Page 3 of 5

Re: World Cup 2016 - The Vote for Location

Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 2:24 pm
by Steve1977
you quote things out of context...so you quote one half of my sentence than not the other thus removing the context that my text was referring to. Then the bit you have quoted, you fit to whatever you want to get one over me with

Re: World Cup 2016 - The Vote for Location

Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 2:33 pm
by Freshmaker
But you write such long sentences. And it's almost impossible for me to make you look stupid if I don't cut it up a bit.

Re: World Cup 2016 - The Vote for Location

Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 4:15 pm
by Binary
Freshmaker wrote:But you write


Ugh. Many words. Me caveman. Ugh.



;)

Re: World Cup 2016 - The Vote for Location

Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 4:17 pm
by Binary
Robert Swift wrote:In fact I think I'll give it a rest posting for a few days, every time I say anything someone gets offended.


I'm offended by this post.

Re: World Cup 2016 - The Vote for Location

Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 4:30 pm
by Lee W
must be another step to getting Donald Trump as a butler

Re: World Cup 2016 - The Vote for Location

Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 5:19 pm
by Freshmaker
Binary wrote:
Ugh.

Please, refrain from rascist slur.

Re: World Cup 2016 - The Vote for Location

Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 7:21 pm
by Steve1977
Freshmaker wrote:But you write such long sentences. And it's almost impossible for me to make you look stupid if I don't cut it up a bit.


hmmmm, cheers for that then Jorn. Appreciate it. :roll: I could argue you accomplish the same feat in your posts without the need for breaking up the text 8) (that's me responding in a jokey way btw rather than getting wound up)


__________________________________________________________________________


Durban could you please make clear in the opening post that a vote for Birmingham is indeed a vote for the Rules - rules which incidentally would result in more 'out of the box' KO2 than any world cup in recent times. You dont' have to put that last bit in though as no doubt some would disagree! :)
How you can disagree though that by allowing people AutoSlides AND no Trap Fix in 50% of their games is beyond me. In recent world cups you've had 100% of games with no AutoSlides - Gameplay Change Alert!

Right Jorn...quote some of this out of context and make me look silly again! :eeko: :D

Re: World Cup 2016 - The Vote for Location

Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 7:38 pm
by Jam King
Freshmaker wrote:
Basically, if you wanted to host the Kick Off 2 World Cup, you'd be offering/bidding to do that. And you'd be open for the koa to vote for what rules to adopt and not. However, you're not. You're offering/bidding to host the Kick Off 2(with a twist) World Cup.


Firstly if we didn't want to offer or bid to host a KO World Cup then there would be no mention of a bid on the forum because we simply wouldn't put one on.

Secondly, your right we are not offering a vote. But I have looked through the KOA rule book and no where does it state "to be a genuine bid to host a World Cup you must offer a vote".
We have offered a new (twist) this is true.....we have been pretty clear on this, we all know where we stand with it. We are open...open to play KO the way player A wants to play.

Thirdly, if you wanted to take the time and effort to host a World Cup and offered a genuine way of trying to please everyone i would applaud u.
Your disagreement with my posts is your opinion which I respect, but that's life.

Re: World Cup 2016 - The Vote for Location

Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 7:46 pm
by Jam King
Freshmaker wrote:But you write such long sentences. And it's almost impossible for me to make you look stupid if I don't cut it up a bit.


Bullying ????

Re: World Cup 2016 - The Vote for Location

Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 7:47 pm
by Freshmaker
Steve1977 wrote:Right Jorn...quote some of this out of context and make me look silly again!

You're doing just fine on your own.

Re: World Cup 2016 - The Vote for Location

Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2015 1:36 pm
by Noodlebug
Hello, my name is Stephen D and I quit the forums (and competitive Kick Off) 7 years ago as a result of unpleasant and dismissive comments in response to pretty much anything I said.

After a pleasingly persuasive email from Danny D, I attended my first World Cup in Dublin and enjoyed the experience and found myself more competitive (at my level) than I had expected. I have nevertheless still been reluctant to return to the forums because... well this.

So what has prompted me to reconsider my stance? Well, I have a vested interest in Steve E and the KOBRA boys remaining active in KO2 as they are my only feasible regular sparring partners. I do not wish to see them disillusioned by all the politics and bickering and withdrawing their bid and cutting ties with the KOA. I thought I could use my professional legal skills to give some analysis and advice. Free of charge (!).

They have made a bid which is wholly contingent on a proposed change from recent precedent allowing the use of Trapfix for players who wish to do so. They have made it clear that without the proposed change, there is no bid. There have been discussions about separating bids from rules but as things stand at the moment, there is no rule or precedent preventing them from taking this position.

Two alternative bids have been proposed, and as things stand at the moment they do not have any rule contingencies.

As things stand at the moment voting is open, there is a deadline. Some people have stated they are boycotting the vote due to concerns about the process. Other people have no concerns about the proposed rule contingency and I presume some people have been or will be voting.

Undoubtedly the Birmingham vote is very strong and would be massive favourites if they were willing to drop the rule contingency (it is not inconceivable that the Copenhagen bid may even be withdrawn should this happen). Birmingham may win even with the rule contingency, but it is very likely that a number of high profile competitors may decide not to attend if this is the case, which would be sad but entirely their prerogative. If Birmingham did not win, then my fear is that KOBRA would downscale their activities and involvement with the KOA, again this would be sad but entirely their prerogative. I would be delighted if they confirmed that this would not be the case in this scenario.

Each side is not going to convince the other now, so there is no point in continued bickering, we should all just await the outcome of the vote. Of course it would be naive to think whatever the outcome of the vote, that will be the end of it, there may be attempts to have the vote anulled, or held again with clearer rules - I think that would be a shame, and I would recommend that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome of the vote.

In my opinion, the best outcome for the KOA as a whole would be for KOBRA to reconsider their stance, in full awareness of the potential political consequences. Dropping the rule contingency would not close the door to Trapfix, it can be carried over and maybe voted on separately, and if its merits are clearly argued and it is the will of the KOA, the proposed "solution" would be adopted. Doing it the "contingent bid" way is very clearly alienating the anti-Trapfix lobby which seems to include many of the most competitive players and it would be a shame if the bad will and bitter taste this argument is creating resulted in a diminished World Cup shorn of some of its brightest stars.

I have broken my 7-year silence to come back here and plea to Steve E and KOBRA... think about what you're doing. And whatever happens, please don't quit. Quitting is for losers.

Re: World Cup 2016 - The Vote for Location

Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2015 1:47 pm
by Lee W
Great post Stephen. I agree wholeheartedly, would be a massive shame to have kobra vanish again and a massive shame to see people boycott a Birmingham world cup.

Compromise is definitely the best solution for everyone's sake. Pointless bickering isn't debating, it's just what it is... let's think of the whole chaps.

Re: World Cup 2016 - The Vote for Location

Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2015 1:50 pm
by Freshmaker
Noodlebug wrote: (it is not inconceivable that the Copenhagen bid may even be withdrawn should this happen).

Hi mate. Thanks for your post. Took me some reading, but yes, I agree with Lee.

I just wanted to make clear that what I've quoted is not the case. Or, to use your words:

It IS inconceivable.

I hope this is understandable, and it's not said to piss anyone off. The bid is there, and it's legit.