The World Cup Discussion Thread (OOC, Version IV)

[Gregoryisgodistan]

Yes, this is possible. The constitution places the limit on first time users, not nations entering. And I believe this fact means that there is no loophole to be closed.

Here's the wording:

ii) A user may only sign up one nation in their first entry, but may from their second entry onwards sign up a second nation known as a puppet. This nation will be treated separately for the purposes of BoF/WC/CoH entry, but will not give the user a second vote on the WCC or EWCC.

My interpretation of those words is that a user can actually enter 2 new nations in the same WC cycle, if he/she has entered a different nation in the previous WC. So, if I wanted to enter both Acedonia and Noburu Taiyou (2 of my puppets that I've never entered in a WCC tournament) in World Cup 80 and the corresponding BoF, that would be legal. On the other hand, hosts can (and should, imo) object to this and refuse entry to one nation or the other, so I don't think this loophole needs to be closed by amendment.

Well, he said “non-first timer nation”. So I’m assuming he’d be entering a nation that entered before. So it would be like you entering Acedonia in the BoF, then signing up FFR for the World Cup after the Baptism has started, which would be allowed, or at least should be.

[Valanora]

Precedent has said that even returning users have had to wait one cycle to enter two nations.

[Vilita and Turori]

Precedent has said that even returning users have had to wait one cycle to enter two nations.

this is true

[Starblaydia]

Speaking of puppetry, the signup of United Celtic Peoples immediately followed by Greater South screams of them being the same user (within 1 minute of each other, same region, same signature style and identical use of theme music links, etc), while the Greater South/Puerto Dorados is obviously an admitted IC connection from the same user. Just seems like a misreading of the rules.

Have my doubts about Caribbeus and the post timing (and same region) relative to Puerto Dorados' post, too, and then there's Knights Mare Nostrum too.

Quite possibly just a case of WC fever spreading around a region and everyone getting in on the act, but that signature style and, checking post history for UCP, GS and KMN, they all have exactly the same distinctive structure.

[Drawkland]

Speaking of puppetry, the signup of United Celtic Peoples immediately followed by Greater South screams of them being the same user (within 1 minute of each other, same region, same signature style and identical use of theme music links, etc), while the Greater South/Puerto Dorados is obviously an admitted IC connection from the same user. Just seems like a misreading of the rules.

Have my doubts about Caribbeus and the post timing (and same region) relative to Puerto Dorados' post, too, and then there's Knights Mare Nostrum too.

Quite possibly just a case of WC fever spreading around a region and everyone getting in on the act, but that signature style and, checking post history for UCP, GS and KMN, they all have exactly the same distinctive structure.

As host, I'll ask to have a check run on them.

If none of them are puppets (which seems unlikely), then we're at 154 signups. I'll provisionally waitlist signups until we have a better idea of what's afoot here, since 152 is a good number.

[Mriin]

Precedent has said that even returning users have had to wait one cycle to enter two nations.

After some further discussion on IRC, I think it's probably best that this precedent be codified, as it's a sensible rule that could easily be broached. I'm not up to date on the wording of the constitution and leave it to those more experienced in legislating to finalize it, but here's a discussion starter on it:

"ii) A user who did not participate in the previous WC cycle may only sign up with one nation; otherwise they may sign up a second nation known as a puppet."

This covers the case of both new users entering for the first time, and returning users who missed a cycle or two (the wording could arguably go to "did not participate one of the previous two WC cycles" if we wanted to be more lenient).

It might also be worth some way noting that if you're entering two nations, one must have participated in the previous WC. To prevent a situation where someone participates in WC95 with Nation A and Nation B and then tries to sign up in WC96 with Nation C and Nation D. It's an edge case but I could see someone trying it; I'll leave it up to y'all if you think that's worth writing up.

[Drawkland]

Speaking of puppetry, the signup of United Celtic Peoples immediately followed by Greater South screams of them being the same user (within 1 minute of each other, same region, same signature style and identical use of theme music links, etc), while the Greater South/Puerto Dorados is obviously an admitted IC connection from the same user. Just seems like a misreading of the rules.

Have my doubts about Caribbeus and the post timing (and same region) relative to Puerto Dorados' post, too, and then there's Knights Mare Nostrum too.

Quite possibly just a case of WC fever spreading around a region and everyone getting in on the act, but that signature style and, checking post history for UCP, GS and KMN, they all have exactly the same distinctive structure.

As host, I'll ask to have a check run on them.

If none of them are puppets (which seems unlikely), then we're at 154 signups. I'll provisionally waitlist signups until we have a better idea of what's afoot here, since 152 is a good number.

Just rechecked the numbers myself. We currently have 156 signups, except one withdrew and one is CTE. That's 154, and pending whatever happens with these alleged puppets and how we'll treat Bojik entering GU, it can be as low as 149 or 148. Signups will remain on waitlist until we figure out exactly what the right number will be. If it's under, we'll reopen signups (provided any nations on the waitlist don't fill it) until we hit 152 - then we'll cut if off exactly there, no waitlist.

If it turns out all these similar nations are in fact different users, then we'll have to consider cutting off Gallian Union as a puppet and the most recent confirmed puppet listed (right now it's The Great Pi) in order to meet 152. We don't want to delay this cycle any further and wait on 8 more signups, and we also would prefer a 15-group format to a 20-group format.

[Bojikstan]

I'll just pull my puppet since the rules are still unclear and it's apparently messing the numbers up also.

[Valanora]

Upon the process to update the ranking sheet for the hosts to use in the upcoming Qualifiers, I have noticed that Kebec participated in both Baptism of Fire 66 as well as the 65th edition. This oversight is very devastating, as it means one disqualified nation participated, taking that spot away from another potential new member, as well as tainting the results of the tournament. As the tournament has already reached its conclusion and it would be beyond reasonable expectation to rescorinate the entire tournament, Kebec has been stripped of the points they have accumulated for this tournament. Furthermore, I urge hosts and signup updaters to please check the BoF access list to prevent this situation from occurring again.

[Vilita and Turori]

Upon the process to update the ranking sheet for the hosts to use in the upcoming Qualifiers, I have noticed that Kebec participated in both Baptism of Fire 66 as well as the 65th edition. This oversight is very devastating, as it means one disqualified nation participated, taking that spot away from another potential new member, as well as tainting the results of the tournament. As the tournament has already reached its conclusion and it would be beyond reasonable expectation to rescorinate the entire tournament, Kebec has been stripped of the points they have accumulated for this tournament. Furthermore, I urge hosts and signup updaters to please check the BoF access list to prevent this situation from occurring again.

Agree there is fault on the part of the hosts and signup takers but also on the nation Kebec themselves.

Per the constitution:

2.2.1 Entry
The conditions for entry into the BoF are:
i) A nation must not have previously participated in a WCC-sanctioned Baptism of Fire
ii) A nation must have zero KPB points at the beginning of the World Cup cycle

[Bonesea]

Upon the process to update the ranking sheet for the hosts to use in the upcoming Qualifiers, I have noticed that Kebec participated in both Baptism of Fire 66 as well as the 65th edition. This oversight is very devastating, as it means one disqualified nation participated, taking that spot away from another potential new member, as well as tainting the results of the tournament. As the tournament has already reached its conclusion and it would be beyond reasonable expectation to rescorinate the entire tournament, Kebec has been stripped of the points they have accumulated for this tournament. Furthermore, I urge hosts and signup updaters to please check the BoF access list to prevent this situation from occurring again.

I recall that Kep signed up for WC-78 & BoF 65 but CTE'd before the start of the WC tournament at some point, so was not included in WC qualifying. His/her last forum post was May 9 and I had marked Kep on a watchlist of potential CTEs while I was managing sign-ups on my own spreadsheet as joint host. The BoF tournament thread was posted May 31 so Kep would not yet have CTEd but perhaps in spirit was already gone - they did not contribute to the BoF RP. They posted on their return, June 28, asking why they weren't in the WC, and were advised of being withdrawn because of the CTE. Perhaps this has caused some confusion, perhaps Kep didn't realise they had been involved in BoF 65. It is an unfortunate oversight especially with Kep reaching the last eight of this cycle's BoF, but I imagine no trickery was intended and it's just one of those things.

[Banija]

Precedent has said that even returning users have had to wait one cycle to enter two nations.

After some further discussion on IRC, I think it's probably best that this precedent be codified, as it's a sensible rule that could easily be broached. I'm not up to date on the wording of the constitution and leave it to those more experienced in legislating to finalize it, but here's a discussion starter on it:

"ii) A user who did not participate in the previous WC cycle may only sign up with one nation; otherwise they may sign up a second nation known as a puppet."

This covers the case of both new users entering for the first time, and returning users who missed a cycle or two (the wording could arguably go to "did not participate one of the previous two WC cycles" if we wanted to be more lenient).

It might also be worth some way noting that if you're entering two nations, one must have participated in the previous WC. To prevent a situation where someone participates in WC95 with Nation A and Nation B and then tries to sign up in WC96 with Nation C and Nation D. It's an edge case but I could see someone trying it; I'll leave it up to y'all if you think that's worth writing up.

Precedent has said that even returning users have had to wait one cycle to enter two nations.

After some further discussion on IRC, I think it's probably best that this precedent be codified, as it's a sensible rule that could easily be broached. I'm not up to date on the wording of the constitution and leave it to those more experienced in legislating to finalize it, but here's a discussion starter on it:

"ii) A user who did not participate in the previous WC cycle may only sign up with one nation; otherwise they may sign up a second nation known as a puppet."

This covers the case of both new users entering for the first time, and returning users who missed a cycle or two (the wording could arguably go to "did not participate one of the previous two WC cycles" if we wanted to be more lenient).

It might also be worth some way noting that if you're entering two nations, one must have participated in the previous WC. To prevent a situation where someone participates in WC95 with Nation A and Nation B and then tries to sign up in WC96 with Nation C and Nation D. It's an edge case but I could see someone trying it; I'll leave it up to y'all if you think that's worth writing up.

I would like to ask for some clarification on this.

Currently, it seems as if you are allowed to enter two nations as long as you don't do it on your first ever WC entry. Which, I support that rather than the change of you have to have participated in the last WC to enter two nations.

Obviously, I am a biased opinion, as I am a returning nation who did not participate in WC78. But I'd like to point this out. I've had far more soccer success with my own puppet, Amazonesta. Owing to the fact that in my first WC, this nation had 12 losses in 12 qualifiers(RIP), and then in the next edition I entered in my puppet, who promptly won the Baptism of Fire. My own puppet spent most of the time ranked ahead of my main nation, until WC77, when Amazonesta signed up but was taken out of the tournament(I believe either it had CTE'd or I believe was taken out as a numbers thing since puppets are generally removed first). As Banija stayed in(and neither participated in WC78) they finally passed AMZ in the rankings.

But, like I said, Amazonesta is my only nation that has put its name in the books. So while obviously designing a rule for one person is a bad idea, I don't think that limiting a returning veteran nation to only one entry really provides much benefit.

[Starblaydia]

So while obviously designing a rule for one person is a bad idea, I don't think that limiting a returning veteran nation to only one entry really provides much benefit.

The spirit of the rule is that signing up "I'm back and fully involved!" is a lovely intention, but not something we can always follow through on. Taking up two qualifying spots on your first Cup back is at least doubly as difficult to follow through on. Just as with brand new entrants, the first cup rule ensures that everyone has a fair chance of facing RPing nations in qualifying.

The relative success of your two nations compared to each other has basically nothing to do with it, unless you'd rather sign up as the won with the most full trophy cabinet.

[The Archregimancy]

Speaking of puppetry, the signup of United Celtic Peoples immediately followed by Greater South screams of them being the same user (within 1 minute of each other, same region, same signature style and identical use of theme music links, etc), while the Greater South/Puerto Dorados is obviously an admitted IC connection from the same user. Just seems like a misreading of the rules.

Have my doubts about Caribbeus and the post timing (and same region) relative to Puerto Dorados' post, too, and then there's Knights Mare Nostrum too.

Quite possibly just a case of WC fever spreading around a region and everyone getting in on the act, but that signature style and, checking post history for UCP, GS and KMN, they all have exactly the same distinctive structure.

As host, I'll ask to have a check run on them.

If none of them are puppets (which seems unlikely), then we're at 154 signups. I'll provisionally waitlist signups until we have a better idea of what's afoot here, since 152 is a good number.

Audio just bought the above to my attention; due to some work issues I hadn't been on NS for a couple of days.

I went into the GHR tasklist to take a look (as a forum mod, Audio can't see the gameside requests for help, which are only open to game mods), but didn't see an open task from Drawkland requesting a puppet check; nor an obvious recent resolved task on this issue. Apologies if I missed something.

However, given the extent of the problem across multiple potential puppets, and the need to resolve this quickly, Audio has moved ahead with investigating this himself. I would expect a resolution in the near future. I'll leave it to Audio to comment further as and when further comment is necessary.

[Audioslavia]

Whoops. I forgot to mention that the matter has been resolved

[Drawkland]

As host, I'll ask to have a check run on them.

If none of them are puppets (which seems unlikely), then we're at 154 signups. I'll provisionally waitlist signups until we have a better idea of what's afoot here, since 152 is a good number.

Audio just bought the above to my attention; due to some work issues I hadn't been on NS for a couple of days.

I went into the GHR tasklist to take a look (as a forum mod, Audio can't see the gameside requests for help, which are only open to game mods), but didn't see an open task from Drawkland requesting a puppet check; nor an obvious recent resolved task on this issue. Apologies if I missed something.

However, given the extent of the problem across multiple potential puppets, and the need to resolve this quickly, Audio has moved ahead with investigating this himself. I would expect a resolution in the near future. I'll leave it to Audio to comment further as and when further comment is necessary.

This is my mistake, I accidentally decided to directly TG Audio rather than opening a GHR. This is my mistake, which won't be repeated if I'm ever in this situation.

But yes, the matter is resolved, and we're waiting on one more signup.

[Whovian Tardisia]

How long does the BoF usually last? I'm thinking about doing the WC again since I've got some more time on my hands for a few months.

[Razenthuria]

Upon the process to update the ranking sheet for the hosts to use in the upcoming Qualifiers, I have noticed that Kebec participated in both Baptism of Fire 66 as well as the 65th edition. This oversight is very devastating, as it means one disqualified nation participated, taking that spot away from another potential new member, as well as tainting the results of the tournament. As the tournament has already reached its conclusion and it would be beyond reasonable expectation to rescorinate the entire tournament, Kebec has been stripped of the points they have accumulated for this tournament. Furthermore, I urge hosts and signup updaters to please check the BoF access list to prevent this situation from occurring again.

Erm -
This is of no fault of my own - I was informed due to my CTE around that time I had been taken out of the tournament. However, if my points are withdrawn - I'll concede to that.

Upon the process to update the ranking sheet for the hosts to use in the upcoming Qualifiers, I have noticed that Kebec participated in both Baptism of Fire 66 as well as the 65th edition. This oversight is very devastating, as it means one disqualified nation participated, taking that spot away from another potential new member, as well as tainting the results of the tournament. As the tournament has already reached its conclusion and it would be beyond reasonable expectation to rescorinate the entire tournament, Kebec has been stripped of the points they have accumulated for this tournament. Furthermore, I urge hosts and signup updaters to please check the BoF access list to prevent this situation from occurring again.

I recall that Kep signed up for WC-78 & BoF 65 but CTE'd before the start of the WC tournament at some point, so was not included in WC qualifying. His/her last forum post was May 9 and I had marked Kep on a watchlist of potential CTEs while I was managing sign-ups on my own spreadsheet as joint host. The BoF tournament thread was posted May 31 so Kep would not yet have CTEd but perhaps in spirit was already gone - they did not contribute to the BoF RP. They posted on their return, June 28, asking why they weren't in the WC, and were advised of being withdrawn because of the CTE. Perhaps this has caused some confusion, perhaps Kep didn't realise they had been involved in BoF 65. It is an unfortunate oversight especially with Kep reaching the last eight of this cycle's BoF, but I imagine no trickery was intended and it's just one of those things.

[Gregoryisgodistan]

Considering I mentioned the NSWC Anthem in my RP today, is this something that anyone's actually written, or is it just something I'm assuming we have but it's never actually been established what it is? And if anyone's interested in getting involved in the storyline on either side, feel free to TG me.

[Taeshan]

Considering I mentioned the NSWC Anthem in my RP today, is this something that anyone's actually written, or is it just something I'm assuming we have but it's never actually been established what it is? And if anyone's interested in getting involved in the storyline on either side, feel free to TG me.

Sandstorm - by Darude

[Starblaydia]

Considering I mentioned the NSWC Anthem in my RP today, is this something that anyone's actually written, or is it just something I'm assuming we have but it's never actually been established what it is? And if anyone's interested in getting involved in the storyline on either side, feel free to TG me.

Much like with what the WC trophy looks like, an anthem would be something that most people will disagree on one way or another. For something so subjective we don't tend to enforce those on the NSWC at large. What is played in your stadia before the match as an anthem to the World Cup is up to you. Even if it is as terrible an idea as Taeshan's.

Same principle as the (player) Hall of Fame. We only legislate for how many characters you can have in based on your participation; there are no other rules beyond that because everyone does it differently and has their own headcanon about it.

[Cassadaigua]

Same principle as the (player) Hall of Fame. We only legislate for how many characters you can have in based on your participation; there are no other rules beyond that because everyone does it differently and has their own headcanon about it.

Is there a link to this Hall of Fame and what the guidelines would be? I don't think I ever inducted people and surely we'd have an eligible spot or two. Or was this lost with nswiki?

[Darmen]

Same principle as the (player) Hall of Fame. We only legislate for how many characters you can have in based on your participation; there are no other rules beyond that because everyone does it differently and has their own headcanon about it.

Is there a link to this Hall of Fame and what the guidelines would be? I don't think I ever inducted people and surely we'd have an eligible spot or two. Or was this lost with nswiki?

While most of the info was lost to NSWiki, the induction guidelines are as follows:

• 1 spot for every 7 qualifying campaigns
• 1 spot for every 4 appearances in the WC proper
• 1 spot for every Championship

[Cassadaigua]

Thanks Darmen, looks like I could induct 9 people. Such a shame that so much history was lost, though.

[Petroslovania]

What is the pot?