I want a side draft on what dumb drama is going to start.
YupIf more participating GMs voted in the playoffs, agenda-driven votes probably wouldn't matter.
We got down to 9 voters at one point in the last draft, and one of them was Batis. That means more than half of participating GMs did not vote at some point during the playoffs. This is the ATD's elephant in the room.
I see two arguments here
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.
Eh, you knew I was voting, so you had no pressure to do it and possibly split our vote.I went to the Finals and missed many deadlines last year. For that, I apologize.
Maybe the franchises with clean voting records (meaning those who voted in every matchup they could) should be allowed to choose their positions in the following draft? I'm not suggesting we do that this year, but it would be a good rule going forward.
Hmmm...maybe we should dangle a carrot to encourage better voting behavoir?
Maybe the franchises with clean voting records (meaning those who voted in every matchup they could) should be allowed to choose their positions in the following draft? I'm not suggesting we do that this year, but it would be a good rule going forward.
Non-voting is too big a problem for punishment to do anything other than kill the draft, but we can at least reward those who do reliably participate.
Eh, you knew I was voting, so you had no pressure to do it and possibly split our vote.
Eh, you knew I was voting, so you had no pressure to do it and possibly split our vote.
I wasn't aware our votes would be split. Or maybe I was but forgot.
Heh...yeah, you forgot.I wasn't aware our votes would be split. Or maybe I was but forgot.
Heh...yeah, you forgot.
the only time co-GMs should get half votes is when they vote in their own division in the regular season.
at least that's how I did it when I collected votes
Very possible.
Yeah, since we have so many co-GMs this year, I don't think they should vote as "one block". We need everyone's vote, and co-GMs may have different ideas on far away series.
For same conference/division, then yes, split the votes.
If more participating GMs voted in the playoffs, agenda-driven votes probably wouldn't matter.
We got down to 9 voters at one point in the last draft, and one of them was Batis. That means more than half of participating GMs did not vote at some point during the playoffs. This is the ATD's elephant in the room.
Agree with this 100%.
And because so many who do play, don't vote, sketchy voting can impact a series more easily, which is why I'm adament about making sure we keep voting public AND, beginning next year (and beyond) police those who decide to derail the match ups.
Tabarnak.Determine the order of round 3 of the draft as follows:
- GMs who voted in all 4 playoff rounds last draft come first, with their "proper" draft position used as a tiebreaker
- then all GMs who voted 3 times, then the ones who voted twice, the ones who voted once, then the ones who peaced out.
GMs who do not apply because they were not in the previous draft, we use their performance from whichever draft was their last, and if they're new, they come after the 4-voters and before the 3-voters.
teams with Co-GMs with different vote histories, will go by whichever of the two had the worst voting performance.
If this is too harsh, then use round 5. or 7. or whatever.
we should however be careful not to try to "police" honest minority opinions, no matter how misguided they may be.
Determine the order of round 3 of the draft as follows:
- GMs who voted in all 4 playoff rounds last draft come first, with their "proper" draft position used as a tiebreaker
- then all GMs who voted 3 times, then the ones who voted twice, the ones who voted once, then the ones who peaced out.
GMs who do not apply because they were not in the previous draft, we use their performance from whichever draft was their last, and if they're new, they come after the 4-voters and before the 3-voters.
teams with Co-GMs with different vote histories, will go by whichever of the two had the worst voting performance.
If this is too harsh, then use round 5. or 7. or whatever.
worh discussing in about thread I think. no rush to get that one decided before the draft starts. I'm generally more in favor of rewards than punishments in gamesIntriguing idea. My problem is if say we use the 3rd round, and the guy's natural slot is last in the 3rd round, he doesn't pay any price.
Here's a proposal in the same spirit: There are usually 5 rounds of voting: RS, 1st series, 2nd series, Conference Finals and Finals. For every round you don't vote, your 2nd round pick drops one spot back (5 in total maximum). This hurts your balls, but doesn't kill your chance of winning like it would with the 1st round pick.
If we want harsher, we can do 2 spots back for your 2nd round pick (or 3rd round pick?) for every missed round of voting.
Thoughts anyone?
At the time of voting in ATD2023, the person has no idea where in round 3 he will be set to draft naturally in ATD2024, so all he can do is give himself the best chance. It's incentive/deterrent enough.
Also, if we were to just set a certain amount of spots for each GM to drop based on number of votes missed, it puts us in a likely scenario where we have as many as 10 GMs to drop by a certain number of picks. A few by 2 spots, a few by four, a few by six. That's very complicated. In what order do they drop? if a guy is set to draft 15th and drops two, but happens to be just after a few guys who drop six, he drafts higher after they leapfrog him.
I
worh discussing in about thread I think. no rush to get that one decided before the draft starts. I'm generally more in favor of rewards than punishments in games
How about for every post-season round you don’t vote in, you get docked a point in the next year’s regular season voting? Too extreme?