COH 79--Grumpy Old Men (Baker Park-Tikariot bid)

[Commonwealth of Baker Park]

The Football Association of the Commonwealth & the Tikariot Football Federation

present a joint venture to host the 79th Cup of Harmony in Atlantian Oceania and Rushmore.

Commonwealth of Baker Park National Information

Commonwealth of Baker Park was established in 1892, and has from its inception been open and inclusive of all people seeking to establish settled lives here; more recently, the country has seen a rise in the number of immigrants from other AO nations and has worked to provide wider access & accommodation to sentient non-human species who have made their home within our borders.

This is a natural continuation of the spirit and ethos of our history, as people of all nations, all ethnic groups, all religions, all colors came to take a leap of faith in a new land and built a nation which embraces diversity, community and equality. Today, we have over 53 million residents who can claim their origins from all over the multiverse.

Centrally located within Atlantian Oceana, Baker Park is one of the top tourist destinations in the region & the multiverse, welcoming over 2.2 million visitors per year. Especially in the northern third of the country, outdoor pursuits are most popular among visitors. We have a mostly temperate climate, with autumn and early winter the times of the year when precipitation is heaviest.

The engine that drives the country's economy is the industrial conglomerate that was founded by the family that established the nation, the Baker International Corporation. Known by citizens as "The Company" or BI, at one time it was responsible for close to 50% of the nation's GDP; over the past 30 years it has divested itself from many of the companies that dominated the economy, opening up opportunities for more investment and growth for both those entities and competitors alike.

The country is a federal, parliamentary democracy. There are 7 constituent states, each having their own unicameral legislative body. The Parliament of the Commonwealth consists of the 175 member House of Assembly and the 56 member Council of State. Until 1978, the central figure of country was the Prince Regent, whose duties were largely ceremonial although he held a few specific rights and duties; the premature death of the last Prince left the country unprepared, as there was no immediate successor. The position was renamed Head of State and it became an elected office in 1996.

Baker Park prides itself on the array of civil liberties it offers. Cannabis is legal for use and purchase, and prostitution is not illegal, but not technically legal either. By law, prostitution arrests can be charged as no more than minor misdemeanors, although in some places it is not a criminal offense at all.
Violent crime is extremely rare in the Commonwealth. There is a higher chance you will fall off a subway platform than be assaulted or robbed with a firearm, and we take pride in the safety of our subways systems.

The Football Association of the Commonwealth is proud to join with Tikariot in bidding for the Cup of Harmony in the hopes we can deliver the participants as well organized an event as we have in the past.


Hosting Experience
The Commonwealth of Baker Park has hosted the following events:
World Cup 84 (with Cassadaigua)
AOCAF LVIII (with Banija)
Under 18 World Cup 11
WLC XXXI
AO Lacrosse Classic
Baker Park Open Cups I & II
Thoroughbred Horse Racing


Tikariot National Information

Tikariot came into being in the year 1931 after breaking away from a Communist bloc, establishing a very inclusive democracy throughout the years that has attracted both immigrants and tourists from all across Rushmore and beyond.

It is located in northern central Rushmore, to the south of Græntfjall, with a very wide-ranged climate from the tundra climate of Viljamark in the northeast to the sub-tropical climates of Acrassia in the west and the tropical Cardannon Archipelago, making it a great destination for seekers of any climate, fauna and flora to feel at home. Be it skiing on the slopes of the Xarkian Range, mountaineering in the Khazaghian mountains, the lush beaches of the Emerald Coast or the island life and large waves of the Cardannon Archipelago, both adventure seekers and those looking for relaxation will feel right at home.

Tikariot is a federal, parliamentary democracy made up of 15 culturally very diverse provinces, balancing a feeling of safety with civil freedoms and a strong economy with an equally strong social responsibility to those worse off.

The Tikariot Football Federation is proud to partner up with the Football Association of the Commonwealth of Baker Park for a bid for the Cup of Harmony 79, drawing from previous experience to deliver an event to remember (for all the right reasons).

Hosting experience
Tikriot has hosted the following events:
International Baseball Slam XII (with South Newlandia)
Copa Rushmori 36 (with Græntfjall)
Extensive organization of the Tikariot Premier League

OOC: Outside of NSS I have been running a music magazine on the internet for over 20 years, so I am very familiar with deadlines both internal and external. Part of it also involves evaluating potential new writers, so evaluating text is not foreign to me. I also had been part of a wrestling e-fed for a year and a half, which is basically competitive role playing and I was involved with some of the grading to decide the outcome of matches, which was 100% RP based.

Bid specifics
Format
All groups are single round robin. All games shall be played in the host nations.

Preferred sizes
28 teams- 7 groups of four, top two in each group plus top 4 third place teams advance to Round of 16.
32 teams- 8 groups of four, top two in each group advance to Round of 16.
36 teams- 6 groups of six, top two in each group plus top 4 third place teams advance to Round of 16.
40 teams- 8 groups of five, top two in each group advance to Round of 16.
42 teams- 7 groups of six, top two in each group plus top 2 third place teams advance to Round of 16.

Non-Optimal Group Sizes
30 teams- 5 groups of six, top three in each group plus top ranked fourth place teams advance to Round of 16.
44 teams- 11 groups of four, group winners plus top five group second place teams advance to Round of 16

The host committee is aware and respectful of general discussions regarding the size of the field for the COH; we modified our previous format ahead of announcing the bid to reflect this.

Scorination & RP Bonus

Scorination will be done with the latest presently existing version of xkoranate. We will use the SQIS formula with xkoranate (additive) style modifiers. The ranking system used, of course, will be the official KPB post WCQ 87 results and RP bonus shall be cumulative throughout the entirety of the tournament.
A roster shall be worth up to a full matchday's RP bonus, and shall be the mechanism for acceptance of an invitation to the event. We would inquire of the World Cup hosts a summary of the RP grading for the qualification tournament as a guide to extending invitations.

Tiebreakers

For tiebreakers, we will use the following: HTH points, HTH goal difference, Overall Goal Difference, Wins, Goals Scored, Coin Flip (OOCly Rank+RP Bonus or, if still tied, we'll break the tie by scorinating tiebreaker matches until the tie is broken).

Please feel free to comment/question either of the potential co-hosts on any aspect of this bid. We appreciate your consideration.

[Tikariot]

Tagging in as co-grump.

[Savigliane]

We would inquire of the World Cup hosts a summary of the RP grading for the qualification tournament as a guide to extending invitations.

Would you mind elaborating on how you plan to use WCQ bonuses to determine who you choose to invite, as well as generally what your CoH selection criteria will look like?

[Commonwealth of Baker Park]

We would inquire of the World Cup hosts a summary of the RP grading for the qualification tournament as a guide to extending invitations.

Would you mind elaborating on how you plan to use WCQ bonuses to determine who you choose to invite, as well as generally what your CoH selection criteria will look like?

What we would be interested in from that info would be the oft cited "quality/quantity" dilemma--I don't believe we would be so interested in the grade so much as we would want to have an idea of who was putting honest effort into regular posting--which will become a clearer picture after the turnaround, when you'd normally see a certain amount of drop-off from nations who are down near the bottom of tables.

I will say the single idea that was mentioned during a discussion on Discord about participant size that stuck in my mind was "the COH's purpose is to reward good RP, rather than as a way to retain newer nations." (paraphrased from someone I don't recall).

[Graintfjall]

I do not have a vote.

You're basing the invitation criteria on WC bonuses, so assuming you're given a list of those earning bonuses -- how will you use those bonuses determine whether you invite 28, 36, 42 teams?

[PotatoFarmers]

I do have a vote.

Anyways, since this competing bid has shown up, I guess so will the hard questions. I don't have specific answers that I am looking for, tho I would prefer if you give your side of the story to the questions. These are similar to the questions I asked the other side, but catered to your bid.

1) Any particular reason why SQIS over NSFS? Similarly, why do you choose to include GF as part of your tiebreakers?

2) Grænt and Llama has asked about your criteria for invitation, and I saw the ans about how you intend to follow the discussion and reward CoH for RPing nations. While your competitor has given an answer where they clearly point out about their approximate RP requirements, do you have something similar? Like some estimate of your final entry numbers based on current RPing standards, or whatever you think can showcase the answer better.

3) Understanding that RPs are pretty subjective, and that newer nations may not be as good as RPing "satisfactory stuff" on their first cycle, do you intend to give a bit of leeway on this group of nations, taking into account, other things such as their RPing during the BoF?

4) On the same note, do you see yourself prioritising newer nations over long-time nations, and over puppets? I am asking this because I think this may happen in a situation where the numbers are pretty awkward, or that maybe you want to work with a nicer group of nations, etc. etc.

5) I have noticed that in some recent competitions, host nations will choose to not put themselves in Pot 1 if their rankings are not high enough. If either of you are participating, and your rankings aren't high enough to be in Pot 1, will you be adopting something similar?

That is in from me for now. Looking forward to your answers!

[Xanneria]

Hey Baker Park, nice of you to bid on the first CoH your going to be eligible for.


On a more serious note, I have a question. Why is 44 your highest count? Seems like we're getting a ton of consistent RPers of varying quality, would you allow newer RPers with shorter, but frequent RPs to join in? I think we're looking at a larger field of quality and RPing nations who have a chance and' I think 44 could leave out some good nations who made some good quality RPs.

[Tikariot]

Hey Baker Park, nice of you to bid on the first CoH your going to be eligible for.


On a more serious note, I have a question. Why is 44 your highest count? Seems like we're getting a ton of consistent RPers of varying quality, would you allow newer RPers with shorter, but frequent RPs to join in? I think we're looking at a larger field of quality and RPing nations who have a chance and' I think 44 could leave out some good nations who made some good quality RPs.

This in particular seems to be a particular bone of contention in the Discord discussions with a high number of people voicing their wish to see a higher bar applied to the qualification criteria and subsequently a smaller field of nations participating. Granted, this WC so far has been exceedingly rich with actually roleplaying nations, but we were trying to take these discussions into account when discussing potential field sizes.

[Xanneria]

Would you mind elaborating on how you plan to use WCQ bonuses to determine who you choose to invite, as well as generally what your CoH selection criteria will look like?

What we would be interested in from that info would be the oft cited "quality/quantity" dilemma--I don't believe we would be so interested in the grade so much as we would want to have an idea of who was putting honest effort into regular posting--which will become a clearer picture after the turnaround, when you'd normally see a certain amount of drop-off from nations who are down near the bottom of tables.

I will say the single idea that was mentioned during a discussion on Discord about participant size that stuck in my mind was "the COH's purpose is to reward good RP, rather than as a way to retain newer nations." (paraphrased from someone I don't recall).

I did not see this reply when I first skimmed the thread but I will reply to this in particular about having a high bar

How would treat nations whose RPs are consistently like this, this (Which is just two medicore RPs smashed into one), or this? I don't think these are super quality RPs (Yes I'm aware I'm calling my own RP low quality) Or what about a nation whose been RPing almost entirely with self made graphics? Where do they fall under your quality guidlines?

[Flavovespia]

A quick question regarding potential four-team single round robin groups. Is this going to give nations. in particular smaller ones, enough time to accumulate RP bonus to have a potential effect on results?

[Commonwealth of Baker Park]

A quick question regarding potential four-team single round robin groups. Is this going to give nations. in particular smaller ones, enough time to accumulate RP bonus to have a potential effect on results?

This is an excellent question.
When we first developed the bid, I stated my opinion that small group tourneys--4/5 per group--were not ideal for good RP continuity. This was something I thought about following the AOCAF, where a standard 32 team format would've been detrimental to a number of nations who performed well.

On further reflection, the COH needs to be a a short term event as it comes on the heels of a long WC qualifying tourney.
I'd love to have a 56-64 team COH, with several MD's. But that is outside of the general consensus of the community as a whole. All of us have to make compromises to serve the larger constituency. Since there are KPB points at stake, a conventional approach takes precedence over personal preference.

[Ethane]

I really dislike that you're not open to a format larger than 44 teams; I do not agree with the 'general consensus' on discord. I really don't think a short discussion on discord counts as the general consensus of the community as a whole. I do believe that the Cup of Harmony should be a place for nations that RP 'well'/'enough' - where you place 'enough' is subjective, but I'd place that around 2/3 RPs.

Again, as with the other bid - I'd prefer to see something more concrete in regards to 'minimum entry requirements' or 'maximum nation cap' rather than 'these are the options'. Whether that is a minimum number of RPs (last edition, we did minimum number of RPs then turned to the WC RP bonuses) or a commitment to one of the formats you've presented - or at least showing the one you prefer the most - I think it'd be good to be more specific.

[Savigliane]

The host committee is aware and respectful of general discussions regarding the size of the field for the COH; we modified our previous format ahead of announcing the bid to reflect this.

What was your originally planned format, and why did you change it?

For tiebreakers, we will use the following: HTH points, HTH goal difference, Overall Goal Difference, Wins, Goals Scored, Coin Flip (OOCly Rank+RP Bonus or, if still tied, we'll break the tie by scorinating tiebreaker matches until the tie is broken).
Please feel free to comment/question either of the potential co-hosts on any aspect of this bid. We appreciate your consideration.

Not that this is likely to come up, but why did you elect to use Rank+RP Bonus instead of just RP Bonus, which seems more common?

[Legalese]

I really dislike that you're not open to a format larger than 44 teams; I do not agree with the 'general consensus' on discord. I really don't think a short discussion on discord counts as the general consensus of the community as a whole. I do believe that the Cup of Harmony should be a place for nations that RP 'well'/'enough' - where you place 'enough' is subjective, but I'd place that around 2/3 RPs.

Strongly agree with Ethane here, as someone who would dispute that the Discord consenus is truly shared, just who happened to be on at the time. Totally fine to have a standard that's greater than literally typing an RP that's no more than "Some legalites kicked the ball and it went far", but the idea of making the Cup of Harmony exclusionary goes against the literal idea of the CoH, not to mention the concept of harmony, IMO.

[Independent Athletes from Quebec]

As someone who's very much a fan of having smaller Cup of Harmony, I have one question: why 28 teams for preferred size?

Even for Cup of Harmony, that tends to viewed as small-sized, and with particularly strong class we have this cycle, I do think that a minimum of 32 teams would be ideal.

[Commonwealth of Baker Park]

Now I will make an attempt to satisfy all concerns and answer questions to the best of my ability, without my usual wordiness to each specific point raised. (hopefully)

My friend and well-respected rival bidder Cassadaigua stated something that I agree with wholeheartedly (paraphrasing here): a 32 team COH is not going to be in play, as there too many nations putting out consistently impressive content.

I stated in the OP, I say it again--when Tikariot & I first began talking about this, I certainly had 48 as a floor for number of invites, and the outline we worked from--the same one that Banija & I used for the AOCAF 58--had formats up to 64 teams (not sure why).
The aforementioned Discord discussion caught my attention at the precisely the time we were finalizing plans--I thought about some of the arguments made against having a "come one, come all" COH.
I will confess to letting healthy debate sway me from my original idea (48+) to a different path (>48) not because I thought about currying favor for votes, but because I didn't wish to step far outside of the mainstream. Which I obviously I'm not as in tune with as previously thought.

A few direct answers to questions from early commenters:

Savigliane wrote:

I'd like to clarify my original reply--In honesty, I/we don't particularly need Tae/Ethane to provide info to us. We are capable of reviewing the RP thread to make determinations as to who and how often nations post. This is where what happens in the 2nd half of quali picks up importance.

Graintfjall wrote:

I think my above clarification applies to your question as well. If not, I can expand on it.

PotatoFarmers wrote:

absolutely wanted to address all of your questions Poaf--
1) my personal preference. Cass stated she prefers NSFS, and it has been almost universally accepted as the default formula for WC/BOF for several cycles. COH has been more diverse in the use of other formulas (as a Premier statto you can appreciate I did some research on this).
2) this sounds like a cop-out answer, but I give you my word that I literally had not looked at the Cass/NK bid until about an hour ago. That was the first time I'd read it.
I co-hosted with Cass, so I felt like she wasn't going to present anything wacky. I really am in full agreement with her relative to the answers she gave you on this question and #3 & #4.

I want to see new nations succeed & thrive, I think (hope) someone would say that I go out of my way to encourage new players who show talent.
A rank coaster in the top 30 vs a puppet in the top 100 vs a first or second time participant who has improved or shown real promise...
I hope everyone reading this who knows me at all would have no question as to who I would choose.

5) Pots/seeding should not provide protection to hosts in the COH, IMO.

Xanneria wrote:

Hey Baker Park, nice of you to bid on the first CoH your going to be eligible for.

On a more serious note, I have a question. Why is 44 your highest count? Seems like we're getting a ton of consistent RPers of varying quality, would you allow newer RPers with shorter, but frequent RPs to join in? I think we're looking at a larger field of quality and RPing nations who have a chance and' I think 44 could leave out some good nations who made some good quality RPs.

See what I said earlier. I cut about 5 or 6 lines with larger field details when I changed my mind; trust that we will have fairly standard group formats for 48+ (not that you'll know anything about that )
As to your follow up, let's look at it from this angle:
a player posts well thought out, grammatically correct, consistent storylines over 4-8 MD's. But they just happen to deal in subject matter I'm personally not interested in, or don't find enjoyment in reading (full disclosure: this did happen in WC 84).
I think the key word that I look for in roleplay is story. What does a person do to drive their story in a direction...any direction?

Ethane wrote:

I hope I've cleared up your reservations/objections.

Legalese wrote:

same with you. I did say I was sure I'd agree with your arguments.


So, in conclusion:
Tikariot and Baker Park commit to hosting a Cup of Harmony that will have at least 4 and not more than 144 (but closer to 36-53 1/3) participants.
We will utilize a scoring method where all entrants submit a roster prior to the draw of the field, with their preference of style modifier between -5 to +5, and based upon the official KPB rankings determined at the conclusion of World Cup Qualifying 87 and playoffs.

We will strive to organize a field of competitors that will represent a cross section of the best roleplayers not qualified for the World Cup Final.

I ask that you do not hesitate to reach out to myself or Tikariot here via TG or in this thread or on Discord for further clarification.

Selah.

[Legalese]

Thanks for the clarification!

[Tequilo]

A question for both hosts, now voting is open:

Following the debate here and elsewhere on the intricacies of invitation criteria, would you confirm that the OP of your bid is now the finalised host offer to be voted on?

Many thanks!

[Commonwealth of Baker Park]

A question for both hosts, now voting is open:

Following the debate here and elsewhere on the intricacies of invitation criteria, would you confirm that the OP of your bid is now the finalised host offer to be voted on?

Many thanks!

aside from the actual number/group size, I'd say yes.
I don't think that there are a huge number of differences between ours & theirs.

[Electrum]

Will there be a roleplay carryover from the WCQ to CoH? I note it is not standard practise to offer it, but I ask anyways.

[Commonwealth of Baker Park]

Will there be a roleplay carryover from the WCQ to CoH? I note it is not standard practise to offer it, but I ask anyways.

You would understand far better than I do, but I think the reason it's not a usual practice is because the post qualifying ranks are assumed to be a replacement?
The answer directly is no, we will not have any carryover, mainly because I'm not 100% certain we will ask Tae/Ethane for access to their RP grading. If it was offered to us as winning bidders, we would accept, but I don't believe (at this point) that I would approach them.
I also think the field of potential invitees is strong enough that it will be clear to us (Tik and myself) who is clearly deserving.

I hope this answer doesn't cause the same controversy as my last attempt to explain my viewpoint.

[Ethane]

Hey guys! It's a bit late to really impact the votes, but I'm going to ask anyway. You're using goals for as a potential tiebreaker. It's unlikely that this will come into effect because it is so far down the order of tiebreakers, but why are you using this tiebreaker?

My reasoning for asking this is that I feel it unfairly advantages positive modifier teams, as they are likely to score more goals - and thus will have a higher goals for record than negative style modifier teams.

[Commonwealth of Baker Park]

Hey guys! It's a bit late to really impact the votes, but I'm going to ask anyway. You're using goals for as a potential tiebreaker. It's unlikely that this will come into effect because it is so far down the order of tiebreakers, but why are you using this tiebreaker?

My reasoning for asking this is that I feel it unfairly advantages positive modifier teams, as they are likely to score more goals - and thus will have a higher goals for record than negative style modifier teams.

We have it pretty low, essentially the last one before coin flip. I understand exactly what you're saying, but I'd hope it wouldn't come down to the 5th tiebreaker. ICly I'd suppose I'd say it was to reward attacking teams, but as it has been discussed elsewhere that doesn't reflect the reality of how scoring operates.