The World Cup Discussion Thread (OOC, Version IV)

[PotatoFarmers]

As one of the involved parties, I would think it is inappropriate to make any comments on this OOCly (though ICly I might write an RP highlighting this). But I would like to perhaps, jumping Farf's enquiry above, to request that future hosts be more clear on their tiebreakers. I know this particular interpretation of the given tiebreakers is debatable, but honestly, if anyone was to look at IRL examples, they are typically more clear on when a re-tie occurs and when they aren't. (Examples in my head would be the FIFA World Cup, which doesn't do it at all, and the UEFA European Championship, which does it solely for Head-to-head the moment the number of teams tied decreases using the Head-to-Head tiebreaks. The AFC Asian Cup used to not do it, but later in 2019, they switched to exactly the same wording as UEFA. And yet in the case of UEFA, it is explicitly stated in the competition regulations)

Also, on a lighter note, if anyone is thinking they can get the better of Maggie in this World Cup, you may do this predictor:
challonge.com/NSSWC87. Like what I suggested for the Cup of Harmony one, if you want the ability to edit for the next 48 hours, do create an account and send in your predictions from there. Cutoff will be Ethane's next cutoff.

[Sarzonia]

I'd be VERY interested in the rationale for implementing a tiebreaking procedure that wasn't part of the original bid at this late stage of the competition.

It's extremely bad form to change the administration of a tournament in a way that isn't in keeping with how you stated in the bid you were going to handle it. The people who voted for your bid did so expecting you to operate a certain way and this is a bait-and-switch.

If I voted for your bid and I took part in this, I would be displeased even if I weren't one of the affected parties. If I were eliminated because of this, I'd shit enough bricks to build the Sears Tower.

If it's necessary to change something about the World Cup, you bring it here to discuss it with the community as a whole. You don't go to Discord or TG the affected parties.

[Ethane]

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.

Apologies for all those involved in the specific tiebreaker situation: it's a complicated situation with very little precedence to go off. I think the lesson to be learnt from this is to be more clear regarding tiebreakers in the bid by being more specific. But I'll try to explain our reasoning for the tiebreaker situation for everyone.

There were two paths that we could have taken with the tiebreakers for Group B, neither without its flaws. One option would have been to, following the two-way tie between Poafmersia and Audioslavia on Goal Difference, go straight to a 'coin-toss' which would have been based on RP bonus. The second option on tiebreakers, which I believe UEFA uses in Champion's League group stage, was to reapply H2H tiebreakers.

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.

With all that in mind, we felt it would be fairer to follow the tiebreaker principles that UEFA uses, and reapply the H2H tiebreakers to the teams again rather that go straight to RP bonus. If you reapply the H2H tiebreakers, this sees Poafmersia beat out Audioslavia based on H2H results (Poafmersia 4–2 Audioslavia).

Now I do understand this could be a controversial decision. But I feel that whatever decision we made here was going to be controversial so we opted for what felt to be the fairer option at the time. So sorry to all that were affected, but we had to make a decision and this is the one we've stuck with.

The lesson to learn from this, I guess, is the need for much more clarity in presenting tiebreakers when putting together a bid. I'll certainly be more clear in my future bids including stating whether we'll reapply tiebreakers or proceed down the chain; it honestly just wasn't something we thought of when we did put together our bid.

[Audioslavia]

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]

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:

Trolleborg finishes 4th on goal difference. Poafmersia finishes ahead of Audioslavia on H2H Result?

It's slightly unfortunate punctuation under the circumstances.

[Farfadillis]

The issues around THE/Trolleborg's advancement in the WCQs also impacted our decision to an extent.

What's done is done, but I do want to point out THE hadn't complained about the tiebreakers being applied (as they were laid out on the bid): instead, he had complained about their presence. Seeing as you took the decision to change the tiebreakers after the results were generated, the psychological effect was the same, and THE's misgivings were not addressed by this decision.

In the future, I think it's best if we hammer into every host's head that they don't have to take into account/worry about every little criticism they get, no matter who it comes from or how politely it is phrased. I apologize if I'm reading the situation incorrectly, but to me it seems like THE's light complaints ended up weighing disproportionately in the hosts' minds. Specially since, if you had asked, I think (or, at least, hope) most people against using RP bonus as a tiebreaker would've still been against changing the tiebreakers ad hoc.

I also think it might be best to lay out complaints at the end of the cycle whenever something cannot be quickly fixed. Hosting is stressful enough as it is and complaints can provide undue pressure, which does not help, as was the case here.

To be clear, I'm not criticizing THE here: I don't feel like he behaved differently from how most of us would have. I just think we could all learn from this.

[Alasdair I Frosticus]

To be clear, I'm not criticizing THE here.

No criticism of any kind read into the remarks; I think my post above yours adequately addresses my thoughts on the issue.

[Ethane]

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.

Honestly, I forgot/didn't realise that I'd said that. But in discussions with co-host, we decided upon reapplying H2H based on my - perhaps mistaken - reading of the UEFA tiebreakers. However, said tiebreaking still works as a solution for the tournament. I also think, and some people can disagree, that reapplying tiebreakers is actually preferable to going to a coin-toss and so I'll make that explicit in my future bids if my co-hosts are onboard with that, even if it is somewhat of a departure from rules IRL.

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:

Trolleborg finishes 4th on goal difference. Poafmersia finishes ahead of Audioslavia on H2H Result?

It's slightly unfortunate punctuation under the circumstances.

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 - and we feel this particular situation was not laid out in our bid; in the future I'll be more specific in mentioning tiebreakers.

Obviously this isn't an ideal scenario. I'm truly sorry to those impacted, but we had to make a choice one way or the other as co-hosts and this was our decision. What's done is done. If people wish to change this precedence for the future then that's fine; if this impacts how people view as hosts that's also fine. That's your prerogative, and I understand. I'm also very sorry to Audio for that contradictory message too.

[Sarzonia]

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]

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.

[Ethane]

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.

I'm sorry that you feel this way. Again, I'll repeat that if this impacts your view of us as hosts (which I doubt it will because you withdrew from the tournament because of who won the host bid) then that is your prerogative. This decision wasn't made in bad faith, but was made because we felt that it was a fairer solution to reapply the H2H tiebreakers than go to RP bonus. In this case we'd argue that it's not that we said in the bid that we'd do something else but that we didn't outline what would occur in said situation. That is our reading of the situation. You obviously view this differently. That's okay.

As I've said before, in the future I will be more clear regarding this in my bids. This isn't a situation that I've encountered before, so I'm sorry that some of you disagree with the precedence set.

---

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.

That was an error on my part because when I made that comment on the Discord, I hadn't had a discussion with my co-host. Then we had a discussion, I thought about it more, and opted to go with the retiebreaking using the H2H. So really the mistake there lay in me making that comment on discord before coming to a final discussion. I do apologise for that. But I think some people's qualms don't stem from just that?

[Alasdair I Frosticus]

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.

Then I'm comfortable.

The issue is one of trying to address an awkward point where the hosts retrospectively realised they hadn't anticipated every tiebreaker scenario that came up, and then had to come up with a solution, not an issue of retrospectively changing the rules.

Confusion was caused by Ethane's statement in Discord made before consulting with their co-host, and this was unfortunate; but clearly Ethane realises the error and has apologised. And perhaps it would have been better to announce the decision here in the WCDT before posting the scores, but that was a comparatively minor misstep. From my perspective the problem is one of clarity of communication, not competence. Valuable lessons have been learned, and since Audio is prepared to move on, I don't think this need turn into one of our occasional WCDT dramas.


And on a related point, I'm sorry if the hosts felt my earlier posts at the conclusion of the qualifiers on recommendations for tiebreakers in future tournaments complicated matters for you. This was not my intent, obviously; but then intent and outcome often diverge.

[Audioslavia]

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.

My understanding is that this *isn't* how it works in the RL World Cup, but I didn't manage to find confirmation one way or the other. If anyone with superior google-fu (or anyone wants to dig out the info on FIFA's website - it's *probably* there) wants to hunt down FIFA's implementation of the rules, let us know what you find. The intuitive understanding of when/where/whether you reapply tie-breakers seems to vary from person to person. My understanding was 'never, unless specified'. I'm happy to be proven wrong if there's proof somewhere, either on NS or RL.

[Zwangzug]

I think this is the relevant RL section, bolding mine:

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).

(The point of the latter paragraph, afaik, being that "d" and "e" don't reappear.)

That being said, in this particular context I would probably have done the same thing the NS hosts did.

[Audioslavia]

*snip*

That being said, in this particular context I would probably have done the same thing the NS hosts did.

Excellent googling Zwang, as always.

And I concur with the idea that, in the absence of Goals For, Away Goals, Wins or Fair Play as possible tiebreakers, re-attributing previous H2H tiebreakers is preferable to a coin toss.

Also this is why I prefer Goal Difference ahead of Head to Head. I believe it makes these situations less likely.

[Krytenia]

If I can interject here:

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.

What you will not see here is an explanation of what would happen in the case of a three-way tie. There have been two ways of going about this that have been mentioned; either exhausting the entire tiebreak tree without going back, or returning to the top of the tiebreak list when the tie has been partially broken. The hosts have chosen to do the latter.

Was this the correct decision? Debatable. RL precedent says no, but there is a completely valid stream of logic behind the decision made.

Did the hosts, as per the accusation of Sarzonia, fundamentally change their tiebreakers? Absolutely not. The tiebreakers were still applied in the correct order. The only change was that they did it twice, for reasons of debatable "correctness" but sound logic.

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.

I conclude with the most important seven words ever uttered on the subject of hosting:

The hosts are responsible for all screw-ups.

[Blouman Empire]

@ The Harbour Coliseum, Coffs
Eura 7–5 Blouman Empire

Great game for neutrals

[Ethane]

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.

I can assure you that we did not implement the "if...then" loop in our tiebreakers because of the tiebreaker situation with THE and Trolleborg, rather that we found a scenario that we had not anticipated when formulating our bid and thus adjusted to an unexpected scenario. Now did THE/Trolleborg's earlier situation influence the decision we made regarding this tiebreaker situation? I can't rule that out, I imagine it had some indirect impact on the decision (I didn't go, oh because this happened we should do this instead of that). But the three-way tiebreaker was not anticipated, and thus we had a choice to make - carry on down the tiebreaker tree or re-tiebreak on the H2H. We felt the logical and fairer way to go (following discussion with co-host, after previous comments which were perhaps misguided and pre-emptive), irrespective of previous tiebreaker situations, was to re-tiebreak on the head-to-head. We felt this was fairer than going to coin-toss (despite perhaps being out of line with RL precedence), and while not stated in the bid, our bid did not anticipate this situation. Whether this is the right or wrong decision is up to all of you - I've heard different people saying different things regarding this interpretation of the tiebreakers following our decision.

All in all, as stated above, lessons have been learnt on what has been perhaps a lapse in the clarity of communication that should be expected in World Cup hosting, and in the need for everyone to perhaps be more clear in the bids regarding tiebreakers. I'll certainly be more clear when I next construct a bid.

---

World Cup Announcement

Make sure to check which side of the World Cup bracket you are on for your Round of 16 cutoffs. The left side of the bracket (A1vB2, C1vD2, E1vF2, G1vH2) have Taeshan's cutoff, while the other matches will have my cutoff times (slightly earlier). Make sure to double check which time your cutoff is as a few teams will have switched cutoff time due to the bracket and due to us now scoring our respective sides. The Ethanian cutoff is now also slightly later: 2345-0100 UTC.

[Alasdair I Frosticus]

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)

[Independent Athletes from Quebec]

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)

Thank you so much for an excellent cycle of Juan's RPs through past, present and future, Arch.

Thanks especially for handling with ingenuity on what was a very challenging TG idea coming from me few days ago....now I owe you something back for WC90.

[Zwangzug]

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...

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.)

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.)

[Ethane]

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.

[Alasdair I Frosticus]

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.)

Oh, that's absolutely fine - entirely understandable.

A couple of exceptions - and one big misstep (the time I had Aztec gods almost destroy the multiverse in the World Cup final, and then tried to RP that no one would have noticed) - notwithstanding I do my best to respect that not everyone is going to want to engage with Dreamed Realm / Holy Empire weirdness.

The weirdness keeps me going after all these years, but no one need think that they risk causing offence if they prefer to ignore it.

[Taeshan]

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.

This is indeed the case. I will be taking over the final two games from Ethane. The semi final tonight, and the 3rd place match tomorrow. Thanks everyone for understanding.

[Commonwealth of Baker Park]

we're on the last lap...

Cass & Northwest Kalactin--well done on the COH. A damn tough format and you pulled it off exceptionally.

Ethane & Taeshan--well done on the WCQ/WC Finals. The biggest tournament, the most pressure. Much respect from someone who knows the score.

Neph & Ko-ren--best of luck to both of you.

Everyone who put the effort into the RP throughout the +/- 60 days--thanks for the storylines and the inspiration to others.

The King is Dead, Long Live the King! Who'll have to settle for President as consolation.