Advertisement
by PotatoFarmers » Wed Feb 17, 2021 7:20 pm
by Sarzonia » Wed Feb 17, 2021 7:43 pm
by Ethane » Thu Feb 18, 2021 4:31 am
Farfadillis wrote:I already know the answer since I've talked it out with the hosts, but could they please share their reasoning for changing the contents of their bid, adding in a tiebreaker that wasn't there, in order to make Poafmersia advance without going through RP bonus first? I feel like in a case like this it'd be good to at least make the reasoning public.
by Audioslavia » Thu Feb 18, 2021 6:54 am
by Alasdair I Frosticus » Thu Feb 18, 2021 7:09 am
Ethane wrote:In this case, I felt like our bid wasn't inherently clear which option we would have gone for, so sorry. But also, we were not expecting/ready for such a situation to come up; I don't believe it's really come up before at least while I've been on NS. The issues around THE/Trolleborg's advancement in the WCQs also impacted our decision to an extent.
Ethane wrote:Trolleborg finishes 4th on goal difference. Poafmersia finishes ahead of Audioslavia on H2H Result?
by Farfadillis » Thu Feb 18, 2021 7:11 am
Ethane wrote:The issues around THE/Trolleborg's advancement in the WCQs also impacted our decision to an extent.
by Alasdair I Frosticus » Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:09 am
Farfadillis wrote:To be clear, I'm not criticizing THE here.
by Ethane » Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:56 am
Audioslavia wrote:As I said on Discord, the right thing to do would have been to clarify this before scorinating. You did actually say, in answer to the hypothetical 'what if group B does this' situation posed to you:
"In that case I'd go to RP bonus (toincoss) as a tiebreaker cause the H2H didn't split it in the first place I'd imagine"
but I assume you weren't serious, what with doing the opposite a few hours later. Also for the avoidance of doubt,
UEFA wouldn't have re-applied those tiebreakers after Goal Difference was taken into account.
You conferred with your co-host and went with what felt right. I don't know whether or not the discussion in #international-sport influenced the decision and I don't particularly care. What's important is that you made a decision and that you stick to it.
I'm annoyed that my national team have been stuck in limbo for three RL years now, not being unlucky but rather being devoid of the sort of luck you need to get into the last 8. I'm annoyed at being lead to believe a two-goal win would have been enough, only for it to suddenly not be. I'm not annoyed at this decision going against me. If coin-tosses can be avoided, that's a good thing.
Alasdair I Frosticus wrote:Ethane wrote:In this case, I felt like our bid wasn't inherently clear which option we would have gone for, so sorry. But also, we were not expecting/ready for such a situation to come up; I don't believe it's really come up before at least while I've been on NS. The issues around THE/Trolleborg's advancement in the WCQs also impacted our decision to an extent.
If the latter WCQ situation led to a clarification of a tricky issue on the basis that you discovered retrospectively that the original bid wasn't wholly clear, then I'm reasonably comfortable. If the latter led to an actual change, then I'm less comfortable. I meant for the concern I raised to be a consideration for future WC bids, not the present one.
But regardless of the specifics, can I perhaps suggest that you remove the question mark at the end of the sentence explaining the final group placings:Ethane wrote:Trolleborg finishes 4th on goal difference. Poafmersia finishes ahead of Audioslavia on H2H Result?
It's slightly unfortunate punctuation under the circumstances.
by Sarzonia » Thu Feb 18, 2021 9:13 am
by Kelssek » Thu Feb 18, 2021 9:22 am
by Ethane » Thu Feb 18, 2021 9:29 am
Sarzonia wrote:Personally, I support using RP bonus as a final stage tiebreaking procedure. However, that isn't the point.
The hosts made a fundamental change to the way they operated the World Cup from how they stated they planned to when they bid to host it. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it.
If the advance/elimination of two teams reaches every tiebreaker and your bid doesn't include a way to break it, that's one thing. But changing the way you applied the rules seems to be in incredibly bad faith.
If I were in Audioslavia's position, I would feel cheated. I feel that way now.
Kelssek wrote:I'm puzzled by what actually is the problem, actually? I interpreted the tiebreaker specified in the bid as having been followed. If more than two teams are tied, then you look at only the matches between the tied teams, and repeat. That's how it works in the World Cup IRL. The problem is surely the ambiguity in the bid itself.
I mean, it could've also been fair play points by counting the number of yellow and red cards each team RPed, which is how Japan advanced ahead of Senegal in 2018, but probably best that wasn't the solution!
Edit: on further reflection, it seems it's also that the hosts were directly asked to clarify and implied a different procedure would be followed, but surely in the end it comes back to ambiguity in the bid. Which is more of a point for everyone to note, because that's been the standard way of listing tiebreakers, so it's a collective lesson for the future.
by Alasdair I Frosticus » Thu Feb 18, 2021 9:53 am
Ethane wrote:The question mark has been removed. I'd put that in while drafting to check and forgot to edit out. The particular issue wasn't one that we envisioned in our bid, and so feel that we are not changing the tiebreakers. We're not changing the tiebreakers because of THE's post on the WCDT earlier RE RP bonus but because we feel this is a fairer solution.
by Audioslavia » Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:57 am
Kelssek wrote:I interpreted the tiebreaker specified in the bid as having been followed. If more than two teams are tied, then you look at only the matches between the tied teams, and repeat. That's how it works in the World Cup IRL.
by Zwangzug » Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:06 am
(The point of the latter paragraph, afaik, being that "d" and "e" don't reappear.)Second step: If two or more teams are equal on the basis of the first step (see example in Table 1), their ranking will be determined by applying to the group matches between the teams concerned the criteria listed in art. 32 (5) lit. d) to h) in the order of their listing.
greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned;
goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned;
greater number of goals scored in all group matches between the teams concerned;
greater number of points obtained in the fair play conduct of the teams based on yellow and red cards received in all group matches;
drawing of lots by the FIFA.
With respect to the second step this means that all affected teams will be ranked by applying the criteria d) to g) one after another. If one team qualifies for a higher or lower ranking pursuant to one criterion, but it is not possible to rank all teams on the basis of the same criterion, the remaining two or three teams will be ranked pursuant to the next criterion, and so on. In any case, the second step of the ranking does not restart for the two or three teams remaining after application of a criterion.
In the example in Table 2, if three teams are equal on the basis of criteria d) and e) and teams A and B are equal in criterion f) whilst team C scored fewer goals in the concerned group matches, team C is ranked lower than teams A & B. The ranking of teams A & B will then be determined on the basis of criterion g) or by drawing lots pursuant to lit h).
by Audioslavia » Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:22 am
Zwangzug wrote:*snip*
That being said, in this particular context I would probably have done the same thing the NS hosts did.
by Krytenia » Thu Feb 18, 2021 3:25 pm
Ethane wrote:Tiebreakers would be as follows: Points, Head-to-head points, Head-to-head goal difference, goal difference, and if necessary a coin toss (cumulative RP bonus total). We will not be using Goals For or goals against metrics, because this could lead to the game-ing of style modifiers. For example, if we include goals for as a tiebreaker metric, then nations would be more inclined to use an aggressively positive style modifier because it would mean a higher chance of scoring more goals, thus giving a greater advantage in certain metrics; the reverse is somewhat true for goals against as well. This will also give greater liberty for RPers.
by Blouman Empire » Fri Feb 19, 2021 1:17 am
@ The Harbour Coliseum, Coffs
Eura 7–5 Blouman Empire
by Ethane » Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:18 am
Krytenia wrote:If I can sum this up in basic (well, BASIC) terms, the hosts patched their code by adding an "if...then" loop.
The Trolleborg-THE situation is different, as this was a two-way tie broken by the tiebreakers as mentioned, so I will not discuss it here save for the opinion that if the hosts decided to apply the "if...then" version of the tiebreaker tree as a result of this, then that is a Not Good Thing.
by Alasdair I Frosticus » Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:04 am
by Independent Athletes from Quebec » Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:09 am
Alasdair I Frosticus wrote:With the Holy Empire back in the semi-finals, I just want to take a moment to thank everyone who contributed ideas for Juan Tzimisces appearing through space and time - and an apology to Zwangzug, whom I feel I let down slightly as a RL commitment held me back from properly developing that idea.
It was a bit of a slow burner; it took me a couple of matches to find my feet and really build the feel, and a little bit longer before other nations really grasped the opportunity to contribute, but in the end it's been one of the most enjoyable collaborative RP campaigns I've run since (appropriately enough) the perfect 100%* Juan Tzimisces mythic bleed campaign eight RL years ago in WC 62. That was also the World Cup where the Archregimancy finally achieved the 'perfect Trinitarian' World Cup group stage record of 1-1-1, GF 3, GA 3; so it's a tournament I remember with some fondness.
I think Juan will likely fall short this time (and I'll blame it on the goalkeeping), but it's been great fun - so thanks again to everyone who helped out with ideas.
*(with semifinal extra time victory over Vilita asterisk)
by Zwangzug » Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:46 pm
No worries! All I really wanted was an excuse to call back to the Idiot Project videos with that outro line, so everything else was just contrived setup (I'm glad it worked out to get drawn in your group.)Alasdair I Frosticus wrote:With the Holy Empire back in the semi-finals, I just want to take a moment to thank everyone who contributed ideas for Juan Tzimisces appearing through space and time - and an apology to Zwangzug, whom I feel I let down slightly as a RL commitment held me back from properly developing that idea.
It was a bit of a slow burner; it took me a couple of matches to find my feet and really build the feel, and a little bit longer before other nations really grasped the opportunity to contribute...
by Ethane » Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:50 pm
by Alasdair I Frosticus » Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:59 am
Zwangzug wrote:I can only speak for myself as to what kind of collaborations do/don't click for me, but for a mostly non-magical, "ordinary reality" society, messing around with the space-time continuum and being like "haha, this immortal dude was the hero all along!" or "according to 'canon', in three centuries we'll be doing this in space!" isn't the type of thing that I'm usually into. (I recognize a lot of people are willing to play more fast and loose with "it's all timey-wimey, don't worry about it," but I like to have my flashbacks/flashforwards stay relatively IC compliant with each other.)
by Taeshan » Tue Feb 23, 2021 3:57 pm
Ethane wrote:Hey guys, just a heads up that there is a chance Taeshan will be scoring the remaining World Cup matches. I'll let you know tomorrow; the only difference for you is that your cutoff would be a couple of hours after. But I'll have an update on that tomorrow.
Thanks for sticking with us, hope you've been enjoying this World Cup.
by Commonwealth of Baker Park » Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:20 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bears Armed, Doubeia, Google [Bot], Mertagne, Sarzonia, Siovanija and Teusland, The Plough Islands, Zenic
Advertisement