Dear WL-ers, please give me your thoughts on this concept. 🤍

[Lenalite]

I see no reason why we could not start filling up the number to 60 nations each edition - starting with the top of the WL who submit reservation entries. If WLers don't wanna vote in the NSC final anymore, they could simply submit reservation entries each edition, and that way we could track whether they are still interested in the contest.

Regarding WLSC, I have never participated in it, so I think WL nations should decide what they want to do with it themselves. I would not oppose to it becoming a qualification round type of thing for NSC, in case that is what they wanna opt for. So we could possibly have editions of 60 nations (full and additional WL nations when there's enough room), and 1 wild-card (60+1) entry from WLSC/qualification round or whatever - to ensure there's at least one WL country taking part in NSC at all times.

In the case of qualification rounds, however, my only concern would be handling situations where, let's say, a full nation wanted to enter the same song that had won WLSC/a qualification round - who gets to claim it? Would it still be first come first serve, or would WL get the entry since it would have been made public already anyway? I personally barely ever check what's upå with WLSC, so if that were to happen to me, I would not even know that it had been in the run .

So yeah, that's the only drawback I could think of regarding a public qualification round of some sort. Regardless, it is great that we are having a discussion concerning new possibilities and changes to evolve NSC for the better. Open dialogue between WL and the main roster is the most important!

 

[Morty]

Amnesty for returning nations:
Allow returning nations to enter the WL at a certain position. This would stop people having the fear of leaving knowing they need to wait years to get back in. I know this goes against the principle of first-come first-serve, but it would increase roster turnover.

It certainly wouldn't be fair, but we've long established that we're not looking for a "fair" way of sorting the WL/debutants. If people feel there's less pressure to stay in and keep their place, they will be more likely to withdraw and there's no guarantee that person will ever come back. Trying to get a high turnover rate shouldnt involve kicking out active, eager participants, but rather it should involve empowering people to withdraw when they want to.

I just want to comment on this. I had a very quick look thru the database, there's around 240 nations there. Let's say 50 of those are name variations, so we have 190 separate nations. 60 are currently active, so 130 of those are no longer here. That's 130 who potentially can skip ahead of newcomers if they want to. Even if we remove those that were kicked out and didn't leave voluntarily, there would still be a lot of people being able to skip the line. I think that would be the end of new blood in this contest.

 

[HayashiM]

I mean I waited two years until I made it to the main roster. And the entire two years weren't exactly a "waiting" process for me. It was long enough for me to discover new music and engage with different artists that I would otherwise have no idea of their existence. I get the enthusiasm of sharing your own music, but there is WLSC for it anyway. I don't get the notion of "rules evolve and things ought to change". While it is true, I don't think there is anything to be changed to make things better in this particular situation.

I think you and other like-minded people still don't get the point I and others try to make, and maybe don't even try to get it - perhaps because you might feel threatened or offended by some of the words that had been spoken before?

"Waiting is bad" is only a small part of the problem - for me, it is currently not a problem at all. After all, we have WLSC to share our entries, as you say.

My problem is that spending hours on ranking songs when my votes have 0.1% (it can actually be strictly 0) say for the final result is absolutely nuts. Which doesn't mean I can't get interested in your new music or do all of the other things you mention. I - and many others - only think this voting is utter bollocks and want to change that. Without such change having any impact on your current situation.

Why do you think this situation is ok, besides you and others having already gone through it (and possibly feeling offended at the moment, or not really wanting to think this through)? Yes, I think some things and this rule especially ought to change.

This question also applies to Veronika and many others liking her post in the other thread. Why do you leave a like on a post basically saying "I don't want any change, we too had gone through it, so just deal with it losers xoxo", and write exactly nothing further, when there are many changes proposed that would've had exactly 0 impact on your own experience but could still improve the situation for others?

 

[Brandt]

I think you and other like-minded people still don't get the point I and others try to make, and maybe don't even try to get it - perhaps because you might feel threatened or offended by some of the words that had been spoken before?

wow okay. i dont realy have anything else to say.

 

[HayashiM]

wow okay. i dont realy have anything else to say.

?
(I genuinely don't understand. And it's certainly not me who'd said anything offensive before.)

 

[Kimrt]

I wouldn't mind waiting list countries filling up free spaces incase a country didn't send a song.

You guys who are fighting for a change should write some suggestions for a rule change and make a poll about it somehow. Especially if you're tired of this discussion to happen over and over again.

 

[Canuck]

Just trying to bring the discussion back to something constructive... I really like the idea of expanding the roster for WL nations to fill each edition up to 60. So if 2 people skip out, the top 2 on the WL can join the next contest. Nothing wrong with that and every participating nation already 'expects' up to 60 people in each edition.

Something I'd be also keen on is a slight roster expansion, to expand the roster to 64 or 66 nations rather than continuing to be stuck on 60. More nations = higher chance for natural turnover. And it's not really a radical idea, not asking for a drastic roster overhaul, and is still feasible for 2 semifinals. I understand I'm no longer a full nation, so I can't really comment on roster expansion, but it was something I really was keen on in the past. One thing to consider with the current situation; we always are going to have this artificial bottleneck. As long as the roster is full with people who aren't going anywhere... wait times are going to continue to grow. If we got to the point where eventually there was 0 roster turnover in 15 editions, what sort of actions would be taken? I would hazard that with the current environment, probably nothing.

 

[Barish]

wow, ok, so much has happened and I'm finally caught up.

Firstly I want to share my thoughts on mandatory voting in final system. I think it's absolutely bonkers. Uto and Hayashi are right. Why vote if it won't matter at all? We do not participate in NSC so why are we absolutely have to vote? What is the gain here? MR nations won't get enough points to change anything and WL nations' votes won't change anything. This is a bit like a prequalification round or MS situation of the ye olden days. Just as it makes no sense to go through a pre-q round to be able to compete and sink in the semifinal and not ever reaching to even the semifinal for years hypothetically. These type of suggestions add nothing into the equation except more frustration.

I've been active on the forum for the last year or so and I don't even know how many times I voted in NSC final out of necessity, sometimes half ass-ly listening the songs. I haven't talk to anyone from WL about this but I do not think I'm alone in this either. So the mandatory voting rule hurts NSC as well. So just putting it out there: no mandatory voting in NSC but if you do it counts as a whole set of full points. Someone mentioned the trustfulness of the 12s and I'd like to point out that WLSC is going on pretty independently and since the 201st edition which I debuted, I cannot say I see unfair voting. What is stopping NSC nations to do unfair voting if it comes to that? It's not a solution but here's my idea on this issue: newcomer WLSC nations cannot vote in NSC finals, let's say, for the next two editions, but after that the voting is free, voluntary and counts as a whole set. I know it might complicate things further but still an idea.

And since it was mentioned some posts above, I feel like I need to address the argument of "not even wanting to participate in NSC". I told something similar on the Roster thread on the main NSC forum that I do not mind waiting and I like WLSC. While that's still true, I of course want to participate in NSC, why else am I here? When I rejoined last summer, I was only expecting to be on the WL for a year and it's clear now that I was mistaken. In the process I grew very fond of WLSC and I do not think I'll ever stop participating even if I move up to the MR and if the rules stay the same on MR nations participating in WLSC. Edit: This doesn't exclude the fact that I want to participate in NSC. However as I have came back recently, I can see the general attitude of MR nations are a bit dismissive (excluding the ones who are obviously interested in WL, WLSC, and its participants) They seem to forget how frustrating it is or they didn't even knew it at the first place. And I'm not pointing any fingers or blaming anybody here. I can safely say this because back in the early editions f NSC I didn't give a damn about MS round because I didn't have to and the rules were in my favour simply I was there first.. That's no good form.

I won't comment on the other points as I have got some wine in me and I already forgotten what I've read in the past 2 hours. Of course none of the solutions are perfect but in my opinion Gaelle's ideas are the optimum solutions potentially making everyone happier and not keeping the let's-be-miserable-altogether aspect of the general working of things.

 

[Veronika]

This question also applies to Veronika and many others liking her post in the other thread. Why do you leave a like on a post basically saying "I don't want any change, we too had gone through it, so just deal with it losers xoxo"

Losers? I never said anything like that. I just tried to describe what I was feeling while being in the WL in comparison to some particular person who's complaining about it the most, that's all.
I respect all of you guys and I've been always glad to help, but personally I see absolutely nothing bad in the WL system and the process of waiting. I guess ones who genuinely love and respect the contest, ones who are devoted to it can perfectly understand me. Moreover, this system has been here for ages and (as you see) NSC is still going strong.

Anyway, I guess I'm not going to make excuses, just because someone got me wrong.

 

[dogmeat]

Okay, so this was meant to be a question to WLers but grew into a discussion with plenty of ideas thrown around, so I'll add my own opinion about everything that was said.

MPQ
This one is a hard no. Such system favours people with more popular taste and incentivizes scorewhoring. That is completely against the spirit of NSC. Occasionally we have a member threatening to withdraw over poor results and we always do our best to make sure they feel welcome, regardless if their choice of entry is a popular banger or something niche. Letting people in based on their results is, let me repeat, completely against the spirit of NSC.

Collective WL entry
I... don't see what that would achieve? Would WLers feel represented in the contest by this nameless entity? Especially if they don't like the song selected. Maybe whoever chose the song would feel represented, but then that's just like MPQ.

Filling the spots up to 60
If WL people don't mind patchy history and constant uncertainty if they get in or not, then fine. But we would have to reduce the roster first, to around 54! An important detail is missing here, that the limit of 60 was agreed on knowing that a few nations would be missing from each edition. 60 was thought of as the absolute maximum capacity, not the comfortable optimum. I think many agree that they prefer slightly smaller editions. They semis are more manageable to listen to and, let's not forget, to host. Having just finished hosting, I assure you that preparing a show for 58 participants is strenuous enough as it is, especially when you're trying to be creative and make each banner unique. I was already pushing the limits of my remaining three brain cells and if I were to make just two more banners, I'd lose my sanity.

Rotational WL spot
Yeah, well, you'd get to enter once in 2 years... Valentina gets to participate in ESC more often that that.

Make WL voting non-mandatory
Yes, I definitely can understand the argument here. WL voting was different when you only had to do it like 3-5 times before joining and your votes had visible impact, and different now. Obviously, there has to be some activity required from WLers, otherwise someone could sign up and go offline for a year and WL would overflow with ghost users. Only requiring voting from top of the WL doesn't solve that problem. Making WLSC mandatory doesn't sound fair to people who aren't interested in it. I think a fair solution would be if people could choose either to vote in NSC final or participate in WLSC. Of course that requires some time coordination between NSC and WLSC, but I don't think it's impossible to manage.

Make WL votes count as full nations
No, it would be bonkers if final results could suddenly be decided by any random person who signed up 5 minutes ago. Top 3-5 WL nations voting as full nations sounds somewhat more reasonable, but only because WL is pretty long atm and these nations have been on it for a long time. WL will shrink eventually, if not this year, then next year or the year after. I advise against designing solutions with only present-day state in mind.

Minimum post count etc.
I don't think post count is a good indication of your eagerness to take part in NSC. But in general it's one possible approach to making WL shorter: make it more difficult to apply. Currently you only need to provide a nation name and a flag. Perhaps we could require more from a new applicant, like opening a nation thread, making a Wikia nation page, and choosing a spot on the map. Nothing unreasonable, but some basic display of interest, to weed out the most apathetic people.

Harsher non-voting punishments for full roster nations
Okay, although I voted for the last rule amendment regarding non-voting punishments, I think we totally blew it. The initial proposition was something along the lines of "you're out if you ftv 3 times in the last 10 editions" (hence the evil dots name). In the end the "ftv in 3 consecutive finals" option won, because some people were worried the initial proposition would be too confusing or something...I'd gladly revise that rule and introduce evil dots as they were meant to be. Having said that, I do not expect it to have any noticeable effect on roster turnover rate. We don't have a problem with habitual non-voters at the moment, so it bears no meaning for the WL issue right now.

Amnesty for returning members
It's just... not fair? And creates a caste of Old Farts™. I could give it a thought if it really would have the desired effect of much faster turnover rate. But I doubt it. Are there really that many people reluctant to leave the contest only because of WL length?

Mandatory WL semi voting
Given how people are starting to voice displeasure with having to vote in the finals, it's probably a step in the wrong direction. Or maybe not? Maybe we should actually try to integrate WL more with NSC proper, rather than the opposite? People are complaining that their votes bear no weight, but note that WL nations rarely vote in reju, despite their vote being equal to full nations there! This edition Joseyeon was the only WL nation to reju vote in the semis and Pyreica actually qualified thanks to their vote!
Maybe not mandatory semi voting, but maybe those who reju vote regularly deserve at least some small reward.

No WL at all
That's hiding the problem, not solving it.

Expand the roster to 64
I still remember this idea being put to discussion years ago, because it's literally the most ridiculous proposition to ever be seriously suggested in NSC. It's so utterly pointless, I refuse to discuss it.

I'd also like to address the accusation "You're just nay-sayers who are opposed to any change".
No, I consider myself fairly openminded, and most people as well. The very fact that we're actively discussing this even after we've been through it countless times, proves that we're still open to new ideas. We just haven't found that mythical solution that would benefit all and solve the WL problem once and for all. We want to see good changes, not change for the sake of change. I do not endorse the mindset of "let's do *something*, no matter what".

And in the end, let me urge everyone to think in long term. Average NSCer has been in the game for about 90 editions. Consider if the changes you propose will make the game more fun over the course of many years and how much fun you're willing to sacrifice in order to get in 2 editions sooner.

 

[HayashiM]

Losers? I never said anything like that. I just tried to describe what I was feeling while being in the WL in comparison to some particular person who's complaining about it the most, that's all.
I respect all of you guys and I've been always glad to help, but personally I see absolutely nothing bad in the WL system and the process of waiting. I guess ones who genuinely love and respect the contest, ones who are devoted to it can perfectly understand me. Moreover, this system has been here for ages and (as you see) NSC is still going strong.

Anyway, I guess I'm not going to make excuses, just because someone got me wrong.

Fair enough, I am sorry about putting "losers" in your mouth if you didn't mean it that way. It is caused by desperation of feeling in fact utterly ignored.
The way I saw the situation:

1. Many full members (you included) don't see anything wrong with current WL system.
2. Many WL members think otherwise and some present ideas how to change that, and in many cases, these ideas wouldn't even change anything for the full members.
3. The full members from part 1. joined by others reiterate their position of "there's nothing wrong there" without elaborating on why they think these new suggestions would've been bad or undesirable (except for "being new").

I am sorry, but at that point I just felt - and mostly still feel - like talking to a wall, so I asked a specific question on what is the other side's issue with the new proposals. I don't think "I personally see nothing bad in the WL system" or similar variations are a constructive answer. Some of you guys think the status quo is ok, fine, we had established that. Others don't think so and have presented their reasons and proposed some solutions, so when I hear a third repetition of "you guys will just have to wait", I wanna SCREAM with frustration, feeling the other side isn't interested in any honest discussion whatsoever, completely ignoring the other one.

 

[HayashiM]

Okay, so this was meant to be a question to WLers but grew into a discussion with plenty of ideas thrown around, so I'll add my own opinion about everything that was said.

MPQ
This one is a hard no. Such system favours people with more popular taste and incentivizes scorewhoring. That is completely against the spirit of NSC. Occasionally we have a member threatening to withdraw over poor results and we always do our best to make sure they feel welcome, regardless if their choice of entry is a popular banger or something niche. Letting people in based on their results is, let me repeat, completely against the spirit of NSC.

Collective WL entry
I... don't see what that would achieve? Would WLers feel represented in the contest by this nameless entity? Especially if they don't like the song selected. Maybe whoever chose the song would feel represented, but then that's just like MPQ.

Filling the spots up to 60
If WL people don't mind patchy history and constant uncertainty if they get in or not, then fine. But we would have to reduce the roster first, to around 54! An important detail is missing here, that the limit of 60 was agreed on knowing that a few nations would be missing from each edition. 60 was thought of as the absolute maximum capacity, not the comfortable optimum. I think many agree that they prefer slightly smaller editions. They semis are more manageable to listen to and, let's not forget, to host. Having just finished hosting, I assure you that preparing a show for 58 participants is strenuous enough as it is, especially when you're trying to be creative and make each banner unique. I was already pushing the limits of my remaining three brain cells and if I were to make just two more banners, I'd lose my sanity.

Rotational WL spot
Yeah, well, you'd get to enter once in 2 years... Valentina gets to participate in ESC more often that that.

Make WL voting non-mandatory
Yes, I definitely can understand the argument here. WL voting was different when you only had to do it like 3-5 times before joining and your votes had visible impact, and different now. Obviously, there has to be some activity required from WLers, otherwise someone could sign up and go offline for a year and WL would overflow with ghost users. Only requiring voting from top of the WL doesn't solve that problem. Making WLSC mandatory doesn't sound fair to people who aren't interested in it. I think a fair solution would be if people could choose either to vote in NSC final or participate in WLSC. Of course that requires some time coordination between NSC and WLSC, but I don't think it's impossible to manage.

Make WL votes count as full nations
No, it would be bonkers if final results could suddenly be decided by any random person who signed up 5 minutes ago. Top 3-5 WL nations voting as full nations sounds somewhat more reasonable, but only because WL is pretty long atm and these nations have been on it for a long time. WL will shrink eventually, if not this year, then next year or the year after. I advise against designing solutions with only present-day state in mind.

Minimum post count etc.
I don't think post count is a good indication of your eagerness to take part in NSC. But in general it's one possible approach to making WL shorter: make it more difficult to apply. Currently you only need to provide a nation name and a flag. Perhaps we could require more from a new applicant, like opening a nation thread, making a Wikia nation page, and choosing a spot on the map. Nothing unreasonable, but some basic display of interest, to weed out the most apathetic people.

Harsher non-voting punishments for full roster nations
Okay, although I voted for the last rule amendment regarding non-voting punishments, I think we totally blew it. The initial proposition was something along the lines of "you're out if you ftv 3 times in the last 10 editions" (hence the evil dots name). In the end the "ftv in 3 consecutive finals" option won, because some people were worried the initial proposition would be too confusing or something...I'd gladly revise that rule and introduce evil dots as they were meant to be. Having said that, I do not expect it to have any noticeable effect on roster turnover rate. We don't have a problem with habitual non-voters at the moment, so it bears no meaning for the WL issue right now.

Amnesty for returning members
It's just... not fair? And creates a caste of Old Farts™. I could give it a thought if it really would have the desired effect of much faster turnover rate. But I doubt it. Are there really that many people reluctant to leave the contest only because of WL length?

Mandatory WL semi voting
Given how people are starting to voice displeasure with having to vote in the finals, it's probably a step in the wrong direction. Or maybe not? Maybe we should actually try to integrate WL more with NSC proper, rather than the opposite? People are complaining that their votes bear no weight, but note that WL nations rarely vote in reju, despite their vote being equal to full nations there! This edition Joseyeon was the only WL nation to reju vote in the semis and Pyreica actually qualified thanks to their vote!
Maybe not mandatory semi voting, but maybe those who reju vote regularly deserve at least some small reward.

No WL at all
That's hiding the problem, not solving it.

Expand the roster to 64
I still remember this idea being put to discussion years ago, because it's literally the most ridiculous proposition to ever be seriously suggested in NSC. It's so utterly pointless, I refuse to discuss it.

I'd also like to address the accusation "You're just nay-sayers who are opposed to any change".
No, I consider myself fairly openminded, and most people as well. The very fact that we're actively discussing this even after we've been through it countless times, proves that we're still open to new ideas. We just haven't found that mythical solution that would benefit all and solve the WL problem once and for all. We want to see good changes, not change for the sake of change. I do not endorse the mindset of "let's do *something*, no matter what".

And in the end, let me urge everyone to think in long term. Average NSCer has been in the game for about 90 editions. Consider if the changes you propose will make the game more fun over the course of many years and how much fun you're willing to sacrifice in order to get in 2 editions sooner.

Right now, I am too tired to write anything further, but > this is the approach and argumentation I'd been asking for in my previous posts. Thank you.

 

[nofuxCZ]

I've been reading this discussion carefully but getting a bit lost on what the actual issue is and what we are trying to achieve here.
(it might be that I've had too many beers tonight though )

Anyway, after reading some posts, and that's my impression at least, I am quite sad that some WLers think that NSC members are part of some big conspiracy aiming to make WLers lives as miserable as possible. That's absolutely not the case. After all, most of us had to go through the waiting list and most of us waited more than 1 year to get in. I signed up for WL in NSC90 and even back then had to wait 18 months to join the main roster - not saying it's ok but just putting it out there.

I am strongly opposed to any changes that would break the fundamentals of this contest. Such changes would be adding 3rd semifinal (hated it in WV and it was one of the (many) reasons I left) or quarterfinals. These changes would not solve anything, another WL would appear right away. One of the reasons why I joined NSC and still enjoy playing it, is actually because of the way it currently works.

On the other hand, I would have no problem with abolishing the mandatory WL voting if the WLers wish so. It's a double edged sword though, as it would increase the waiting times and encourage ghost members to not make any effort, but if it would be sorted out by enabling WLers to choose between voting in NSC or participating in WLSC, then that's fine with me.

I would also support WL nations filling up unused spots in NSC editions. It happens basically every edition that some nations skip for various reasons. It makes no difference if there are 25 entries in the semifinal or 27, for me. After all, I signed up for NSC knowing there are 60 nations (and I actually expect each one of them to participate every edition). If this would ease some of the frustration and make waiting on the WL more enjoyable then I say we go for it. I have absolutely no issue if the WL nations then qualify over full roster nations or if they PQ or win.

To end this post, I just want to say I enjoy reading this discussion, even though some people could have expressed their opinions in more approachable way - the tone some of them chose makes their argument less valuable in my eyes even if they bring up good points. What I've always liked about NSC is it's a completely community driven contest. Unlike some other contests on this forum (and it might not be the case anymore but it definitely was in the past) - everything here is run and decided by the community. I remember one contest where such discussion like we have right now would be prohibited and if you had any concerns, you had to raise them privately in the PM with the mod team only. So yeah, even if someone gets too carried away by emotions here, it's still much better than what I saw elsewhere and I much appreciate it.

 

[Edweis]

I think a fair solution would be if people could choose either to vote in NSC final or participate in WLSC. Of course that requires some time coordination between NSC and WLSC, but I don't think it's impossible to manage.

I came to end my post to this conclusion too indeed. It seems the fairest and less impactful to current system. It would be quite easy to keep track of, just put a color code for each choice on the roster thread or something. And who knows, those who chose WLSC might still be willing to vote in final now that they're not forced too. It's easier to do something when it's in your full own terms.

WL reju voting might increase too, the current low number if voters isn't surprising at all. At first as a WL I was reju voting every editions but one day I missed it and never continued it. One small part because my semi voting stats sheet would always be wrong now that I missed a semi, and mainly because... why bother ? I could maybe make someone qualify but I knew my votes wouldn't count in the end, for all I know this nation would have been blanked by the roster in the final. I would have robbed in that case someone from a final too that could have a decent result etc.
And last reason was because I deemed that voting in the final of a contest I was not participating in, with said votes couting for almost nothing, was enough on my part.

 

[Brandt]

?
(I genuinely don't understand. And it's certainly not me who'd said anything offensive before.)

We don't share same opinion, so you assume we,
1. don't try to understand the situation (aka ignore it)
2. feel threatened/offended
3. don't want to think about the situation (aka again, ignore it)

This is called having different opinions, and people who don't share yours don't need any secret reason to have different opinions than yours. That's just the way it is.

Therefore again, this adds nothing to the situation so I will not be replying to this matter anymore.

 

[HayashiM]

We don't share same opinion, so you assume we,
1. don't try to understand the situation (aka ignore it)
2. feel threatened/offended
3. don't want to think about the situation (aka again, ignore it)

This is called having different opinions, and people who don't share yours don't need any secret reason to have different opinions than yours. That's just the way it is.

Therefore again, this adds nothing to the situation so I will not be replying to this matter anymore.

No, I am afraid you misinterpet me. I am perfectly fine with everybody having their opinion and this opinion differing from mine.

I do write about those things because you reiterate a very similar opinion to Veronika and Kimrt (that had been liked by many other regulars), without addressing any of the actual discussion points being raised (this has since slightly changed for Kimrt). I find that very dismissive and borderline insulting.

Have a nice day.

 

[Morty]

I agree with a lot of what @dogmeat wrote, but there's a couple of things I strongly disagree with:

Filling the spots up to 60
If WL people don't mind patchy history and constant uncertainty if they get in or not, then fine. But we would have to reduce the roster first, to around 54! An important detail is missing here, that the limit of 60 was agreed on knowing that a few nations would be missing from each edition. 60 was thought of as the absolute maximum capacity, not the comfortable optimum.

That detail wasn't missing, I mentioned it. But we all still signed up knowing that we could have semis of up to 27 entries. And altho rather rare, we have had editions with 27 entry semis, and I haven't seen much complaining about that. Reducing the roster to 54 is more ridiculous imo than raising it to 64.

Make WL votes count as full nations
No, it would be bonkers if final results could suddenly be decided by any random person who signed up 5 minutes ago. Top 3-5 WL nations voting as full nations sounds somewhat more reasonable, but only because WL is pretty long atm and these nations have been on it for a long time. WL will shrink eventually, if not this year, then next year or the year after. I advise against designing solutions with only present-day state in mind.

The WL will shrink, but it will grow again. This isn't the first time we've had a waiting list of nearly 20 nations, and it won't be the last. Not doing anything about it is short-term thinking, which you're advising against. This discussion WILL return at some point if we don't fix some of the problem now.

 

[HayashiM]

I absolutely don't think there's a secret NSC conspiracy to make others lives miserable. Thank you to everyone who did address any discussion points directly while saying why they think these are/aren't a good idea.

Kimrt suggested I formulate some clear points so there can be a vote. I don't want to seem run away from any such responsibility, however
1. I gather it's been hinted at by the mods in another thread that right now there are more pressing issues to vote about, and the right time for WL rules changes shall come later on.
2. Perhaps there's still more discussion to be had?
3. Perhaps this is in someone else's (mods/original authors of the discussion points) area of competence I'd be imposing myself into?

So, right now, I won't formulate anything - I think the discussion points are quite obvious when one reads this thread. If there's any need later on and no one for the job, sure, I can do it.

 

[Uto]

I absolutely don't think there's a secret NSC conspiracy to make others lives miserable. Thank you to everyone who did address any discussion points directly while saying why they think these are/aren't a good idea.

Kimrt suggested I formulate some clear points so there can be a vote. I don't want to seem run away from any such responsibility, however
1. I gather it's been hinted at by the mods in another thread that right now there are more pressing issues to vote about, and the right time for WL rules changes shall come later on.
2. Perhaps there's still more discussion to be had?
3. Perhaps this is in someone else's (mods/original authors of the discussion points) area of competence I'd be imposing myself into?

So, right now, I won't formulate anything - I think the discussion points are quite obvious when one reads this thread. If there's any need later on and no one for the job, sure, I can do it.

Mods should take the lead in that indeed. There are too many issues in play at the moment anyway. Doesn't mean we can chip in with some ideas though.

For me it's simple, I don't really care about seeing WL songs in NSC, but it's perhaps a nice touch. Whatever is proposed there I'm likely to support, but I am far more interested in finding a better solution to the WL voting requirement in NSC. So I have two ideas for that.

First, let's look at what the current rules do. They are supposed to solve following issues:

- Ghostbusting
- Connect WL to NSC

It does do a decent job at that, but the price is resentment for time lost without any emotional reward. We can debate all day about this, it won't serve a purpose in the end. The only thing that has to be established is that many WL members feel like this, which we have, and then the question is how can we do better. Naturally, we still need the ghostbusting and some sort of NSC-WL connection, doesn't do to have people send a PM ever month to declare they are still interested.

So, in general, we can shift the balance towards a bigger schism or towards a closer connection. Both are viable.

Schism:
Probably best to go for the option where WL members still have to vote in NSC finals, but with the added clause that those who participate and vote in the prior WLSC are exempted. Given that so many NSC nations participate in WLSC this does solve both the ghostbusting and the connection issue, but it hinges on NSC nations participating in WLSC for the latter to be optimal. Solution is robust as long as WLSC is healthy. I don't know about the history of WLSC, it's certainly healthy now.

Closer connection:
Quite simply would involve having the votes from WL members count for more. Probably core of the issue is lack of scalability of current scheme. Voting power is linear with amount of members on WL. Long list means less power, less power means more frustration. It's not too hard to think of scalable solutions. One is to use voting cohorts capped at 5 for instance. At start of NSC divide amount of WL members by 5, round it up: amount of voting cohorts. Then randomly sort WL members into these cohorts. At 6 WL members you will have two cohorts of 3 members, but when numbers grow a bit larger it will settle at 4 or 5. At 17 members for instance you will have 4 cohorts with 3 of them consisting of 4 players while one has 5. Naturally every cohort gives one full set of votes in the final. Solution keeps the ghostbusting, increases connection of WL to NSC at a fairly slim cost. Solution is scalable and robust. Does increase WL effect on NSC by a significant factor, it will be about 1/15th. Must be kept in mind that these votes come from various members so are likely to be highly randomized, ie they are unlikely to cause significant changes, but they might.

 

[iowacorn]

For me when I first entered NSC (51?), there was no waiting list (I got lucky). Been waiting for 7 months now I believe, gone from 21 to 11. I personally am not having any issue with the system. I tuned into the results show of the last NSC watching Ujedinjeni Gvozd's results as if it were my own and very much enjoyed myself. I don't mind waiting more time to rejoin. WLSC is a beautiful contest, and OM and FSC are keeping the competitive side of me plenty entertained. I guess I'm more here to fill my Spotify (and share my taste) than to compete and I can do that whether or not I'm in the contest. The wait is long, but it's worth it for me, even if it takes 2 years. I am an exceptionally patient person though.

Also I do think that keeping NSC voting mandatory is a good idea. I do sympathize with everyone saying it takes a lot of time for not so much influence, however, having this sort of requirement does keep the waiting list fluid. Replacing that with participating in WLSC I guess is fine. There are about 2 WLSC per cycle of NSC though, so would one have to participate in both to be exempt from voting? Hey, I'm even for mandatory reju semi voting. It will keep the waiting list even more fluid. But also I'm a rare WL case who is fine with nothing changing. As I've said, I love it here whether or not I am competitive.

To address those on the WL expressing their frustration with their NSC votes not being counted, would having the WL votes being incorporated in Congratulations style points (20 17 15 13 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1) be any consolation? This may be seen as a 'band-aid solution', that's totally fair, but this way everyone on WL can be somewhat heard in NSC.

Is this going to solve all your issues? No. But that way WL votes could be more exciting while still having a reasonable weight.