Tag Archives: design

FIFA™ World Cup™ 2018™ Russia™ sweepstake format

In anticipation of the upcoming FIFA™ World Cup™ 2018™ Russia™ I came up with an optimised office sweepstake format. And some handouts to print to run it in your office.

It aims to:
– make it interesting for all participants for as long as possible
– give all participants a reasonable chance of winning a prize
– encourage intra-office “banter”
– work for a smallish sized office (we conveniently have about 16 staff).

The basics

The sweepstake is a random draw, with each participant drawing a single pair of teams.

The pair of teams consists of one team from the top 16 and one team from the bottom 16 of teams in the World Cup™ (as determined by their FIFA ranking). Each top team is matched with its inverse bottom team, so the highest ranked top 16 team (Germany) is matched with the lowest ranked bottom 16 team (Russia), the second best top 16 team (Brazil) is matched with the second worst bottom 16 team (Saudi Arabia) and so on.

The pairings therefore work out like so:

  • Germany (1) and Russia (65)
  • Brazil (2) and Saudi Arabia (63)
  • Portugal (3) and South Korea (62)
  • Argentina (4) and Panama (49)
  • Belgium (5) and Morocco (48)
  • Poland (6) and Australia (43)
  • France (7) and Japan (44)
  • Spain (8) and Nigeria (41)
  • Peru (10) and Serbia (38)
  • Switzerland (11) and Iran (34)
  • England (12) and Senegal (32)
  • Colombia (13) and Egypt (30)
  • Mexico (16) and Tunisia (28)
  • Uruguay (17) and Sweden (25)
  • Croatia (18) and Costa Rica (22)
  • Denmark (19) and Iceland (21)

Note: the positions of Australia and Japan have been swapped to ensure no pair of teams are in the same group.

Download a printable set of the pairs to run your draw with (PDF, 25kb)

The draw

  1. Each participant randomly draws a pair of teams from the hat, in exchange for the entry fee.
  2. If there are pairs left after everyone in the office has had a chance to enter then those interested can draw a second pair for another entry fee.
  3. You can trade your pairs by mutual consent up until the start of the tournament (Friday 15 June).

Note: For bigger offices, simply double/triple/quadruple as required. For extra variety, you could mix up the pairings for the second group of pairs by swapping the adjacently ranked bottom 16 teams (e.g. swap Russia and Saudi Arabia so Germany and Saudia Arabia are a pair etc.). This would mean all participants have different pairs without too much disruption to the balance of the pairs.

Download a printable sheet to keep track of everything on (PDF, 25kb)

The prizes

The total prize pool for the sweepstake is divided into two equal prizes:

  • Prize A will go to the person with the highest finishing team from the top 16 (likely, but not certainly, the FIFA™ World Cup™ 2018™ Russia™ Winner™).
  • Prize B will go to the highest finishing team from the bottom 16 teams (also known as the “fairy-tale” team).

In the event of two or more teams finishing first in either pool (unlikely for Prize A, likely in Prize B) the following tie-break conditions will apply, in this order:

  1. head to head result (if the two teams happen to have played each other)
  2. highest points total in pool play
  3. best goal difference
  4. total number of goals scored.

If two teams are still equal on all these measures then the prize pool will be divided evenly.

Disputes

The sweepstake judge’s decision is final.

Keep track

If you need a wall chart, here is one with NZ times: World Cup Wall Chart with NZ times (PDF, 389kb).

It’s based on this one by Glory Mag,it looks nice and is black and white for easy printing.

Final launch preparations initiated

Wow! I’m pretty blown away by the response so far to us going semi-public with Renters United. So far we have around 130 people saying they’ll come along to the launch event which is amazing, especially when for most all they know about us is one sentence we put together for the holding page:

We want: To organise renters and campaign to make renting better for everyone in Wellington.

Launch day is 8 April and between now and then there is a lot to organise. At the moment I am busy making the holding page into an actually website. Initially it’ll do two things:

  1. Tell people more about us.
  2. Let people join. 

Also on the design front we are planning to produce a bunch of recruitment posters so those who are keen can start spreading the word in their flats, workplaces and property managers offices.

Keep an eye here for more work-in-progress on the website and the posters.

Does design have a conscience?

To most people “design” is analogous to “making things pretty” but good design is really about finding elegant solutions to complex problems. It then follows that if design solves problems then it can do good and – equally – when practiced badly it can do harm.

This is the central argument in Mike Monteiro’s talk from Webstock last year. If you’re a designer, work on things that involve design, or are interested in how professional ethics get bashed out in a new field find the 48 minutes to watch:

We are mired in a design culture that eight doesn’t understand its responsibility to the world we live in. Or worse, it doesn’t care.

— Mike Monteiro in How Designers Destroyed the World.

He makes a very strong case that designers need to take far greater responsibility for “what they put into the world”. In particular it’s just not good enough to say “fuck it” when the going gets tough.

Towards the end of the talk Monteiro makes explicit the political issues that inform his personal and professional ethics. They are far from radical in and of themselves but they did make me wonder: can digital design have any political imperative in the 21st century? Does it have a conscience?

The 19th and 20th centuries are marked by art, design and architectural movements that sought to harness and direct their practice for the good of humanity.

Is digital design in the 21st century similarly capable of acting for real change or has “changing the world” now just be relegated to another meaningless platitude wedged into Silicon Valley mission statements?