WC Rules Protocol Suggestion

[thor]

Since we are having so much fun with proposals lately, I thought I'd keep it going.

Robert and Rodolfo kept asking, what was it that started all of this debate? I believe it started because the Birmingham WC bid simply stated that they would allow the trapfix option. I think that eventually rubbed some of the KOAers the wrong way, and yada yada yada, Jorn submitted the Copenhagen bid, with the "normal" rule set.

Here are my thoughts on how we might solve this stuff:

Suggested protocol:

1. Separate the WC rules from the bids.
2. The default rules are Autofix+PBDMIX, this is what they have been for the last 4 WCs.
3. Once the WC host has been decided, they propose the rules.
4. The rule proposal consists of zero, one or more changes to the default rules. Each change is to be voted on separately. For example, one might propose two changes: trapfix optional, and autofix optional.
5. The attendees vote on each change proposal.
6. If a change gets more than 75% of the votes, it is adopted for this World Cup.
7. If a change accepted in 3 straight WCs it becomes part of the default rules.

Now how do we get a fair vote? There have been (at least) two problems in the past with rule votes:

1. Who gets to vote, and who actually voted. It would be nice if the attendees get to vote, and those not attending do not, I think.
2. Because we want the attendees to vote, and the final attendance is usually confirmed within a week of the WC, you don't get much time to adjust to rule changes, if any.

One way to fix this is to have a vote on the host's rule proposal shortly following winning the WC bid. In order to vote, you have to pay a deposit, say 20 EUR. This deposit counts towards your WC attendance fee. I think this would prevent "false votes", and a nice side-effect is that the organizers get some up-front cash to help with the costs.

Fire away!

[Freshmaker]

I like this idea. It has it's flaws, wich we will pick apart soon enough, but we can probably work around those. This is a very good starting point, at least.

[Rodolfo]

Suggested protocol:

1. Separate the WC rules from the bids.

I Agree with Jorn.

Thor, I think you made a very sensible post, and above all, I love this #1 article.

[Freshmaker]

My objections:
3 Hosts propose rules. - I think anyone planning to attend should be able to propose rules.

Deposit - agree with sentiment, but I think €20 is 2 to 4 times to high. Should be €5 or at the most €10.

Besides that, a perfect proposal.

[durban]

Thor, stop being sensible or I will ban you...

Regards

Mark

[Freshmaker]

Oh, and I think we should have a deadline before the wc to finish the voting. Say 1 month before. Those signing up after that will have to accept the decision.

[dndn1011]

Seems reasonable to me. Just the kind of thing we can put in a constitution

[iankay]

Good idea, 5 euro sounds good

[Robert]

Very good. We have a registration website. We have used it for voting before. I agree that World Cups are where rules should be formalised. This is what has always happened in the past. A=B and PBD mix were voted on an adopted at World Cups. They didn't just 'happen'.

The only thing I would query is the 75% vote share required to make a change. It seems high. I would recommend having 50% but having a 'Don't Care' option. So, for example....

Would you like to use Soggy Pitch for all games in the World Cup?

A Yes
B No
C Don't Care

Now, if Yes gets 51% vote share, i.e. more people want it than oppose and don't care combined. That ought to be enough. So, for example, if the result on this is:

A Yes to Soggy Pitch 21 votes
B No to Soggy Pitch 10 votes
C Don't Care 10 votes

....then for me that really ought to be enough. It's a shame we probably don't have the saved results for previous polls like in Rickmansworth 2006 (which I organised) where we adopted A=B. I don't remember exactly the scores, but some did vote against and we also had the Don't Care option. And I don't think that A=B got as high as 75%. But we took it on a simple majority and have been proven right in making that change.

Thor would you go into a bit more detail why you proposed the 75% as the threshold? I think I agree with everything else. I do think that the hosts should have the privilege of proposing rule changes to be voted on, with input from the community.

[Freshmaker]

Good question Robert. I'd go for a 2/3 though. At least the first time. And if it gets voted in the first time with 2/3, then 51 % should be enough for 2nd and 3rd time.

[Lee W]

I agree with Rob, 75% seems an awful lot, an overall majority seems more normal.

Who says what rules people are to vote on btw? Can they add their own rules in there? like no kick off lobs, keeper fix etc?

[thor]

The 75% was intentional. The reason for this is that if something gets adopted 51/49, then half the people are upset about it, and we’re right back where we are, which is a step down the path towards a KO2CV cup and a KO2 cup. That would not be good for the KOA.

So the 75% rule favors the default rules, whatever they are at the time. Since they must have been in place for at least 3 years, they should get the benefit of the doubt. Something about them must be good, and we should be very careful to change them. Look at the current rules for example, there hasn’t been much complaining about them in the last 4 World Cups, and they don’t drive many (any?) away.

Now, I don’t think you would need to have a “don’t care” vote. Either you care or you don’t. If you care, you vote. This gives a clearer statistic.

I think the WC organizers should be the ones to propose changes. This can be a benefit given to them, as the organizers. It also prevents us from voting on 156 different proposals each year. On that note, perhaps there should be a limit of, say maximum 3 changes in the proposal. You can only have a limit like that if proposal comes from one place. If not you are going to be arguing over which 3.

I would like the vote to happen much earlier, like 6 months in advance. If there are changes, we need time to adjust. I don’t think this would be a big deal. If you care about rules, and you think there is a chance you are going to attend, pay the insurance. New players that discover the KOA close to the WC will have their hands full just understanding KO2CV to begin with. They can vote the next year.

[Lee W]

think it would be a very good idea to have things like this so everyone knows... almost like a... dare i say... constitution