Page 4 of 5

Re: World Cup 2016 - The Vote for Location

Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2015 1:56 pm
by Lee W
Personally I only see positivity in rival world cup bids, I think it's beneficial as the bidders will be upping their game to win votes, that's good for the masses, just as long as the bid is there for kick off reasons, not for political or petty reasons

however, I really think people should take rival bids in good spirit and in the name of democracy and run their bids with respect to the others' bids... and if your bid loses, chin up, bid again next year... having a positive stance like that would be very favourable in the eyes of the voter I think. Smear campaigns and pettiness should be left to the politicians

Re: World Cup 2016 - The Vote for Location

Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2015 2:25 pm
by Robert Swift
Noodlebug wrote: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.


Congrats Noodlebug. This has been nominated for 'KOA Forums post of the year 2015'.

Good to see you again in Dublin and scrape a win off you.

Re: World Cup 2016 - The Vote for Location

Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2015 2:30 pm
by dnielsen
Hi Stephen, welcome back!

I fully agree with the gist of Stephen's post: The Bham bid should reconsider their stance.

For the record, I'd like to point out that when Stephen writes

Noodlebug wrote: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.


This is wrong. There is a clear precedent for separating bids from rules, and there was a de facto constitutional rule in effect on this matter at the time of starting the vote. Note also that the voting thread specifically only mentions location, and not rules.

I hope that a compromise will be reached within the next couple of days.

Re: World Cup 2016 - The Vote for Location

Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2015 4:50 pm
by Jam King
Have to say noodle bug can most def right a post...fair play.

Re: World Cup 2016 - The Vote for Location

Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2015 8:46 pm
by WonderQ
copenaghen!

Re: World Cup 2016 - The Vote for Location

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:50 pm
by Steve1977
dnielsen wrote:Hi Stephen, welcome back!

I fully agree with the gist of Stephen's post: The Bham bid should reconsider their stance.

There is a clear precedent for separating bids from rules, and there was a de facto constitutional rule in effect on this matter at the time of starting the vote.

I hope that a compromise will be reached within the next couple of days.



I hope an acknowledgement that the above is incorrect for the last 2 world cups. No vote on rules for past 2 events.

Re: World Cup 2016 - The Vote for Location

Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:46 am
by Danny D
vote placed

Re: World Cup 2016 - The Vote for Location

Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:21 am
by dnielsen
Just to remove any doubts: The vote is cancelled.

Reasons:

1) The reasons listed in the protest by Gianni and Dagh.
2) The Bham bid was withdrawn.
3) Jorn of the CPH bid agreed with the recommendation to cancel.
4) The Ibiza bid is premature at this stage.
5) The whole process was rushed for no particular reasons and carried forward by a small group of people with impartiality problems.
6) There has been turmoil in the forum, and it is prudent to take our time and do things properly and unrushed.

There will be a fundamental rule discussion in January, and the next WC location will be selected in February (suggested time frame for a bidding round is 1-15 February.)

Re: World Cup 2016 - The Vote for Location

Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:28 am
by Torchiador
Thanks to state it clearly

Re: World Cup 2016 - The Vote for Location

Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:35 am
by Bounty Bob
Steve1977 wrote:I hope an acknowledgement that the above is incorrect for the last 2 world cups. No vote on rules for past 2 events.

Isn't that because there was nothing to vote on? Wasn't trap fix voted against in world cups prior to those? As far as I can tell, if a rule has been voted on it's not normal for it to be voted on again for future world cups. Otherwise we should be putting everything up for vote every time. A=B, PBD choice, auto slides, trap fix, wind, pitch type, 4/8 tactics, referee choice etc.

Re: World Cup 2016 - The Vote for Location

Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:55 am
by Danny D
dnielsen wrote:Just to remove any doubts: The vote is cancelled.

Reasons:

1) The reasons listed in the protest by Gianni and Dagh.
2) The Bham bid was withdrawn.
3) Jorn of the CPH bid agreed with the recommendation to cancel.
4) The Ibiza bid is premature at this stage.
5) The whole process was rushed for no particular reasons and carried forward by a small group of people with impartiality problems.
6) There has been turmoil in the forum, and it is prudent to take our time and do things properly and unrushed.

There will be a fundamental rule discussion in January, and the next WC location will be selected in February (suggested time frame for a bidding round is 1-15 February.)

Thanks for the update Dagh. Can you tell me who made the decision to cancel. Was this your decision alone? Was this a group? Who decided this.

This is news to me.I just voted and now I'm told that my vote doesn't count. Imagine if this happened in real life, you would have a revolution.

I've issue with a number of the "reasons" above but this statement "by a small group of people with impartiality problems" is quite a wild acquisation. Please identify the persons and explain why in your opinion they have "impartiality problems"

Thanks.

Re: World Cup 2016 - The Vote for Location

Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:39 am
by alkis21
Danny D wrote:Thanks for the update Dagh. Can you tell me who made the decision to cancel. Was this your decision alone? Was this a group? Who decided this.


No, it was not his decision alone. In fact, the number of people who decided to cancel this vote was three times more than the ones who decided to hold it.

Re: World Cup 2016 - The Vote for Location

Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:41 am
by Danny D
alkis21 wrote:
Danny D wrote:Thanks for the update Dagh. Can you tell me who made the decision to cancel. Was this your decision alone? Was this a group? Who decided this.


No, it was not his decision alone. In fact, the number of people who decided to cancel this vote was three times more the ones who decided to hold it.


Thanks Alkis. Please elaborate, vague numbers mean nothing without names. Please name these "three times more" members who canceled the vote.