Proposal Regarding Puerto Rico’s Eligibility for WCOP

[Feliburn]

I want to raise a policy concern regarding Puerto Rico’s placement in World Cup and its eligibility for Team Latin America.

Under the current framework, Puerto Rico falls under the United States for eligibility purposes, which places Puerto Rican players into US regional teams such as US Southeast. I understand why Smogon uses a consistent geopolitical framework to handle eligibility, and this post is not meant to dismiss the value of having clear rules. At the same time, I think Puerto Rico is a strong example of a case where that framework does not fully reflect the reality of player identity & community alignment.

While Puerto Rico is geopolitically tied to the United States, it is culturally and linguistically much closer to Latin America. Spanish is the primary language, its identity is distinctly Caribbean and Latin American, and Puerto Rican players are generally far more connected to the Latin American playerbase than to any US regional team. In a tournament like World Cup, where regional identity and community representation are a central part of the event, that distinction matters.

This is especially relevant because Team Latin America already exists as a structure meant to represent players from countries and regions that do not have enough depth to field fully independent teams, but still share meaningful regional ties. Puerto Rico fits naturally into that idea. By contrast, assigning Puerto Rican players to US Southeast feels more like a technical classification than a reflection of where those players actually belong within the community.

Jeidel is the clearest current example of this issue. Although he is eligible through Puerto Rico’s geopolitical status to be placed in US Southeast, his language, cultural background, and place within the competitive community align much more naturally with Latin America. More importantly, that is the region he identifies with and wants to represent. That makes the current placement feel artificial, not just in theory, but in practice.

Puerto Rico is also treated as its own competitive entity in several major international sports structures (FIFA, FIBA, Olympics, etc.), despite its geopolitical relationship with the United States. That does not mean Smogon has to copy those systems directly, but it does show that political classification and competitive or cultural identity are not always the same thing. In a community-based tournament like World Cup, that distinction feels especially relevant.

For that reason, I think it is worth considering whether Puerto Rico should be treated differently within World Cup eligibility. A few possible approaches would be:

• allowing Puerto Rican players to choose between US regional teams and Latin America
• recognizing Puerto Rico as eligible under Team Latin America for World Cup purposes

I do not think this would be an unreasonable adjustment to the current interpretation of the rules. If anything, it would bring eligibility more in line with the structure of the tournament by treating Puerto Rico as part of the Latin American pool unless it has the depth to support its own team. That feels more consistent with the way regional representation is otherwise handled, and more reflective of the community Puerto Rican players are actually part of in practice.

This is not meant as an attack on the current system or on the people applying it. Clear standards are important, and I understand why they exist. I just think Puerto Rico is a fair case for review, because the current interpretation feels disconnected from the reality of how regional identity works in this community.

 

[tko]

Thought it was very odd to hear that a Puerto Rican player can't play for Latin America. I agree with the proposals provided in the OP.

If it's a concern that Puerto Ricans want to region switch down the line (say, if they don't playing for one of South or Latam), then perhaps we could think about holding them to the same standards of being forced to wait a year and can't switch again, similar to the current rules for people who move to different countries / regions. Don't think this will be a major issue though and I don't necessarily like imposing this on Puerto Ricans. I think given the complex history they should be allowed to pick what they want to do.

 

[ken]

not a formal td response, i'm just ken

While Puerto Rico is geopolitically tied to the United States, it is culturally and linguistically much closer to Latin America. Spanish is the primary language, its identity is distinctly Caribbean and Latin American, and Puerto Rican players are generally far more connected to the Latin American playerbase than to any US regional team. In a tournament like World Cup, where regional identity and community representation are a central part of the event, that distinction matters.

I do not think this would be an unreasonable adjustment to the current interpretation of the rules. If anything, it would bring eligibility more in line with the structure of the tournament by treating Puerto Rico as part of the Latin American pool unless it has the depth to support its own team. That feels more consistent with the way regional representation is otherwise handled, and more reflective of the community Puerto Rican players are actually part of in practice.

To be clear, cultural eligibility no longer exists in the framework of how WCoP eligibility works for Smogon. This is of course complicated for Latin America specifically, because it's a "continental" team that's not actually a continent, rather a cultural grouping of countries from two. I wouldn't really advocate for the separation of LA into actual continental teams at this junction due to its history in the tournament, but on the flip side I don't think it should also receive preferential treatment as a legacy of cultural eligibility.

The core issue here isn’t Puerto Rico specifically, but whether we want to reintroduce subjective or cultural criteria into eligibility decisions after deliberately moving away from them. The current framework intentionally avoids that, and I don’t think selectively reintroducing it in edge cases leads to a more consistent system.

Puerto Rico is also treated as its own competitive entity in several major international sports structures (FIFA, FIBA, Olympics, etc.), despite its geopolitical relationship with the United States. That does not mean Smogon has to copy those systems directly, but it does show that political classification and competitive or cultural identity are not always the same thing. In a community-based tournament like World Cup, that distinction feels especially relevant.

The examples from FIFA / FIBA / the Olympics actually point in a different direction: they support Puerto Rico being treated as its own entity, not being reassigned to a broader cultural region. That’s a fundamentally different proposal than integrating it into Team Latin America, and it doesn’t really support the change being suggested here.

Even under that model, Puerto Rico wouldn’t automatically gain Latin American eligibility. If anything, it would exist independently when possible and otherwise still fall back on its geopolitical classification, which brings us back to the same starting point. The obvious complication there is that it would also require revisiting the “no two teams from a single region” rule, since territories are currently grouped with the country that governs or 'owns' them under UN recognition.

Like you mentioned, it's important to have clear and (as) unbiased (as possible) rules to point to when it comes to eligibility. People have and will continue to try to game the system to play in more advantageous situations or for countries/continentals in which they do not formally have an actual IP history. It wouldn't be WCoP without me finding someone spoofing (or poorly attempting to spoof) VPNs annually.

The guide we follow is about as neutral as we're realistically going to get: UN recognition of countries and their territories and where they limit that. For better or worse, it gives us something explicit to point to that we cannot inject personal bias or interpretation into. There are countless global conflicts ongoing at any point in time over regional territories, resources, etc., and I don't expect TDs to be the arbiter of which country owns what, which is why we look to a reasonably more informed body for an answer. This affects every continent and multiple countries every year: players from Kashmir (India vs. Pakistan), Taiwan and China, various colonial/formerly colonial islands belonging to many countries (e.g. recent examples being Canary Islands and Spain / New Caledonia, Guadeloupe, and Martinique and France), Puerto Rico and the US, the African diaspora, the list really does go on (though whether or not all the users I IP check end up on a roster is a different story). Once we allow cultural alignment to override that framework in one case, it becomes much harder to draw consistent boundaries in others without reverting to case-by-case judgment.

We are not experts in geopolitics, nor should that be an expectation for anyone in this volunteer position, and rejecting actual lines drawn in the sand for one thing gets murky very quickly with respect to each other situation. I do understand the cultural argument being made here, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable on its own terms. The issue is that adopting it would require us to move away from the objective framework we currently rely on and reintroduce subjective judgments into eligibility. Even if Puerto Rico feels like a compelling case, I don’t think making an exception here improves the system; it just makes it harder to apply consistently going forward.

then perhaps we could think about holding them to the same standards of being forced to wait a year and can't switch again

This is not currently a rule. Players are locked to established teams so long as they are considered established and in the tournament and the player does not gain significant new IP history in a new region (usually via physical move). They may also switch from a continental team to a national team by choice (or force, should the national team in which they reside become established). (This is of course a simplification of the fuller set of rules; if you'd like to actually read them, (1) (2) (3) (4), but anyone is always free to DM me and discuss them or check your eligibility)

 

[Drifting]

not a formal td response, i'm just ken



To be clear, cultural eligibility no longer exists in the framework of how WCoP eligibility works for Smogon. This is of course complicated for Latin America specifically, because it's a "continental" team that's not actually a continent, rather a cultural grouping of countries from two. I wouldn't really advocate for the separation of LA into actual continental teams at this junction due to its history in the tournament, but on the flip side I don't think it should also receive preferential treatment as a legacy of cultural eligibility.

The core issue here isn’t Puerto Rico specifically, but whether we want to reintroduce subjective or cultural criteria into eligibility decisions after deliberately moving away from them. The current framework intentionally avoids that, and I don’t think selectively reintroducing it in edge cases leads to a more consistent system.


The examples from FIFA / FIBA / the Olympics actually point in a different direction: they support Puerto Rico being treated as its own entity, not being reassigned to a broader cultural region. That’s a fundamentally different proposal than integrating it into Team Latin America, and it doesn’t really support the change being suggested here.

Even under that model, Puerto Rico wouldn’t automatically gain Latin American eligibility. If anything, it would exist independently when possible and otherwise still fall back on its geopolitical classification, which brings us back to the same starting point. The obvious complication there is that it would also require revisiting the “no two teams from a single region” rule, since territories are currently grouped with the country that governs or 'owns' them under UN recognition.

Like you mentioned, it's important to have clear and (as) unbiased (as possible) rules to point to when it comes to eligibility. People have and will continue to try to game the system to play in more advantageous situations or for countries/continentals in which they do not formally have an actual IP history. It wouldn't be WCoP without me finding someone spoofing (or poorly attempting to spoof) VPNs annually.

The guide we follow is about as neutral as we're realistically going to get: UN recognition of countries and their territories and where they limit that. For better or worse, it gives us something explicit to point to that we cannot inject personal bias or interpretation into. There are countless global conflicts ongoing at any point in time over regional territories, resources, etc., and I don't expect TDs to be the arbiter of which country owns what, which is why we look to a reasonably more informed body for an answer. This affects every continent and multiple countries every year: players from Kashmir (India vs. Pakistan), Taiwan and China, various colonial/formerly colonial islands belonging to many countries (e.g. recent examples being Canary Islands and Spain / New Caledonia, Guadeloupe, and Martinique and France), Puerto Rico and the US, the African diaspora, the list really does go on (though whether or not all the users I IP check end up on a roster is a different story). Once we allow cultural alignment to override that framework in one case, it becomes much harder to draw consistent boundaries in others without reverting to case-by-case judgment.

We are not experts in geopolitics, nor should that be an expectation for anyone in this volunteer position, and rejecting actual lines drawn in the sand for one thing gets murky very quickly with respect to each other situation. I do understand the cultural argument being made here, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable on its own terms. The issue is that adopting it would require us to move away from the objective framework we currently rely on and reintroduce subjective judgments into eligibility. Even if Puerto Rico feels like a compelling case, I don’t think making an exception here improves the system; it just makes it harder to apply consistently going forward.

This is not currently a rule. Players are locked to established teams so long as they are considered established and in the tournament and the player does not gain significant new IP history in a new region (usually via physical move). They may also switch from a continental team to a national team by choice (or force, should the national team in which they reside become established). (This is of course a simplification of the fuller set of rules; if you'd like to actually read them, (1) (2) (3) (4), but anyone is always free to DM me and discuss them or check your eligibility)

This post does an excellent job of explaining why Puerto Rico is considered a part of US South under the current ruleset, but it fails to consider that the eligibility rules aren’t a fundamental truth, but guidelines made by us which we can change at any time.

I mean let’s zoom out, ignore Puerto Rico, ignore the guidelines for a moment. Are we really saying that Curacao is more Netherlands than it is Latin America? New Caledonia, one of the most quintessentially Melanesian cultures on the planet has more in common with le Nord-Pas-De-Calais than Fiji? I think it goes without saying that this just feels wrong on a fundamental level, and I believe that we should endeavour for reality to inform our rulesets rather than falling into the trap of the opposite.

The current ruleset restricting dual eligibility is great and works well to serve teams like Belgium and Mexico who have historically suffered from the continental superteams, but I don’t think it’s fair to apply the same standards to these dependent territories/similar entities, just because the legal sovereign status of a piece of land often fails to inform the true cultural and geographic identity of a region. I don’t want to get into a political debate, but just look at the millions of people in Hong Kong out in the streets because they explicitly don’t feel as if they are a part of China, it goes without saying how divisive the topic is.

In my personal opinion, the option that would have the best outcomes for all parties involved is an exception allowing dual eligibility for these external territories, manifested in a one time choice of who they want to represent, meaning for Puerto Rico the country they legally fall under, US South, or the continent that informs… pretty much everything about Puerto Rico, Latin America.

 

[BigFatMantis]

Puerto Rico is part of Latin America. As in, it’s quite literally located and classified as being in Latin America. So, logically speaking, if there is a Latin America team, they should be allowed to play for it. It’s really not that complicated guys. If they can’t play for Latin America then there shouldn’t be a Latin America team and go make different regional teams.

 

[tko]

Like you mentioned, it's important to have clear and (as) unbiased (as possible) rules to point to when it comes to eligibility. People have and will continue to try to game the system to play in more advantageous situations or for countries/continentals in which they do not formally have an actual IP history. It wouldn't be WCoP without me finding someone spoofing (or poorly attempting to spoof) VPNs annually.

The guide we follow is about as neutral as we're realistically going to get: UN recognition of countries and their territories and where they limit that. For better or worse, it gives us something explicit to point to that we cannot inject personal bias or interpretation into. There are countless global conflicts ongoing at any point in time over regional territories, resources, etc., and I don't expect TDs to be the arbiter of which country owns what, which is why we look to a reasonably more informed body for an answer. This affects every continent and multiple countries every year: players from Kashmir (India vs. Pakistan), Taiwan and China, various colonial/formerly colonial islands belonging to many countries (e.g. recent examples being Canary Islands and Spain / New Caledonia, Guadeloupe, and Martinique and France), Puerto Rico and the US, the African diaspora, the list really does go on (though whether or not all the users I IP check end up on a roster is a different story). Once we allow cultural alignment to override that framework in one case, it becomes much harder to draw consistent boundaries in others without reverting to case-by-case judgment.

We are not experts in geopolitics, nor should that be an expectation for anyone in this volunteer position, and rejecting actual lines drawn in the sand for one thing gets murky very quickly with respect to each other situation. I do understand the cultural argument being made here, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable on its own terms. The issue is that adopting it would require us to move away from the objective framework we currently rely on and reintroduce subjective judgments into eligibility. Even if Puerto Rico feels like a compelling case, I don’t think making an exception here improves the system; it just makes it harder to apply consistently going forward.

Thankfully, I don't think this situation will be complicated enough for us to require the Smogon TDs to become delegates of the UN. Allowing this rule change won't be similar to reverting to the system that we used to have in place, because the way we are classifying players via IP regions will not be changing. This means we won't have situations where someone, for example, is from the United States but claims to be culturally European, since they were raised in Europe until they were 5. I do think we should introduce some change to allow wiggle room for players like Jeidel. I don't think we should be afraid to cater to what will ever only be at most a handful of players that A. have to be good enough for a region's leader to find roster-worthy and B. exist in a region that culturally differs than the occupying nation. I sincerely doubt that there will be enough players for this to become a systemic issue that will become a headache for the TDs. We don't have to let this corner of the internet be strictly rigid to follow what the UN has designated as borders, when we know it feels wrong to us culturally. World Cup is a special official tournament that should be to promote and celebrate people of similar backgrounds to team with each other and try to win the trophy.

If the United States were to annex Canada, and the UN were to recognize that new reality, I would hope that Smogon would not force Canadians to split their border up to align with US West, Midwest, and Northeast. As much as I'd want to team with watashi in an official again, it would feel incorrect to force players of a region of clear differing culture to play for us. They're Canadian! That's completely valid. It's a bit of an extreme example, but I hope it helps for the perspective a bit. Imagine the same but for Cuba. Would we really want to force them to suddenly be a part of US South? I feel like the least we can do for people in complex territories is to allow them to play with a cultural team they resonate with, if one exists. We won't be reverting back to how things used to be, and this still allows things to be within reason.

 

[Eternal Spirit]

Main question tho: whos from Puerto Rico?

 

[clean]

obligatory speaking as myself


I want to preface this by saying that on a personal level I very much wish Jeidel was able to play for Latin America - PR being lumped in with a region it shares very little culture with is an unfortunate byproduct of how eligibility works. I spent a lot of time over the past few days talking to fellow TDs and other friends in the community & really don't think there is a clean way to make an exception here. I will try to explain why.


Ken explained how WCOP eligibility works pretty well in his above post, but essentially; cultural eligibility no longer exists. The IPs of the players determine what team they play for & there is no room for interpretation. The current framework ensures that TDs don't have to make judgement calls on complex geopolitical situations and can point to a neutral source - the UN. I think this is a good thing. I am many things, but an expert on geopolitical situations is certainly not one of them. I am absolutely not qualified to take a stance on every conflict happening around the world or if certain regions are culturally one way or the other.

The current ruleset restricting dual eligibility is great and works well to serve teams like Belgium and Mexico who have historically suffered from the continental superteams, but I don’t think it’s fair to apply the same standards to these dependent territories/similar entities, just because the legal sovereign status of a piece of land often fails to inform the true cultural and geographic identity of a region. I don’t want to get into a political debate, but just look at the millions of people in Hong Kong out in the streets because they explicitly don’t feel as if they are a part of China, it goes without saying how divisive the topic is.

In my personal opinion, the option that would have the best outcomes for all parties involved is an exception allowing dual eligibility for these external territories, manifested in a one time choice of who they want to represent, meaning for Puerto Rico the country they legally fall under, US South, or the continent that informs… pretty much everything about Puerto Rico, Latin America.

This part of Drifting's post resonated with me to a degree. I think most people would agree with the sentiment that sovereign status =/= cultural/geographic identity of a region. It is a totally valid point and I spent multiple hours today trying to come up with a framework that would allow for territories to have a choice without the TDs needing to use their judgement or take a stance on a geopolitical conflict.

A big part of the problem is the point about "territories". Before tonight, I thought it was simple - but I challenge anyone reading this to come up with a definition for "territory" in any reasonable amount of time. It's actually way more complicated than I ever could have imagined. It's not like there is even a list of "territories" that the UN puts out either. There's an endless number of classifications that all mean slightly different things - "dependent territory, semiautonomous territory, provinces, unincorporated territories, non-self governing territories, crown dependencies, special administrative regions, etc". I could keep going for a while with this list - the point is that just saying "territory" can imply a massive array of places/situations, many of which will be much more complex than Puerto Rico.

My concern is how do we draw the line between what we are considering a territory and what we aren't? The UN doesn't exactly have a list just lying around of every "territory" that they recognize. Pragmatically, I would have a hard time coming up with a reason for allowing Puerto Rico to make this choice but denying other areas because they aren't "dependent territories". Earlier today I theorized a plan where you could allow all "dependent territories" to have a choice between their mother country and whatever team they were geographically closest to. It sounded nice on paper until you realize Puerto Rico isn't even a dependent territory - it's an "unincorporated territory of the united states". Hong Kong, the other example in your post is considered a "special administrative region". Herein lies the problem - I can only speak for myself, but I don't think any of the other TDs have the knowledge or expertise to determine which of these classifications is allowed special treatment. I really think if you allow one you basically have to allow everything - and it will go from TDs making no judgement calls to making every possible judgement call. I promise you I am unqualified to be making those decisions.

Thankfully, I don't think this situation will be complicated enough for us to require the Smogon TDs to become delegates of the UN. Allowing this rule change won't be similar to reverting to the system that we used to have in place, because the way we are classifying players via IP regions will not be changing. This means we won't have situations where someone, for example, is from the United States but claims to be culturally European, since they were raised in Europe until they were 5. I do think we should introduce some change to allow wiggle room for players like Jeidel. I don't think we should be afraid to cater to what will ever only be at most a handful of players that A. have to be good enough for a region's leader to find roster-worthy and B. exist in a region that culturally differs than the occupying nation. I sincerely doubt that there will be enough players for this to become a systemic issue that will become a headache for the TDs. We don't have to let this corner of the internet be strictly rigid to follow what the UN has designated as borders, when we know it feels wrong to us culturally. World Cup is a special official tournament that should be to promote and celebrate people of similar backgrounds to team with each other and try to win the trophy.

It's probably true that this affects a low volume of users - but my issue is if you open the door to making exceptions there is really no going back. One day a situation will pop up where the TDs will have to make a judgement call on some border dispute somewhere and it won't be fun for anyone. I definitely didn't sign up for that and have no interest in doing anything other helping improve tournaments. I really do feel bad for Jeidel and spent a lot of my time this week trying to find a solution that let him play for PR without opening the floodgates to TDs making judgement calls down the line. I really don't think it's feasible but I'd love to hear other ideas if anyone has something.

If the United States were to annex Canada, and the UN were to recognize that new reality, I would hope that Smogon would not force Canadians to split their border up to align with US West, Midwest, and Northeast. As much as I'd want to team with watashi in an official again, it would feel incorrect to force players of a region of clear differing culture to play for us. They're Canadian! That's completely valid. It's a bit of an extreme example, but I hope it helps for the perspective a bit. Imagine the same but for Cuba. Would we really want to force them to suddenly be a part of US South? I feel like the least we can do for people in complex territories is to allow them to play with a cultural team they resonate with, if one exists. We won't be reverting back to how things used to be, and this still allows things to be within reason.

If you want to bring back cultural eligibility in general then I think that's a bit different of a conversation than was intended in this thread. I personally think the current system is better - but the conversation could be had if enough people supported it. In any case, I do not think it's realistic to just "do things within reason" - the "within reason" is going to have to be determined by TDs who are not geopolitical experts. If you go down this road it's all or nothing.

 

[BigFatMantis]

From what I understand, in following how the rules were created/modified over the years, culturally eligibility (or lack thereof) applies to the individual. It got very messy with people trying to claim they were culturally more xyz. It makes sense to restrict that on an individual basis because it’s impossible to track and enforce appropriately. Using that as a reason to preclude an entire geographical entity is rather ignorant of both geopolitics as a whole and of how these rules came to be. It’s not only quite obvious - it is literally documented and accepted that Puerto Rico is part of Latin America, geographically and culturally. You do not need to worry about “verifying” the culture here. It’s already been done for you over the past several decades.

If you want to use other reasons on why Puerto Rico should be required to stick to the 1/4th part of the US that we arbitrarily created with our own rulesets that’s fine but please don’t use a subrule created for situations not anything like this current one.

 

[Eledyr]

Not that I'm concerned by those changes because I'm ass at the game and will likely never play in WCoP, but what's the issue with changing the eligibility at national level? I'm not advocating for a return of "I live in France but I was born in Canada so I should be able to play for Canada". I think it's legitimate to let Puerto Rico play for either themselves, or for Latin America, its status as a part of USA is disjointed and I think an exception wouldn't change the fundamentals of how the world cup is constructed. Plus like I said, this case is different from what cultural eligibility was intented aka players individually signing in for a different country because they were born somewhere. This wouldn't change that, but rather the entirety of Puerto Rico players to sign up for LA instead.

I wish everyone a nice week.

 

[Django]

I do think the conversation about opening the door to multiple new eligibility issues is a bit of slippery slope fallacy. The issue at hand seems pretty cut and dry - Puerto Ricans consider themselves part of LA, so let them en mass play for LA. By doing this you're not forcing TDs to make a one time judgement on all disputes across the globe, and if anything you can create the precedent that allows individual states / countries / territories to self select in the extremely rare edge cases that do come up. It's telling we haven't actually heard from anyone in a similar situation because these really are edge cases and are very unlikely to come up with any regularity.

Blocking what is a legitimate concern right now for the sake of unknown theoretical future edge cases feels like needless bureaucracy. Why not simply let this one go through, then if it causes huge issues next year (it won't) you can always just reverse it. Allowing disputed eligibilities to self select as a group feels clean, simple, and respects the identities of those individuals rather than creating needlessly complex frameworks.

 

[July]

Want to echo that players from Taiwan and Hong Kong should also be able to play for Asia. Speaking mainly on Taiwan, it has it's own culture and operates as a defacto independant but is barred from joining Asia due to it being not recognized in UN. without diving into politics, Taiwan players should be able to at least choose between Asia and China (the suggestion drifting gave is very clean). As for Hong Kong it is also a Special Administrative Region and has notable difference from China. Despite their relations with china, they have their own Olympic team, anthem, and flag and etc (dont want to dive to deep here). TDs should allow some cases that are not currently entertained by UN and it is not very hard to identify and doesn't require alot geo political expertise. I hope there can be some breathing room made for these cases. Thanks.

 

[Irpachuza]

What I see here are two different issues that might entangle each other, and both need to be solved for before clearing PR's eligibility without having to relay in good faith exceptions:
- PR can't play for Latam because it's not independent from the US via UN definitions, which are the optimal objective way of determining what is an independent territory and what isn't.
- PR can't play for Latam even if deemed independent because Latam is a culturally defined region and PR might not be part of it, according to the original concept of the Latam subdivision. (EDITED definition of this premise after some feedback)
I will address both of these premises as I think they are flawed and convoluting an issue that we all agree shouldn't be an issue, hopefully offering TDs simpler approaches that don't allow for slippery slopes or eligibility abuses (or at least, not more than the statu quo ones).

I think July makes a great point. I understand the TD's position on not owning the deciding call of independence/differentiation of a territory from another (I imagine that UK or Spain wouldn't be happy if very lax rulings would allow Catalan or Scottish players to go to Europe, or needing to force a Kosovian to play for Serbia). My question though is that why are we basing everything on the geopolitical (!) nuances of what the UN (!!) believes its an independent country when the Olympics are right there. There is no better, cleaner, and "objective" definition of "territory independent enough to have its own set of representatives in amateur world-wide competitions" than the Olympics. This addresses clean's worries about TDs deciding on the legitimacy of a territory being independent enough to be considered for WCoP by relying on the most legitimate international sports event's criteria. The Olympic committee actually allows a National Olympic Committee into the Olympics, not "countries", based on the capacity they have to promote basic amateur sporting values and competitiveness; surely we can use that classification as a baseline for what entails being a World Cup of Pokemon eligible territory.
Proposal 1: If your territory has its own Olympics team (NOC), you are WCoP eligible to that territory. This is geographical eligibility, as always, based on a list of teams internationally recognized worldwide.
Addendum: some colonies/territories offer the motherlands' nationality automatically (see: French Guyana, Guam, Puerto Rico!). If a person is eligible on that territory, they can pick (and get locked into) the motherland, but only in those cases. It has nuance, and sadly there is always space for geopolitical issues (for example, territories in dispute are not always colonies but literally pieces of land called their own by multiple countries), but it's still more straightforward (being from there gives double citizenship or it doesn't) than the current shenanigans that Ken mentions regarding territories in dispute.

tl;dr Only if there is an Olympic team, you are eligible to that place. If being from that place implies double nationality, pick the one you want to represent, once.

Now, while I think ken raises some good points, I wanted to address this one:

The examples from FIFA / FIBA / the Olympics actually point in a different direction: they support Puerto Rico being treated as its own entity, not being reassigned to a broader cultural region. That’s a fundamentally different proposal than integrating it into Team Latin America, and it doesn’t really support the change being suggested here.

Even under that model, Puerto Rico wouldn’t automatically gain Latin American eligibility. If anything, it would exist independently when possible and otherwise still fall back on its geopolitical classification, which brings us back to the same starting point. The obvious complication there is that it would also require revisiting the “no two teams from a single region” rule, since territories are currently grouped with the country that governs or 'owns' them under UN recognition.

On Latam eligibility and definition:
Where do people from Barbados play? In WCoR, Pokeblade plays for Latam, and so did Vioker, because geographically it's what corresponds to Barbados and T&T. Latinoamerica is culturally delineated, but by no means we should keep denying that there is a geographical factor involved in that cultural build-up. Culturally and historically, anyone from Bahamas, Belize, Haiti, Trinidad & Tobago, and other countries and territories not colonized by Spain/Portugal has more in common culturally with other Latin Americans than, for example, people from South Korea and Azerbaijan playing for Asia. Drifting already mentioned this, and most posts here are echoing the sentiment. "If anything, it [PR] would exist independently when possible and otherwise still fall back on its geopolitical classification, which brings us back to the same starting point." No. It would simply be eligible under the same geographical premises as Barbados or Trinidad & Tobago.
If you want to argue that therefore Latam is geographically defined and not culturally, like... Ok? Latin America eligibility could be simply South and Center America + Mexico and Caribbean, if "cultural" definitions are an issue. Brazil, Argentina, Mexico almost always show up with their own teams in most WCs. Brazil by itself has 30% of Latam's population. Mexico + Argentina + Venezuela make up another 30%. The rest of the region can surely make its own WCoP team just fine without being overpowered like it'd happen with the US or Europe. We know that because it's what's been happening for decades (even with Mex, Arg, and Ven inside!), debatably without including some islands on the Antillas at worst.

Proposal 2: define Latam geographically, because culturally it works and demographically site-wise its bigger countries have already split from the main continental team so even if it's a big continent, it's far from overpowered.

 

[a fairy]

... Bahamas, Belize, Haiti, Trinidad & Tobago, and other countries and territories ...

Not weighing in more formally bc I am maybe the biggest WC hater on the TD team but: Do you have an example of a territory/colony in that region that defaults to LatAm? It's hard to say "It would simply be eligible under the same geographical premises as Barbados or Trinidad & Tobago" when there's a pretty big difference between your two examples and PR - PR isn't a country under literally any definition.

 

[Irpachuza]

Not weighing in more formally bc I am maybe the biggest WC hater on the TD team but: Do you have an example of a territory/colony in that region that defaults to LatAm? It's hard to say "It would simply be eligible under the same geographical premises as Barbados or Trinidad & Tobago" when there's a pretty big difference between your two examples and PR - PR isn't a country under literally any definition.

Via my first proposal, Puerto Rico doesn't need to be a country, it needs to have a NOC at Olympics. Relying on the geopolitically complicated definition of countries is way more unreliable and it does not make sense if what we are trying to organize here is an amateur competitive event, which the Olympics are the most legitimized example of. Your post, though, is a great example of why both proposals need each other to function.

 

[a fairy]

ken's response to Feliburn re: Olympics about sums up my POV on trying to change the international organization of choice for definitions as an attempt to backdoor changes - it doesn't make sense to me gut instinct, and it doesn't actually work in practice if you take a moment to work through the stages of what that would look like from a TD POV when it comes to keeping the rules logical and objective and avoiding dozens or more "can you please okay me to qualify for this team" questions that we already get but would now be way harder because we aren't being objective anymore

 

[ChrisPBacon]

The amount of smogon red tape on this thread is so gross. Fully support drifting’s proposal for dual eligibility in these edge cases, I promise If you go down this road it will not be all or nothing since this is the first time this has popped up since eligibility rules changed. Trying to conserve the status quo is benefitting literally nobody

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

The amount of smogon red tape on this thread is so gross. Fully support drifting’s proposal for dual eligibility in these edge cases, I promise If you go down this road it will not be all or nothing since this is the first time this has popped up since eligibility rules changed. Trying to conserve the status quo is benefitting literally nobody

My guy, the entire history of smogon world cup is this exact thread over and over and over and over. It's literally happened within this same thread from the Taiwan poster. I sympathize with the situation but it's naive to think this is a low impact or isolated event when the current structure is in place explicitly because these eligibility issues were rampant at every stage they were allowed. I would like to see some compromise and adjustment but it's no trivial thing to undo.

 

[ChrisPBacon]

it's no trivial thing to undo.

I posted to support a suggestion that is unironically extremely trivial

 

[Irpachuza]

ken's response to Feliburn re: Olympics about sums up my POV on trying to change the international organization of choice for definitions as an attempt to backdoor changes

I don't really think this whole thread is an attempt at "backdoor changes", I think there is legitimacy on the PR situation that reflects a clearly described loophole in WCoR's definitions.

it doesn't make sense to me gut instinct, and it doesn't actually work in practice if you take a moment to work through the stages of what that would look like from a TD POV when it comes to keeping the rules logical and objective and avoiding dozens or more "can you please okay me to qualify for this team" questions that we already get

It would be very constructive for this response if you could take a moment to work us through "the stages of what would look like from a TD POV" instead of hand gesturing it as problematic.
If anything, the Olympics proposal is an attempt at simplifying TDs responsibilities, since they have made very clear here that they really don't like having to decide on the legitimacy of a territory being independent, or part of which country. The Olympics solution literally removes the need for them to make that call.

would now be way harder because we aren't being objective anymore

The Olympics method is extremely more objective than the status quo, specially in the topic of colonies and territories in dispute, so I really fail to see while you say that we wouldn't be objective anymore. Is it because we decide to use a different definition of countries than the UN? That'd be a very subjective choice if we cared about what's a country and what's not, and my point is that we shouldn't have to, to the point of even not mentioning that topic (as sometimes what's a country or not can result offensive to others). I once again resonate with ken and clean's posts, suggesting them that if they don't want to have to meddle in geopolitical discussions for something like WCoR, maybe we should not use the most geopolitical classification in the world for it, and instead use the most legitimated classification for worldwide representatives in competitive events, because that's what we are trying to organize here.

 

[Separation]

Since we are not a political forum I do not think we should cross the borderline of Olympic when we are talking about Hong Kong or Taiwan.

just look at the millions of people in Hong Kong out in the streets because they explicitly don’t feel as if they are a part of China

Things like this shouldn't be allowed, please don't talk like you know anything about China.

Personally I think it's cool that Hong Kong and Taiwan players can choose what team they will be playing for, though.

 

[Drifting]

Since we are not a political forum I do not think we should cross the borderline of Olympic when we are talking about Hong Kong or Taiwan.

Things like this shouldn't be allowed, please don't talk like you know anything about China.

Personally I think it's cool that Hong Kong and Taiwan players can choose what team they will be playing for, though.

My bad bro, didn’t intend to cause any offence to anyone with my post, sorry if I accidentally did. Have a blessed day

 

[ego]

I don't really think this whole thread is an attempt at "backdoor changes", I think there is legitimacy on the PR situation that reflects a clearly described loophole in WCoR's definitions.

It would be very constructive for this response if you could take a moment to work us through "the stages of what would look like from a TD POV" instead of hand gesturing it as problematic.
If anything, the Olympics proposal is an attempt at simplifying TDs responsibilities, since they have made very clear here that they really don't like having to decide on the legitimacy of a territory being independent, or part of which country. The Olympics solution literally removes the need for them to make that call.

The Olympics method is extremely more objective than the status quo, specially in the topic of colonies and territories in dispute, so I really fail to see while you say that we wouldn't be objective anymore. Is it because we decide to use a different definition of countries than the UN? That'd be a very subjective choice if we cared about what's a country and what's not, and my point is that we shouldn't have to, to the point of even not mentioning that topic (as sometimes what's a country or not can result offensive to others). I once again resonate with ken and clean's posts, suggesting them that if they don't want to have to meddle in geopolitical discussions for something like WCoR, maybe we should not use the most geopolitical classification in the world for it, and instead use the most legitimated classification for worldwide representatives in competitive events, because that's what we are trying to organize here.

For what it's worth, the Olympics also decided back in 1996 that this wasn't a question they wanted to be legislating either, hence why they changed their rules to say that only independent states recognized by the UN would be allowed to field teams going forward. Every example of an Olympic team that isn't its own independent nation is an exception grandfathered in from an earlier era of more permissive rules. (those exceptions are Kosovo, Taiwan, the Cook Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Aruba, and Hong Kong) Making this the basis for eligibility doesn't make things more objective, it's just a slightly more permissive lateral move. It just so happens that it covers the specific case here without changing any of the underlying principles on eligibility; if this thread was asking about Curaçao instead it wouldn't be so neat.

That said, changing the WCOP eligibility criterion from one international standard to another doesn't make things any less objective either. And if the consensus is "objective criteria are good but we'd rather a slightly more expansive list of countries to handle some edge cases," then this is a fairly unintrusive change that doesn't introduce the need for hosts to make new judgment calls.

The examples from FIFA / FIBA / the Olympics actually point in a different direction: they support Puerto Rico being treated as its own entity, not being reassigned to a broader cultural region. That’s a fundamentally different proposal than integrating it into Team Latin America, and it doesn’t really support the change being suggested here.

Even under that model, Puerto Rico wouldn’t automatically gain Latin American eligibility. If anything, it would exist independently when possible and otherwise still fall back on its geopolitical classification, which brings us back to the same starting point. The obvious complication there is that it would also require revisiting the “no two teams from a single region” rule, since territories are currently grouped with the country that governs or 'owns' them under UN recognition.

If the Olympics had continental teams, i.e. they grouped together teams without enough participants to field their own, and their initial eligibility list had Puerto Rico as its own entity, they definitely would not be regrouped with the US. The Olympics counts Puerto Rico as equivalent to Trinidad and Tobago or the Dominican Republic (which is different than how the UN does it, of course), and Smogon grants both of them Latin America access. A neat parallel doesn't exist because the Olympics doesn't have international teams, but if Smogon used Olympic boundaries and allowed Puerto Rico to form an independent team, then by its own rules on continental team eligibility Puerto Rico would be eligible for LA.

I have no horse in this race and don't think there's an obvious answer, but if the hosts actually think PR eligibility is an issue they want to solve, then at least shifting to Olympic eligibility is the option that doesn't introduce any new subjectivity into the equation (beyond "which international standard is the preferred one, I guess).

eligibility changes under the olympic map

Here's every new team that'd be eligible according to Olympic rules. I indicated both the eligible country and the eligible continental team in the event that the country failed to form a team (i.e. obviously China currently has a WCOP team but if they lacked the players to form then everyone in China would be eligible for team Asia)

Kosovo: Serbia/Europe > Kosovo/Europe
Taiwan: China/Asia > Taiwan/Asia
Cook Islands: New Zealand/Oceania > Cook Islands/Oceania
American Samoa: US South/(irrelevant, US has never failed to form) > American Samoa/Oceania
Guam: US South/(irrelevant) > Guam/Oceania
Puerto Rico: US South/(irrelevant) > Puerto Rico/Latin America
US Virgin Islands: US South/(irrelevant) > US Virgin Islands/Latin America
Bermuda: UK/Europe > Bermuda/(this one's messy; if you treat it as independent and Bermuda couldn't form its own team then its continental team would hypothetically be North America? but that team doesn't exist. Issue is solved by replacing team Latin America with team Americas to be a true continental team, fwiw)
British Virgin Islands: UK/Europe > British Virgin Islands/Latin America
Cayman Islands: UK/Europe > Cayman Islands/Latin America
Aruba: Netherlands/Europe > Aruba/Latin America
Hong Kong: China/Asia > Hong Kong/Asia