The World Cup Discussion Thread (OOC, Version IV)

[Northwest Kalactin]

On the topic of NSFS versus SQIS, I'd like to remind people that there are two other formulas, SGIS and the World Cup 68 formula, which offer alternatives.

There is also SLIS and Footba11er.

[Legalese]

On the topic of NSFS versus SQIS, I'd like to remind people that there are two other formulas, SGIS and the World Cup 68 formula, which offer alternatives.

There is also SLIS and Footba11er.

Tiny note on this -- the WC 68 formula is SLIS -- was retroactively named that after the World Cup, since it (like SGIS) is just a tweak on the threshold/range factors used in SQIS, while keeping the rest the same.

[Taeshan]

I would like to submit a constitutional amendment. The wording of the following statement will be changed. Changes noted in red.

4.2 Definitition of: "The (E)WCC may vote..."
i) When a vote to select a Hosting bid is initiated by the President, a majority of those voting shall be required to decide the outcome. Users that have submitted a hosting bid are not permitted to participate in voting for the event they have placed a bid for. Voters are instructed to cast a single ballot listing their hosting preference, along with the order in which the other options, including the option to re-open bids, should be considered. If no option receives a majority of the first preference votes cast, the bid with the fewest number of votes shall be eliminated, and the ballots cast in that direction re-counted using their next preference. The mechanics of the vote shall follow the mechanics laid out by article 1.5 (Elections), with a focus on clauses i,ii,iii,iv, and vi, with the exception that the option to re-open the process for new bids may not be eliminated by any result but another option receiving a full majority.
ii) Any proposal by a WCC member can, if supported by three other WCC members, be put to a WCC-wide vote.

Changes

4.2 Definitition of: "The (E)WCC may vote..."
i) When a vote to select a Hosting bid is initiated by the President, a majority of those voting shall be required to decide the outcome. Users that have submitted a hosting bid are not permitted to participate in voting for the event they have placed a bid for, or if in the case of a bid involving multiple tournaments (e.g. a Vilitan bid) they are hosting any of the tournaments. Voters are instructed to cast a single ballot listing their hosting preference, along with the order in which the other options, including the option to re-open bids, should be considered. If no option receives a majority of the first preference votes cast, the bid with the fewest number of votes shall be eliminated, and the ballots cast in that direction re-counted using their next preference. The mechanics of the vote shall follow the mechanics laid out by article 1.5 (Elections), with a focus on clauses i,ii,iii,iv, and vi, with the exception that the option to re-open the process for new bids may not be eliminated by any result but another option receiving a full majority.
ii) Any proposal by a WCC member can, if supported by three other WCC members, be put to a WCC-wide vote.

[Sarzonia]

I strongly support Taeshan's proposal.

It addresses a lot of concerns I had about the current World Cup bids.

[Recuecn]

I'll second this.

[South Covello]

Do you need two seconds or one? I always forget. If you need two, I'll second it too.

[Sarzonia]

If I recall, a proposal needs to be supported by three WCC members to be brought to a vote

[World Bowl]

ii) Any proposal by a WCC member can, if supported by three other WCC members, be put to a WCC-wide vote.

So the amendment will need one more second to be eligible for a vote.

[Taeshan]

ii) Any proposal by a WCC member can, if supported by three other WCC members, be put to a WCC-wide vote.

So the amendment will need one more second to be eligible for a vote.

Sir, this is an Arby’s.

[Sarzonia]

I think it's already met that threshold

[Kelssek]

If I understand the intent of the amendment correctly, it would be to ban Farfadillis and Mriin (as well as Kelssek and Zwangzug) from voting on the CoH77 bid. If so, here is the problem with the text.

What actually happened is that Farfadillis, Mriin, Kelssek and Zwangzug bid to host the World Cup (stating that only Farfadillis and Mriin will scorinate the finals). But only Kelssek and Zwangzug bid to host the Cup of Harmony, and had to win that vote separately. Which is good, because otherwise possible competing bidders either don't have a chance or are forced to bid for the Cup of Harmony much earlier than normal. Therefore, this wording still allows Farf and Mriin to vote for the Kelssek/Zwangzug bid.

In other words, while such bids are presented as four hosts, two for the World Cup and two for the Cup of Harmony, in procedural terms the World Cup vote only appoints all four to scorinate the World Cup (qualifiers + final). That vote has no bearing in procedural terms on the Cup of Harmony vote - say something came up in the interim so Kelssek and Zwangzug decide they're not going to bid for the CoH after all. Farfadillis and Mriin are, procedurally speaking, not involved in the Cup of Harmony vote at all, and neither are the four users involved in a bid involving multiple tournaments (as these are technically two separate bids which present themselves as a single bid).

Another problem is that inserting the phrase "Vilitan bid" potentially makes this apply to any bid involving multiple tournaments and any bid by Vilita. I'm pretty sure singling out this one user wasn't the intent.

I suggest this wording instead, which also has the advantage of breaking down a block of text into more easily understandable paragraphs. This wording also allows them to vote in a situation where the CoH bidders for some reason decided to break off the arrangement and run bids against each other (of course, this would also apply in a BoF+WC or BoF+CoH joint bid situation). It also moves the voting procedure into a more logical section right after "elections". Right now it is misleadingly part of a section on "rule changes". I also got rid of the sentence linking the procedure to the presidential vote - which is confusing when a procedure is already specified and it's unclear what to do if there is a conflict between the two procedures.

Since I'm drafting anyway I also modified the language for clarity - this should not result in other substantial changes.

Section 4.2 is repealed. A new section 1.6 is added which shall read as follows:

1.6 Election of hosts
i) Votes to select a hosting bid shall be initiated by the president. A majority of those voting votes cast shall be required to decide the outcome.
ii) Users that have submitted a hosting bid are not permitted to vote for the hosts of the event they have placed a bid for.
iii) Users may not vote for the hosts of an event if one of the bids consists of two or more users with whom they have co-hosted an event within the same World Cup cycle.
iv) Voters shall cast a single ballot which lists their preferences in the order with which the other options, including the option to re-open bids, shall be considered.
v) If no option receives a majority of the first preference votes cast, the bid with the fewest number of votes shall be eliminated, and the ballots cast for the eliminated bid re-counted according to their next preference. The option to re-open the process for new bids may not be eliminated until another option receives a full majority.

Section 4.1 is amended to add the following:

iv) Any proposal by a WCC member can, if supported by three other WCC members, be put to a WCC-wide vote.

Original:

4.2 Definitition of: "The (E)WCC may vote..."
i) When a vote to select a Hosting bid is initiated by the President, a majority of those voting shall be required to decide the outcome. Users that have submitted a hosting bid are not permitted to participate in voting for the event they have placed a bid for, or if in the case of a bid involving multiple tournaments (e.g. a Vilitan bid) they are hosting any of the tournaments. Voters are instructed to cast a single ballot listing their hosting preference, along with the order in which the other options, including the option to re-open bids, should be considered. If no option receives a majority of the first preference votes cast, the bid with the fewest number of votes shall be eliminated, and the ballots cast in that direction re-counted using their next preference. The mechanics of the vote shall follow the mechanics laid out by article 1.5 (Elections), with a focus on clauses i,ii,iii,iv, and vi, with the exception that the option to re-open the process for new bids may not be eliminated by any result but another option receiving a full majority.
ii) Any proposal by a WCC member can, if supported by three other WCC members, be put to a WCC-wide vote.

[Taeshan]

I support Kelssek’s rephrase of my own amendment.


I really just wanted to get something on the table and that eliminates some of the problems with my proposal.


As mentioned on discord just posting here as well.

[Recuecn]

The new 1.6 will be very similar to the already existing 1.5 (although it deals with a different situation). Maybe the two could be combined since the procedure for both elections is pretty much the same?

Since 4.2 was for all (E)WCC votes, not just host elections, I think amendment should also add a new 4.1 v) to say "All (E)WCC votes use the same procedure outlined in 1.6" (or 1.5 or wherever).

[Legalese]

The new 1.6 will be very similar to the already existing 1.5 (although it deals with a different situation). Maybe the two could be combined since the procedure for both elections is pretty much the same?

This might also be an opportunity to make an additional change to host voting that can help address some of the awkwardness of "reopen bids"/RON as an option. Right now, that option is one that in a host vote can't be eliminated from runoff counting, to serve the intent that if RON is preferred by more voters over whatever the last bid standing is, then the bid would not win. It can get a bit awkward when counting votes to address it (WC67 is a good example -- two bids tied on first preference with RON being the only other option. The right decision about tiebreaking was made, but the inability to eliminate RON when neither bid had a majority made it a touch more confusing)

Anyways, the tweak I propose is to part v:

v) If no option receives a majority of the first preference votes cast, any bid that is preferred higher on fewer ballots than ballots that prefer the option to re-open the bid process over that bid shall be eliminated (a process known as "approval check"); if the approval check removes all bids, then the option to re-open the bid process will be declared the winner. Otherwise, all ballots cast for the eliminated bid(s) shall be re-counted according to their next preference. After the approval check, if there are remaining bids and none have received a majority, the bid with the fewest votes shall be eliminated, and all votes currently cast for it will be re-counted according to their next preference; this shall be repeated until there is a majority winner. The option to re-open the process for new bids will be eliminated after the approval check, should there be any bids remaining.

This makes v a little longer, but it cuts to the chase of getting rid of bids that aren't going to win against RON, and eliminates RON as an option early enough to make it less of a tiebreak issue.

Since 4.2 was for all (E)WCC votes, not just host elections, I think amendment should also add a new 4.1 v) to say "All (E)WCC votes use the same procedure outlined in 1.6" (or 1.5 or wherever).

Or remove the current i) from 4.2, and tweak the part referring to votes on constitutional/community approval items as:

4.2 Voting
i) Any proposal by a WCC member can, if supported by three other WCC members, be put to a WCC-wide vote. A majority of those voting and not abstaining shall be required for any proposal to pass, unless a different standard is applied elsewhere in this constitution, or a standard requiring a higher percentage of votes is included in the proposal.

[Kelssek]

The wrinkle is with the thing about determining the vice-president, which isn't applicable for any other vote. As I word it here, amendments will now reference the host vote procedure and the issue of multiple contradictory proposals doesn't arise - all votes are subject to the same preferential voting procedure as in host votes.

I'm not sure what the existing language in 4.1(iii) was meant to do, a lot of it just seems redundant, so I also propose a total rewrite. If someone remembers the issues it was meant to deal with, please let us all know.

Revised proposal:

Section 4.2 is repealed. A new section 1.6 is added which shall read as follows:

1.6 Election of hosts
i) Votes to select a hosting bid shall be initiated by the president. A majority of votes cast shall be required to decide the outcome.
ii) Users are not permitted to vote for the hosts of an event they have submitted a bid for.
iii) Users may not vote for the hosts of an event if one of the bids consists of two or more users with whom they have co-hosted an event within the same World Cup cycle.
iv) Voters shall cast a single ballot which lists their preferences in the order with which the other options, including the option to re-open bids, shall be considered.
v) If no option receives a majority of the first preference votes cast, the bid with the fewest number of votes shall be eliminated, and the ballots cast for the eliminated bid re-counted according to their next preference. The option to re-open the process for new bids may not be eliminated until another option receives a full majority.

Section 4.1, paragraph (iii) is amended as follows:
iii) Any amendment to this constitution proposed by a WCC member can, if supported by three other WCC members, be put to a WCC-wide vote. The proposal shall pass only if it is approved by a majority of votes cast. The vote shall be held using the "instant runoff" preferential voting procedure specified in section 1.6, paragraphs (iv) and (v).

Current section 4:

4. Rule Changes
4.1 Procedure
i) This constitution takes effect once passed by a two-thirds majority of the WCC.
ii) The WCC may vote to amend or repeal any portion of this proposal.
iii) The WCC may vote to pass any new proposal. If a new proposal contradicts an older proposal, the new proposal supercedes the old one unless otherwise stated. Passage of a new proposal shall be achieved only if the proposal receives a majority of votes from those voting. If multiple contradicting proposals concerning the same subject are considered for vote simultaneously, at least two rounds of voting must be held, with an Instant Runoff/Preferential system also fulfilling this requirement.

4.2 Definitition of: "The (E)WCC may vote..."
i) When a vote to select a Hosting bid is initiated by the President, a majority of those voting shall be required to decide the outcome. Users that have submitted a hosting bid are not permitted to participate in voting for the event they have placed a bid for. Voters are instructed to cast a single ballot listing their hosting preference, along with the order in which the other options, including the option to re-open bids, should be considered. If no option receives a majority of the first preference votes cast, the bid with the fewest number of votes shall be eliminated, and the ballots cast in that direction re-counted using their next preference. The mechanics of the vote shall follow the mechanics laid out by article 1.5 (Elections), with a focus on clauses i,ii,iii,iv, and vi, with the exception that the option to re-open the process for new bids may not be eliminated by any result but another option receiving a full majority.
ii) Any proposal by a WCC member can, if supported by three other WCC members, be put to a WCC-wide vote.

[Kelssek]

So we were apparently writing those posts at the same time.

Legalese, maybe you want to explain at what point "re-open bids" or a "none of the above" option gets eliminated? It seems to me like any tie could be broken by looking at the next preference votes. Or maybe treat a three-way tie as a special situation and specify that "re-open bids" is eliminated in such a case?

[Legalese]

So we were apparently writing those posts at the same time.

Legalese, maybe you want to explain at what point "re-open bids" or a "none of the above" option gets eliminated? It seems to me like any tie could be broken by looking at the next preference votes. Or maybe treat a three-way tie as a special situation and specify that "re-open bids" is eliminated in such a case?

What I'm proposing is that after doing the easiest count -- that is, does anything have a majority? -- we then check to see if re-open bids is preferred on a head-to-head versus every other bid; bids that are preferred over re-open bids remain, and bids where re-open bids is preferred over them are eliminated. After that's done, if any bids remain, re-open bids is eliminated, and then we continue with additional rounds of counting and runoff eliminations. This helps remove the confusion that can happen when you have a non-eliminatable option in a runoff, while ensuring that the point of re-open bids (to make sure no bid that would lose a vote to re-open bids in a head-to-head scenario wins) remains.

[Barunia]

Any one who needs an example of why we need something like Legalese's proposal, just go and look at the bidding results for BoF66

Edit: you'd think I'd know the number of the only WCC event I've hosted.

[Free Republics]

I don't see the need to restrict WC hosts from participating in the CoH vote relating to a Vilitan Plan bid. For those CoH votes, I think there should be a very strong presumption in favor of the 2 CoH hosts from the WC bid and that you should only vote against their hosting the CoH if there are serious problems with the way they have handled World Cup qualification. Given this, I think the 2 WC hosts are the individuals who are most qualified out of anybody to cast a vote on the CoH part of the bid since they'd know before anybody else if there was a good reason to change CoH hosts.

Kelssek's proposal also has another serious issue. As rewritten, it would disenfranchise a BoF host from a 3 host BoF bid if their 2 co-hosts decide to bid for the CoH. I don't think this is intended but it would have rendered Ethane or Xanneria ineligible as well had the Drawkland/Delaclava bid been Ethane/Delaclava or Xanneria/Delaclava.

I don't think the Legalese proposal actually changes much but after reading it again, I'm in support of it because it seems like it would make it harder for the WCC president to screw up the process of counting votes if there is a tie between all bids. I would prefer however that the approval check be done whether or not a bid gets a majority, if only so that losing bidders know whether their bid lost because the majority find it unacceptable or whether it lost because the majority prefer another bid.

[Sarzonia]

My MASSIVE problem which Taeshan's original proposal helped address was the fact that the two ultimate CoH hosts were joined at the hip with the two World Cup hosts with their scorinating so many matches during qualifying.

The two World Cup hosts then essentially managed to find/create a loophole where they get to vote in favour of "their" bid. Even if it didn't violate the letter of the constitution, it violated the spirit.

I'll be honest. If I hadn't qualified for the proper, I would have given serious consideration to declining a possible Cup of Harmony appearance with Zwangzug and Kelssek co-hosting.

[Farfadillis]

Just to be clear: Neither Mriin nor I have any control whatsoever over how the CoH is handled - at least not moreso than the average user. We are not a part of the CoH bid, in much the same way that Zwang and Kels will not be taking part in organizing the World Cup proper.

As far as I know, this is how it worked in World Cups 70, 73 and 82. It's not a "loophole" or, indeed, anything new. I also find the notion that the Vilitan model was created to have a two-vote advantage in a CoH vote a bit ridiculous, if I'm honest.

snip

+1 to all of this, by the way.

[Mriin]

World Cup 85 Host Announcement

The finals group draw is up in the RP thread OP. Groups will be randomized & fixtures determined tomorrow evening, and MD1 is on Monday (the 22nd). Good luck to everyone left, and to everyone going on in the Cup of Harmony!

[Sarzonia]

I thought 95X was going to look for a way to withdraw from the World Cup

[Mriin]

I thought 95X was going to look for a way to withdraw from the World Cup

They un-withdrew two or three days later. It was far enough from the end of qualifying we were fine recognizing it. viewtopic.php?p=37245133#p37245133

[Audioslavia]

To conclude discussion on the question I asked a few days ago, I've decided not to withdraw from the current World Cup. Some interim manager/head coach is obviously in the position. I'll get around to naming them at some point.

From a few days ago