The World Cup Discussion Thread (OOC, version III)

[Saintland]

I guess I should be the latest to congratulate Welsh Cowboy on winning the BoF, something I have been unable to do in 2 attempts. You deserve it after your awful luck in the WBC.

By my count, there are currently 182 signups, assuming no CTEs, no errors on the signup thread OP and nobody attempted to sign up twice or violate the puppet rules. If all of that is correct and the hosts intend to use the 30x6 format, then we already have a full field.

[Audioslavia]

I guess I should be the latest to congratulate Welsh Cowboy on winning the BoF, something I have been unable to do in 2 attempts. You deserve it after your awful luck in the WBC.

By my count, there are currently 182 signups, assuming no CTEs, no errors on the signup thread OP and nobody attempted to sign up twice or violate the puppet rules. If all of that is correct and the hosts intend to use the 30x6 format, then we already have a full field.

Not quite. At last count we had two CTEs, so we're still waiting on two further sign-ups. If we don't achieve the full 182 by Sunday then we'll either be coaxing a puppet or two from some of you as-yet-puppetless nations or we'll be cutting a maximum of four nations (along with my own puppet Kjeligsted)

RP and Roster threads will be posted by tomorrow evening, and we're currently on the way to closing sign-ups (if they aren't full already) by about 8pm UTC on Sunday and drawing the groups the same evening, with the Syndicatian-scorinated Matchday One to come afterwards.

[Eastfield Lodge]

I guess I should be the latest to congratulate Welsh Cowboy on winning the BoF, something I have been unable to do in 2 attempts. You deserve it after your awful luck in the WBC.

By my count, there are currently 182 signups, assuming no CTEs, no errors on the signup thread OP and nobody attempted to sign up twice or violate the puppet rules. If all of that is correct and the hosts intend to use the 30x6 format, then we already have a full field.

Not quite. At last count we had two CTEs, so we're still waiting on two further sign-ups. If we don't achieve the full 182 by Sunday then we'll either be coaxing a puppet or two from some of you as-yet-puppetless nations or we'll be cutting a maximum of four nations (along with my own puppet Kjeligsted)

RP and Roster threads will be posted by tomorrow evening, and we're currently on the way to closing sign-ups (if they aren't full already) by about 8pm UTC on Sunday and drawing the groups the same evening, with the Syndicatian-scorinated Matchday One to come afterwards.

You could bump up the signup thread with that announcement, and get the final two signups quite easily.

[Welsh Cowboy]

I truly appreciate all the congratulations (I'm sorry I didn't reply earlier, but I haven't quite discovered the habit of reading this thread often ). My appreciation also goes to the host, but I also thank the other participants for setting a high level for me to live up to. I think many others deserved the win as much, or more, than me.

[The Licentian Isles]

Congratulations to Welsh Cowboy, a very deserving winner.

[Levivania]

when exactly is world cup 66

[Wight]

.

[Neo Lemmitania]

If we don't achieve the full 182 by Sunday then we'll either be coaxing a puppet or two from some of you as-yet-puppetless nations or we'll be cutting a maximum of four nations (along with my own puppet Kjeligsted)

Neo Gilmeecia?

It could happen. The sacrifice could be made, if only to preserve the sanctity of a 182-nation World Cup group. Though the world may not thank me for bringing back Lou Gilsterson. But after all, last we left them, the nation was overrun by zombpires, and they're nothing if not undead and immortal.

In all seriousness, though, I wasn't planning to bring Gilmeecia back quite yet, so I hope we get a few more signups from legitimate nations. But I could work around an early return if necessary.

[Sangti]

Only realized this sooner, as I am browsing the WC pre66 ranks (and projecting which pots would my nations be placed), there was a duplicate of New Lowerlands in the spreadsheet. I investigated further and found out that the two entries who had the same nation name was the same nation itself.

New Lowerlands should have not been eligible for the BoF, as they competed in the WC65 qualifying and had KPB points coming into the competition.

His signup in WC65 can be found here.

[Gregoryisgodistan]

Only realized this sooner, as I am browsing the WC pre66 ranks (and projecting which pots would my nations be placed), there was a duplicate of New Lowerlands in the spreadsheet. I investigated further and found out that the two entries who had the same nation name was the same nation itself.

New Lowerlands should have not been eligible for the BoF, as they competed in the WC65 qualifying and had KPB points coming into the competition.

His signup in WC65 can be found here.

And I came in third in his group. That hurts. I would have gone to the knockout stage. This isn't fair.

[Saintland]

Only realized this sooner, as I am browsing the WC pre66 ranks (and projecting which pots would my nations be placed), there was a duplicate of New Lowerlands in the spreadsheet. I investigated further and found out that the two entries who had the same nation name was the same nation itself.

New Lowerlands should have not been eligible for the BoF, as they competed in the WC65 qualifying and had KPB points coming into the competition.

His signup in WC65 can be found here.

From what I can tell, there is nothing in the Constitution regarding how to handle this situation. Personally, I'd be in favor of going with the lower of the 2 KPBs in cases where an ineligible nation intentionally enters the BoF (see: this, this, this and this).

[Gregoryisgodistan]

It appears I confused New Lowerlands with New Lonopolian Empire who was also in my group. New Lowerlands came in 5th and only won one game.

[Horusland]

Only realized this sooner, as I am browsing the WC pre66 ranks (and projecting which pots would my nations be placed), there was a duplicate of New Lowerlands in the spreadsheet. I investigated further and found out that the two entries who had the same nation name was the same nation itself.

New Lowerlands should have not been eligible for the BoF, as they competed in the WC65 qualifying and had KPB points coming into the competition.

His signup in WC65 can be found here.

From what I can tell, there is nothing in the Constitution regarding how to handle this situation. Personally, I'd be in favor of going with the lower of the 2 KPBs in cases where an ineligible nation intentionally enters the BoF (see: this, this, this and this).

Shouldn't his score be recalculated? :/

[Saintland]

From what I can tell, there is nothing in the Constitution regarding how to handle this situation. Personally, I'd be in favor of going with the lower of the 2 KPBs in cases where an ineligible nation intentionally enters the BoF (see: this, this, this and this).

Shouldn't his score be recalculated? :/

To include both? Wouldn't that be rewarding him for illegally entering the BoF? The options here are:

1) Include both his BoF 53 and WC65 Qualifying points in his KPB
2) Include only points earned in BoF 53
3) Include only points earned in WC65 Qualifying
4) Include the lower of the 2 scores
5) Include the higher of the 2 scores
6) Include neither

Options 1 and 5 reward illegal entry into the BoF. Option 6 is absolutely excessive. That leaves options 2 through 4.

[Horusland]

Shouldn't his score be recalculated? :/

To include both? Wouldn't that be rewarding him for illegally entering the BoF? The options here are:

1) Include both his BoF 53 and WC65 Qualifying points in his KPB
2) Include only points earned in BoF 53
3) Include only points earned in WC65 Qualifying
4) Include the lower of the 2 scores
5) Include the higher of the 2 scores
6) Include neither

Options 1 and 5 reward illegal entry into the BoF. Option 6 is absolutely excessive. That leaves options 2 through 4.

Oh, I get it now. :/

[Sangti]

To include both? Wouldn't that be rewarding him for illegally entering the BoF? The options here are:

1) Include both his BoF 53 and WC65 Qualifying points in his KPB
2) Include only points earned in BoF 53
3) Include only points earned in WC65 Qualifying
4) Include the lower of the 2 scores
5) Include the higher of the 2 scores
6) Include neither

Options 1 and 5 reward illegal entry into the BoF. Option 6 is absolutely excessive. That leaves options 2 through 4.

I am not a member of the WCC, but for me option 3 would be the logical option, but it is just my opinion.

[Zwangzug]

We have precedent for this kind of thing, and in general, the standard procedure is to not count any BoF points if, like this, the team should not have been eligible for the BoF. So I'll delete New Lowerlands' more recent appearance now. Thanks for spotting this!

[Vaugania]

I'm not quite understanding all of the columns in the newest rankings. Could someone explain them to me?

To be more specific, I would like to know what the numbers in column Q, S, U, W, Y, etc. are. Everyone has the same number in each column and I can't tell what it has to do with the rankings. Another thing I can't understand is why the number of games played in BoF 53 is under CoH 55, but my point total is under BoF53. Also, I am listed as having 1.56 pts, but 14 points over 8 games is 1.75, is it not? Or is there something to the formula I am missing?

[New Sideburn]

Did you win any games after extra time or on penalties? Pretty sure one or both of those are counted as draws.

[Karditan]

I'm liking the shout-outs to Kiryu-shi's and my home stadium situations once-upon-a-time in the roster thread.

[Vaugania]

Did you win any games after extra time or on penalties? Pretty sure one or both of those are counted as draws.

Nope. Everything wrapped up during regulation.

[Equestrian States]

I would like to know what the numbers in column Q, S, U, W, Y, etc. are. Everyone has the same number in each column and I can't tell what it has to do with the rankings.

It's the maximum number of matches a team could theoretically play in that tournament, including both the group stage and the knockout rounds. They are included for all ranked teams as the spreadsheet would generate an "divide by zero" error if they were excluded. In short, it's technical stuff that involves maths and such, so you can ignore it if you want to.

And they're not new either. Look at the past rankings, and you'll notice that they've been there for quite some time.

[Vaugania]

I would like to know what the numbers in column Q, S, U, W, Y, etc. are. Everyone has the same number in each column and I can't tell what it has to do with the rankings.

It's the maximum number of matches a team could theoretically play in that tournament, including both the group stage and the knockout rounds. They are included for all ranked teams as the spreadsheet would generate an "divide by zero" error if they were excluded. In short, it's technical stuff that involves maths and such, so you can ignore it if you want to.

And they're not new either. Look at the past rankings, and you'll notice that they've been there for quite some time.

I see. It would likely be pretty bad if we made any tears in the space-time continuum.

[Equestrian States]

I see. It would likely be pretty bad if we made any tears in the space-time continuum.

Indeed.

...asserting that your nation is comprised of eleven immortal goddesses who cannot be beaten won't be too believable if you're a lower-ranked nation, and telling us your players are all aged twelve yet are somehow ranked in the world's top ten is just as unbelievable...

Amusingly, both of these somewhat describe ideas I've had for WCC puppets. And though my team of aged twelve players may not have made it into the top ten, they did get into the top 100 before I pulled the plug on them.

[Tasrailia]

May I ask where the WC rankings are?