2023 ATD Poll #4: Public Voting

[Professor What]

Frankly, the only people who should vote are those who follow the draft closely from beginning to end.

I understand that thinking, but @seventieslord said he voted blind last time, didn't he? I can also see the value in that, though I know there's no way to enforce it. I don't know. I guess I'm thinking out loud here.

 

[Sturminator]

What do you consider suspect voting?

That's a subjective judgment, which is why the group will obviously have to make decisions vis-a-vis voting. Shady voting patterns don't take a cryptologist to figure out.

 

[Dreakmur]

Frankly, the only people who should vote are those who follow the draft closely from beginning to end.

Or have GMd multiple previous modern drafts.

What do you consider suspect voting?

When a person spend two years whining about some imaginary inner circle and then votes against every one of those people in 4-0 losses… that seems pretty suspect….

 

[ResilientBeast]

Or have GMd multiple previous modern drafts.

Again why is that important?

All of our "non-participant" voters from last draft were seasoned HOH posters who we'd tried to recruit for the draft but were willing to at least vote in the playoffs. It's not like we're taking this to the main boards poll section to determine the champion

Edit: to your second quote, yeah I don't disagree but there is no easy solution here because keeping it all open

 

[Dreakmur]

Again why is that important?

Adding bad votes doesn’t improve the results.

All of our "non-participant" voters from last draft were seasoned HOH posters who we'd tried to recruit for the draft but were willing to at least vote in the playoffs. It's not like we're taking this to the main boards poll section to determine the champion

Recruitment was based on potential, not current knowledge.

I would expect them to at the very least read the entire playoff threads before voting… but I guess that’s less important now that there are no discussions in the playoff threads.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't see why that is at all necessary

Are 70s votes any less "legitimate" because he blindly voted in the RS on the teams?

Personally, that one year, I hated blindly voting when I couldn't read any of the discussions that took place during the draft.

But sure, someone who has been in multiple ATDers before, committing to blindly voting, is a little different than recruiting people who have never been in the ATD.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Adding bad votes doesn’t improve the results.



Recruitment was based on potential, not current knowledge.

I would expect them to at the very least read the entire playoff threads before voting… but I guess that’s less important now that there are no discussions in the playoff threads.

Okay but you're conflating multiple things here

I believe you're referencing a participant in your other post about multiple 0-4 series votes so that isn't relevant to our "non-GM voters" discussion at all.

Your point about recruitment is needlessly antagonistic for no reason to the people who took their time to participate and vote on our draft especially when we barely get half of participants to follow the playoffs anyway

Personally, that one year, I hated blindly voting when I couldn't read any of the discussions that took place during the draft.

But sure, someone who has been in multiple ATDers before, committing to blindly voting, is a little different than recruiting people who have never been in the ATD.

Seems like @seventieslord had a different experience but that is not particularly relevant.

I just have a hard time understanding what enlightenment someone is missing if they are regular HOH poster when voting on the ATD. They haven't had certain beliefs beaten out of them by the ATD meta?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I just have a hard time understanding what enlightenment someone is missing if they are regular HOH poster when voting on the ATD.

I mean, your average HOH poster is not going to know jack shit about (for example) who Vic Stasiuk was. Why would they?'

Edit: There's also something to be said for actually being invested in the thing you are voting for. If I'd never participated in an ATD, I wouldn't exactly spend a lot of time comparing teams before voting.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I mean, your average HOH poster is not going to know jack shit about (for example) who Vic Stasiuk was. Why would they?

Sure, but the people who did end up voting I would like to believe put in the bare minimum effort when looking at the lineups.

It's not like just because I'm a participant I can visually evaluate lineups and don't need to read bios to get a handle on the lineups.

Edit: To your example, I know who Vic Stasiuk is, but in an ATD context I don't know off the top of my head his strengths and weaknesses as a player

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Sure, but the people who did end up voting I would like to believe put in the bare minimum effort when looking at the lineups.

It's not like just because I'm a participant I can visually evaluate lineups and don't need to read bios to get a handle on the lineups.

Well yes, because you've done this before.

 

[Sturminator]

I have a suggestion: why don't we wait until all the picks are made, see which non-GMs are actually following and participating in the draft, and then extend invitations to non-participants we think ought to vote?

GMs who have a problem with any of the potential non-participant voters can bring it up then.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I see two arguments here

1) People don't like non-GMs with no ATD experience participating in voting
2) The lack of consequences for suspect votes

1 - As I've said I don't really understand what the problem is. We barely can have half the GMs vote in the playoff series (including one of the people I'm going back in forth with)

Conference Finals - 11 votes would be 9 without externals so just over half of eligible voters bothered to spare some time
Finals - 13 votes - 13 votes would be 10 without externals.

I have a hard time arguing with someone over the "integrity" of voting after they dropped out of voting after their team was eliminated.

2 - If you believe this to be an issue, this has existed probably as long as the ATD has and we only now can see the records out in front of us.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I have a suggestion: why don't we wait until all the picks are made, see which non-GMs are actually following and participating in the draft, and then extend invitations to non-participants we think ought to vote?

GMs who have a problem with any of the potential non-participant voters can bring it up then.

Great idea.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I have a suggestion: why don't we wait until all the picks are made, see which non-GMs are actually following and participating in the draft, and then extend invitations to non-participants we think ought to vote?

GMs who have a problem with any of the potential non-participant voters can bring it up then.

And obviously a past GM like 70s who announces his intentions at the beginning can vote for the regular season. (Though I do think anyone who votes in the playoffs should read the threads).

 

[ResilientBeast]

I like this.

And obviously a past GM like 70s who announces his intentions at the beginning can vote for the regular season. (Though I do think anyone who votes in the playoffs should read the threads).

I don't know why by default we're assuming the people who voted last year as non GMs put absolutely no effort and energy in on voting.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't know why by default we're assuming the people who voted last year as non GMs put absolutely no effort and energy in on voting.

I guess I'm just thinking of what I would do in their position. Not talking about past ATDers; strictly talking about people with no investment in the thing. I thought the ATD was silly before I was convinced to join way back when...

 

[Sturminator]

I don't know why by default we're assuming the people who voted last year as non GMs put absolutely no effort and energy in on voting.

We're not assuming anything by default. GMs who announce an intention to vote blindly can be taken on before the draft is over is all TDMM was suggesting.

 

[The Macho King]

A team should have to post their lines with vsx and defensive abilities.

No.

 

[ResilientBeast]

We're not assuming anything by default. GMs who announce an intention to vote blindly can be taken on before the draft is over is all TDMM was suggesting.

You can't tell me with a straight face that TDMM saying

And obviously a past GM like 70s who announces his intentions at the beginning can vote for the regular season. (Though I do think anyone who votes in the playoffs should read the threads).

Is not implying that non-GMs didn't bother to read any of the discussion in the playoff I don't know what to say anymore.

@ImporterExporter spent a lot of time and effort PMing all the non-GMs updating them on where we were in the process, linking them the draft/assassination/playoff threads trying to get people engaged and keep them aware. And a couple of the voters expressed in PMs how they were following along anyway.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I think the biggest issue is ensuring that 1, votes remain public. That should ease concerns for those who have them.

Two, punishment for those who are obviously trying to impact the results by voting in certain patterns or against/for certain members.

Again, it looks like voting will remain public this year and we'll now have another year to analyze who voted for whom and point out anything that may look odd. I think anyone being honest with themselves and the group can say for sure that 2 voters last year were certainly pushing an agenda.

So the concern that nothing will happen to suspect voters is really invalid if we agree as a group to do something about it. Obviously, that's a discussion for later this year, after the draft, and leading up to the 2024 version.

We don't really need to complicate matters beyond that. Keep voting public and hand down punishment to those who would try and derail the post draft process for whatever reasons. Suspension/bans for those caught doing shady shit should eliminate the need to drop the hammer in future years.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I have a suggestion: why don't we wait until all the picks are made, see which non-GMs are actually following and participating in the draft, and then extend invitations to non-participants we think ought to vote?

GMs who have a problem with any of the potential non-participant voters can bring it up then.

This is totally fine with me

 

[The Macho King]

Two, punishment for those who are obviously trying to impact the results by voting in certain patterns or against/for certain members.

I don't see how to police this. If I vote 4-3 for your opponent even if I think you have the better team, how are you going to tell? The way voting works there isn't much of a difference between 4-0 and 4-3 except for tiebreakers.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I don't see how to police this. If I vote 4-3 for your opponent even if I think you have the better team, how are you going to tell? The way voting works there isn't much of a difference between 4-0 and 4-3 except for tiebreakers.

It's more about always voting against specific people than the 4-3 or 4-0 results.

Yes, some grudge holders will be able to stay under the radar probably. So be it. Some people didn't try very hard last year.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I don't see how to police this. If I vote 4-3 for your opponent even if I think you have the better team, how are you going to tell? The way voting works there isn't much of a difference between 4-0 and 4-3 except for tiebreakers.

I agree that in theory it's pretty hard to tell who's pulling crap, but if you go back and look at last year's votes, there are 2 that absolutely stick out compared to the rest. It's pretty blatant and I'm not the only one who's commented on it.

Again, we're not looking to nitpick the results. That's not what I'm suggesting. Rather calling out and punishing those who are absolutely going against a certain GM or trying to influence a specific match up. Outliers exist and that is fine. Voting 4-0 against the same guy over and over while most of the rest of the league isn't voting that way, is beyond an outlier.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[ResilientBeast]

And without the public votes it would be impossible to see how much of the bluster over a certain trade was literally all for nothing

Juggernaut eliminated in the second round lmao