Advertisement
by Gregoryisgodistan » Thu Sep 01, 2016 7:14 am
by CoraSpia » Thu Sep 01, 2016 7:33 am
Gregoryisgodistan wrote:I'm sure if someone included some ridiculous "sport", the Council might reject it. While any host who I would trust with hosting the Olympics would certainly be capable of doing it, that isn't necessarily the issue. Wasn't summer vigil fasting contested as a "sport" once? I'd have had an issue with that had I been here at the time. And I'm sure if I proposed including slave beating or heathen crushing or some other violent Gregoryisgodistani "sport", as I've joked about on IRC, it would be rejected. Some things don't belong in the Olympics no matter who the host is.
That being said, I agree any numerical limit is arbitrary and would oppose one.
by Kelssek » Thu Sep 01, 2016 8:33 am
Personally, I'm in favour of the host nation deciding any additional medal events they want to hold, as long as they make it clear in their host bid.
Why should it be rejected though? You don't have to participate in sports you don't like.
Commerce Heights wrote: - All events in the sports which are established as part of the RL Olympic program—i.e., those sports which are listed in the Bye-law to Rule 45 of the RL Olympic Charter and whose international federations are members of the ASOIF or AIOWF—must be included as medal events.
- Additional sports may be proposed in a host bid as medal events. Each such sport must be individually approved by a vote of the Olympic Council, which will take place at the same time as the host vote. A host bid may not be made contingent on the inclusion of any additional sport.
- During the year of the RL Games of the Olympiad, additional sports which are being contested at those RL Games may be included without a vote of the Olympic Council.
by Ilyseum » Thu Sep 01, 2016 8:37 am
Gregoryisgodistan wrote:I'm sure if someone included some ridiculous "sport", the Council might reject it. While any host who I would trust with hosting the Olympics would certainly be capable of doing it, that isn't necessarily the issue. Wasn't summer vigil fasting contested as a "sport" once? I'd have had an issue with that had I been here at the time. And I'm sure if I proposed including slave beating or heathen crushing or some other violent Gregoryisgodistani "sport", as I've joked about on IRC, it would be rejected. Some things don't belong in the Olympics no matter who the host is.
Vilita and Turori wrote:I think that any olympic games that is purposely scheduled to coincide with the real olympic games, such as this past one, one 2 years from now, and 2 years from that, etc, should be 'encouraged' to stick to the events of that years official games.
Any olympic games that do not loosely coincide with the real ones could include 1-5 events as additional medal events so long as they include it in their bid - but ONLY if that sport has previously been contested and completed as an official demonstration event in a prior games.
If a sport hasn't been demonstrated previously, then the host has the option of adding it as a demonstration event so it can be included by future hosts
by The Sarian » Thu Sep 01, 2016 8:41 am
Ilyseum wrote:Gregoryisgodistan wrote:I'm sure if someone included some ridiculous "sport", the Council might reject it. While any host who I would trust with hosting the Olympics would certainly be capable of doing it, that isn't necessarily the issue. Wasn't summer vigil fasting contested as a "sport" once? I'd have had an issue with that had I been here at the time. And I'm sure if I proposed including slave beating or heathen crushing or some other violent Gregoryisgodistani "sport", as I've joked about on IRC, it would be rejected. Some things don't belong in the Olympics no matter who the host is.
I'm sure the vote would be alot closer than you'd think. Besides, you could argue that some of the RL Olympic events shouldn't be there (supporters of wrestling certainly did during that controversy).Vilita and Turori wrote:I think that any olympic games that is purposely scheduled to coincide with the real olympic games, such as this past one, one 2 years from now, and 2 years from that, etc, should be 'encouraged' to stick to the events of that years official games.
Any olympic games that do not loosely coincide with the real ones could include 1-5 events as additional medal events so long as they include it in their bid - but ONLY if that sport has previously been contested and completed as an official demonstration event in a prior games.
If a sport hasn't been demonstrated previously, then the host has the option of adding it as a demonstration event so it can be included by future hosts
I don't support a numerical limit, but I could support a rule that only RL Olympic events and events previously contested as demonstration events could be contested as medal events.
I do believe that the extra events actually contested in a RL Olympics should be held in the NS Olympics corresponding to that year (for example, I would not vote for a bid in 2020 that excluded baseball just as I wouldn't vote for a bid that excluded basketball were such a bid legal), but I'd be opposed to restricting a host of an Olympics held in that year to the events actually contested. Realistically, most hosts aren't going to go far above the lower bound anyway, since it is set so high for a Summer Olympics (and there aren't really any popular winter sports that aren't part of the RL Winter Olympics).
by The Archregimancy » Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:01 am
Kelssek wrote:The intent was always to keep the Nationstates Olympics close to the RL Olympics and that is how I believe it should be. I would go so far as to argue that the clear analogue and simulation of the real thing is precisely what makes the Olympics as an RP event attractive and interesting. This would be lost if we just started including any sport as a medal event on the host's whim (I say whim because it's rare that we even get competing bids).
by CoraSpia » Thu Sep 01, 2016 10:11 am
Kelssek wrote:Personally, I'm in favour of the host nation deciding any additional medal events they want to hold, as long as they make it clear in their host bid.Why should it be rejected though? You don't have to participate in sports you don't like.
I strongly disagree. Actually, what Ilyseum is citing as the original state of play was in fact a drafting mistake which was only realized quite a while afterwards; I had wanted to include rugby sevens and golf as medal events at the 5th Summer Olympics but was told I couldn't and this, or something else later, may have revealed the loophole. The amendment was to put into words what had been intended all along.
The intent was always to keep the Nationstates Olympics close to the RL Olympics and that is how I believe it should be. I would go so far as to argue that the clear analogue and simulation of the real thing is precisely what makes the Olympics as an RP event attractive and interesting. This would be lost if we just started including any sport as a medal event on the host's whim (I say whim because it's rare that we even get competing bids). A multi-sport event with a variety of non-Olympic sports was attempted and it didn't take off despite a very credible host and participation from many members of the community.Commerce Heights wrote: - All events in the sports which are established as part of the RL Olympic program—i.e., those sports which are listed in the Bye-law to Rule 45 of the RL Olympic Charter and whose international federations are members of the ASOIF or AIOWF—must be included as medal events.
- Additional sports may be proposed in a host bid as medal events. Each such sport must be individually approved by a vote of the Olympic Council, which will take place at the same time as the host vote. A host bid may not be made contingent on the inclusion of any additional sport.
- During the year of the RL Games of the Olympiad, additional sports which are being contested at those RL Games may be included without a vote of the Olympic Council.
There are two conflicting realism issues here. Is it more realistic to follow the rule and give hosts up to 5 events at their discretion to award medals in, which opens up the (unrealistic) possibility of medals being awarded in sports that aren't recognized by the IOC? And when the point of that rule change doesn't really apply here, as Taeshan points out?
But I think these 3 points are good ideas. We move towards setting up the "core" Olympic events which always take place, and allow for a small number of medal events that vary year to year. In this sense we would follow the principle of the IOC's change, despite the intent of attracting more local ticket sales not really being a relevant concern for us. As an alternative, my keep-it-simple suggestion would be to augment the existing base list/extended list system and place any event confirmed as a medal event for the next RL Olympics onto the extended list. This gives hosts the option of including none, some, or all as medal events or not. I suppose this would be the more strict "follow the real thing" version.
by The Serbian Empire » Thu Sep 01, 2016 10:12 am
Coraspia wrote:Kelssek wrote:
I strongly disagree. Actually, what Ilyseum is citing as the original state of play was in fact a drafting mistake which was only realized quite a while afterwards; I had wanted to include rugby sevens and golf as medal events at the 5th Summer Olympics but was told I couldn't and this, or something else later, may have revealed the loophole. The amendment was to put into words what had been intended all along.
The intent was always to keep the Nationstates Olympics close to the RL Olympics and that is how I believe it should be. I would go so far as to argue that the clear analogue and simulation of the real thing is precisely what makes the Olympics as an RP event attractive and interesting. This would be lost if we just started including any sport as a medal event on the host's whim (I say whim because it's rare that we even get competing bids). A multi-sport event with a variety of non-Olympic sports was attempted and it didn't take off despite a very credible host and participation from many members of the community.
There are two conflicting realism issues here. Is it more realistic to follow the rule and give hosts up to 5 events at their discretion to award medals in, which opens up the (unrealistic) possibility of medals being awarded in sports that aren't recognized by the IOC? And when the point of that rule change doesn't really apply here, as Taeshan points out?
But I think these 3 points are good ideas. We move towards setting up the "core" Olympic events which always take place, and allow for a small number of medal events that vary year to year. In this sense we would follow the principle of the IOC's change, despite the intent of attracting more local ticket sales not really being a relevant concern for us. As an alternative, my keep-it-simple suggestion would be to augment the existing base list/extended list system and place any event confirmed as a medal event for the next RL Olympics onto the extended list. This gives hosts the option of including none, some, or all as medal events or not. I suppose this would be the more strict "follow the real thing" version.
I just really want to have slave beating included in the Olympics. Rping that would be interesting.
by CoraSpia » Thu Sep 01, 2016 10:15 am
by Gregoryisgodistan » Thu Sep 01, 2016 10:58 am
by Liventia » Thu Sep 01, 2016 11:21 am
Kelssek wrote:As an alternative, my keep-it-simple suggestion would be to augment the existing base list/extended list system and place any event confirmed as a medal event for the next RL Olympics onto the extended list. This gives hosts the option of including none, some, or all as medal events or not. I suppose this would be the more strict "follow the real thing" version.
by CoraSpia » Thu Sep 01, 2016 11:23 am
Liventia wrote:On the matter of the extension of the sports/events base list/extended list, Kelssek has my thoughts covered, and also why I seconded and voted in favour of CH's amendment when it was put forward.Kelssek wrote:As an alternative, my keep-it-simple suggestion would be to augment the existing base list/extended list system and place any event confirmed as a medal event for the next RL Olympics onto the extended list. This gives hosts the option of including none, some, or all as medal events or not. I suppose this would be the more strict "follow the real thing" version.
This would be my favoured amendment, if we need one. Realistically, if people want to take part in events that aren't on the Olympic calendar, go create a new multi-sport event for them.
by Liventia » Thu Sep 01, 2016 11:29 am
Coraspia wrote:Liventia wrote:On the matter of the extension of the sports/events base list/extended list, Kelssek has my thoughts covered, and also why I seconded and voted in favour of CH's amendment when it was put forward.
This would be my favoured amendment, if we need one. Realistically, if people want to take part in events that aren't on the Olympic calendar, go create a new multi-sport event for them.
I will of course be voting against anything that makes the Olympics 'follow the real thing.' Having the Olympics follow the real thing is just an impediment to creativity: I'm all for a base list being put in, but nothing says it must follow the real thing.
by CoraSpia » Thu Sep 01, 2016 11:32 am
Liventia wrote:Coraspia wrote:I will of course be voting against anything that makes the Olympics 'follow the real thing.' Having the Olympics follow the real thing is just an impediment to creativity: I'm all for a base list being put in, but nothing says it must follow the real thing.
Then go make your own event, it's really not that difficult.
by The Archregimancy » Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:41 pm
by Todd McCloud » Thu Sep 01, 2016 2:46 pm
by Hannasea » Thu Sep 01, 2016 4:37 pm
by Krytenia » Fri Sep 16, 2016 9:29 am
the current Olympic Records will be treated as the current World Records by the NSAC, giving the opportunity to set world or Championship records. (Whether the NSOC reciprocate is, of course, entirely up to them.)
by Britonisea » Fri Sep 16, 2016 9:46 am
Krytenia wrote:Just thought I'd make you all aware of this post, specifically this sentence:the current Olympic Records will be treated as the current World Records by the NSAC, giving the opportunity to set world or Championship records. (Whether the NSOC reciprocate is, of course, entirely up to them.)
I'm hoping (if the event is successful) to run it twice a year - once in autumn and once in spring. I leave it entirely to the NSOC as to whether any records set in this event should be considered as World Records for the purposes of the Olympics.
by Liventia » Fri Sep 16, 2016 4:39 pm
Britonisea wrote:Krytenia wrote:Just thought I'd make you all aware of this post, specifically this sentence:
I'm hoping (if the event is successful) to run it twice a year - once in autumn and once in spring. I leave it entirely to the NSOC as to whether any records set in this event should be considered as World Records for the purposes of the Olympics.
Why would you decide to do this NS Athletics Championships twice a year when we have spoken about doing a diamond league series (on this thread, hence why I am asking this question on this thread) with a World Championships at the end of it? I'm just curious.
by Krytenia » Fri Sep 16, 2016 9:58 pm
Britonisea wrote:Krytenia wrote:Just thought I'd make you all aware of this post, specifically this sentence:
I'm hoping (if the event is successful) to run it twice a year - once in autumn and once in spring. I leave it entirely to the NSOC as to whether any records set in this event should be considered as World Records for the purposes of the Olympics.
Why would you decide to do this NS Athletics Championships twice a year when we have spoken about doing a diamond league series (on this thread, hence why I am asking this question on this thread) with a World Championships at the end of it? I'm just curious.
by Britonisea » Sat Sep 17, 2016 1:07 am
Liventia wrote:Britonisea wrote:
Why would you decide to do this NS Athletics Championships twice a year when we have spoken about doing a diamond league series (on this thread, hence why I am asking this question on this thread) with a World Championships at the end of it? I'm just curious.
I would rather a World Championships run by an experienced player, then have a Diamond League series run by God knows who.
Krytenia wrote:Britonisea wrote:
Why would you decide to do this NS Athletics Championships twice a year when we have spoken about doing a diamond league series (on this thread, hence why I am asking this question on this thread) with a World Championships at the end of it? I'm just curious.
To take a leaf from another famous website, I'm "being bold".
BTW, there has been an attempt at a Diamond-League style event in the past (run by Ceni/Costa de Ouro IIRC) that sank rather quickly.
by Krytenia » Sat Sep 17, 2016 2:16 pm
by Todd McCloud » Sun Sep 18, 2016 10:23 am
Commerce Heights wrote:Second, I would like to remind everyone that the original intent of the clause allowing the President to appoint a member of the Executive Committee was not for the terms of past hosts to be extended, as it has often been used, but rather to allow a place for a non-host who otherwise contributes to the Olympic Games. For this reason, I appoint Vekaiyu to the Executive Committee.
by Sjovenia » Wed Sep 21, 2016 1:20 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Quebec and Shingoryeo, Tero al Disco
Advertisement