Page 1 of 7

World Cup Voting

Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2015 11:12 pm
by dnielsen
On December 14, Mark (Durban) made a comprehensive announcement in response to the debates in the forum of the previous days. Among other things, Mark wrote:

I therefore propose (based on input of other people of course)

1) Post the World Cup, anyone wishing to host a future world cup should formulate an official Bid that must be submitted onto the forum by 31st January (date to be agreed, but going forward should remain constant).

4) At no point during the BID process should we have any rules discussed, so no one can say 'pick my world cup and you can play with Super PBD'. We are judging on merit, on location, on cost, on the organisation team - we are not judging on rules - lets keep this simple.

7) Once we have agreed on a location we can start discussing the rules set, [...]


Mark's announcement was not challenged.

The constitutional rule to separate the bid process from the rule discussion was also put forward as the very first point by Thor in his "WC Rules Protocol Suggestion" on the previous day, December 13. His protocol suggestion was met by general acclaim in the forum "from all sides" of the previous debates.

Thor's suggestion to separate the rules from the bids was not challenged. (On the contrary, it was singled out for praise.)

Shortly after the previous WC, Danny had suggested a deadline for WC bids at December 15. This was done at a time when we did not expect any contentious issues to arise.

On December 16, when the deadline had been reached, Steve C posted the thread "World Cup 2016 - The Vote for Location". He specifically only mentioned location and avoided all talk about rules in the voting thread.

To confirm that this was only a vote for the location, in accordance with Mark's announcement on December 14, Thor wrote:

Can you please confirm that the WC Rules are part of the bids, as they are currently written, or if we are simply voting on the location like the title of the topic reads? I am not looking for further debate, I just would like to know before I vote.

Noting the discrepancy, Jorn (of the CPH bid) wrote:

I think we agreed that we're voting for location. The Copenhagen-bid will be edited accordingly.

Responding in another thread, still on December 16, Simon K (of the Bham bid) wrote:

I have seen on the forum that Steve has put a well reasoned bid forward and as things haven't changed on the forum and it is still clicky and narrow minded I have suggested that we propose the following, Gaz and Steve are in agreement.

This is a group decision from Kobra.

We have made a bid for the World Cup, this involves the following

Team A gets the choice over auto slides and trap fix.
Both Team A and Team B can choose PBD on or off.

These options are not up for discussion or a vote.


Seeing this, Robert S remarked in the voting thread:

Hang on, it seems that the Birmingham bid comes with rules attached, and they are not open for voting. Do we want to choose a location on this basis, and do either of the other bids include a decision on rules?

Steve E (of the Bham bid) confirmed:

Rob, all those things you have suggested we've actually done (for Birmingham) and I did explain that the Birmingham bid was not open to vote.

Less than 1 hour after Robert's inquiery, Mark wrote (our comments interlaced):

I think in reality we have started the process lets just get it finished and then next year we can sort out the formalities and rules around what and when. [However, the voting process being started was only for the location, so this is no argument for suddenly allowing rules to be attached.]

I do agree that the bids should have at least skeleton detail around location and transport and all that but at the same time for some reason we had this really short deadline. [The short deadline was a good idea only as long as there was no fundamental discussions to be had.]

All bids were aware of it, no one seems to be hiding anything, and so its all fair. [We do not think it is fair to break rules and precedent.]

I agree we should be voting for location primarily, but in Steve's defence they opened up with everything up front and the whole 'bid for location only' sentiment kinda cam after that so no real point them editing it all now. [We have a clear precedent for separating bids from rules, and it is quite unexpected that a bid comes with rules attached. As soon as this issue was noted, discusions were started, and they concluded with Mark's own announcement that rules and bids should be separate.]

I reckon we move on and discuss the 'dos and don't' for next years process.

Sorry if I am missing somethibg fundamental here, but it has all been a bit rushed!

We recognize that Mark was put under stress, and that Mark had a genuine desire to be forthcoming to the persons behind the Bham bid as well as everybody else. However, his decision was wrong and unfounded. It is not acceptable to announce a constitution-like rule set one day, and then only 3 days later, when presented with an ultimatum, back off and break the announced rules.

The people behind the Bham bid (Steve E, Garry C, and Simon K) held an impressive WC in 2011 to broad acclaim. We are sure that we can expect another stellar WC in Bham, and we appreciate in the highest degree the sincere and dedicated efforts put forward by them. We express the same sentiment towards the bids of Jorn and of Leo and Luis. We are in a sense spoiled by choice.

However, we feel it must be stated that we cannot accept that there is not a separate vote for rules after a proper discussion. It is against precedent, it would set a bad precedent, and it is against the will of many in the community who are paying large amounts of money and time to attend the WC.

We strongly recommend:

1) Since there is only one bid currently abiding to the rules in Mark's announcement of December 14, the current voting process is invalid and hereby cancelled.

2) Due to the complicated situation and the need for proper time to reach a solid, well thought-out decision, a new deadline for bids is set for January 31. A new vote for location (if required) will be announced on February 1st and will conclude on February 15. This will give everybody ample time to cool off over Christmas and approach the issues with positive energy in the new year.

3) There will be a formal discussion and a vote to formally adopt Thor's WC Rules Protocol (or a variation thereof to be agreed upon). The vote will open on January 10th and will conclude on January 20th.

We ask Mark to reconsider the situation and offer his support on these points. We also ask everybody else to take a deep breath and join us in a constructive approach forward.

Gianni T
Dagh N

Re: World Cup Voting

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 1:27 am
by Logos
Needless to say, I support this recommendation fully.

Let us respect the right to vote of the attendee and hopefully reach a positive solution for the good of the community.

Re: World Cup Voting

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:43 am
by Robert Swift
We must be conscious that we now have several threads on the same discussion.

I have been thinking this through at length and researching the vote history for the question of 'slides at World Cups'.

Can anyone please confirm or otherwise that this is a correct record of previous votes?

2008 - Athens

-I would prefer to play with Autoslides turned OFF. Votes: 16
-I would prefer to play with Autoslides turned ON. Votes: 21
-I don't really understand / I don't have a preference for Autoslides. Votes: 3

-I would prefer to have Unintended slides turned OFF. Votes: 15
-I would prefer to have Unintended slides turned ON. Votes: 22
-I don't really understand / I do not have a preference for Unintended Slides/ Votes: 3

Outcome: Autofix OFF, Trapfix OFF.

2009 - Voitsberg

No vote. Previous year's rules adopted by hosts.

2010 - Duesseldorf

No slide fixes. Votes 12
Both slide fixed. Votes 10

Outcome: Autofix OFF, Trapfix OFF.

2011 - Bham

1) Autoslides
A) I prefer to play without computer generated slide tackles and headers 15
B) I prefer to play with computer generated slide tackles and headers 2
C) I have no preference 5
2) Trapslides
A) I prefer to play with a simplified trapping functionality (without trapslides) 14
B) I prefer to play with the complex trapping functionality (with trapslides) 5
C) I have no preference 3
3) APT - Freedom of Choice
A) I prefer each player to freely choose the APT settings they wish 20
B) I prefer to restrict my opponent's choice of APT settings 2

Outcome: APT Free Choice

2012 - Milan

Autoslides preference:
A1: I want Autoslide : 9 (36%)
A2: I don't want Autoslide (Autofix ON) : 14 (56%)
A3: I have no preference : 2 (8%)
Trapslides preference:
B1: I want Trapslides : 16 (64%)
B2: I don't want Trapslides (Trapfix ON) : 8 (32%)
B3: I have no preference : 1 (4%)

Outcome: Autofix ON, Trapfix OFF

2013 - Voitsberg

No vote before the tournament or record of vote at the tournament - can anyone remember how it went?

2014 - Copenhagen

No vote before the tournament.

Outcome: Autofix ON, Trapfix OFF - was this a 'host decision'? Please confirm.

2015 - Dublin

No vote before the tournament.

Outcome: Autofix ON, Trapfix OFF - again, was this a 'host decision'? Please confirm.

Before we draw any conclusions from this, can we establish the facts please. I would argue that previous settings used and the process by which we arrived at them are both relevant to what we do next year.

Specific missing info from the above - can anyone fill in the gaps:

- What settings were used in 2013?
- How was the rules decision made in 2013?
- How was the rules decision made in 2014?
- How was the rules decision made in 2015?
- Has the current 'only if both players agree' rule ever been voted on?

Re: World Cup Voting

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 4:04 am
by dnielsen
The 2013 voting thread:


Same outcome as in 2012.

All in all:

2008: OFF / OFF (vote)
2009: OFF / OFF
2010: OFF / OFF (vote)
2011: ATP (vote)
2012: ON / OFF (vote)
2013: ON / OFF (vote)
2014: ON / OFF
2015: ON / OFF

Re: World Cup Voting

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 5:21 am
by thor
Thank you Dagh and Gianni, and Andy. I fully agree with, and support the recommendation.

I think a Birmingham World Cup could be the best ever; the bid looks phenomenal and I would love to go there. What I don't understand is what there is to be gained by trying to push through a change to the rules without a vote? I can't see any upside of this. Rather, I fear this may cause a rift in the KOA that would be beyond repair.

As you can see from Dagh and Robert's posts, there has not been a change to tournament rules without a vote in the last 8 years. I feel it is imperative that we agree to, and document the process for World Cup rule voting, and then I am sure everybody will respect the outcome. I will.

Finally, I would like to reinforce the point that the post with the voting details is misleading, and has not been corrected (why?). That alone should invalidate any votes.

Re: World Cup Voting

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:31 am
by Freshmaker
Robert Swift wrote:2014 - Copenhagen

No vote before the tournament.

Outcome: Autofix ON, Trapfix OFF - was this a 'host decision'? Please confirm.

Define 'host decision'.

Topic was never raised, hence no debate, nor vote. If it was raised there would've been a vote. Guess you can validate that as 'current settings confirmed'.

I believe the same would apply for 2015.

Re: World Cup Voting

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 12:47 pm
by Torchiador

Postby Robert Swift ยป Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:25 am
It's important to remember that PBDMix and A=B were elected choices of the WC participants.

If I remember correctly the vote has been set in the registration form of 2006 World Cup.
It wasn't a vote for trapfix or autoslide. but it is a clear proof that the KOA already introduced a vote to determinate rules to apply in the world cup. a vote among world cup attenders.

Re: World Cup Voting

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 1:20 pm
by Steve1977
Freshmaker wrote:
Robert Swift wrote:2014 - Copenhagen

No vote before the tournament.

Outcome: Autofix ON, Trapfix OFF - was this a 'host decision'? Please confirm.

Define 'host decision'.

Topic was never raised, hence no debate, nor vote. If it was raised there would've been a vote. Guess you can validate that as 'current settings confirmed'.

I believe the same would apply for 2015.

So no-one? no-one at all mentioned anything about the settings? So all newbies were aware they wern't playing Kick Off 2 'out of the box' due to the exclusion of Auto Slides?

About 2015, you believe the same would apply? So Danny didn't confer with anyone about what to do rule wise?
If it was a "well we'll just use the same as last year" - that year in question didn't have a vote, so the rules are invalidated. Not to mention that we haven't yet established that the year there was no vote (2014) actually challenged this and/or no concern for new players who didn't realise Auto Slides were out.

Just to add to this, we've already established that there was also no host vote for the 2014 World Cup bid.

Re: World Cup Voting

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 1:53 pm
by Lee W
no challenge to the rule set durban wrote because we were point blank told we couldn't... it wasn't a discussion.

Sadly, it just looks like an excuse has been made to stop Birmingham winning which is highly dubious at best.

Re: World Cup Voting

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 2:01 pm
by Lee W
a new precedent was made with rules being included in a bid, some didn't care, some liked it, some hate it... sounds like every other discussion really, but that's debate.. no rules were broken/introduced/changed before the voting started.

Retrospectively introducing rules, cancelling the vote, just seems like corruption... not saying it is by any means, just saying that's how it looks.

Personally I can't see any other way than to carry on with it how it is, then change/make the rules and do it in a correct and fair manner, doing it mid vote is beyond madness

Re: World Cup Voting

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 2:39 pm
by Logos
Lee, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

There is a clear precedent for separating bids from rules. As soon as we saw that this was not the fact with the Bham bid, we made objections; in the forum as well as in private talks, exactly because we like the bid and want it to be without issues.

As conclusion to these objections, Mark made his post on December 14, before the vote. As well, the vote on December 16 only mentions location.

It was only on December 17, when presented with an ultimatum from the Bham bid, that Mark broke his own rules as well as the KOA precedent and chose to say, oh well, let's just go ahead with the vote anyway.

In this situation, where precedent, rules, private pleas and public objections are being ignored, we have no other way left but to ask for the process to be restarted in a proper way as outlined above.

Re: World Cup Voting

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:50 pm
by Lee W
Sorry Andy, I just really meant there was no precedent for a bid with the rules included

still confused to who 'we' are :<

Re: World Cup Voting

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 4:48 pm
by Steve1977
Andy, unlike 2014 and 2015 - where no vote was held on the rules, Birmingham 2016 have actually come out and advised what rules they intended to use so people know full well what they would have.

The equivalent of this would have been for Bham to win 2016....then 2 months before decide ourselves and what rules we wanted - with no vote.

For the past 2 years there has been a clear precedent for separating the bid to the rules....except for those world cups we're yet to see the 'vote on the rules' bit :(
Infact for 2014 we didnt even see a vote on bid. Granted there was great support for Copenhagen and with good reason, Jorn after many years on the forum was willing to take on the duty but then again, in 2015 Birmingham's return was greeted with fantastic support - yet we still had a bidding process with loads of people being invited to make their bids too....and even one bid was allowed to add things after the deadline.

I'm still waiting for answers on my findings but I don't think I'm going to get it - and to be honest, a part of me doesn't want an answer because it makes for grim reading sadly :(