The World Cup Discussion Thread (OOC, Version IV)

[Sarzonia]

That was one of the question marks I had any time I hosted anything from a small tournament designed in part to get my feet wet for hosting something bigger to a major tournament.

Grading RP bonus is the same as grading writing because that's exactly what we're doing. I've graded writing in an academic setting, although clearly not to the same extent as Arch has. In both cases, much of it boils down to subjectivity. Some people write well and seemingly everyone agrees. Sometimes, someone may find a particular style boring. That's just life.

I think it might be helpful to set a standard for scale and still allow for subjectivity in how hosts grade.

[Banija]

RP bonus has always been a secretive thing around these parts. Good or bad thing, who knows? It has been what it is.

Maybe it's not the best practice. I'm no better- I've been involved in hosting loads of tournaments, and not once have I ever publicly revealed my RP bonus scale. Of course, AOCAF 60 had live bonus and live scoring... Maybe it is about time we reveal our scale, so people can get a feel to how much the RP bonus weighs, and how that adds up over time.

[Graintfjall]

This got me thinking, as apparently there's no public standard for RP grading save for vague waffling about fairness and quality over quantity. Or, if there is some magical max-KPB-per-day value, no-one who is a successful host has ever really said anything about it in public. Going back into the archives, I did a little bit of research to find out:

World Cup 86's winning bid RP bonus section:

RP and Roster Bonuses:
We will be generous, but perhaps traditional in this regard in the amount of RP bonus that is awarded per day.

For WC86 it was 1.5 per scorination day.

[Nephara]

The best solution might be if WC hosts are encouraged to release their scale... after the tournament. So there's no pressure on them to shift it beforehand, it doesn't become a massive thing in voting, but it's still a useful reference point going forward.

[Mriin]

In that vein, I've talked it over with my WC85 co-hosts and I can reveal that our bonus range was 0-2.25. While it varied slightly between all four of us--subjectivity, after all--my grading pattern was roughly something like bare-bones RPs being ~0.75-1, average RPs being ~1.25-1.5, and great RPs were ~1.75 and up (the max mark obviously being given out rarely). I operated on strict 0.25 increments, but not everyone did. Farf used more decimal places than xkor takes and I hate him.

This is what I'd understand as "somewhat generous" by my concept of "standard" RP bonus, with 1.5 and 2 being more common max values. In addition, this was combined with a very long qualifiers, which ESF mentioned she'd lower max bonus for. This did mean there was a bounty of bonus available for those who consistently RP'd, and as a result we kept max rank tight (ie, set exactly to the maximum effective rank rather than max potential rank or anything else) to keep NSFS' randomness in line.

In a normal qualifying structure, I like a system like this because while it means there is a reward for going above and beyond, it's relatively minor--0.25 extra per day means you're by no means required to pump out a masterpiece every day to stay competitive. Though with the marathon qualifiers that they were, that 0.25 extra did add up. I definitely would try to avoid such a drawn-out format if I hosted again.

This lead to my favorite tidbit during grading, which is perhaps the first thing you might think of for "someone consistently RPing well for long stretches of time." The day BoF debutant Tequilo was eliminated--by a home draw to a nearly unranked side on MD23--they had passed up pot 1 Starblaydia in rank+RP. I only noticed because they were very close to each other on the grading spreadsheet, but I found that very interesting when it happened. An extremely unique edge case.

[Farfadillis]

Just so you guys don't picture me grading RPs something ridiculously-specific for the lulz: the reason I used too many decimal places was that I graded RPs out of 10, then converted to the 0-2.25 scale.

[Ethane]

For the CoH we did 2 KPB max RP bonus. In our host bid we put what we considered a poor, average, and good RP in terms of scoring. (we applied a decreasing gains schedule which provided diminishing returns beyond a certain point for great RPs, because we didn't want to expect too much but also wanted incentive to RP well.)

In our host bid we listed what we considered to be a poor, average, and good quality RP as baseline standards. Obviously this is subjective but I felt it was good to outline where we stood as hosts in terms of RP grading. Id probably change this in the future though: perhaps I'd just include examples of good RPs (because I don't like outright saying this is a poor/average RP in such a public way).

I think public RP bonus is anothe way to solve the issue of 'how are RPs grader, and what sort of level should we be RPing to?'. Lots of different ways to do it but naturally I thought the way we did it in the CoH worked fairly well; basically if someone asked us for their RP scores we would give the scores to them via private messaging formats, and whenever they asked. I found this didn't take too long to do with RPs graded in a Google sheet because it was just a case of moving the information from one platform to another.

---

Anyway, thanks for a great cycle albeit dropping out to Sylestone *shakes fist*. This was probably one of my most engaged WC cycles in a while and I thoroughly enjoyed it and getting back into the swing of things. WC hosts, as usual, were great.

Shout out to Sylestone though who stepped up so well to the task of hosting the Cup of Harmony. Syle was organised, prompt, and contributed massively to the smooth running of the tournament when things turned on the busy side of me towards the end. Sylestone is a great host and I believe the confidence you all placed in him has been proven to be well-deserved. I loo forward to seeing him go on to host many more tournaments in NSS, and I look forward to our next sports rivalry considering we always seem to get drawn into the same groups .

[Starblaydia]

The day BoF debutant Tequilo was eliminated--by a home draw to a nearly unranked side on MD23--they had passed up pot 1 Starblaydia in rank+RP. I only noticed because they were very close to each other on the grading spreadsheet, but I found that very interesting when it happened. An extremely unique edge case.

And I wasn't even rankcoasting, I swear!

[The Archregimancy]

I'll quickly note that one of the side-effects of making RP bonuses public - whether at the bid stage or after the tournament is over - will likely be an increasing standardisation of RP bonus range.

I don't note this for or against the principle. Some of you will be entirely comfortable with this, and will see it as a wholly desirable side effect. Others may have qualms about the increasing standardisation of underlying tournament mechanics, which turns hosts into little more than scorinator admins.

Either way - whether you think this is a good thing or a bad thing - publicising those bonuses will almost certainly lead to less variation over time in how they're applied.

[Zwangzug]

Others may have qualms about the increasing standardisation of underlying tournament mechanics, which turns hosts into little more than scorinator admins.

I'm not sure I understand this. From an OOC perspective, what else do you think the hosts should be doing?

[Strike]

I suspect Arch is getting at the idea of a "Scorination Engineer" vice a "Scorination Technician"

Over the years all of the things that we have seen in the World Cup and NS Sports were developed internally by the community. New Formats, New Scorinators, New ways to utilize RP Bonus in tournaments whether it be by KPB, relative comparison, onl applying directly to the ranks after the tournament - literally changing scorination formulas and testing new things out and then the art of grading itself which, to this point, could be as detailed or simple as each host wanted to make it.

I suspect, and not to assume, that Arch is saying something along the lines of the act that the more you standardize these things the less room you leave for the innovation and new ideas and ways of doing things that have helped sustain the community for 15 years.

Is it a bad thing to have hosts come in that only want to use a pre-existing scorinator, pre-existing tournament format and pre-existing method and scale for grading RP Bonus? Absolutely not, hosts do it all the time. But as you approach towards the idea of requiring things to be done a certain way then yes, you are just an admin and at some point the bidding / voting process could be somewhat negligible and would become more a discussion of who can convince everyone they have the most free time

[Trolleborg]

I have one question and one proposal.
Question is: hosts of CoH decide to reveal bonuses to the people who asked about them directly. How many of them really ask? Subquestions like "did you find people change their style accordingly" is also in my mind, but they can wait.

Proposal is: maybe, instead of usual nebulous "quality over quantity" formulas future host will add examples of what they counted as good\very good\perfect RP? I know that such things practiced in some tournaments, but for some reason usually not in the big ones

[Sarzonia]

My concern with singling out specific RPs as examples of good/great, etc. is that it can lead other players to wonder "am I not good enough?" when in quite a few cases, they are damn good enough.

I don't think we want to go down the rabbit hole of removing subjectivity from RPs. I know Star has said in the past he finds my RPs boring. Other people might enjoy the same type of RP he doesn't like. That's part of life. It's part of grading anything as mentioned before.

Perhaps we can arrive at a standard scale for how RP bonuses count while still allowing for subjectivity in how teams of hosts arrive at their applications of RP bonuses.

[Mriin]

I'm definitely of the opinion that some standardization is a good thing when it comes to how hosts interact with the scorinator. One of the most common things prospective hosts (including me) have said is that they had no idea what a good bonus scale is until they actually hosted something with a senior host and just saw what they did. That was the idea behind publicizing these values: making hosting easier to get into by removing some of the mystique around it.

To Vil's point, new formulations and scorinators being developed would take some particularly skilled and motivated users cropping up and taking initiative there. Necessity is the mother of invention and all, and we don't need new scorinators so it's less likely people will be compelled to make new ones. It wouldn't be bad if someone did, but I wouldn't hold your breath that after a decade of no movement on that front it suddenly gets going again :P

Edit: When I say "some standarization" I don't mean "hosts must use this bonus scale" but rather just the community have a common conception of something like "max bonus per day for the WC should probably be between 1 and 3, depending on length of qualifiers." Not standardization as in regulation, but rather in just the information being readily available.

[Banija]

My concern with singling out specific RPs as examples of good/great, etc. is that it can lead other players to wonder "am I not good enough?" when in quite a few cases, they are damn good enough.

I don't think we want to go down the rabbit hole of removing subjectivity from RPs. I know Star has said in the past he finds my RPs boring. Other people might enjoy the same type of RP he doesn't like. That's part of life. It's part of grading anything as mentioned before.

Perhaps we can arrive at a standard scale for how RP bonuses count while still allowing for subjectivity in how teams of hosts arrive at their applications of RP bonuses.

I do think this is a fair point from Sarzonia. It's why I'm generally not a fan of releasing grading publicly. If you want to know your own grade from a host, that's one thing, but beyond that isn't really necessary.

I hadn't thought about the specific RPs thing, but that is a fair point to consider. And yea, I don't think it's possible to take subjectivity from hosts in how they apply those RP bonuses once they have a grade- and nor should it be.

[Sylestone]

My concern with singling out specific RPs as examples of good/great, etc. is that it can lead other players to wonder "am I not good enough?" when in quite a few cases, they are damn good enough.

I don't think we want to go down the rabbit hole of removing subjectivity from RPs. I know Star has said in the past he finds my RPs boring. Other people might enjoy the same type of RP he doesn't like. That's part of life. It's part of grading anything as mentioned before.

Perhaps we can arrive at a standard scale for how RP bonuses count while still allowing for subjectivity in how teams of hosts arrive at their applications of RP bonuses.

I do think this is a fair point from Sarzonia. It's why I'm generally not a fan of releasing grading publicly. If you want to know your own grade from a host, that's one thing, but beyond that isn't really necessary.

I hadn't thought about the specific RPs thing, but that is a fair point to consider. And yea, I don't think it's possible to take subjectivity from hosts in how they apply those RP bonuses once they have a grade- and nor should it be.

I have to agree with this, too. Getting your own bonus from the host is perfectly fine and I am all for it, and I think it worked reasonably well in the CoH. However, completely releasing the grading system I really don’t like as many people will make competition out of it.

However, the hosts showing what is considered a bad/average/great RP is fine, as long as it is done in the right manner. I would say that the hosts themselves can use their own RPs in the bad/average section, and if not applicable, use something by a currently inactive user. Ethane and I were very careful about this when we put the examples up in our bid. Anyone’s quality RP can be used in the great section, preferably either someone relatively new or someone
who’s RPs are known for being quality.

Just my two cents on that thought.

[Krytenia]

It's certainly an interesting tightrope to walk. I'm more of the idea that if there is a small degree of standardisation, it should be towards total RP bonus over the course of qualifying rather than per matchday. There's a lot you can do within that framework, be it standard max-per-day, a diminishing bonus, or even something more complex like Legal's BAR system.

For a potential World Cup host, something that was discussed with both of my co-bidders was where we expected teams of high engagement should be, points-wise, on the scale (almost nobody will max every day; somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 of max is more likely) and to scale the cumulative total accordingly. I think we hit somewhere around the 1.4/MD mark in our discussions as reasonable for our calculations.

[Legalese]

To Kry's point: I think that even if we find that transparency about the bonus leads to more standardization of the bonus's ultimate (intended) effect, I also think there's a lot to work with as to what that standard actually is; where I had one thought in mind, I could see other proposals that make a good case for something very different in terms of scale (let alone other ways to get to that bonus, between cumulative scores, degrading bonuses, something like the BAR, or applying the bonus differently, like say to total attacks)

I'll say one thing as a WCC voter: confidence in the hosts is definitely a factor in my vote, but I do think that moving forward, one thing I'll start considering more is looking at innovation -- not as a sole factor, mind, but in terms of ideas. If you have something that you want to try that makes sense with a WCC tournament, be it with scorinators, formats, RP bonus systems, heck, even style modifiers? (I'm old enough to remember when the last one didn't exist) If you've shown how you've thought out why it makes sense to try, you'll at least have my attention, and if even if I'm not completely sold on the idea, possibly my vote.

[Commonwealth of Baker Park]

I see good points being made by everyone involved in this discussion, as many of us have been co-hosts of big tourneys. I consider myself fortunate that I've co-hosted with two of the best hosts around, and I learned something from both of them.

As with the earlier discussion about double MD, different qualifying formats, etc. there should be an amount leeway for experimentation, for originality, for personalization.

Any standard about RP bonus scale should be limited to max daily points. If someone wanted to make their scale 0.1 to 1.0, and another wanted a 0.25-1.5 spread, that should be their decision, and the voters should reflect their agreement or disagreement with that component as they see fit.

One brief Announcement not related to this subject: I said on Discord that the signups for the Under 18 would not be any earlier than the 21st, and at the moment I don't see a need to begin them until at least the end of weekend. If it fills up as fast as it did last time, it won't be a long process anyway. With regionals filling up, and the other big events getting going, I think patience is a virtue.

[Valanora]

My main concern is about the idea of revealing any bonus during the bidding phase, as it turns RP bonus into an arms race and popularity contest, moreso than it is even now. After the fact, once a tournament has been completed, I could get behind as to observe how that bonus interacted with the other two Rs, especially as increasing bonus increases Rand() when using NSFS formula. But to use it during bidding is a major bad turn of events in my opinion as a former host and active voter.

[Legalese]

My main concern is about the idea of revealing any bonus during the bidding phase, as it turns RP bonus into an arms race and popularity contest, moreso than it is even now. After the fact, once a tournament has been completed, I could get behind as to observe how that bonus interacted with the other two Rs, especially as increasing bonus increases Rand() when using NSFS formula. But to use it during bidding is a major bad turn of events in my opinion as a former host and active voter.

In terms of a popularity contest, it's been one for over fifty cups, because, you know, that's how it works when you entrust the community with that power. It's been that way longer than any other selection method, and it seems to be working just fine. It survived the move from style modifers becoming an optional innovation to something that I can't imagine bidding without, and it'll survive folks being more open on the front end about their RP bonus plans.

If anything, the level of standardization -- same scorinator, same formula, etc -- contributes more to it being about hosts and popularity, and less about the substance of the competition. RP Bonus is just one part of that.

[Starblaydia]

Useful World Cup Resources

Past Discussion Threads: Version I | Version II | Version III
WCC Factbooks: World Cup FAQs | World Cup | Cup of Harmony | Baptism of Fire | Nation Hall of Fame | WCC Presidents
Other Links: Presidential Announcements | KPB Rankings | History of NS Sports | Friendlies | Referees | World Cup Hall of Fame

---

What's that, Frisbee? The WDCT Version III's fallen down a well because it's so large? Well then, let's flick the switch and generate a new one...

And lo, did Lord Max of Barry send forth his violet salsa prophets to proclaim a new land for the jolted sportsmen of the world. A place was made for them, even referencing the old Forum Seven joke. And there was much hilarity and rolling of dice, whilst sacrificing many chickens of rubber for the Margaret that knows all and annoys all, bringing luck to those who deserve it not, and tragedy to those who post not a roster.

And they did come forth in great numbers to come together and play and discuss and whine and roll dice about sport.

And the sport was Football. Or Soccer, as some heathen differently-worshipping brothers called it.

And they did discuss it in an OOC fashion in this very spot, oh yey, with the OP of the thread being most excellent for leaving Ye Olde World Cup Committee's Constitutional Document, n'shit:

Constitution of the World Cup Committee
This constitution replaces all previous World Cup Committee rules.

Overview
The World Cup Committee (WCC) is a body of nations to regulate and run the Nationstates World Cup (NSWC or WC) and its two associated tournaments, the Baptism of Fire (BoF) and Cup of Harmony (CoH), made up of nations involved in those tournaments. It is older than the World Assembly, but younger than the United Nations before it Ceased and Desisted.

1. Organisation
The World Cup Committee consists of: A President, a Vice-President and two types of members. 'Regular' WCC members, and 'Executive' members who form the Executive World Cup Committee (EWCC). It is, contrary to popular belief, run by a set of rules, which are detailed in this constitution.

1.1 The World Cup Committee

1.1.1 Entry
Nations are admitted to the WCC in two ways:
i) Posting a valid, timely roster or squad list in each of the most recent two completed World Cup's official Roster threads grants membership of the WCC. This must then be renewed each Cup to maintain membership.
ii) Hosting a World Cup to its completion, which grants a nation permanent membership of the WCC. However, that user may only exercise their privileges as a WCC member as long as one of their nations has participated in the most recent World Cup.

1.1.2 Rights and Obligations
WCC members are allowed to:
i) Nominate and vote for a WCC President and Vice-President
ii) Vote on World Cup hosting bids.
iii) Vote on Cup of Harmony hosting bids.
iv) Propose and vote on changes to the WCC Constitution

1.2 The Executive World Cup Committee

1.2.1 Entry
Users of nations which have hosted a World Cup to its completion are admitted permanently to the EWCC. However, that user may only exercise their privileges as an EWCC member as long as one of their nations has participated in the most recent World Cup.

1.2.2 Rights and Obligations
EWCC members are allowed to, in addition to the rights of a WCC member:
i) Vote on Baptism of Fire hosting bids.

1.2.3 Other (E)WCC Rules
i) The list of members of the EWCC and WCC must be publicly available.
ii) Should one person control multiple nations on the WCC or EWCC, those nations will have only one combined vote, and be considered as a user.
iiI) Should one person deceive people into believing that their nations participating in WCC-sanctioned events are controlled by separate people, all nations controlled by that person will be removed from the WCC and EWCC, and can only be reinstated by a vote of the EWCC.

1.3 The Presidency
The WCC President acts as a figurehead for the World Cup Committee, and is elected from a list of nominees nominated by the WCC. The President calls for and collects the votes (via telegram, instant message, smoke signal, carrier pigeon, etc) for World Cup Host, Cup of Harmony Host and WCC President votes, as well as begins and maintains the World Cup Signups thread. The President is usually a pillar of the World Cup community.

1.3.1 Appointment
i) Presidential terms shall last for three World Cups (eg 46-48, 49-51, 52-54, etc)
ii) Elections for the WCC President shall be held after every third World Cup, giving adequate preparation time for any hand-over to take place immediately upon completion (i.e. the World Cup and Cup of Harmony Finals) of the last Cup in the Presidential cycle.
ii) Any WCC user may nominate any one other user for the position and any user receiving more than two nominations will be considered a candidate.
iii) Any user can decline to receive nominations.
iv) If there is only one candidate for President, that candidate will become the President. Otherwise, the WCC will vote on which of the candidates should be the President immediately after the nomination process.
v) If the President is unable to fulfill his/her duties, then the interim President shall be the first available person of: the Vice-President, the candidates in the most recent presidential election (sorted by highest vote total), the members of the EWCC (sorted by earliest WC hosted), and the hosts of the Baptism of Fire tournament and Cup of Harmony (sorted by earliest tournament hosted). If two or more eligible successors are equal in any of these criteria, then they shall be sorted in alphabetical order.

1.3.2 Responsibilities
i) The WCC President is responsible for initiating all WCC or EWCC votes, and makes the final decision on what proposals are voted upon, except when that decision would contradict a rule.
ii) The President maintains and provides the lists of WCC and EWCC members, determines the length of time of every vote, and may choose how to proceed if an EWCC or WCC vote results in a tie.
ii) The President will initiate World Cup Signups with the official NSWC Signups forum account, who's password will be made known to all Presidents.
iii) If the President is involved in a WCC-sanctioned hosting vote as a candidate, the Vice-President will be called on to collect the votes.

1.4 The Vice-President
i) The Vice-President is selected in accordance with rule 1.3.1
ii) The Vice-President is the first user responsible for taking over if the sitting WCC President is unable to fulfill his/her duties.
iii) If the President and Vice-President are both involved in a WCC-sanctioned hosting vote as candidates, members of the EWCC will be called on to collect the votes.

1.5 Elections
Members of the WCC shall ballot for President and Vice President after the nominees have been determined. Each voter's ballot is a list of any number of nominees in order of preference for the office of President.
i) Initial count. The designated vote collector counts the first eligible preference on each ballot. If one nominee is named as the first preference on a majority of all ballots cast, they shall become President.
ii) Elimination and reallocation. Otherwise, the remaining nominee(s) with the fewest number of ballots are eliminated from consideration. Their ballots are reallocated to the nominee listed with the highest preference who is still under consideration.
iii) Recounting. After reallocation, the ballots are again counted. If a nominee receives a majority of the ballots after any recount, they shall become President.
iv) Additional recounts as needed. Otherwise, repeat the Step 2 and 3 process of elimination and reallocation until either one candidate receives a majority or there is only one candidate remaining, who then becomes President.
v) Vice-President. To determine the Vice President, start again with all ballots being cast for their first preferences. Treat the newly-elected President as eliminated, reallocate their ballots, and count. Then continue as above until a Vice-President is elected.
vi) Deadlock. If all remaining uneliminated nominees have the same number of votes at any stage, eliminate the nominee(s) with the smallest number of first preferences on all ballots and reallocate as above. Should all such nominees still be tied, use second-, third, and lower preferences in order until a difference is found to eliminate the lowest.
vii) One nominee. If there is only one nominee, no ballot is required. They become President without an election.


2. WCC-Sanctioned events
2.1 Overview
i) The World Cup, Cup of Harmony, and Baptism of Fire tournaments are the only WCC-sanctioned events. The WCC has no rights or responsibilities over the running of any other event.
ii) The host(s) of a WCC-sanctioned event have complete control and responsibility of that event, except where that control has been given to the WCC, EWCC, or WCC President by other rules.
iii) A party bidding to host a WCC-sanctioned event must clearly declare, before voting starts, any significant changes from the normal operation of the event.
iv)The EWCC may vote to replace the host(s) of a WCC-sanctioned event if they are no longer able to proceed as hosts or if there is a serious problem with how the event is run by the host(s). Should this happen, the President must choose the replacement host(s) from available bids.
v) World Cup Hosts must produce a list for the President, at the end of their World Cup, of nations that have posted Rosters for the WCC Membership records.

2.2 The Baptism of Fire
The Baptism of Fire is the first event in the World Cup cycle, being a pre-World Cup tournament for newcomer nations. It is a warm-up event that has continually unearthed the best new nations in world football. And the worst. In fact, all of them, regardless of quality.

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
iii) A nation must have signed up for the World Cup in the appropriate Signup Thread and also indicated a wish to enter 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.
ii) Two-host bids are the preferred format, though any number of hosts are acceptable.
iii) The EWCC will be directed by the President to vote: a) for one of the offered bids, b) to officially abstain, or c) to re-open the process for new bids.

2.3 The World Cup
The World Cup is the second, and most important, event in the World Cup Cycle. It will always consist of 32 teams (including the co-hosts), who have been whittled down by the Qualifying Process to turn scores of hopeful countries into thirty relieved ones and countless disappointed ones. It is the longest running sports competition on Nationstates, dating back to early 2003 when internet piracy barely existed, and Max Barry was still trying to simply promote a book.

2.3.1 Entry
The conditions for entry into the World cup are:
i) A nation must have signed up for the World Cup in the appropriate Signup Thread
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.

2.3.2 Hosting
i) Any nation that has previously participated in a World Cup, and participated in its most recently completed edition, may bid to host the World Cup, except if the user has co-hosted the previous World Cup.
ii) Bids must consist of at least two hosts.
iii) The WCC will be directed by the President to vote: a) for one of the offered bids, b) to officially abstain, or c) to re-open the process for new bids.
iv) Friendlies are not the responsibility of the hosts beyond basic organisation. Co-hosts may not include as part of their proposal any information on the organisation of friendlies, nor may they answer questions on friendly organisation. Co-hosts may choose to start a thread for friendly organisation, may choose to schedule slots in World Cup qualification for friendlies, and may limit the number of friendlies; but there is no presumption that co-hosts will scorinate any friendly matches, and nations holding friendlies should assume that they are responsible for arranging their own friendly scorination unless otherwise specified.

2.4 The Cup of Harmony
The Cup of Harmony is the third and last event in the World Cup cycle. It is designed to be the Cup of Losers Non-Qualifiers, who have failed to get to the World Cup itself but have still demonstrated an insane desire to try and lift some sort of silverware. Originally called the Frosty Cup, the term Cup of Harmony is a much better name for the participating nations who just couldn't make it to the actual World Cup.

2.4.1 Entry
The conditions for entry into the Cup of Harmony are:
i) A nation must have signed up for the corresponding World Cup in the appropriate Signup Thread
ii) That nation must have failed to qualify for that World Cup, given the conditions set by the hosts.
iii) That nation must have posted at least one roleplay in the appropriate RP thread during the corresponding World Cup
iv) That nation must also have indicated a desire to play in the Cup of Harmony in response to a host invitation.

2.4.2 Hosting
i) Any nation that has previously participated in a World Cup and is participating in the current edition of the World Cup may bid to host the Cup of Harmony.
ii) Two-host bids are the preferred format, though any number of hosts are acceptable.
iii) The WCC will be directed by the President to vote: a) for one of the offered bids, b) to officially abstain, or c) to re-open the process for new bids.

3. Official Rankings
Originally created by Kaze Progressa, with some modifications by Bedistan, the KPB rankings are the only place to compare one nation's skill (or lack thereof) with another.

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 must be approved by WCC vote.

3.1.1 KPB Updates
i) The ranks must be updated in a timely manner by responsible and knowledgeable WCC members
ii) The ranks must be updated after the Baptism of Fire, so new nations receive their correct rank going into the World Cup (Qualifiers).
iii) The ranks may be updated after World Cup Qualifiers at the request of the World Cup hosts.
iv) The ranks must be updated after the World Cup and Cup of Harmony Finals have both finished.

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.

Stuff you should read:
A guide to sports role-playing - a comprehensive guide on what sports role-playing is about, how to do it, and how to enjoy it. It also contains links to a variety of other useful threads.
World Cup FAQs - a semi-complete list of Frequently Asked Questions, as well as some questions that are not so frequently-asked.
General Sports Role-Playing Questions - in case you have questions that aren't answered in the previous two links.
World Cup Winners - a list of those who have won Nationstates's most prestigious footballing tournament.
NS World Cup: Presidential Announcements - the acting president will post announcements regarding hosts, hosting, and votes. This is very important information regarding running specific tournaments.
The current KPB rankings - updated as of the cycle posted in the signature and/or on the document itself.

Past WCDT links
Version I
Version II
Version III

[Twicetagram and JYPe]

-snip-

What's on bro? Got a question or need help? Can just ask us instead of quoting the OP, since quoting the OP fills a lot of space and is unneccesarry

[Starblaydia]

Travislavania, quoting the OP in its entirety is completely unnecessary. Without adding any comment or point of discussion, this is spam. Don't spam.

[Northwest Kalactin]

Hey guys. Putting it out there I am interested in being a junior partner in a Cup of Harmony bid this cycle.

Feel free to DM me on discord or TG this nation if you are interested in being a senior partner.