Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
500<400 (Nominations Sep 22nd)
Polls: Benelux (Results), 1944 awards (Sep 23rd), 1964 (Sep 28th), Knockout competition (Round 1)
Challenges: Silent Era, 21st Century, Japan
Film of the Week: Reindeerspotting - pako Joulumaasta, October nominations (Sep 27th)

the (first?) World Cup 4 poll

500<400, Favourite 1001 movies, Doubling the Canon, Film World Cup and many other votes
Post Reply

select one or more of the options of this poll to find out how much we like these ideas

Poll runs till September 27th, 2019, 12:15 pm

bring on another world cup! all the rules same as before
12
14%
bring on another world cup! lower participating countries (e.g., 48->32)
31
36%
bring on another world cup! lower check limit (e.g., 1000->400)
15
17%
bring on another world cup! allow one country per manager
13
15%
bring on another world cup! allow only 21st century movies
10
11%
bring on another world cup! do something with a genre restriction (e.g., …?)
6
7%
 
Total votes: 87

User avatar
beavis
Posts: 1902
Joined: Jun 20, 2011
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

the (first?) World Cup 4 poll

#1

Post by beavis » September 6th, 2019, 12:15 pm

I took up Joachimt's request and created my first poll... hope everything works and is clear enough
discussion about it can be done here or, maybe better, in the "when will world cup 4 begin" topic
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4515&view=unread#unread

User avatar
beavis
Posts: 1902
Joined: Jun 20, 2011
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

#2

Post by beavis » September 6th, 2019, 12:17 pm

I left out a "I don't want another world cup" option, because if you don't I assume you just don't reply to the poll
it is not mandatory to join in every game on this board :)

User avatar
albajos
Posts: 5931
Joined: May 24, 2016
Location: Norway
Contact:

#3

Post by albajos » September 6th, 2019, 12:25 pm

Do in other words that option will win. There are 1710 members on this board, at least 95% of those wont vote in this poll.

For me, I just want a bigger WC, but is not an option either, so no votes from me.

User avatar
beavis
Posts: 1902
Joined: Jun 20, 2011
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

#4

Post by beavis » September 6th, 2019, 12:32 pm

I didn't see any strong calls for a bigger cup, most people who respondend in the other thread seem to think some reduction in scale (and maybe a few of the other mentioned tweaks) might help to renew interest (and/or at least to keep up the interest during a cup's run)

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 7834
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#5

Post by Lonewolf2003 » September 6th, 2019, 4:18 pm

I’m for a smaller WC with only head-to-head matches with each round restricted to a different genre.

User avatar
beavis
Posts: 1902
Joined: Jun 20, 2011
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

#6

Post by beavis » September 6th, 2019, 4:33 pm

reading back, I forgot "only head-to-head matches" as one of the polling questions :(
... but from the replies in the other topic it seems that those who like fewer countries mostly also want to go that route, so I hope we can assume that it is implied :)

I'm not sure yet if each round restricted to a different genre is a viable/fair option, but it certainly is a cool and fun idea. let's discuss this further in the other topic, and hope there is enough support for that final question in this poll then.

I'm not sure what 'enough support' is yet. maybe that is up for joachimt to decide on. but as soon as one of the questions above has something like 30 votes.... that should be enough right? :)

User avatar
beavis
Posts: 1902
Joined: Jun 20, 2011
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

#7

Post by beavis » September 6th, 2019, 4:39 pm

albajos wrote:
September 6th, 2019, 12:25 pm
Do in other words that option will win. There are 1710 members on this board, at least 95% of those wont vote in this poll.
I hope they are just indifferent then and not have strong feelings against a new world cup :)

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 10801
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#8

Post by mjf314 » September 6th, 2019, 4:54 pm

Is it possible to check how many people have voted so far? I see that 13 people voted for fewer countries, but is that more or less than half?

User avatar
beavis
Posts: 1902
Joined: Jun 20, 2011
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

#9

Post by beavis » September 6th, 2019, 7:42 pm

I can't check anything else besides the results that we all can see

But if the voting keeps up like this, 30 seems doable, so that would mean a healthy interest in giving it another go as far as I'm concerned
besides a smaller amount of countries there doesn't seem a major push yet for any other adjustments, but we can always do one of those for the first round only (or another suggestion of course) if the interest is still a decent amount...

User avatar
72allinncallme
Donator
Posts: 2540
Joined: Nov 13, 2016
Contact:

#10

Post by 72allinncallme » September 6th, 2019, 8:46 pm

I can’t believe so few have voted for under 400 checks vs the old 1000. The smaller countries have no chance what so ever against any of the ‘big’ countries if the old rule stays.

To me, it’s super boring when a country like Japan can choose a well praised classic every round.

Nathan Treadway
Donator
Posts: 3758
Joined: Jun 26, 2015
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Contact:

#11

Post by Nathan Treadway » September 6th, 2019, 9:54 pm

72allinncallme wrote:
September 6th, 2019, 8:46 pm
I can’t believe so few have voted for under 400 checks vs the old 1000. The smaller countries have no chance what so ever against any of the ‘big’ countries if the old rule stays.

To me, it’s super boring when a country like Japan can choose a well praised classic every round.
This. I only voted for lower country count and lower check count. I'm more indifferent about the lower country count, but the lower check count is the main thing I'd be interested in.

That being said, like I said in the other thread, I'm not going to worry too much about how this works out. I'm looking forward to participating either way! BRING IT ON!

I'm not too interested in a 21st Century cup or a genre restricted cup. If those restrictions are put in place, I'll probably pass as a manager this time, and just play.

User avatar
Cocoa
Donator
Posts: 1501
Joined: Jul 17, 2013
Location: Chicago, USA
Contact:

#12

Post by Cocoa » September 6th, 2019, 11:05 pm

I voted for both
bring on another world cup! lower check limit (e.g., 1000->400)
bring on another world cup! all the rules same as before

I'm fine with either of the above.

If we have a comedy WC... I might end up hating some people for a few hours due to their choices :lol:

I'm not interested in limiting it to only 21st century movies. One of the fun parts of WC is seeing different cultures in films, and limiting it to 21st century would limit the cultural aspects presented in films during the 20th century such as films made during or after war time for certain countries. RIP World War cup films (u)

I wouldn't complain if the number of countries were limited, it's just not a preference of mine. Same goes for the manager rule.
Last edited by Cocoa on September 6th, 2019, 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6539
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#13

Post by xianjiro » September 6th, 2019, 11:06 pm

beavis wrote:
September 6th, 2019, 4:39 pm
albajos wrote:
September 6th, 2019, 12:25 pm
Do in other words that option will win. There are 1710 members on this board, at least 95% of those wont vote in this poll.
I hope they are just indifferent then and not have strong feelings against a new world cup :)
well, I for one am not voting, not because of apathy, but because I don't participate in the WC ;)

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

Nathan Treadway
Donator
Posts: 3758
Joined: Jun 26, 2015
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Contact:

#14

Post by Nathan Treadway » September 6th, 2019, 11:10 pm

xianjiro wrote:
September 6th, 2019, 11:06 pm
beavis wrote:
September 6th, 2019, 4:39 pm
albajos wrote:
September 6th, 2019, 12:25 pm
Do in other words that option will win. There are 1710 members on this board, at least 95% of those wont vote in this poll.
I hope they are just indifferent then and not have strong feelings against a new world cup :)
well, I for one am not voting, not because of apathy, but because I don't participate in the WC ;)
You should. :folded:

User avatar
Mario Gaborović
Posts: 3124
Joined: Apr 11, 2014
Location: Pančevo
Contact:

#15

Post by Mario Gaborović » September 7th, 2019, 10:50 am

If there's lower number of countries, just make sure for some with average performances so far to sit out, and bring on more debutants. I mainly think of those which participated each time and have 1-6 ratio.

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 3182
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#16

Post by Fergenaprido » September 7th, 2019, 5:38 pm

beavis wrote:
September 6th, 2019, 4:33 pm
reading back, I forgot "only head-to-head matches" as one of the polling questions :(
... but from the replies in the other topic it seems that those who like fewer countries mostly also want to go that route, so I hope we can assume that it is implied :)
I don't mind having fewer countries, but I don't like the idea of the tournament being head-to-head the entire time. I much prefer the Soccer World Cup format (group stage and then knockout stage) as opposed to NCAA basketball March Madness (knockout the entire time), especially since we don't really have a great way to seed the countries 1 through 36/48/the end. For me, those group stages are more exciting and unpredictable; head-to-head ad nauseum just feels like a chore.

User avatar
beavis
Posts: 1902
Joined: Jun 20, 2011
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

#17

Post by beavis » September 10th, 2019, 9:28 am

small bump (already)
has everyone voted yet?
I feel we are very close to get the ball rolling already, a few more voices added to the discussion could push it along!

User avatar
Mario Gaborović
Posts: 3124
Joined: Apr 11, 2014
Location: Pančevo
Contact:

#18

Post by Mario Gaborović » September 10th, 2019, 11:13 am

beavis wrote:
September 10th, 2019, 9:28 am
small bump (already)
has everyone voted yet?
I feel we are very close to get the ball rolling already, a few more voices added to the discussion could push it along!
Are you saying we could start S4 sooner than expected? :$ As for me, I wouldn't mind one bit.

User avatar
beavis
Posts: 1902
Joined: Jun 20, 2011
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

#19

Post by beavis » September 10th, 2019, 11:38 am

Well, joachimt said he wouldn't mind hosting, a lot of people have chimed in and i see at least one "bring it on!" question already voted on 28 times... So why not?
But we are not completely done on the "how" part yet, and i feel that it is up to the host to determine when. Maybe 2020 is a good idea, but i am also in the camp of "when everyone is ready... Just get going!" 😀

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 3182
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#20

Post by Fergenaprido » September 10th, 2019, 4:49 pm

I don't mind planning and discussing now, but I'd rather not start until 2020.

User avatar
Mario Gaborović
Posts: 3124
Joined: Apr 11, 2014
Location: Pančevo
Contact:

#21

Post by Mario Gaborović » September 10th, 2019, 5:36 pm

It appears that 36 countries in 12x3 format (one advancing) requires less films to watch (54) than 32 countries in a format of 8x4 (two advancing)/4x4 (one advancing) format (62).

Also managers could try to pick films of shorter duration for the sake of higher participation.

And let the annual "Iranian poll" topic starters join and suggest/choose something competitive instead, in order to help Iran progress the stage 1 finally.

User avatar
beavis
Posts: 1902
Joined: Jun 20, 2011
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

#22

Post by beavis » September 10th, 2019, 6:09 pm

A next poll should be about possible formats with less countries and/or less movies per round. I have zero knowledge about sports, so i don't know about everything that is possible tournament wise, and why some systems are more fun than others. Thanks for suggesting some options Mario.

User avatar
beavis
Posts: 1902
Joined: Jun 20, 2011
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

#23

Post by beavis » September 10th, 2019, 6:13 pm

Fergenaprido wrote:
September 10th, 2019, 4:49 pm
I don't mind planning and discussing now, but I'd rather not start until 2020.
After the icmff should be wise, for us programmers :)
Polls, discussions and planning take a lot more time than i like though, i actually think it might be hard starting a new worldcup before 2020... 😀

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 29362
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#24

Post by joachimt » September 10th, 2019, 6:37 pm

beavis wrote:
September 10th, 2019, 6:13 pm
After the icmff
When would that be?
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
beavis
Posts: 1902
Joined: Jun 20, 2011
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

#25

Post by beavis » September 10th, 2019, 6:43 pm

joachimt wrote:
September 10th, 2019, 6:37 pm
beavis wrote:
September 10th, 2019, 6:13 pm
After the icmff
When would that be?
Hopefully around the same time it was last year, we thought it better to have it a bit sooner, but.... I won't finish that thought because i don't want to come across too cynical 😀

Nathan Treadway
Donator
Posts: 3758
Joined: Jun 26, 2015
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Contact:

#26

Post by Nathan Treadway » September 10th, 2019, 9:31 pm

Mario Gaborović wrote:
September 10th, 2019, 5:36 pm
And let the annual "Iranian poll" topic starters join and suggest/choose something competitive instead, in order to help Iran progress the stage 1 finally.
I'd be willing to give Iran a shot. The problem is most of the prints out there isn't in all that great of quality, and I'd be willing to bet it has detractors because of that.

User avatar
beavis
Posts: 1902
Joined: Jun 20, 2011
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

#27

Post by beavis » Yesterday, 7:27 pm

at least 31 people here now who want to do another cup!
pretty cool guys!!
I had this poll run for a while longer, but maybe we can already move a step further in the planning? joachimt?

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 29362
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#28

Post by joachimt » Yesterday, 7:58 pm

Fine with me!

It seems there are enough people who agree to have a smaller number of countries.

In season 3 we started with 48 counties.
Round 1: 12 groups of 4, 2 advancing (48 movies)
Round 2: 8 groups of 3, 1 advancing (24 movies)
Then QF, SF and Final head to head (14 movies)
So that was 86 movies.

Mario said this:
"It appears that 36 countries in 12x3 format (one advancing) requires less films to watch (54) than 32 countries in a format of 8x4 (two advancing)/4x4 (one advancing) format (62)."

I don't think 54 or 62 makes that big of a difference, as long as we make the next season significantly shorter than last time. So something around 60 movies is fine. I think it depends more of the structure we want to choose. I liked the groups of 4, but some people thought 4 movies per match was too much to handle. So we could go head-to-head all the way as well.

Some possibilities:

Option 1:
32 countries, head-to-head all the way
62 movies

Option 2:
36 countries, 12 groups of 3 (1 advancing), then 4 groups of 3 (1 advancing), then SF and F
54 movies

Option 3 (not much smaller):
48 countries, 16 groups of 3 (1 advancing), then head-to-head
78 movies

Option 4:
48 countries, 12 groups of 4 (1 advancing), 4 groups of 3 (1 advancing), SF, F
66 movies

Option 5:
?
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
72allinncallme
Donator
Posts: 2540
Joined: Nov 13, 2016
Contact:

#29

Post by 72allinncallme » Yesterday, 8:08 pm

Option 5:
32 countries, 8 groups of 4 (1 advancing), QF, SF, F
46 movies.

User avatar
maxwelldeux
Donator
Posts: 6623
Joined: Jun 07, 2016
Location: Seattle-ish, WA, USA
Contact:

#30

Post by maxwelldeux » Yesterday, 11:10 pm

Option 1 for me - larger groups seem more daunting.

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 7834
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#31

Post by Lonewolf2003 » Today, 2:31 am

Option 1 for me as well. Having to watch 1 or 2 movies for a match seems less like a chore than a whole group to me.

User avatar
jvv
Donator
Posts: 8211
Joined: May 28, 2011
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#32

Post by jvv » Today, 7:33 am

Option 1 all the way.

Ritesh
Posts: 51
Joined: Dec 14, 2013
Contact:

#33

Post by Ritesh » Today, 8:09 am

Option 1 for me as well

User avatar
beavis
Posts: 1902
Joined: Jun 20, 2011
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

#34

Post by beavis » Today, 8:16 am

there is a second poll now open, to gather these replies in a more structured form :)

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4536&view=unread#unread

User avatar
beavis
Posts: 1902
Joined: Jun 20, 2011
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

#35

Post by beavis » Today, 8:34 am

a limit on participating countries is, as aspected, the big winner of this poll
so we are doing that

about the other options:

Lowering the check limit seems to also have some traction. As has been noted, in the previous world cups most managers already chose movies with a <400 check limit out of their own volition. So I do not feel the need to enforce this as a rule, in case some people would feel very strongly against it...

About one country per manager. This is not a very clear winner, but I feel there is some fairness to this with a lower number of countries to divide amongst us. I think if we leave the rules about claiming countries to the discression of our host, things will work out fine automatically

Personally I would very much like to be one of the rounds of the cup a 21st century only round, just to shake things up a little bit. But if there are strong feelings against this I don't think the poll gives much ground to firmly stand on, so…

any other strong feelings for or against some of these other options??

User avatar
72allinncallme
Donator
Posts: 2540
Joined: Nov 13, 2016
Contact:

#36

Post by 72allinncallme » Today, 10:17 am

beavis wrote:
Today, 8:34 am
Lowering the check limit seems to also have some traction. As has been noted, in the previous world cups most managers already chose movies with a <400 check limit out of their own volition. So I do not feel the need to enforce this as a rule, in case some people would feel very strongly against it...
That’s excactly why we need to have that rule... With one or two managers with big countries chosing well known movies with 750-1000 checks every round. It’s not very interesting when you have one popular TSPDT movie in a match. The results are a given. Last year prove that.

1000 iCM checks is alot!

Nathan Treadway
Donator
Posts: 3758
Joined: Jun 26, 2015
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Contact:

#37

Post by Nathan Treadway » Today, 12:38 pm

beavis wrote:
Today, 8:34 am
About one country per manager. This is not a very clear winner, but I feel there is some fairness to this with a lower number of countries to divide amongst us. I think if we leave the rules about claiming countries to the discression of our host, things will work out fine automatically
I'm not sure we can even discuss this yet. If we set the country count to 32, and only about 20 people express interest in hosting, we could be waiting forever to find 12 more people willing to host a country. Its really not a big deal to have someone with more than one country. I think we did this perfectly last time. Have people sign up for their initial country, have a signup period to anonymously select a second country and then vote on which ones we wanted from that list.

blocho
Donator
Posts: 1952
Joined: Jul 20, 2014
Contact:

#38

Post by blocho » Today, 3:05 pm

beavis wrote:
Today, 8:34 am
Lowering the check limit seems to also have some traction. As has been noted, in the previous world cups most managers already chose movies with a <400 check limit out of their own volition. So I do not feel the need to enforce this as a rule, in case some people would feel very strongly against it...
It has traction, but based on the poll results, it appears a majority of voters are either against such a limit or don't care.

Post Reply