HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

ATD Feedback Thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-16-2013, 02:36 PM
  #1
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,257
vCash: 500
ATD Feedback Thread

I figure it's best to put this up now before the mass exodus after the finals are over.

Feel free to talk about anything that went right or wrong this time and offer suggestions for the next draft.

A couple of things worth talking about:

1) the trading rules.
2) how did 8 divisions and splitting assassinations by division work out?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2013, 02:54 PM
  #2
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,722
vCash: 500
1) I still wish we would have a no-trade draft once. More focus on assembling a team and less focus on conning other GMs.

2) Very uneven divisions, and thus some strong teams were eliminated early and some weak ones got pretty far. As for assassinations, it somehow felt like we had much less of them than before, though I don't know if that was really the case.

MadArcand is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2013, 02:54 PM
  #3
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,257
vCash: 500
My thoughts:

I think the trading rules worked out well enough where if we allow trading next time, we can just keep them without having a long annoying discussion before the draft. Caveat: it was time consuming and pretty annoying to be the only one keeping track of the number of trades each team made. If we do keep an 8-trade limit, we really need to divide the labor by having multiple people helping keep the trading list updated

I thought dividing into 8 divisions of four teams was a nice experiment, but I wouldn't want to do it again. It led to some of the best teams going out too early. Worse, with 8 divisions, that makes 8 last place teams and I think that is probably one reason why participation in the first round of the playoffs was so low. I would prefer to go back to 4 divisions next time.

I did like dividing assassinations by division - I think we had the best participation ever in lineup assassinations this time

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2013, 03:02 PM
  #4
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
1) I still wish we would have a no-trade draft once. More focus on assembling a team and less focus on conning other GMs.

2) Very uneven divisions, and thus some strong teams were eliminated early and some weak ones got pretty far. As for assassinations, it somehow felt like we had much less of them than before, though I don't know if that was really the case.
1) I'm with you on this one, but it's a radical enough change that it probably has to be voted on.

2) not sure what we can do about this one other than making the divisions bigger.

I think this was the first time that every team that posted its roster for assassinations got at least 2 reviews

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2013, 03:57 PM
  #5
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,063
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
1. Definitely no more small divisions or cross-divisional playoffs. Stick with the four divisions of 8 teams. Too many good teams being eliminated too early because they were 2nd in a strong division, where they would have been a first place team in a number of other divisions. 8 team divisions take out this problem to an extent, but there could be two tiers of voting that would completely eliminate this problem. The first tier of voting would be for the division winners, where you just pick who you think will win the division. Then rank everyone else in the conference for the rest of the playoff spots like the real NHL does things in a second round of voting. This eliminates the problem of strong divisions/weak divisions. It's possible that there could be a "Southeast" division that is clearly weak, but with 8 teams in each, it's very unlikely. That way you have the best of the best as division winners, and then the rest of the teams are judged against the entire conference, not just against their own division. There are two problems with this, mainly that it requires people to vote on things twice, and getting strong participation can be difficult enough as it is. The second is that it's going to be tough to rank 14 teams(assuming the draft stays at 32 teams) and really differentiate between them. It would be more difficult, but if done right, I think the regular season standings would be most indicative of the actual quality of the teams.

2. Create a new tiebreaker if votes are tied, I like the rule of having to have an odd number of votes so that it doesn't even have to go to how many games, let alone the three stars. Very unfortunate for TDMM to go out that way.

3. Trades don't really bother me. I wouldn't be opposed to a no trade draft because I don't trade all that often, but it's not something I'm strongly in favor of.

4. Keep the divisional assassination threads, I liked those.

I'll add more if I can think of anything.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2013, 04:15 PM
  #6
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyShoe1721 View Post
1. Definitely no more small divisions or cross-divisional playoffs. Stick with the four divisions of 8 teams. Too many good teams being eliminated too early because they were 2nd in a strong division, where they would have been a first place team in a number of other divisions. 8 team divisions take out this problem to an extent, but there could be two tiers of voting that would completely eliminate this problem. The first tier of voting would be for the division winners, where you just pick who you think will win the division. Then rank everyone else in the conference for the rest of the playoff spots like the real NHL does things in a second round of voting. This eliminates the problem of strong divisions/weak divisions. It's possible that there could be a "Southeast" division that is clearly weak, but with 8 teams in each, it's very unlikely. That way you have the best of the best as division winners, and then the rest of the teams are judged against the entire conference, not just against their own division. There are two problems with this, mainly that it requires people to vote on things twice, and getting strong participation can be difficult enough as it is. The second is that it's going to be tough to rank 14 teams(assuming the draft stays at 32 teams) and really differentiate between them. It would be more difficult, but if done right, I think the regular season standings would be most indicative of the actual quality of the teams.

2. Create a new tiebreaker if votes are tied, I like the rule of having to have an odd number of votes so that it doesn't even have to go to how many games, let alone the three stars. Very unfortunate for TDMM to go out that way.

3. Trades don't really bother me. I wouldn't be opposed to a no trade draft because I don't trade all that often, but it's not something I'm strongly in favor of.

4. Keep the divisional assassination threads, I liked those.

I'll add more if I can think of anything.
I agree with all of this.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2013, 05:23 PM
  #7
Hawkman
Moderator
 
Hawkman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,222
vCash: 500
This year's draft went much more smoothly, GMs were much more well behaved, and TDMM did a great job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
I agree with all of this.
Agreed, except I agree with TDMM and MA on no trades. This is supposed to be about hockey history and team building, not about taking advantage of less savvy GMs.

I'd love to see 2 16 teams leagues. It would be fun, interesting, change the dynamics, and be easier to manage. Chelios, Lindsay, and Sakic at the end of round 1 gets predictable and boring.

I hope that someday no one wants to be Miss America and we can just do the draft part.


Last edited by Hawkman: 09-18-2014 at 07:54 AM.
Hawkman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2013, 05:28 PM
  #8
VanIslander
Hope for better 2015
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 19,503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmm View Post
I agree with TDMM and MA on no trades. This is supposed to be about hockey history and team building, not about taking advantage of less savvy GMs.
It would be nice to do a no-trade draft.

Maybe 2014 is the year.

Have a simple: trades or no trades vote (two poll options).

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2013, 06:48 PM
  #9
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmm View Post
This year's draft went much more smoothly, GMs were much more well behaved, and TDMM did a great job.

Agreed, except I agree with TDMM and MA on no trades. This is supposed to be about hockey history and team building, not about taking advantage of less savvy GMs.

I'd love to see 2 16 teams leagues. It would be fun, interesting, change the dynamics, and be easier to manage. Chelios, Lindsay, and Sakic at the end of round 1 gets predictable and boring.

I hope that someday no one wants to be Miss America and we can just do the draft part.
If we went back to having the main draft more often than once a year, we could experiment with smaller draft sizes. For some reason, the idea of trying a 24 team draft interests me

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2013, 10:47 PM
  #10
Hawkman
Moderator
 
Hawkman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
If we went back to having the main draft more often than once a year, we could experiment with smaller draft sizes. For some reason, the idea of trying a 24 team draft interests me
Agreed. I'm in. Always having 32 teams leads to players being defined by round (Clarke 1st, Stevens 2nd, Denneny 3rd, Shanahan 4th, Hawerchuk 5th, etc.) and makes the draft more predictable and less likely to change the status quo.

Hawkman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 01:54 AM
  #11
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,707
vCash: 500
1) While I agree that three stars voting should never be used again as a tiebreaker, guaranteeing an odd number of voters wouldn't have solved the problem this time around. The real problem was that we basically settled on a level of voting participation over the final three rounds, and that included an even number of voters. People who choose not to vote do so for a reason. Soliciting a tiebreaker vote from a GM who had decided not to vote before the deadline is a method fraught with potential problems. I would prefer some other method.

2) Yeah, the divisions were so small this time that some meaningful imbalances emerged at that level. I agree that we should go back to 8 team divisions. We might also want to consider some seeding arrangement wherein the top-8 teams from the previous year (or all that have returning GMs) are divided up, two to a division. So one division has the #1/#8 teams, one has #2/#7, one #3/#6, and one the #4/#5 teams. This is hardly perfect, but it would probably help to balance out the competition among the divisions.

3) I thought the assassinations went well this year, and should remain divided by division.

4) If potentially abusive trades are still perceived as a problem, I would suggest simply setting stricter rules about the content of individual trades. Completely banning trades has its own set of problems. I have always been a proponent of "small" trades - where GMs move around within a certain range to acquire specific players that they covet at a value that they think is good. The soul of the ATD is the history of the game, but this is also a team-building exercise. Shackling GMs (especially those picking at the beginning and end of rounds) to the whims of the draft could suck a lot of the fun out of that part of the process.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 08:57 AM
  #12
tony d
ATD 2015
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 39,124
vCash: 500
1) the trading rules.

Personally, I think we should try a draft without any trades. You're given a certain number. You should still be able to feel a really competitive team without having to resort to trades.


2) how did 8 divisions and splitting assassinations by division work out?

I think we should go back to 4 8 team divisions for next year. Also I enjoyed the way the assasinations were done this year.

3) Other Comments:

Looking forward to the future drafts this year. We'll probably be able to start the MLD in mid-June (I'll be joining again), great pace this year so far much better than last year.

__________________
tony d is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 09:20 AM
  #13
Hobnobs
Pinko
 
Hobnobs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Sweden
Posts: 3,935
vCash: 500
what about a theme team draft?

Hobnobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 12:38 PM
  #14
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,778
vCash: 500
  • Trading - Fine with trades or no trades...if trades get voted for I don't think we need to discuss the format...what we had this year worked fine.
  • Divisions - 4 team divisions was too small. I like the idea of 8 team divisions, picking 2 division winners, and then ranking the remaining 14 teams as a whole.
  • # of Teams - I am VERY in favor of doing a draft with less than 32 teams...I think 24 would be a good place to start.
  • Assassinations - I really liked doing them by division.
  • Tiebreakers - 3 stars is obviously a poor way to decide who wins a series. I'm not sure what a fair tiebreaker would be though? If it comes to extending voting to get an odd number of teams, then I think voting needs to be extended for every series, so the tied series is anonymous to the GM who ends up being the deciding vote.

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 01:18 PM
  #15
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,707
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
Tiebreakers - 3 stars is obviously a poor way to decide who wins a series. I'm not sure what a fair tiebreaker would be though? If it comes to extending voting to get an odd number of teams, then I think voting needs to be extended for every series, so the tied series is anonymous to the GM who ends up being the deciding vote.
Extending the voting and letting everything be decided by a single, random voter who didn't bother to vote by the deadline when he had the chance is an extremely questionable way to resolve a tied series. As a group we are somewhat personality-neutral, but each individual GM has stronger or weaker connections to each other GM.

Do you allow a vote from someone who the year before co-GMed with one of the guys whose team is now in a tie? Do you allow a vote from a GM who, earlier in the draft, was defeated in a bitter struggle by one of the tied teams? Putting it all on a single individual is a hugely problematic method, which could lead to some real ****storms. When the Coleman conference finals ended in a tie, I considered soliciting votes from those GMs who had not yet voted, but ultimately decided that doing so would be worse than simply going with the second tiebreak system that had been established in ATD tradition.

Should I have stopped at the first additional vote I got? And what if that vote was decided in three minutes by someone who hadn't participated since the regular season, like Bubba? Extending the deadline is a very dangerous way of resolving a tie. I'm surprised nobody else sees that.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 01:48 PM
  #16
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,257
vCash: 500
By the way, the issue of the 3 stars favoring GMs who have earlier picks has been known for awhile. This is from ATD2010: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=130

Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez View Post
Reposted from one of the matchup threads:


Have we ever looked into a better tie-breaker system? I've been thinking about this for a couple drafts, and I think this current one really favours teams who pick at the start of the draft. I mean, who's not going to vote Bobby Orr or Wayne Gretzky as one of the stars for any given series? Whereas a team that picks at the end of the 1st round or trades right out of it (mine, for example) will likely have the votes far more spread out due to more parity on the roster.

Maybe if there's a tie, the tiebreaker can be the amount of games that people had the series going to for each winner?

Example:
- 10 voters had team "A" winning in 60 combined games
- 10 voters had team "B" winning in 65 combined games
So team "A" would be the winner.

Thoughts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
That is how I would break the tie before even looking at all-star votes. It's how I've always done it. Am I not doing it properly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez View Post
oh, is that the case? carry on then...

Still isn't really an equitable tie-break-breaker, but it probably never gets that far anyways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I always assumed Stars of the Game were to give the series more flavor. I never thought they actually figured into who would win.

Am I correct that if 24/24 GMs all vote "Team A in 7 games," that Team A will win in a sweep (since all the GMs voted for that team)? That's what it seems like this time, and that's fine.

If so, then the "how many games" is the tiebreaker?
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander
I have only once ever used a tiebreaker (and that was several drafts ago). Every other time one team got more votes. Game 7 OT means winning by one vote.

I couldn't fathom having the three stars factor into who wins the series.

Quote:
Am I correct that if 24/24 GMs all vote "Team A in 7 games," that Team A will win in a sweep
Indeed. Unanimous or close to it (one or two votes against max.).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
We actually had one series on the Leafs central ATD2 go to the 3 Stars tie breaker. That made one of our members get pretty upset.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
How many GMs voted? The more GMs vote, the less likely a tiebreaker is needed. I assume the Leafs ATDs are much smaller than these.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
No idea, seventies might remember.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Yes, I did have to do that, twice, actually. Voting was either 6-6 or 7-7. the number of games in the votes were dead even as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Geez, I was thinking all the time that the won games are added up and divided by number of votes, thus in your example it'd be 4-3. Thus I was utterly shocked by the number of sweeps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I had assumed that as well. The number of sweeps this time when multiple GMs said that they had few or any series going less than 6 made me realize otherwise.
Basically, the issue was recognized, but nobody did anything to change it, because nobody ever thought it would get that far.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 01:52 PM
  #17
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Extending the voting and letting everything be decided by a single, random voter who didn't bother to vote by the deadline when he had the chance is an extremely questionable way to resolve a tied series. As a group we are somewhat personality-neutral, but each individual GM has stronger or weaker connections to each other GM.

Do you allow a vote from someone who the year before co-GMed with one of the guys whose team is now in a tie? Do you allow a vote from a GM who, earlier in the draft, was defeated in a bitter struggle by one of the tied teams? Putting it all on a single individual is a hugely problematic method, which could lead to some real ****storms. When the Coleman conference finals ended in a tie, I considered soliciting votes from those GMs who had not yet voted, but ultimately decided that doing so would be worse than simply going with the second tiebreak system that had been established in ATD tradition.

Should I have stopped at the first additional vote I got? And what if that vote was decided in three minutes by someone who hadn't participated since the regular season, like Bubba? Extending the deadline is a very dangerous way of resolving a tie. I'm surprised nobody else sees that.
Letting GMs who for whatever reason chose not to vote during a 3-day allotted window to determine the outcome is a ****** way to do it. But at least it doesn't necessarily favor one team over the other because of draft position.

Edit: Anyway, like you have alluded to, the biggest problem is that we got 30+ GMs to vote on regular season standings, then as soon as the playoff started, half the draft just got up and quit, and I don't think any playoff series even hit 20 votes.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 05-17-2013 at 02:14 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 02:24 PM
  #18
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,732
vCash: 500
- No trades

- Two separate 16 team drafts were the winner of each draft play in the ATD finals.

- If a tie breaker is deemed necessary we allot a 2 day secondary voted period where GM's vote on a game 7 final score. The totals of these scores are calculated and the team with the better GF/GA ratio moves on.

markrander87 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 02:57 PM
  #19
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,092
vCash: 500
I gotta say the trades seem to create more trouble than they are worth.

BraveCanadian is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 05:45 PM
  #20
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmm View Post
ilding, not about taking advantage of less savvy GMs.

I'd love to see 2 16 teams leagues. It would be fun, interesting, change the dynamics, and be easier to manage. Chelios, Lindsay, and Sakic at the end of round 1 gets predictable and boring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post

- Two separate 16 team drafts were the winner of each draft play in the ATD finals.
This could be a fun one-time thing. The bonus is that we can keep the number of total teams at 32, so we won't have to turn anyone away. It could serve the same purpose of doing a 24 team draft - change up the dynamics.

Quote:
If a tie breaker is deemed necessary we allot a 2 day secondary voted period where GM's vote on a game 7 final score. The totals of these scores are calculated and the team with the better GF/GA ratio moves on.
I really liked the idea of this the first time I read it, but it opens the door to abuse. What's to stop a GM with an axe to grind from voting for a team to win game 7 something like 10-0 and basically deciding the series himself?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 05:53 PM
  #21
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I really liked the idea of this the first time I read it, but it opens the door to abuse. What's to stop a GM with an axe to grind from voting for a team to win game 7 something like 10-0 and basically deciding the series himself?
Nothing, but what stops any of use from voting dishonestly. We just have to trust each other to do the right thing.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 06:33 PM
  #22
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Nothing, but what stops any of use from voting dishonestly. We just have to trust each other to do the right thing.
A GM voting dishonestly right now only counts as 1 vote. If we used "goal differential," a single GM voting for a team to win 10-0 could cancel out 10 GMs voting for the other team to win by 1 goal.

It's really not "dishonest" voting per se that is at issue; if you collect votes, you'll definitely notice that GMs coming out of a nasty series will often have a really negative view of their previous opponent's team.

I think it was honestly a great idea by mark, but I would feel uncomfortable with a procedure that gives a single GM that much power.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 05-17-2013 at 06:46 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 07:36 PM
  #23
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
A GM voting dishonestly right now only counts as 1 vote. If we used "goal differential," a single GM voting for a team to win 10-0 could cancel out 10 GMs voting for the other team to win by 1 goal.

It's really not "dishonest" voting per se that is at issue; if you collect votes, you'll definitely notice that GMs coming out of a nasty series will often have a really negative view of their previous opponent's team.

I think it was honestly a great idea by mark, but I would feel uncomfortable with a procedure that gives a single GM that much power.
It was a good solution. The only reason not to use it is because we don't trust each other. If that is the case, we should abandon the whole voting process.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 08:50 PM
  #24
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,778
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Extending the voting and letting everything be decided by a single, random voter who didn't bother to vote by the deadline when he had the chance is an extremely questionable way to resolve a tied series. As a group we are somewhat personality-neutral, but each individual GM has stronger or weaker connections to each other GM.

Do you allow a vote from someone who the year before co-GMed with one of the guys whose team is now in a tie? Do you allow a vote from a GM who, earlier in the draft, was defeated in a bitter struggle by one of the tied teams? Putting it all on a single individual is a hugely problematic method, which could lead to some real ****storms. When the Coleman conference finals ended in a tie, I considered soliciting votes from those GMs who had not yet voted, but ultimately decided that doing so would be worse than simply going with the second tiebreak system that had been established in ATD tradition.

I definitely agree that the odd number of teams solution is not close to perfect, but I think it is clearly better than 3 stars where there is a clear advantage for teams with earlier picks. Unfortunately, the things that are bolded likely occur all the time anyway and decide the outcome of some series. There is no way to keep people from being biased when voting, and I really don't see a whole lot of difference from someone voting with bias before the deadline or during an extended deadline. My suggestion to keep the tied series unknown and extend the voting of all series was a way to try to curb bias voting.

Quote:
Should I have stopped at the first additional vote I got? And what if that vote was decided in three minutes by someone who hadn't participated since the regular season, like Bubba? Extending the deadline is a very dangerous way of resolving a tie. I'm surprised nobody else sees that.
I think if voting is extended that it needs to be for a set time period. I would only go to a "which vote(s) came in first" scenario if a second tie occurred.



Another suggestion: Let the votes coming from the opposing conference's GMs decide the series. This is also flawed...if those votes are tied we would be back to square one, and this would be useless in the Final. It could be useful under the right circumstances.

Another suggestion: Rookie GMs' votes don't count in a tie. There's some stereotyping here, but in general rookie GMs are among the least knowledgable.

Another suggestion: Allow for 2 days of extended argument from the GMs whose series is tied. Everyone re-votes after the 2 day period, with the option for GMs that didn't vote the first time around to do so this time.


I don't love any of these, but it's all I could come up with.

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 08:55 PM
  #25
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
It was a good solution. The only reason not to use it is because we don't trust each other. If that is the case, we should abandon the whole voting process.
I trust the large majority of GMs here will vote as objectively as possible (given everyone's biases, etc) most of the time. I do not trust that every single GM will always vote objectively every single time.

TheDevilMadeMe 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 09:14 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.