo.

[Cassadaigua]

[box]4.2 Definitition of: "The (E)WCC may vote..."i) When an EWCC or WCC vote is initiated by the President, a plurality vote (first past the post/most votes wins system) of that committee is required to make a decision, unless otherwise mandated.

Without expressing being for or against the spirit of your proposal, I would only vote in favor of this amendment if it explicitly limited the "second vote" to people who voted the first time. There is currently no verbage prohibiting someone who didn't vote the first time, then voting the second time. Even I did otherwise like your proposal, I would vote against the amendment due to this.

[Legalese]

I support Saintland's sentiment (and have always felt that a majority of those voting should be needed on all votes- especially host votes), but there's fortunately a simpler way to do it that does not involve multiple ballots to be cast:

Proposed: That Section 4.2, paragraph ii) be amended as follows:

ii) When a vote to select a Hosting bid is initiated by the President, a majority of those voting shall be required to decide the outcome. Voters are instructed to cast a single ballot listing their hosting preference, along with the order in which the other options, including the option to re-open bids, should be considered. If no option receives a majority of the first preference votes cast, the bid with the fewest number of votes shall be eliminated, and the ballots cast in that direction re-counted using their next preference. The mechanics of the vote shall follow the mechanics laid out by article 1.5 (Elections), with a focus on clauses i,ii,iii,iv, and vi, with the exception that the option to re-open the process for new bids may not be eliminated by any result but another option receiving a full majority.

Additionally, as any amendment would only come effective after this host vote is conducted, I would suggest that if this is the direction we'd like to go for future votes, that the WCC President (as the initiator of the votes) could (as per 4.2.i) mandate that something similar to the above be used for this cycle's host votes - assuming that the VP is up for doing it that way (I figure she's certainly capable of it!).

Again, I would suggest this be done if and only if it appears that the amendment itself is likely to pass - if it even makes the floor.

EDIT: As Cass posted her issues with limiting the vote to just those who voted in the first round, I note that this solves that issue, since only one round of ballots are collected.

[Saintland]

I support Saintland's sentiment (and have always felt that a majority of those voting should be needed on all votes- especially host votes), but there's fortunately a simpler way to do it that does not involve multiple ballots to be cast:

Proposed: That Section 4.2, paragraph ii) be amended as follows:

ii) When a vote to select a Hosting bid is initiated by the President, a majority of those voting shall be required to decide the outcome. Voters are instructed to cast a single ballot listing their hosting preference, along with the order in which the other options, including the option to re-open bids, should be considered. If no option receives a majority of the first preference votes cast, the bid with the fewest number of votes shall be eliminated, and the ballots cast in that direction re-counted using their next preference. The mechanics of the vote shall follow the mechanics laid out by article 1.5 (Elections), with a focus on clauses i,ii,iii,iv, and vi, with the exception that the option to re-open the process for new bids may not be eliminated by any result but another option receiving a full majority.

I withdraw my amendment from consideration and support Legalese's proposal.

[Polar Islandstates]

Whilst Legalese's proposal matches the presidential system that I was talking about, before supporting such an amendment I would like to know from our previous president whether or not this voting system was well used in the last presidential vote. I know we didn't need it, in the end, but if the numbers of people actually capable of reading the instructions and voting this was was <10-20% then I'd question the point in codifying such an amendment.

[Legalese]

Whilst Legalese's proposal matches the presidential system that I was talking about, before supporting such an amendment I would like to know from our previous president whether or not this voting system was well used in the last presidential vote. I know we didn't need it, in the end, but if the numbers of people actually capable of reading the instructions and voting this was was <10-20% then I'd question the point in codifying such an amendment.

In case TBI doesn't get to it, there was this snippet from his announcement of the results in question:

All ballots listing Polar Islandstates as first choice are now redistributed to their second-choice candidates for the purpose of selecting the Vice President.

For Aguazul: 14, plus 4 first choices = 18 votes.
For Starblaydia: 3, plus 3 first choices = 6 votes.
One redistributed ballot expressed no further choices.

Thus, of the 18 votes cast for you last time, 17 had second choices listed. Even if none of the other ballots cast had them listed, I think it's safe to say that the community can figure it out

EDIT: I also acknowledge that I missed your post re: The Presidential Vote when I posted my initial reply, PIS. I guess great minds think alike

[Polar Islandstates]

Aha, that's fine.

Tbh I'd forgotten that TBI was the one collecting them last time around and was searching for the wrong person anyway ha.

EDIT:
in that case, this is a another post in support of the proposal.

[Farfadillis]

I think Legal's proposal is the ideal solution, I'll support it.

[Maklohi Vai]

I support the proposal by Legalese, largely out of my positive experience with this voting format for the mayoral elections in my area.

[Polar Islandstates]

Right, that'll be up for vote at the next time a vote happens. Do feel free to continue discussing its pros and cons, however.

[United Gordonopia]

Just expanding on something that's been mentioned, it is very advantageous, and in fact probably necessary, to have the WC hosts decided before the BoF can start, namely because there is a WCC rule that prohibits you from entering only the BoF but not the WC. Should a new or returning nation enter late, it would not be solely up to the discretion of the BoF hosts whether or not to admit them because they would need to confirm whether the WC hosts would allow them or not based on their numbers.

That said, I would be in favor of Legalese's system provided it was decently followed in the past.

[Starblaydia]

1. Change my typo, please.

2. Oh dear lordy that wall of amendment text looks complicated. Almost like... legalese... I'd hoped that the constitution I collated (wrote a good deal of it, copied much) was a type of common sense consensus constitution. But, of course, I also understand the nature of how twats rules lawyers work to pervert the process for their own ends.

[Legalese]

I think we can safely say that we don't need an amendment to fix an obvious typo that doesn't change the meaning of it - it should just be done.

As for my IC neighbor's concerns about the wording of the above proposal, I would like to point out that it takes a process that TBI put into six clauses, and reduces it to one, and I can't exactly see where there's problem with that.

Also, if he would like to demonstrate how the amendment preverts the process for anyone's own end, I'm happy to have that conversation as well. Otherwise, I find it a bit shameful that a former WCC President can't handle the thought of a proposed amendment (one that seems to be favored more than it is opposed at present) that follows the common sense procedures he laid out himself, because he simply doesn't like it.

You could also do away with the veil the next time you wish to imply anything about my intentions, if you wish.