World Baseball Classic Discussion Thread

[Schiltzberg]

Really? Not only do I not get to play in the final, but I have to play Schiltzberg to boot? Wow. This went south in a hurry. But at least I can claim that the 3rd place series is the "real" championship game (no disrespect intended, just trying to salvage something here).

This is exactly what I was thinking. Uggghhhh.

[Sandberg]

Wow, we had great voter turnout this time, and we already have 50% plus one, so I will close the voting. Here are the results:

APPROVE: 9
REJECT: 0
ABSTAIN: 0

The amendment is passed with overwhelming support, so I will post the new constitution with my main nation when I get a chance.

[Schiltzberg]

WBC Constitution, January 2017
(previously amended December 2016, April 2014, December 2013, and April 2012)

Article I: Council Eligibility

Section 1: To be eligible to become a member of the Council, a nation must have participated in the previous 2 Classics or have hosted at least one of the previous 3 Classics.

Section 2: Following each Classic, the Council shall vote on whether or not to admit any nations that are eligible to become members of the Council. A simple majority vote in favor shall be required to become a member of the Council.

Section 3: Nations that do not participate in two consecutive Classics shall be removed from the Council, unless they have hosted one of the three most recent editions of the Classic. Nations that are removed from the Council due to inactivity may regain membership through the process laid out above.

Section 4: For the purposes of this Article, a nation that posted a roster and at least ONE RP in an edition of the Classic has "participated" in that edition.

Section 5: For the purposes of this Article, multiple nations operated by the same OOC user are regarded as a single nation.

Article II: Rights and Responsibilities of the Council

Section 1: The Council shall be the voters for the next Host of the Classic and shall choose from the available bids.

Section 2: The Council shall be the determining body for changes, (ie: repealing, amending or introduction of new rules), to the WBC Constitution. A two-thirds majority shall be needed to amend or repeal any part of the WBC Constitution, but a simple majority vote shall be sufficient for introduction of new rules to the Constitution.

Section 3: Any member of the Council can withdraw from the Council without prejudice, but shall be subject to the above eligibility guidelines if they seek re-instatement.

Section 4: Council members may "go on vacation" (ie: take a NS break) for a maximum of two Classics; but shall be subject to the above eligibility guidelines if they seek re-instatement if they are gone for more than two consecutive Classics.

Section 5: The Council is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the Classic and for advertising of the same.

Section 6: The Council shall be held to any subsequent rights and/or responsibilities that are created henceforth into the WBC Constitution.

Article III: President of the Council

Section 1: The Council will be headed by a president who will be elected by the members of the council, using the same election procedures as outlined in Article VI.

Section 2: The president will be elected after every third World Baseball Classic, and will serve terms of three Classics. No one may serve as president for two consecutive terms.

Section 3: The president's duties are the following: opening the sign-up thread; opening and collecting host voting; opening and collecting constitutional proposal voting; keeping the council list updated; opening and collecting council member election voting; and making any other arbitrary decisions which are not fit to be decided by the council as a whole.

Section 4: The president must appoint a vice-president to serve in his/her absence. If the president goes missing for an extended period of time, or ceases to exist, the vice-president has the right to step up and serve as the president pro tempore.

Section 5: The president may be impeached under the procedures of Article IV. If the president is impeached and removed from the council, the vice-president becomes the new president.

Article IV: Impeachment Procedures

Section 1: In order to initiate impeachment and/or removal from office proceedings against a current member of the World Baseball Classic Council, another member in good standing must motion for impeachment. If a different member seconds the motion, the member is considered impeached.

Section 2: In the event that a Council member is impeached, the full Council shall have one RL week to discuss whether or not to remove the impeached member. During that period, the impeached member is still considered a full voting member of the Council on any items other than those involving the impeachment proceedings.

Section 3: The council president shall initiate the removal vote, which shall only take place in the event two thirds of votes cast are in favour of removal from office. If the president is the one being impeached, the vice-president shall serve the same role as the president for the purposes of this section.

Section 4: In the event that two third of votes cast are in favour of removal from office, the Council member shall be removed from the Council with immediate effect for a period of two World Baseball Classics. At the end of the two World Baseball Classic period, the member may petition to rejoin the Council and initiate a plan to address any concerns outlined in the impeachment proceedings.

Section 5: Any Council member removed due to impeachment proceedings must be nominated to rejoin the Council and must be formally seconded. If that occurs, the Council may vote on readmission when votes for new Council members are being taken. If a simple majority of votes cast are in favour of readmission, the impeached member shall rejoin the Council with immediate effect.

Article V: Formula for World Rankings

Section 1: For each Classic, divide the number of games a team won by the number of games played by the team playing the most games.

Section 2: A team's ranking is the sum of:
Clause a. Four times their Section 1 quotient for the most recently completed Classic;
Clause b. Twice their Section 1 quotient for the next-most-recent completed Classic; and
Clause c. The unmodified Section 1 quotient for the third-most-recent completed Classic.

Section 3: When calculating the rankings, any games won due to forfeit are still treated as bona fide wins.

Article VI: Tournament Sportsmanship

Section 1: No team may voluntarily forfeit games or entire series after a World Baseball Classic has started.

Section 2: Only nations that have ceased to exist during the playoffs of the World Baseball Classic before being eliminated are deemed as forfeiting.

Section 3: Nations that cease to exist during a group stage or equivalent of the World Baseball Classic shall be prohibited from advancing beyond that stage, but must play out the remainder of their schedule in that stage. Nations that are subsequently re-founded prior to the end of the stage may advance beyond that stage.

Section 4: Forfeited games due to CTE by a nation are automatic victories for the opposing team and should be scorinated as such.

Section 5: The score of a forfeit is 9-0.

Article VII: Voting Procedures

Section 1: For a Council vote to be considered valid, a motion must have a simple majority of votes cast provided that a quorum of Council members votes in favour of or against the motion at vote.

Section 2: For the purposes of this amendment, a "quorum" shall be defined as one more than half the current voting membership of the Council.

Section 3: Any measure that receives the votes of one more than half the active Council membership shall be automatically approved.

Article VIII: Miscellaneous Procedures

Section 1: When creating the signup thread, the thread creator is to provide (at minimum) a link to the winning bid of the last World Baseball Classic and set a definitive deadline for when host bids must be received by.

Article IX: Hall of Fame

Section 1: In order to recognize excellent achievements through the storied history of the longest running tournament of the four North American sports, and to recognize the nations who helped make it that way, this council seeks to establish a Hall of Fame.

Section 2: There are three ways to reach the Hall of Fame. The first is to reach 20 points through a scale that awards points based on how well a nation did in previous World Baseball Classics. Nations that achieve 20 points are automatically inducted without the need for a council vote. The following scale gives the number of points scored per result in previous World Baseball Classics:
6 points per championship
4 points for a runner-up
2 points for third place
1 point for fourth place
3 points for hosting
4 points for WBC President (Full cycle; 3 WBCs)
2 points for partial presidency (Less than a full cycle)

Section 3: The second way to reach the Hall of Fame is to have participated in ten World Baseball Classics (this applies to users, and not specifically nations). However, the entrance may not take place if the nation in question has less than ten points. The nations meeting these qualifications will be voted on by the World Baseball Classic council, and if they receive a majority plus one of the votes, then they shall be admitted to the Hall of Fame.

Section 4: If a nation or person behind said nation is denied into the Hall of Fame after ten WBCs, their membership into the Hall of Fame shall again be looked at in increments of five. This means that if a nation doesn’t make it into the Hall of Fame in ten World Baseball Classics, they may be eligible to enter the Hall of Fame again after participating in fifteen, twenty, twenty-five, etc. World Baseball Classics, provided they have ten points.

Section 5: The third way for a nation to be elected into the Hall of Fame is by nomination. A World Baseball Classic council member or any nation who participated in WBC 1-20 may nominate any nation that has more than 10 points and less than 20 points to be potentially voted into the Hall of Fame. After receiving nomination, the entire council will vote on whether or not the nation should be elected into the Hall of Fame, and if the nation receives 50%+1 of the votes of the council, then that nation is inducted into the Hall of Fame. There is no requirement regarding the number of seasons participated in for a nation to be nominated in this way.

Section 6: In the case that a nation that is up for a vote for its entry into the Hall of Fame is also an incumbent member of the World Baseball Classic council, that nation shall not be allowed to vote for itself in the election and shall be required to abstain from voting.

Section 7: Hall of Fame membership is to be one nation per person, as to not load down the Hall of Fame with puppets.

Section 8: Inductions into the Hall of Fame will take place after each WBC, if any nation not already in the Hall of Fame has met one of the above listed criteria. Multiple, different nations can be inducted at one time.

Section 9: A nation that has Ceased to Exist (hereby referred to as CTE) may still be admitted into the Hall of Fame if they had enough points to qualify for the Hall of Fame before they CTE.

Section 10: Nations that are recognized as being a politically constituent part of a main nation will have their points added to the main nation’s total. Two nations shall be considered constituent if one inherited the rank of the other while participating in a WBC. Puppets that are not connected in character to the main nation of any user may not contribute to the main nation’s point total. Such puppets may not earn points themselves, unless the master nation under control of the same user does not have above ten points.

[Newmanistan]

Link to the newly revised constitution posted in the fifth overall post of this thread (on page 1) for easy future reference.

[Schiltzberg]

Link to the newly revised constitution posted in the fifth overall post of this thread (on page 1) for easy future reference.

Awesome! Thank you! It is annoying that the constitution Qazox has on the opening post is outdated by several years. Frenline Delpha tged me with an idea to maybe make an official President of the WBC account if we ever make a part II of this thread (which will probably be years from now), because then several people could have the password for this (maybe the president and VP), and if someone goes inactive, the active players can still control the opening post.

[Newmanistan]

Awesome! Thank you! It is annoying that the constitution Qazox has on the opening post is outdated by several years.

And now that's taken care of!

[Schiltzberg]

Awesome! Thank you! It is annoying that the constitution Qazox has on the opening post is outdated by several years.

And now that's taken care of!

Whoa! Holy shit! I didn't even know that was possible. Thank you and thank you to the mods! Also, congratulations to Frenline Delpha on taking game one of the big series.

[Ethane]

I enjoyed writing that RP.

Hope you enjoy it too Schiltzberg

[Schiltzberg]

I enjoyed writing that RP.

Hope you enjoy it too Schiltzberg

I think that it is good, and I thank you for focusing on me this time. I really liked it, except I disagree about your reasoning on why I lost. You had two points for why I lost, a) not enough drive to win, b) overestimating the competition. For a) it is actually the opposite, both OOC and IC, because as the Schiltzbergers won more and more championships, the expectations kept growing and growing, and they felt like they had to win, so they needed to win. They would not settle for anything but first place. For example, now they would be disappointed to settle for 3rd/4th, but in WBC 33, they would have been happy with that result. They had less drive to win because the expectations were lower back then and there was less pressure. As far as overestimating the competition, that is also complete bogus. I underestimated probably most of my opponents both IC and OOC because I just assumed I would win and I would slack off on my RPing. This was the case against Greg this year and also against you. Then I would realize I'm about to lose and scramble, but I would originally underestimate. This was also the case against Frenline Delpha in WBC 36 and The Great Pond in WBC 35.

[Ethane]

I enjoyed writing that RP.

Hope you enjoy it too Schiltzberg

I think that it is good, and I thank you for focusing on me this time. I really liked it, except I disagree about your reasoning on why I lost. You had two points for why I lost, a) not enough drive to win, b) overestimating the competition. For a) it is actually the opposite, both OOC and IC, because as the Schiltzbergers won more and more championships, the expectations kept growing and growing, and they felt like they had to win, so they needed to win. They would not settle for anything but first place. For example, now they would be disappointed to settle for 3rd/4th, but in WBC 33, they would have been happy with that result. They had less drive to win because the expectations were lower back then and there was less pressure. As far as overestimating the competition, that is also complete bogus. I underestimated probably most of my opponents both IC and OOC because I just assumed I would win and I would slack off on my RPing. This was the case against Greg this year and also against you. Then I would realize I'm about to lose and scramble, but I would originally underestimate. This was also the case against Frenline Delpha in WBC 36 and The Great Pond in WBC 35.

What I meant by not enough drive to win is that the team didn't have the oomph behind it as it did earlier on because of the pressure put on by having to perform to such a high standard and having such a high expectation to live up to.
And I meant underestimate its opponents, not overestimate.
This is the view from within Ethane anyway.

EDIT: Wait, the two reasons are the lack of drive and motivation which I identified because of the increased pressure but failed to really mention that in the article.

The second was a sense of complacency, that you could beat us easily and therefore underestimating the team, which is where I assume I kinda got the first point from as well, because the lack of drive would come because of a sense of complacency.

BTW, OOC, I do not believe you have a superiority complex or anything like that

EDIT 2: Congrats Frenline Delpha on going too up. The Red Kites may be struggling, but they aren't giving up quite yet.

[Schiltzberg]

I think that it is good, and I thank you for focusing on me this time. I really liked it, except I disagree about your reasoning on why I lost. You had two points for why I lost, a) not enough drive to win, b) overestimating the competition. For a) it is actually the opposite, both OOC and IC, because as the Schiltzbergers won more and more championships, the expectations kept growing and growing, and they felt like they had to win, so they needed to win. They would not settle for anything but first place. For example, now they would be disappointed to settle for 3rd/4th, but in WBC 33, they would have been happy with that result. They had less drive to win because the expectations were lower back then and there was less pressure. As far as overestimating the competition, that is also complete bogus. I underestimated probably most of my opponents both IC and OOC because I just assumed I would win and I would slack off on my RPing. This was the case against Greg this year and also against you. Then I would realize I'm about to lose and scramble, but I would originally underestimate. This was also the case against Frenline Delpha in WBC 36 and The Great Pond in WBC 35.

What I meant by not enough drive to win is that the team didn't have the oomph behind it as it did earlier on because of the pressure put on by having to perform to such a high standard and having such a high expectation to live up to.
And I meant underestimate its opponents, not overestimate.
This is the view from within Ethane anyway.

EDIT: Wait, the two reasons are the lack of drive and motivation which I identified because of the increased pressure but failed to really mention that in the article.

The second was a sense of complacency, that you could beat us easily and therefore underestimating the team, which is where I assume I kinda got the first point from as well, because the lack of drive would come because of a sense of complacency.

BTW, OOC, I do not believe you have a superiority complex or anything like that

EDIT 2: Congrats Frenline Delpha on going too up. The Red Kites may be struggling, but they aren't giving up quite yet.

I see. It is true that you can make different observations of the same situation, I just disagreed with what you originally said in my interpretation of it. Congrats to Nova and Frenline on wins tonight.

[Nova Anglicana]

What I meant by not enough drive to win is that the team didn't have the oomph behind it as it did earlier on because of the pressure put on by having to perform to such a high standard and having such a high expectation to live up to.
And I meant underestimate its opponents, not overestimate.
This is the view from within Ethane anyway.

EDIT: Wait, the two reasons are the lack of drive and motivation which I identified because of the increased pressure but failed to really mention that in the article.

The second was a sense of complacency, that you could beat us easily and therefore underestimating the team, which is where I assume I kinda got the first point from as well, because the lack of drive would come because of a sense of complacency.

BTW, OOC, I do not believe you have a superiority complex or anything like that

EDIT 2: Congrats Frenline Delpha on going too up. The Red Kites may be struggling, but they aren't giving up quite yet.

I see. It is true that you can make different observations of the same situation, I just disagreed with what you originally said in my interpretation of it. Congrats to Nova and Frenline on wins tonight.

Who would your starter have been tonight? I want to know who we knocked out of the box.

[Schiltzberg]

I see. It is true that you can make different observations of the same situation, I just disagreed with what you originally said in my interpretation of it. Congrats to Nova and Frenline on wins tonight.

Who would your starter have been tonight? I want to know who we knocked out of the box.

Henry Price.

[Nova Anglicana]

Who would your starter have been tonight? I want to know who we knocked out of the box.

Henry Price.

Thanks. Good luck tomorrow in the rubber match!

[Schiltzberg]

Henry Price.

Thanks. Good luck tomorrow in the rubber match!

Same to you, my friend!

[Frenline Delpha]

You know what the WBC needs? More best of 7 series.

I've been going through the older posts in this thread mostly for seeing how the constitution evolved (it's less exciting than you'd imagine). However, considering the way the WBc has headed recently, this post I quoted struck me as quite funny.

[Free Republics]

You know what the WBC needs? More best of 7 series.

I've been going through the older posts in this thread mostly for seeing how the constitution evolved (it's less exciting than you'd imagine). However, considering the way the WBc has headed recently, this post I quoted struck me as quite funny.

The funny thing is that I got the idea to do 3-game series for the WBC after Audio proposed scorinating 2 MDs of the WCQs simultaneously to shorten group stages (nobody's used that in a WC bid so far but I'd be tempted to do it at some point if the field grew beyond 152 again) and most of the Council was against it until a series of extremely random WBCs one after another (plus WBC 31, where the other formula that isn't random enough was combined with series, which led to Llama going something like 40-0 and nearly killed off the idea forever).

Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to a College World Series-style playoff format (and have proposed such formats in the past), so long as we can be reasonably sure that we'll have 16 playoff qualifiers that would be reasonably worthy champions. The main reason for a longer playoffs is an extra safeguard to keep somebody like The Great Pond from actually winning the WBC (and fortunately, unranked nations don't seem to be qualifying for the playoffs on luck alone anymore).

[Frenline Delpha]

Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to a College World Series-style playoff format (and have proposed such formats in the past), so long as we can be reasonably sure that we'll have 16 playoff qualifiers that would be reasonably worthy champions. The main reason for a longer playoffs is an extra safeguard to keep somebody like The Great Pond from actually winning the WBC (and fortunately, unranked nations don't seem to be qualifying for the playoffs on luck alone anymore).

That's the format Schiltz and I used for our IBS X bid. If everything works out, you may see a certain bid using that format for the next edition.

[Schiltzberg]

Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to a College World Series-style playoff format (and have proposed such formats in the past), so long as we can be reasonably sure that we'll have 16 playoff qualifiers that would be reasonably worthy champions. The main reason for a longer playoffs is an extra safeguard to keep somebody like The Great Pond from actually winning the WBC (and fortunately, unranked nations don't seem to be qualifying for the playoffs on luck alone anymore).

That's the format Schiltz and I used for our IBS X bid. If everything works out, you may see a certain bid using that format for the next edition.

Oh, God, I hated that though. It was so complicated with the double elimination. It was an interesting idea, but I didn't like it at all once we started using it. I think that the 16-team bracket is simple, effective, fair, and easy to follow. Really, I think Tocrowkia was right, and I think that longer series really would make it less likely for a team like The Great Pond to make it through, because it would require more upset games to overthrow the team.

[Frenline Delpha]

That's the format Schiltz and I used for our IBS X bid. If everything works out, you may see a certain bid using that format for the next edition.

Oh, God, I hated that though. It was so complicated with the double elimination. It was an interesting idea, but I didn't like it at all once we started using it. I think that the 16-team bracket is simple, effective, fair, and easy to follow. Really, I think Tocrowkia was right, and I think that longer series really would make it less likely for a team like The Great Pond to make it through, because it would require more upset games to overthrow the team.

Fair enough. I would still like to try it just once in the WBC. Of course, I would take that journey alone. I need to start making a name for myself as a solo hoster.

[Drawkland]

I actually planned on eventually submitting a double-elimination bid for the WBC at some indeterminate point in the future ...

[Schiltzberg]

I actually planned on eventually submitting a double-elimination bid for the WBC at some indeterminate point in the future ...

Oh, God, I hated that though. It was so complicated with the double elimination. It was an interesting idea, but I didn't like it at all once we started using it. I think that the 16-team bracket is simple, effective, fair, and easy to follow. Really, I think Tocrowkia was right, and I think that longer series really would make it less likely for a team like The Great Pond to make it through, because it would require more upset games to overthrow the team.

Fair enough. I would still like to try it just once in the WBC. Of course, I would take that journey alone. I need to start making a name for myself as a solo hoster.

If you would like to pursue a double elimination, they used a very similar format to how me and Frenline Delpha did IBS X in WBC 32, so you may want to look at this. It is not the style of tournament I would choose, but it has been used before. As I recall, Gregoryisgodistan made a comment at one point about how WBC 32 was really confusing and he didn't like it. I think that the double elimination is probably to blame for this.

[Frenline Delpha]

I actually planned on eventually submitting a double-elimination bid for the WBC at some indeterminate point in the future ...

Fair enough. I would still like to try it just once in the WBC. Of course, I would take that journey alone. I need to start making a name for myself as a solo hoster.

If you would like to pursue a double elimination, they used a very similar format to how me and Frenline Delpha did IBS X in WBC 32, so you may want to look at this. It is not the style of tournament I would choose, but it has been used before. As I recall, Gregoryisgodistan made a comment at one point about how WBC 32 was really confusing and he didn't like it. I think that the double elimination is probably to blame for this.

Similar... eh. Greg's main problem with WBC 32 is that it was both double elimination and best of three. I read some of that latter thread, and god does it get convoluted near the end. Yeah, I'll never propose that or approve anyone that proposes that format.

[Schiltzberg]

If you would like to pursue a double elimination, they used a very similar format to how me and Frenline Delpha did IBS X in WBC 32, so you may want to look at this. It is not the style of tournament I would choose, but it has been used before. As I recall, Gregoryisgodistan made a comment at one point about how WBC 32 was really confusing and he didn't like it. I think that the double elimination is probably to blame for this.

Similar... eh. Greg's main problem with WBC 32 is that it was both double elimination and best of three. I read some of that latter thread, and god does it get convoluted near the end. Yeah, I'll never propose that or approve anyone that proposes that format.

I think that poor hosting also led to the failure of WBC 32, maybe not so much the structure. It would have been easier to follow if there were not so many hosts and if they had been more clear at explaining the format.

[Frenline Delpha]

Similar... eh. Greg's main problem with WBC 32 is that it was both double elimination and best of three. I read some of that latter thread, and god does it get convoluted near the end. Yeah, I'll never propose that or approve anyone that proposes that format.

I think that poor hosting also led to the failure of WBC 32, maybe not so much the structure. It would have been easier to follow if there were not so many hosts and if they had been more clear at explaining the format.

True. I also think three gosts is one too many. So, that tournament had two bad ideas rolled into one. Good mix.