Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: [NT] U27 European Championship - Season 6
if you check the vote is clear polska voted no check the last 2 columns which triggered the second poll
there are 2 separate questions limit u27 and support to small countres
I am going to end up sounding like a jackass, but I'll give it a go :)
I understand what you mean. But it means you count both "yes and yes" and "yes and no" as yes to the first question AND both "no and yes" and "yes and yes" as yes to the second question. So, of course this ends with a yes to both questions.
If you take Poland, they very clearly state that you should leave it as it is. That is a yes to U27 and a NO to special rules. (We agree this far.)
Take Ukraine: Yes to U27 but no to special rules. They even write: "No, I will not support!"
However, they are counted as yes.
Same with Montenegro, Latvia, France and more.
Then there is the confusion... Some people got that before they answered, so You have some countries who voted NO to U27, because they don't want special rules. Belgium, Spain, Croatia. This I read as a yes to U27 IF no special rules, which is what (I guess) Poland, Latvia, France a.s.o. meant as well.
There is no need to make a big deal of it. I'm not trying to change anything here, I'm just saying: why ask?
The way I see it, You have excactly 15 votes for U27 with Special Rules. The rest are either against U27, against special rules, not playing in the tournament - or blanks. So, that's 15 out of 49 answers. It may even be the winner because of the large number of possible combinations of answers, but it certainly is NOT 20 yes to U27 AND 12 yes to Special rules.
But again: your competition, your rules.
Another way to fix it is to add to the new Poll:
Question 1, D: NO criteria
Question 2: D: NO bonus
Question 3: D: NO extra players
Question 4: D: U27 as the rest.
THEN you would have found out if U27 Tournament should be with special rules or not (It would not be fair, though, as (again) answers a,b and c would all be up against D individually :) :) )
Sending. No offense, really! Remember that, please :)
edit: some numbers...
(edited)
there are 2 separate questions limit u27 and support to small countres
I am going to end up sounding like a jackass, but I'll give it a go :)
I understand what you mean. But it means you count both "yes and yes" and "yes and no" as yes to the first question AND both "no and yes" and "yes and yes" as yes to the second question. So, of course this ends with a yes to both questions.
If you take Poland, they very clearly state that you should leave it as it is. That is a yes to U27 and a NO to special rules. (We agree this far.)
Take Ukraine: Yes to U27 but no to special rules. They even write: "No, I will not support!"
However, they are counted as yes.
Same with Montenegro, Latvia, France and more.
Then there is the confusion... Some people got that before they answered, so You have some countries who voted NO to U27, because they don't want special rules. Belgium, Spain, Croatia. This I read as a yes to U27 IF no special rules, which is what (I guess) Poland, Latvia, France a.s.o. meant as well.
There is no need to make a big deal of it. I'm not trying to change anything here, I'm just saying: why ask?
The way I see it, You have excactly 15 votes for U27 with Special Rules. The rest are either against U27, against special rules, not playing in the tournament - or blanks. So, that's 15 out of 49 answers. It may even be the winner because of the large number of possible combinations of answers, but it certainly is NOT 20 yes to U27 AND 12 yes to Special rules.
But again: your competition, your rules.
Another way to fix it is to add to the new Poll:
Question 1, D: NO criteria
Question 2: D: NO bonus
Question 3: D: NO extra players
Question 4: D: U27 as the rest.
THEN you would have found out if U27 Tournament should be with special rules or not (It would not be fair, though, as (again) answers a,b and c would all be up against D individually :) :) )
Sending. No offense, really! Remember that, please :)
edit: some numbers...
(edited)
Seems you are just spamming the topic. I will try to explain you tomorrow cause seems you do not try to read my explanations. Now im to pissed off. Do you realize what amount of work takes me to organize all this . To send and explain to every nt manager. Will try to explain to you properly again tommrow.
When you do not understand you do not lie poland is counted no ukraine did not replied on last question so was not coubted. Check last 2 columns buddy you driving me crazy
Ukraine counted as no as well as all countries you mentioned .
First part of the poll was 2 questions to define base limit participants
the 3th questions for support was asked separately and added to the poll and the last 3 columns clearly state
the result of it 20 yes 12 no all the countries you mentioned are in the column no so i do not understand your complains
You had 2 weeks to propose the things for the poll i think is a bit late and not right cause now we do not define will we have bonus or not but what will be the bonus.
hope it was clear
the 3th questions for support was asked separately and added to the poll and the last 3 columns clearly state
the result of it 20 yes 12 no all the countries you mentioned are in the column no so i do not understand your complains
You had 2 weeks to propose the things for the poll i think is a bit late and not right cause now we do not define will we have bonus or not but what will be the bonus.
hope it was clear
I am not trying to upset you - or drive you crazy. No offense, really!
I DO understand your explanations. I just disagree with how you count it.
Anyway, it's not important enough for me to be labelled spammer and 'piss you off' (not to mention SK-mail about how I owe you an apology, lol.)
I'm just saying, in short: when you count results of question 1, BOTH "I want to play U27 IF there are special rules" AND "I want to play U27 IF there are NO special rules" get counted as "Yes to U27" - clear winner.
And when you count question 2, everybody who voted "I want special rules IF we play U27" and "I want special rules if we don't play U27" count as yes to special rules.
This gives a result where it's U27 regardless of special rules or not. And special rules regardless of U27 or not.
So, who actually voted FOR "U27 with special rules?": 15 teams did.
Anyway, let's leave it before you explode completely :)
I DO understand your explanations. I just disagree with how you count it.
Anyway, it's not important enough for me to be labelled spammer and 'piss you off' (not to mention SK-mail about how I owe you an apology, lol.)
I'm just saying, in short: when you count results of question 1, BOTH "I want to play U27 IF there are special rules" AND "I want to play U27 IF there are NO special rules" get counted as "Yes to U27" - clear winner.
And when you count question 2, everybody who voted "I want special rules IF we play U27" and "I want special rules if we don't play U27" count as yes to special rules.
This gives a result where it's U27 regardless of special rules or not. And special rules regardless of U27 or not.
So, who actually voted FOR "U27 with special rules?": 15 teams did.
Anyway, let's leave it before you explode completely :)
How i count it i ask do you support protection yes or no yes is yes no is no 20 to 12 .
Still no discussion about the choices made? Let's change it.
In the first question Czech republic votes for C) Number of teams playing junior leagues. We believe that countries with weak starting position should be protected, not weak national teams, where weak/strong starting position is best determined by number of active users/junior teams/teams playing junior leagues. The use of ranking/average marks would punish successful countries with good scouting system and experienced coaches who work hard to be the best ones.
Take Scotland as an example. With only 15 teams playing junior leagues (now they have total amount of 20 junior schools) they managed to climb up in the ranking to TOP 20. Should they be punished for their success? Ironically it was cranber, former coach of Scotland, who proposed that small communities should be protected. :D
What did you vote for and why?
In the first question Czech republic votes for C) Number of teams playing junior leagues. We believe that countries with weak starting position should be protected, not weak national teams, where weak/strong starting position is best determined by number of active users/junior teams/teams playing junior leagues. The use of ranking/average marks would punish successful countries with good scouting system and experienced coaches who work hard to be the best ones.
Take Scotland as an example. With only 15 teams playing junior leagues (now they have total amount of 20 junior schools) they managed to climb up in the ranking to TOP 20. Should they be punished for their success? Ironically it was cranber, former coach of Scotland, who proposed that small communities should be protected. :D
What did you vote for and why?
Cause im the coach of Scotland buddy:) i think people vote what is best in short term for them. If all 3 criteria are in place would not be so unfair but coaches should think what is fair in long term. They could be in Scotland position next time . Yeh they have option to resign and here i will put in place rule teams that refused previous season will start from lower flow and lower pot in draw.
For me fair answer is c as well b is even more acceptable a totally unfair
For me fair answer is c as well b is even more acceptable a totally unfair
right schedule to all that will play
Week 11 - EURO U27
Week 12 - EURO U27
Week 13 - EURO U27
Week 14 - EURO U27
Week 15 - EURO U27
Week 00 - EURO U27
Week 01 - EURO U27
Week 11 - EURO U27
Week 12 - EURO U27
Week 13 - EURO U27
Week 14 - EURO U27
Week 15 - EURO U27
Week 00 - EURO U27
Week 01 - EURO U27
Brasil wants to play in Euro competition i cannot make such decision at last minute so i have more opinions for this from NT
if Spain and France give up im ok to save the tournament with Brasil let me know what you think
if Spain and France give up im ok to save the tournament with Brasil let me know what you think
Brasil plays copa america, no chance they play this tournament.
Copa America has apparently 21 countries signed in. Brazil can switch to Euro without harming Copa America. And the question is whether we want to accept them - not whether they want to join us. ;)
From my point of view, Brazil is a country that guarantees interesting matches, needs no protection and would honor the rules (I really do not like withdrawals from the tournament after a few matches). Even though they are not part of Europe, I have nothing against accepting them as a special guest nation. If all the countries that played the last tournament and honored the rules are accepted first of course.
From my point of view, Brazil is a country that guarantees interesting matches, needs no protection and would honor the rules (I really do not like withdrawals from the tournament after a few matches). Even though they are not part of Europe, I have nothing against accepting them as a special guest nation. If all the countries that played the last tournament and honored the rules are accepted first of course.
For me, any team that wants to play; obviously if the European teams are not interested it is welcome!