World Cup Voting

[Jam King]

Ok, let me put this to u all,
Steve has stated and asked the question...was there a vote for the last 2 WCs numerous times,

No one has come forward and answered this very simple question, the reason simply is there was no vote, so before u question us anymore and state that we must have a vote, please think as to why there wasn't one for two years, when u all say we must have a vote. I have a funny feeling that I know the answer.

[Lee W]

I don't know the B'ham lot at all, so I'm not speaking for them... but to break it down from how i've seen things is that in '11 they hosted with a vote on the ruleset, after that world cup there was moaning about the voted in rules, all the way up until just this week... so, the plan seemed to be, try to make everyone happy half of the time instead of half the people happy all of the time...

like i've banged on about in other topics, fair is fair, everyone should get a little taste of their preference... but lets face it, Gianni, Andy or Dagh will win, the top 15 will be just about the same and people my level will just enjoy being there...

I really don't get the fuss... if the guys who are complaining about this want it their way, just make a pact that when you face each other you'll use the last world cup settings...

alienating the returning Birmingham lads can't be a good thing surely, for them or the koa, they seem a very professional and enthusiastic lot.

it's the world cup lads, c'mon, lets just play kick off, get drunk and have a fuckin laugh at whichever location wins...

[Torchiador]

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.

In past world cups there were no vote because there was nothing to vote for. Past world cup came with default settings.
Now we are discussing things because you want to change the default settings, beside to heavily change the game play.
In private discussion among organizers we talk about the default setting, in particular with Danny as he joined last world cup more than 10 years ago and he was at his first world cup as organizer. Among the many things he had to care about, being completely ignorant about the settings and above all, because the pre imposted setting that Steve Camber put in KO2CV (in which in every game you have to set the APT option on the line up screen) he was thinking that the APT was a complete description of the each player. I explained him that, as most of the KOA know, it wasn't so, considering that in the past world cups, (Birmingham apart) we came up with the same APT solution.

Said that, I read about cowards, I read about corruption. I read much in this thread.
The Human mind is very fascinating...

[Jam King]

Yeah agreed the human mind is fascinating, it produces lies, hypocrisy and stubbornness.

Just a shame it produces such 'qualities' when it involves grown men and a computer game.

Never mind tho, enjoy it.

[Steve1977]

In private discussion among organizers we talk about the default setting...

I know Gianni, I've read it hence why I can see how corrupt the whole process was.

[Robert]

Ok since no-one has challenged the info I presented above on previous World Cups, the rules and the decision process, it's possible to highlight some facts then draw some conclusions, with a factual basis:

First, these are facts:

- Of the past 8 World Cups, rules have been voted on at 4
- The rest were, by default, "host decisions", i.e. where there was no open vote, hosts set the rule
- There is therefore precedent for 'host decisions', i.e. 4 of the 8 World Cups
- The four host decisions (2009, 2013, 2014, 2015) were *roughly* to keep the previous years' rules
- The last time there was ANY vote on trapfix was 2012 where it was voted OFF
- The solution used in Dublin and previous world cups (if both players agree/veto) has never been voted on

My logical conclusions based on the above facts are:

- If we wanted to adhere to the last vote on Trapfix (2012) we should not be using trapfix at all
- The current rules system 'if both players agree' is contrary to the Milan 2012 vote as it allows trapfix in some cases
- Decisions on rules for previous World Cups have been made by hosts
- There is precedent if Birmingham hosts wanted to dictate rules, and at least they are being upfront about it
- Finally, since there has been no vote since 2012 and the last three World Cups have been 'host decisions'...

1) We are long overdue a vote on World Cup trapfix rules
2) The current practice "if both players agree" lacks legitimacy
3) A 'host decision' for 2016 however 'fair' is not the solution

We should therefore open the WC rules to a debate and resolve this issue in the next couple of months. Roughly there are four possible configurations we can vote on:

OFF - Trapfix not selectable in setup or in game and is moved to the Options menu
FREEDOM - Either player can turn on or off their own trapfix as per existing APT functionality
VETO - Trapfix can be used only with the agreement of both players
TEAM A CHOOSES - As per the suggestion of Birmingham, Team A has Freedom and Team B no veto

The best solution would be to vote with all four options, to make the vote a public one where each voter ranks the options 1,2,3,4. We should set a time deadline for the vote and a quorum (i.e. minimum of say 50 votes for the decision to be considered effective). When the votes are all in, we use the AV system (Alternative Vote) to eliminate the unpopular options and get it down to an option that achieves a simple majority of the vote.

Only when this is done should we invite bids for the World Cup 2016 hosting.

I don't expect to get many people reading this but I hope that even a few of those who do can see it makes sense.

Last of all, I would encourage everyone to separate the following issues in their brains...

a) What rules do I prefer to see
b) What is the best way to fairly set the rules for KOA World Cups which is inclusive and doesn't leave anyone feeling alienated, cheated, excluded or angry.

Right now I don't mean to judge my fellow forum posters but I am mainly seeing people approaching this with a) foremost in their minds. There will be a time to argue about how we are supposed to play the game, but let's sort out b) first?

[Jam King]

You keep telling us there must be a vote, yet you never had one, u should still of had a vote just in case people changed their views but u never, u took it upon yourself not to have a vote, Jesus this is hard work.

U must have a vote, u must have a vote that's all we have heard, u didn't have one.......does this compute ?..

[Robert]

Who do you mean here Simon?

The last vote we had was in 2012 - the result was trapfix OFF. The 2015 world cup used the trapfix VETO rule but this has never been voted on. It was a host decisions and so it lacks legitimacy. Since there is clearly a dispute about what rules to use, and we need the 2016 rules to have legitimacy. So let's have a vote.

I understand that you and Steve Evil are saying "others decided for us in the past, so it's our turn to decide for you this year" but I don't agree. I think it was wrong in the past and wrong now. I don't think it was right in the past and wrong now. That would be hypocrisy. I am saying it was wrong in the past and wrong now. Let's vote on rules, get that out the way, then see who wants to host (if anyone!!)

[Jam King]

I was replying to giani not u rob, u posted midway as I posted.

[Lee W]

so if the last vote had trapfix voted out... but the subsequent years had it optional without a vote... where was the fuss back then?

so many bark about 'out of the box' but once there's talk of the possibility of having one of the core elements of the game back in some of the time (autoslide fix off)... there's an uproar... so surely the argument can't be about not having a vote for options, but that 'these aren't the options we want'

[Jam King]

I understand that you and Steve Evil are saying "others decided for us in the past, so it's our turn to decide for you this year" but I don't agree.

Ok rob, what u said above is wrong, we bid with the best intentions of being 'fair' and got met with a barrage of shit. We haven't been around for ages and had no idea the last two world cups were hosts decision. So at no point could we say that it's our turn now when we didn't know.

My confusion to all this is, why didn't you (the KOA) just void our bid straight away if it was outside these rules, or just let it go to the vote and see if less vocal people had a opinion to. If you look at the forum it's pretty obvious that our bid is about as popular as a fart in a lift, if it's so hated why don't u just let it go to a location bid with options included and see what happens because surely it's very very likely it will not be voted in.

I'm passed caring about the votes and rules, it's just how it is and how the KOA operates.
My problem is very simple, we came with the best intentions and have been treated pretty poorly. We made a bid, a simple, 'sorry lads cheers for the bids, but I'm afraid they don't meet our rules, we need a seperate vote or it will not be valid'. I could accept this, but the 'rules' are being brought in now. We have withdrawn anyway so it matters none.

[Robert]

Simon I think you're condemning a lot of people here not all of whom deserve it. I have been supportive of your bid from the start.

Steve has said to me privately, why were hosts not challenged for setting rules in the past, and yet we are being challenged now? I was answering that very reasonable question. There is precedent for hosts setting rules - you weren't doing something that no-one did before, BUT the last vote was now four World Cups ago, and that was to not have any trapfix at all(!) Not only should we have a fresh rules vote this year, but we should have had one in the years 2013, 2014, 2015 because we are currently using a veto rule that has never been approved by a vote.

I also accept that you were offering a fair solution, and the opportunity to vote on it, but the problem was that it was a composite vote for rules AND location, which is a confusing mess. Where would someone get to vote for "Birmingham and Trapfix Off"? This option wasn't offered, yet I suspect it would be very popular.

In the end the bid was very welcome but the Birmingham bidders have not been open to what other posters actually wanted. People don't want a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum, they want input.

If you're convinced that "Team A Chooses" is the fairest and best solution, what's the fear of letting people vote on that independent from the location?

[Jam King]

I'm not condemning anyone, I simply asked why our bid wasn't simply rejected. We have been treated poorly to rob surely u can't deny that, it's cool anyway rob, there are three other bids, plenty to choose from.