HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

ATD2012 rules discussion thread (see post 169 for the latest proposed rules)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-22-2011, 03:16 PM
  #51
Jafar
Keep it logical
 
Jafar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,695
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiLLY_ShOE1721 View Post
Refresh my mind, what exactly happened? I don't remember that.
I had Gretzky and wanted Lemieux and tried to trade for him by giving an obscene amount of good picks , it was literally my first week in the ATD and I didn't knew the value of those picks back then , I just wanted Gretzky-Lemieux down the middle.Looking back it was a pretty stupid move and I'm glad they vetoed it cause I managed to draft Lidstrom anyway giving a lot less.If the Lemieux trade would have been legal , Zamboni Mania ( VI ) would have won the ATD no doubt about it.We need to veto those type of trades for sure.

Jafar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 05:44 PM
  #52
VanIslander
Hockey in the blood.
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 17,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReenMachine View Post
I had Gretzky and wanted Lemieux and tried to trade for him by giving an obscene amount of good picks , it was literally my first week in the ATD and I didn't knew the value of those picks back then , I just wanted Gretzky-Lemieux down the middle.Looking back it was a pretty stupid move and I'm glad they vetoed it cause I managed to draft Lidstrom anyway giving a lot less.If the Lemieux trade would have been legal , Zamboni Mania ( VI ) would have won the ATD no doubt about it.We need to veto those type of trades for sure.
I'm sorry, but you must be talking about my co-GM. I was NOT eager to make any trades, but came in late in negotiations. He got frustrated at our lack of trading (I wasn't exactly eager), and then when we failed to trade up to nab Selanne before seventieslord ended up drafting him, my co-GM simply went AWOL and quit the draft.

BTW.. 'Winning' is overrated and trading ought to be marginal. The ATD discussions were best when focused on 'player x' is better than 'player y', focusing more on draft ORDER than team building. But that's an older era. We are into a more playoff-focused time, and so be it. But we lose some great GMs who get in a huff when their team is ranked low or get bounced early in the playoffs. It really is sad. MXD and Iain Fyffe are two who come to mind who expressed outrage at how their teams were treated, then up and disappeared. I could make a list.

VanIslander is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 10:32 PM
  #53
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,328
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReenMachine View Post
If you have unlimited amount of trades and win 75% of them , you can have a serious advantage over good drafting GMs who decide not to trade.
yeah, that is true. it's why we need to monitor trading.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
Trading takes away from the player appreciation focus, makes it more of a game. the dream some of us have of a no-trades ATD might never happen, but we can still dream...
yes you can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
when we failed to trade up to nab Selanne before seventieslord ended up drafting him
wow, that would have changed the course of the draft right there. Don't know what I'd have done. I won three series in 7 games. The massive value I had with Selanne in the 130s had to have tipped the scales one of those times.

Quote:
BTW.. 'Winning' is overrated and trading ought to be marginal. The ATD discussions were best when focused on 'player x' is better than 'player y', focusing more on draft ORDER than team building. But that's an older era. We are into a more playoff-focused time, and so be it. But we lose some great GMs who get in a huff when their team is ranked low or get bounced early in the playoffs. It really is sad. MXD and Iain Fyffe are two who come to mind who expressed outrage at how their teams were treated, then up and disappeared. I could make a list.
Iain's team was not very good... he was a rookie. MXD's team was OK but not exceptional, and there was intense parody last draft. maybe 5 teams stood out to me as very good, and maybe 6-7 as easy opponents.

anyway, how is that an argument against trading?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2011, 09:19 AM
  #54
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReenMachine View Post
I had Gretzky and wanted Lemieux and tried to trade for him by giving an obscene amount of good picks , it was literally my first week in the ATD and I didn't knew the value of those picks back then , I just wanted Gretzky-Lemieux down the middle.Looking back it was a pretty stupid move and I'm glad they vetoed it cause I managed to draft Lidstrom anyway giving a lot less.If the Lemieux trade would have been legal , Zamboni Mania ( VI ) would have won the ATD no doubt about it.We need to veto those type of trades for sure.
Within my first week as an ATD GM I was about 3 threads deep in a debate over Lemieux/Howe (I picked Lemieux over Howe at 3) and to this day I still don't regret the pick.

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2011, 11:26 AM
  #55
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
BTW.. 'Winning' is overrated and trading ought to be marginal. The ATD discussions were best when focused on 'player x' is better than 'player y', focusing more on draft ORDER than team building. But that's an older era. We are into a more playoff-focused time, and so be it. But we lose some great GMs who get in a huff when their team is ranked low or get bounced early in the playoffs. It really is sad. MXD and Iain Fyffe are two who come to mind who expressed outrage at how their teams were treated, then up and disappeared. I could make a list.
I say this as a more general address, though I quote and semi-address you since it touches on an issue I've wanted to bring up.

Competition does have its positives, though. It drives people to put extra effort into research. The "player x" is better than "player y" objective mentality still exists in the form of comparisons during research, that people do bring up when the other considerations are drafted. It also exists in a bias mentality, but this can often be a good thing; it allows people to call into question things we otherwise wouldn't, and that can be a very good thing.

We shouldn't try to remove competition from the ATD, but should make efforts to stop the face-saving behaviour that comes with it.

The issue I think is not so much with competition itself, but the face-saving behaviour that comes from it. When people do more poorly than they hoped, it comes out in abundance; "This competition is rigged, "The ATD is stupid anyway," "They obviously didn't know enough and misjudged my team", "Screw this, I quit," and so on. I think most ATD GMs have been guilty of this (myself included), whether or not they voiced it.

Face-saving behaviour is fairly ingrained into people, so it can't be outright removed. But we should try to discourage it from undermining the ATD, or else costing us GMs.

How can this be done? To prevent undermining, we must make clear that any complaints about the format/bias issues with the ATD system need to come BEFORE or AFTER the ATD itself, and not just come from dissasitifcation with their team placement. Excessive whining about placement needs to be put to a halt when it stars, and encouraged to leave it till after the ATD. Besides removing the bias, this will stop the more superfulous complaints which are largely emotive and thus fade with time.

Secondly, try to lesson the value of winning. Emphasize the superfulous nature of the competition, that winning is fairly meaningless, and that good research and bios are what really deserves credit, rather than winning in some series. As long as the institution is in place, it will still drive people, but it can still be devalued and thus the face-saving behaviour lessoned.

Thirdly, emphasize what people are getting into more when they sign up for the ATD, and outline all expectations extremely explictily and perhaps with some bruality. That they NEED to be thick-skinned, NEED to stay committed even if their team crashes and burns from a competitive standpoint, and CAN'T criticize the ATD, or certain GMs, just because their team did not do wel from a competitive standpointl. Link this also with devaluation of the competition itself.

Fourthly, other than shutting down excessive whining, address vocal face-saving behaviour well. The best way to do this, I think, is to point out it as exactly what it is when it comes up; a socially ingrained thing within all of us that needs to be pushed aside for the well-running of the ATD. Try to lessen the blows with whatever praise can be managed, and again, devalue the winning process. Remind them of why they signed up in the first place, and of the promises they made when signing up, and remind them that such emotive responses will fade.

Face-saving behaviour causes far too much conflict and causes too many GMs to leave, but with simple measures, I think it can be avoided.

*Phew*.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2011, 12:54 PM
  #56
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
I'm sorry, but you must be talking about my co-GM. I was NOT eager to make any trades, but came in late in negotiations. He got frustrated at our lack of trading (I wasn't exactly eager), and then when we failed to trade up to nab Selanne before seventieslord ended up drafting him, my co-GM simply went AWOL and quit the draft.
No, I'm talking about the "Zamboni Mania" account that made the offending trade. That personna quit very early in the draft. "TheSabre" was the account whose co-GM quit. I can see how you'd have the two of them confused.

Quote:
BTW.. 'Winning' is overrated and trading ought to be marginal. The ATD discussions were best when focused on 'player x' is better than 'player y', focusing more on draft ORDER than team building. But that's an older era. We are into a more playoff-focused time, and so be it. But we lose some great GMs who get in a huff when their team is ranked low or get bounced early in the playoffs. It really is sad. MXD and Iain Fyffe are two who come to mind who expressed outrage at how their teams were treated, then up and disappeared. I could make a list.
I don't understand how the biggest advocate of "role players" in these drafts has an issue with the "team building" aspect of these things.

I agree with you that sometimes the trading thing can get silly.

I'd actually be fine with a no-trading draft, but the majority seems to not want that.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 11-23-2011 at 12:59 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2011, 03:48 PM
  #57
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,671
vCash: 500
I'd rather see less teams and more co-gms.

I also don't care if we have 37 teams if that's the natural number. We can, heaven forbid, have teams miss the playoffs...

As for trades. I'm obviously for them, always have been, always will be. How about rules restricting trading by rookie GMs. Someone in their 5th draft knows damn well what they are giving up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
We shouldn't try to remove competition from the ATD, but should make efforts to stop the face-saving behaviour that comes with it.

The issue I think is not so much with competition itself, but the face-saving behaviour that comes from it. When people do more poorly than they hoped, it comes out in abundance; "This competition is rigged, "The ATD is stupid anyway," "They obviously didn't know enough and misjudged my team", "Screw this, I quit," and so on. I think most ATD GMs have been guilty of this (myself included), whether or not they voiced it.

Face-saving behaviour is fairly ingrained into people, so it can't be outright removed. But we should try to discourage it from undermining the ATD, or else costing us GMs.

How can this be done? To prevent undermining, we must make clear that any complaints about the format/bias issues with the ATD system need to come BEFORE or AFTER the ATD itself, and not just come from dissasitifcation with their team placement. Excessive whining about placement needs to be put to a halt when it stars, and encouraged to leave it till after the ATD. Besides removing the bias, this will stop the more superfulous complaints which are largely emotive and thus fade with time.

Secondly, try to lesson the value of winning. Emphasize the superfulous nature of the competition, that winning is fairly meaningless, and that good research and bios are what really deserves credit, rather than winning in some series. As long as the institution is in place, it will still drive people, but it can still be devalued and thus the face-saving behaviour lessoned.

Thirdly, emphasize what people are getting into more when they sign up for the ATD, and outline all expectations extremely explictily and perhaps with some bruality. That they NEED to be thick-skinned, NEED to stay committed even if their team crashes and burns from a competitive standpoint, and CAN'T criticize the ATD, or certain GMs, just because their team did not do wel from a competitive standpointl. Link this also with devaluation of the competition itself.

Fourthly, other than shutting down excessive whining, address vocal face-saving behaviour well. The best way to do this, I think, is to point out it as exactly what it is when it comes up; a socially ingrained thing within all of us that needs to be pushed aside for the well-running of the ATD. Try to lessen the blows with whatever praise can be managed, and again, devalue the winning process. Remind them of why they signed up in the first place, and of the promises they made when signing up, and remind them that such emotive responses will fade.

Face-saving behaviour causes far too much conflict and causes too many GMs to leave, but with simple measures, I think it can be avoided.

*Phew*.
Agreed 100%. For whatever reason my teams tend to be viewed as regular season only teams and as such have been subject to the biggest "upsets" in the playoffs. It's frustrating as hell, but we have to remember that everyone puts work in and only a few get to win. Man up and take it on the chin. I honestly dont care to compete against people who can't compete with class. And lets be honest here, building a team from scratch is WAY more fun than competing. So quiting just denies you a great time.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.

Last edited by Nalyd Psycho: 11-23-2011 at 04:01 PM.
Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2011, 05:35 PM
  #58
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
As for trades. I'm obviously for them, always have been, always will be. How about rules restricting trading by rookie GMs. Someone in their 5th draft knows damn well what they are giving up.
.
I definitely think that any trading committee (or the body of the draft if there isn't one) should be much more suspicious of trades that appear lopsided if they are between a 1st or 2nd time GM and a "vet."

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2011, 06:07 PM
  #59
Jafar
Keep it logical
 
Jafar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,695
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
Within my first week as an ATD GM I was about 3 threads deep in a debate over Lemieux/Howe (I picked Lemieux over Howe at 3) and to this day I still don't regret the pick.
I agree 100% with the fact Lemieux was a better player and since I had the 2nd overall I traded down to 3rd overall thinking the 2nd would pick Gretzky and then I would pick Lemieux , but the 2nd picked Howe and between Gretzky and Lemieux , 2 very similar players , I had no choice but to pick Gretzky.

To be honest , thinking about it now , even if I think Lemieux is superior to Howe I think I would take Howe 1st overall in a ATD style competition.He's got no real weaknessess so I think he's the easier to built with and to defend ATD wise.

Jafar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2011, 06:48 PM
  #60
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
I think a very small committee (TDMM, seventies, etc..) who can veto trades involving rookie GMs, but not trades amongst GMs who have both participated in the ATD before, is a great idea. Puts a safeguard in place to protect beginners from hurting their team or harming the competitive balance of the draft, but does not allow any GMs to violate the independence of other competing GMs who have a reasonable clue as to what they're doing if they've participated before, and are just taking a calculated risk + creative liberty in their opinion.

hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2011, 05:49 PM
  #61
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,328
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungryhungryhippy View Post
I think a very small committee (TDMM, seventies, etc..) who can veto trades involving rookie GMs, but not trades amongst GMs who have both participated in the ATD before, is a great idea. Puts a safeguard in place to protect beginners from hurting their team or harming the competitive balance of the draft, but does not allow any GMs to violate the independence of other competing GMs who have a reasonable clue as to what they're doing if they've participated before, and are just taking a calculated risk + creative liberty in their opinion.
I personally would prefer the committee watches all trades, but now that you mention it, I doubt we would ever need to take action on a trade involving two veteran GMs.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2011, 11:24 PM
  #62
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I personally would prefer the committee watches all trades, but now that you mention it, I doubt we would ever need to take action on a trade involving two veteran GMs.
For all the bellyaching about the trade committee last year, it only actually vetoed the one trade and the then-rookie involved in that trade (Reen) even says it was a ridiculous trade now that he's knowledgable about player value.

I highly doubt a vet would let himself be taken advantage of like that, but it's not impossible and if it does happen, it should be vetoed.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2011, 09:05 AM
  #63
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
BTW.. 'Winning' is overrated and trading ought to be marginal. The ATD discussions were best when focused on 'player x' is better than 'player y', focusing more on draft ORDER than team building. But that's an older era. We are into a more playoff-focused time, and so be it. But we lose some great GMs who get in a huff when their team is ranked low or get bounced early in the playoffs. It really is sad. MXD and Iain Fyffe are two who come to mind who expressed outrage at how their teams were treated, then up and disappeared. I could make a list.
I think it depends what a person wants to get out of the draft.

I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy placing high in the rankings and winning play-off series, but there's more to it for me. I enjoy the research. I enjoy building up players that I feel are under-rated or under-researched.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2011, 09:13 AM
  #64
VanIslander
Hockey in the blood.
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 17,375
vCash: 500
I miss the days we used to argue who was drafted 210th as better than 197th, but that's so 2006. Times change...

The ranking is not so much important these days as the TEAM-building component.

So be it. Lots of great players from hockey history are being recognized, lots of stuff learned every draft, not the same splitting of hairs with the top-50 or top-100 players as happens on the History board.

It's the bios and the discussions of player attributes that keeps me rockin' the ATD. Long live the All-Time Draft!

VanIslander is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2011, 11:50 AM
  #65
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
I miss the days we used to argue who was drafted 210th as better than 197th, but that's so 2006. Times change...

The ranking is not so much important these days as the TEAM-building component.

So be it. Lots of great players from hockey history are being recognized, lots of stuff learned every draft, not the same splitting of hairs with the top-50 or top-100 players as happens on the History board.

It's the bios and the discussions of player attributes that keeps me rockin' the ATD. Long live the All-Time Draft!
I see lots of that every draft.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2011, 01:58 PM
  #66
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
I miss the days we used to argue who was drafted 210th as better than 197th, but that's so 2006. Times change...
I think you forgot how much flack I took for taking Sergei Zubov where I did. The problem isn't that we don't discuss, it's that the discussions have gotten more and more derisive. And I goota say, I feel it's kinda disingenuous that you are complaining so much about this when it was your ruthless character assassination of Eddie Oatman that was probably the biggest step in this direction.

Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2011, 04:29 PM
  #67
VanIslander
Hockey in the blood.
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 17,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
I think you forgot how much flack I took for taking Sergei Zubov where I did. The problem isn't that we don't discuss, it's that the discussions have gotten more and more derisive. And I goota say, I feel it's kinda disingenuous that you are complaining so much about this when it was your ruthless character assassination of Eddie Oatman that was probably the biggest step in this direction.
I did not forget nor am being disingenuous. I was not talking about criticizing a pick for being bad. Of course that happens every draft. (Svatos! Ugh.) I meant the round-by-round analysis of who is drafted where, the best picks of the round, the relative merits of picks, treating the draft order as a ranking. The culture of the draft started to change with the adoption of a set playoff format, then God Bless Canada kept saying "Hey, as long as you get your guy", as the tide turned more toward team building than draft order justice. It's a matter of emphasis, of where attention is paid.

The great thing about the ATDs in recent years has been the development of the bios (I stand by the two-hour long analytical criticism I made of Oatman at the time, the PCHA season-by-season breakdown I did, as the pick was justified based on those stats; since that draft, the Oatman bio has added lots of supporting biographical info, including praise from respected hockey sources, and I now believe he belongs somewhere in the ATD after all). That trend to doing detailed bios is fantastic, and sooner or later I'll get the hang of linking them with those cool underlined links that many are using these days. Building bios is where it's at!


Last edited by VanIslander: 11-25-2011 at 04:35 PM.
VanIslander is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2011, 05:25 PM
  #68
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
I think you forgot how much flack I took for taking Sergei Zubov where I did. The problem isn't that we don't discuss, it's that the discussions have gotten more and more derisive. And I goota say, I feel it's kinda disingenuous that you are complaining so much about this when it was your ruthless character assassination of Eddie Oatman that was probably the biggest step in this direction.
It wasn't all negative though. I was one of the biggest deriders of the Zubov pick, IIRC, but I also heaped a lot of praise on your Makarov pick, and later your Vezina pick after seeing the info you found on Georges.

I'm not sure why VI is decrying the "team building" aspects of the draft though, when he is one of the bigger advocates for role players, who are by definition drafted above otherwise better players to fill certain roles.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2011, 05:51 PM
  #69
VanIslander
Hockey in the blood.
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 17,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I'm not sure why VI is decrying the "team building" aspects of the draft though, when he is one of the bigger advocates for role players, who are by definition drafted above otherwise better players to fill certain roles.
I have always thought there are all-time great players who were career third line role players, and if a benefit of team building has been drafting them more then that's a good thing, but I often think role players are drafted too early ("glue" guy like Olmstead as 3rd-4th rounder? I love Tikkanen and Peca but they always go earlier than I think them worthy. Carbonneau used to drop and I drafted him years ago, but he's way too high picked these days, relative to the worth of other players available (NOT value to team building). Just look at goaltenders and how much flack a GM gets for drafting a backup early even though he's clearly the BPA. The whole, getting the BPA thing has been de-emphasized these days. Intangibles should be factored into determining the best player available, so if team building has contributed to the appreciation of defensive defensemen, penalty killers and energetic hitters then great. I never said it wasn't at all good. In fact, now that I think of it, the line-up assassinations have been amazing at times, and really more of that would be nice.

This point remains: we have had good posters get upset over ranking and playoff performances, acting as if the whole point of this is to win rather than to pick, confusing the end with the purpose. The playoffs were added to be frosting on the cake, not the heart of the matter. Anything that could emphasize the actually draft order and players themselves is a good thing in my books.

There was a day when the idea of this subboard in the Fantasy Talk and Hockey Video Games board was absurd; we began the ATD on the History board and ought to have been a subboard there, and it would be nice to return as a subboard there some day (just as the Prospects board has one subboard, a mock draft one).

SUGGESTION: Have bio construction and linking be a condition of making the playoffs. It isn't so draconian, will discourage the name-dropping picks, encourage more research and attention to bios. Yeah, some GMs won't put in much effort, but the point is to encourage more bio construction. Whether it ever becomes a rule or not, the making of bios ought to be applauded and expanded.

VanIslander is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2011, 05:55 PM
  #70
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,517
vCash: 844
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
SUGGESTION: Have bio construction and linking be a condition of making the playoffs. It isn't so draconian, will discourage the name-dropping picks, encourage more research and attention to bios. Yeah, some GMs won't put in much effort, but the point is to encourage more bio construction. Whether it ever becomes a rule or not, the making of bios ought to be applauded and expanded.
I'm all for bios and put a lot of effort into them myself, but I think this would be a terrible idea. I think it would turn a lot of people off.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2011, 06:04 PM
  #71
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiLLY_ShOE1721 View Post
I'm all for bios and put a lot of effort into them myself, but I think this would be a terrible idea. I think it would turn a lot of people off.
I agree....this is an absolutely ****ing terrible idea. I make bios and look for some good stuff to throw in them but jesus christ I think we've hit overkill here VanI. As in I think you've come up with some borderline bad ideas for this, but this one takes the cake.

Also, what do you care about this playoffs being as you're still suspended for the ATD next year anyway?

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2011, 06:07 PM
  #72
VanIslander
Hockey in the blood.
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 17,375
vCash: 500
Sorry to piss anyone off. See you in 2013.

VanIslander is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2011, 06:09 PM
  #73
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
Sorry to piss anyone off. See you in 2013.
I don't mean to be pissy, I just found that to be an absolutely atrocious idea that would turn off even some of the more responsible GMs biographically.

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2011, 06:17 PM
  #74
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,269
vCash: 500
The fact that every winning team since ATD12 has been a bio-heavy team should be incentive enough to make bios (look, there is a benefit to competition after all! )

Seriously though, if two equal teams meet, the one that took the time to make and link bios is always going to win, because it's much easier to prove how good it is.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2011, 06:35 PM
  #75
Hedberg
MLD Glue Guy
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BC, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,119
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiLLY_ShOE1721 View Post
I'm all for bios and put a lot of effort into them myself, but I think this would be a terrible idea. I think it would turn a lot of people off.
Plus the only good bios come from people that love doing them. Forcing people to do bios wouldn't shed any new light on players.

Hedberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:33 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.