World Cup Voting

[Noodlebug]

(as I see it) It is not correct that there is no opportunity to vote on the rules, the vote for location is also a vote on the rules at the Birmingham bid's insistence. If you want to vote against the proposed rule, vote for a bid other than Birmingham. Yes it's all been a bit fudged, it's outside the usual way these things have been done, but you can't say it is not democratic.

As I have said elsewhere I think including the contingent rule is a mistake and could either undermine their chances of a successful bid or result in a World Cup in which the best players refuse to attend, neither of which can be a satisfactory outcome for Birmingham. Wouldn't it be better to drop the insistence on the rule being part of the bid, win the right to host and then have the argument about Trapfix through the universally recognised processes?

If there are genuine concerns people may have voted without full knowledge of what they are voting for and the consequences, amend the Vote thread, allow everyone an opportunity to change their vote if they choose, but I can see why Durban considers the best course to let the existing vote decide whether the KOA are in favour of allowing the Trapfix "solution" for one specific World Cup in Birmingham, or if they would rather have no pre-specified rules in a Copenhagen or Ibiza tournament. I'd personally be surprised if anyone has been "misled" as all the information is up front in the bid and anyone competent enough for Trapfix to affect their gameplay has surely been reading the forums!

The problem with implementing the OP plan, as Lee points out, is that it has the appearance of changing/setting the rules after the process has commenced, because of political objections to one specific bid, from people with a vested interest in preventing the contingency proposed in the bid. This is the KOA, not FIFA.

Everyone should also bear in mind that this molehill has been escalated to mountainous proportions, it seems to be more the principle than the substance that is causing the disagreement - the top players will still generally beat the same people with Trapfix enabled that they would without, and the KOBRA clan will still be competitive and have an enjoyable tournament even if they are unable to use it against some opponents. The benefit to those who have practiced with it is unlikely to turn them into World Champions, the detriment to the top players is not going to destroy their competitiveness, and everyone has a best part of a year to practice and get used to whatever outcome the vote throws up. And it is for just ONE competition. Is it really worth being so intransigent over, from both sides?

[Steve1977]

(as I see it) It is not correct that there is no opportunity to vote on the rules, the vote for location is also a vote on the rules at the Birmingham bid's insistence. If you want to vote against the proposed rule, vote for a bid other than Birmingham. Yes it's all been a bit fudged, it's outside the usual way these things have been done, but you can't say it is not democratic.

Liking these posts Noodlebug and please don't take my comments as offensive. But in relation to the above, the KOA hasnt had a vote on rules for the past 2 world cups.
Rules have been announced a month or two before the tournament...unlike the previous two world cups, we announced our intentions a full 12 months in advance

[Lee W]

Everyone should also bear in mind that this molehill has been escalated to mountainous proportions

This.

I think some people are too fixed on winning games than thinking about what's right, decent, fair and fun.

[Logos]

Everyone should also bear in mind that this molehill has been escalated to mountainous proportions

This.

I think some people are too fixed on winning games than thinking about what's right, decent, fair and fun.

Lee, care to specify who these people are?

[Lee W]

no one in particular champ, just 'people' who won't see any other way but their own because that's how they want to play

[thor]

no one in particular champ, just 'people' who won't see any other way but their own because that's how they want to play

Is it not rather obvious that this is exactly what the Bham bid is trying to do?

[Lee W]

not to me, no... it gives everyone their choice 50% of the time instead of 40% (lets say it was a 60/40 split on a vote) of players their choice zero % of the time

[Lee W]

however, I completely understand the argument for and against, but changing rules post incident and to cancel a vote, in my opinion at least, is the wrong way to go

[Jam King]

no one in particular champ, just 'people' who won't see any other way but their own because that's how they want to play

Is it not rather obvious that this is exactly what the Bham bid is trying to do?

I'm struggling to see, why u can't seem to grasp that our bid wouldn't be played to the way we want to play because 50% of the time we would be at the mercy of playing the way our opponent wants to play.

[Jam King]

Maybe then we shouldn't of been so open, maybe we should of bid only, more than likely got the vote, then 1 month before the event, drop our play options on u, leaving you no time to sort another WC. Now that would of been forcing our "rules" on u. And I use the word rules very loosely on this forum.

[Steve1977]

no one in particular champ, just 'people' who won't see any other way but their own because that's how they want to play

Is it not rather obvious that this is exactly what the Bham bid is trying to do?

2015 - There was no vote on rules
2014 - There was no vote on rules
2014 - There was no vote on bids either.

[Jam King]

I think some people are too fixed on winning games than thinking about what's right, decent, fair and fun.

Lee...spot on. I'm thinking bham bid has ruffled a few feathers on here, all we have offered is a way to bring people together and to try and blend people's gaming preferences so we all get a chance to play.

Maybe some people like the idea of the bham bid as a location and they know it will be well organised, but they find the risk of leaving without a trophy or maybe dropping points to a lesser player (who is team A and playing with their preferences) much more important.

[thor]

Why vote on location if there is only one bid?

There was no vote on rules because nobody asked for them to be changed. As you can see, there is a clear precedent: Rules have not been changed without a vote.

What I am failing to see is if "it caters to everyone", then why the reluctance to vote? I would assume it would pass, no?