User:ShiggyGiddy/Babby Qualification

Work in progress!

Motivation

We have no good system in place that allows new teams into the cup while at the same time gets rid of the dead meat. Unless a manager stops doing the minimal work required to play, a board that is already in the cup can hardly die. On the other hand, new boards or boards that fell from grace have to jump through hoops and still have to consider themselves lucky if they are allowed in.

In the past, we any attempts to fix this lead to playing even more matches, either by increasing the Babby size or hosting a qualifier. An often proposed solution to this problem is what is usually referred to as #XXteams, a drastic cut in the teams allowed to participate. In this proposal, I want to outline why these approaches are not feasible in the long run and propose a tiered system that awards Babby spots by different means.

Current solutions

What is wrong now

To sum up, this is what I feel is wrong with our current system and/or approach:

• There are more teams than we have Babby spots.
• Regardless, the Mega Babby might be too big.
• More games means a higher demand for streamers. We might not always have the numbers we do now.
• Once a team is in the Babby/Elite cup circle, they hardly ever leave again, even if they are bad/ugly/unpopular.
• New teams are treated badly. Any effort they may make beyond showing up after 6 months with an export is hardly rewarded.
• The only ways we have to decide whether a team is eligible for a Babby are more matches or a Commissioner/4CCC decision.

As of now, we hardly show returning teams the door, even if their performance, aesthethics, and popularity all seem to be terrible. At the same time, we make it insanely hard for new teams to get a foot in, making sure they lose most of the motivation they might have to build up a team by the time they are eligble.

In other words, we hardly reward any effort made that goes beyond making a basic export.

What is wrong with #XXteams

While the general idea of a hard cut seems easy and fixes most of the obvious problems, there still are some major issues with the idea:

• The selection process is badly defined.
• If done by a council, it is highly arbitrary.
• If done by polls, it is easily rigged.
• The poll approach heavily relies on the 'true fan' concept, which implies that the majority of viewers watch the cup for mostly one team (see below).
• Once teams are in, they are in, and vice versa. Again, we will have teams outside of the cup that are more deserving than teams in the cup after a while.
• It does not ensure that the teams selected make an effort afterwards.
• In other words, it is no long term solution and requires a constant reevaluation that faces the same problems as the initial selection process.

As for the 'true fan concept', it is highly questionable in the first place, as a fair share (if not the majority) of the viewers watch the cup for what it is, bandwaggoning any team whose striker and goalhorn they like. Furthermore, even if every single viewer was a 'true fan', the numbers of the less popular boards would be so close together that any difference in votes/attendance for a particular team would most likely be within the margin of error. Given that regulars of slow boards hardly visit their boards every day but moderation is still on their toes, they might never see the poll they should fill out. Instead, people determined to rig such polls would have it very easy. In the end, we would have a handful of boards with similar numbers and no real grounds to make a fair cut. To top it off, they would probably be the same boards we suspected of being difficult to agree on in the first place, leaving us with hardly any new insight.

What to go for

In contrast to the issues pointed out above, a new system should meet the following criteria:

• Punish low effort.
• Award additional effort.
• Have teams qualify based on a combination of skill, aesthethics, and popularity/demand (not just by performance).
• Remove arbitrariness as much as possible.
• Be a continuous process and thus, suitable for long term.
• Scale well with more/fewer teams.
• Possibly reduce the number of games.

Babby Cup Qualification stages

First of all, the first 16 spots are no longer awarded to the teams relegated from the previous Elite Cup. Instead, Babby spots are awarded in multiple ways, with not all of them being based on performance. To avoid overlap, the process goes through several stages which take place one after another. If a team fails to earn a place in one stage, it may have another chance in the following stage(s).

The stages currently look like this for both Babby Cup formats:

Normal Babby (32 teams)

1. 24 spots by 4CC Babby Council vote (selection stage).
2. 8 spots awarded by performance in invitationals or the Fetus (performance stage).

Mega Babby (40 teams)

1. 30 spots by 4CC Babby Council vote (selection stage).
2. 8 spots awarded by performance in invitationals or the Fetus (performance stage).
3. 2 spots awarded by popular vote (poll stage).

Selection stage

In the Babby Council stage, spots are awarded by if and how well a team fulfills a list of requirements. Some of these are objective, others are partly or completely subjective.

First, the Babby Council decides which teams are eligible for this stage based on a checklist consisting of objective prerequisites.

Second, each member rates each eligible team based on several subjective yes/no questions, with each 'Yes' answer counting as one point for the team. The teams are then ranked by points and the top teams are awarded the spots assigned to the selection stage.

In the case of a tie between low ranked teams, the Babby Council holds a vote.

Performance stage

The performance stage is a qualifier in the established sense (e.g. a Fetus Cup). The qualifier may either be held by the 4CCC themselves or by a third party that has been given official permission.

In the case of multiple qualifiers, the spots may be divided between those.

Poll stage

As the numbers do not add up well for a Mega Babby, the remaining spots in this format are given away based on popular vote. Which teams are eligible for this stage is decided by the 4CCC.

To minimize any room for rigging, the poll may be held on short notice and only for a few hours. The poll must however be announced on the thread and the wiki frontpage.

In detail

The 4CC Babby Council

The 4CC Babby consists of anywhere between 6 to 12 people, with the 4CCC roughly providing 33% to 50% of the seats (as individual people). The other members may be managers, testers, commentators or otherwise active people that are not playing in the Babby Cup in question. For each cup, all eligible people may sign up through the wiki for a seat. The seats are then awarded at random. The council is formed anew for each Babby Cup.

Prerequisites for the selection stage

If a team fails to meet any of the following prerequisites, they are not eligible for the selection stage:

• The corresponding board is at least 5 months old.
• A basic team page on the wiki the team box template filled out.
• A logo on the team page that includes the team name (e.g. '/a/') with a resolution of at least 1500 x 1500 px and a transparent background (PNG with alpha channel).
• An anthem and at least one goalhorn that are all linked on the team page and are accessible/available.
• A manager that is either verified or scheduled for verification.
• A roster of 23 players that complies with the current rule set.
• Two outfield kits and one goalkeeper kit.
• A tactical export that reflects the points above and is in accordance to the current rule set (such as non-clashin kits). The export does not require 'proper' tactics or formations.
• A basic aesthetics export including all kits and the team colors (perhaps more)

Subjective questions for the selection stage

All questions are to be answered with 'Yes' or 'No' and in context to the other teams. Some questions are very similar to give certain aspects more weight.

1. Does the teams's wiki page positively stand out?
2. Does the team have a roster page that gives some entertaining insight on the players?
3. Do you think that the roster properly reflects the board and is not just lazily drafted up?
4. Do you consider the overall presenation of the team in other aspects (logo, kits, anthem, goalhorns) to be good?
5. Does the team have a baseline of aesthetics (as in non-placeholder faces)?
6. Does the team have aesthethics that you consider outstanding and/or unique?
7. Do you think that the manager cares and is willing to go beyond the minimum requirements, even if only by a little?
8. Do you have the impression that the team has support from its board?
9. Do you believe that the team is not just forced by a very small circle of people?
10. Do you think that the average viewer will enjoy seeing this team play?

Needed changes to pots

The teams are placed into pots like they always were, regardless of in which stage they were awarded a Babby spot.

In the event that there is more than one pot to fill with teams that did not participate in a previous Elite/Babby Cup, the teams are ranked based on the amount of cups they have missed. The more cups they have missed, the lower they are ranked. A team that never particapted in an official cup before is put into the lowest pot by default. Should teams be tied between two pots, the decision is made at random during the draw.

Remarks

There are some aspects that are not part of this proposal, but should be mentioned as they are closely connected.

• Streamers
• New teams in invitationals
• Verification
• ....

Not done.

Appendix

Babby criteria

A new team has to meet the following criteria to be eligible for a Babby:

• A verified manager.
• A logo.
• Three kits (one of them a GK kit).
• A roster that seems board-related.
• The corresponding board must exist for ~6 months.
• The commissioner wills it.

A returning team has to meet the following criteria to be eligble for a Babby:

• A verified manager (unless they are chosen to be an auto-pilot team).

In both cases, this does not take 'have an export ready by the deadline' into account.