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.