Advertisement
by Sarzonia » Fri Mar 20, 2020 11:20 am
by Farfadillis » Fri Mar 20, 2020 11:27 am
by Zwangzug » Fri Mar 20, 2020 2:49 pm
The Archregimancy wrote:Zwangzug wrote:We don't have a written policy for who maintains the ranks. Historically, this is someone who's just appointed by fiat and does so indefinitely until they disappear/hand it off, independent of the president 's tenure. Currently ESF; historically various people like Cafundeu and me. Theoretically, a president could just appoint themselves, which could lead to the case kelssek mentioned.
So potentially solved by slightly shifting the amendment language by amending 3.1.iv, and adding a 3.1.v, so that 3.1 reads:3.1 KPB Rankings
i) Every World Cup shall use the official KPB Rankings system to determine ranks before the Qualifiers begin
ii) The ranking formula must be public
iii) The full list of ranks must be made publicly available in a suitable format
iv) Any changes to the KPB formula, including changes in the weights or scaling factors used, must be announced publicly at least one cycle before their proposed implementation, and approved by the WCC.
v) The President may, at their discretion, call for a vote of the WCC to approve changes to the formula; however, the President may not propose changes to the formula.
So the President then has discretion to call for a vote to change the formula, but the President is also unable to propose or make their own changes to that formula. Responsibility for organising the vote rests with the President, but responsibility for proposing and approving changes rests with the community.
Would that work?
Both; I feel weird about being out of compliance now, and there's nothing to say it won't happen again (although probably not very often, it could be handled on a case-by-case basis I guess). Like I said originally, I don't think ESF or anyone else is a bad actor, but the system seems a little unstable right now.Kelssek wrote:I was actually coming at this from the other angle that the President might see that they benefit from a tweak to the formula and decide not to hold a vote, claiming that the changes are too minor to warrant it.
More importantly, is the issue solely with the need to "legalize" the changes that ESF has made? Or are we talking about changing procedures because we think that such adjustments are going to be frequent events? It can of course be both, but I think these are distinct issues that don't have the same answer.
by NSWC Signups » Fri Mar 20, 2020 3:49 pm
by Free Republics » Fri Mar 20, 2020 9:28 pm
Appalachian Nation wrote:Pictures shouldn't count as signs ups :twisted: :p
by Havynwilde » Sun Mar 22, 2020 2:12 pm
by Free Republics » Sun Mar 22, 2020 4:29 pm
Havynwilde wrote:if anyone is interested in co-bidding for the BOF, I’m looking for a senior bidder
World Cup Committee Constitution wrote:Constitution of the World Cup Committee
2.2 The Baptism of Fire
2.2.2 Hosting
i) Any nation that has previously participated in a World Cup and is signed up for the current edition of the World Cup may bid to host the BoF.
by Mriin » Tue Mar 24, 2020 8:15 pm
by Northwest Kalactin » Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:42 am
by Xanneria » Mon Apr 06, 2020 10:00 am
by Res Publica Nova Roma » Sat Apr 11, 2020 1:22 pm
by Audioslavia » Sat Apr 11, 2020 1:32 pm
by NSWC Signups » Sat Apr 11, 2020 1:38 pm
by Tinhampton » Thu Apr 16, 2020 12:05 pm
by Res Publica Nova Roma » Thu Apr 16, 2020 12:22 pm
by NSWC Signups » Thu Apr 16, 2020 9:52 pm
by Barunia » Fri Apr 17, 2020 10:32 pm
by NSWC Signups » Thu Apr 23, 2020 9:00 am
NSWC Signups wrote:Host voting for the WC and BoF is now open
by NSWC Signups » Thu Apr 23, 2020 9:34 pm
by Ethane » Fri Apr 24, 2020 6:55 am
Liventia wrote:I hope the winning BoF bid takes note of the close margin of their victory and takes into account every concern raised.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: New Fernia
Advertisement