Well-intentioned seasoned GMs bickering about the rules

[seventieslord]

Yeah, a full trade draft (as usual) is an option as well. It has to be. Of course, VI may get his wish if he keeps introducing loopy options that might each take away 5 votes from the "full trades" side until "no trades" is in the lead. Create two more options, VI, that just might be enough to do it!

We already veto lopsided trades and we can continue to do so. That should solve any trade-related gripes right there.

Obviously I am ok with whatever the majority decides, no whining here.

VI, if there is too much workload incolved with posting trades I am willing to help. I can do the OP for every draft thread so that you aren't the only one who can edit it. You can update it with picks, and I can update the trades.

(but I have a feeling your stance is more principled than that)

 

[jarek]

You might disagree with it, but the 'no-restriction' on trades is definitely an option, and seeing the other three options, the one I'm selecting.

Why don't we do exactly like we did last draft? It went very well, no?

No, it didn't. Trades like what me and seventies did is the reason why trading breaks the draft. Some teams got away with very lopsided trades and, unsurprisingly, most of those teams are the ones that got the furthest.

 

[seventieslord]

No, it didn't. Trades like what me and seventies did is the reason why trading breaks the draft. Some teams got away with very lopsided trades and, unsurprisingly, most of those teams are the ones that got the furthest.

If that's the way you feel then we just need to be stricter on lopsided trades.

I'll do no trades and you won't hear a word from me about it, but it has to be what the majority wants, not someone imposing their will on the draft.

 

[jarek]

If that's the way you feel then we just need to be stricter on lopsided trades.

I'll do no trades and you won't hear a word from me about it, but it has to be what the majority wants, not someone imposing their will on the draft.

I'm fine with trades, but there would have to be a strict set of rules for what can fly and what can't, and at that point, it might get so complicated that it would be better off to have no trades at all. So yeah.. my vote is no trades.

 

[MadArcand]

I'm for either normal, unrestricted yet vetoable trading (preferable) or no trading at all. Other, uber-complicated, convoluted, chaotic options won't do much but complicate the matters, IMO.

 

[markrander87]

I'm for either normal, unrestricted yet vetoable trading (preferable) or no trading at all. Other, uber-complicated, convoluted, chaotic options won't do much but complicate the matters, IMO.

This.

 

[hfboardsuser]

I for one like the idea of different rules for each conference. It seems to work fine for MLB and it would somewhat answer the question of which team-building strategy is better (unless the finalist from the trade conference makes none...)

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I'm for either normal, unrestricted yet vetoable trading (preferable) or no trading at all. Other, uber-complicated, convoluted, chaotic options won't do much but complicate the matters, IMO.

I agree.

 

[EagleBelfour]

I'll try to resume in a single post the three ''problems'' and questioning (for lack of better words) we have on our hand .

A. Division Name and Geography

1. Constitution of the division:
a: Each team could submit a list of teams they want and don't want in their division
b: Each division can choose which division they want to be part of
c: Each division are randomly selected (By the draft order or complete random)
d: Each division are decided by simple geography
e: (Suggestion?)

2. Since we have 8 division (4 are already name) we need to find 4 new names:

a: Thomas D. Green division (First president of the AHAC)
b: William Northey division (Influential executive in Montreal and co-builder of the Montreal Forum)
c: Louis Magnus division (First president of the IIHF)
d: Marcus Vinnerborg division (First European referee in the NHL)
e: Ron MacLean division (Hockey analyst)
f: James Creighton division (But it seems our ''Cup'' is actually the 'James Creighton Cup')
g: Yvon Pedneault (Hockey analyst and HHOF)
h: Sir Montagu Allan (Donator of the Allan Cup)
i: Leo Dandurand (contributed extensively to the promotion and development of sports in Montreal)
j: J. Ambrose O'Brien (actively connected with hockey from its earliest years)
k: Sam Pollock (One of the shrewdest and most successful executives in NHL history)
l: (Suggestion?)

B. Playoffs

1. With 8 division of 5 teams:
a: All 40 teams makes the playoffs, #4 and #5 seed play an Home-Away two game series (Like in European football)
b: Bottom 4 teams in each conference don't make the playoffs, 1-16 are qualified (1-2-3 for top seeds of each division)
c: (Suggestion?)


C. Trades

1. No trades across the board.
2. Restricted trading across the board (no trading out of any round, but can trade up or down in any round in exchange for up or down picks in later rounds).
3. Restricted trades in one conference and unrestricted trading in another conference. Each team can choose which conference to be in.
4. Allow trade with no restriction (With or without a committee)
5. (Suggestion?)

 

[EagleBelfour]

A. Division Name and Geography

1. Constitution of the division:
a: Each team could submit a list of teams they want and don't want in their division
b: Each division can choose which division they want to be part of
c: Each division are randomly selected (By the draft order or complete random)
- EagleBelfour (Draft Order)
d: Each division are decided by simple geography
Mr Bugg
e: (Suggestion?)

2. Since we have 8 division (4 are already name) we need to find 4 new names:

a: Thomas D. Green division (First president of the AHAC)
- EagleBelfour, Mr Bugg
b: William Northey division (Influential executive in Montreal and co-builder of the Montreal Forum)
Mr Bugg
c: Louis Magnus division (First president of the IIHF)
- EagleBelfour
d: Marcus Vinnerborg division (First European referee in the NHL)
e: Ron MacLean division (Hockey analyst)
f: James Creighton division (But it seems our ''Cup'' is actually the 'James Creighton Cup')
g: Yvon Pedneault (Hockey analyst and HHOF)
h: Sir Montagu Allan (Donator of the Allan Cup)
i: Leo Dandurand (contributed extensively to the promotion and development of sports in Montreal)
- EagleBelfour
j: J. Ambrose O'Brien (actively connected with hockey from its earliest years)
Mr Bugg
k: Sam Pollock (One of the shrewdest and most successful executives in NHL history)
- EagleBelfour, Mr Bugg
l: (Suggestion?)

B. Playoffs

1. With 8 division of 5 teams:
a: All 40 teams makes the playoffs, #4 and #5 seed play an Home-Away two game series (Like in European football)
- EagleBelfour
b: Bottom 4 teams in each conference don't make the playoffs, 1-16 are qualified (1-2-3 for top seeds of each division)
Mr Bugg
c: (Suggestion?)


C. Trades

1. No trades across the board.
2. Restricted trading across the board (no trading out of any round, but can trade up or down in any round in exchange for up or down picks in later rounds).
3. Restricted trades in one conference and unrestricted trading in another conference. Each team can choose which conference to be in.
Mr Bugg
4. Allow trade with no restriction (With or without a committee)
- EagleBelfour (With a committee)
5. (Suggestion?)

 

[VanIslander]

f: James Creighton division (But it seems our ''Cup'' is actually the 'James Creighton Cup')
h: Sir Montagu Allan (Donator of the Allan Cup)
ij: J. Ambrose O'Brien (actively connected with hockey from its earliest years)

The MLD cup is the James Creighton Cup. We have Sir Montagu Allen and J. Ambrose O'Brien divisions too.

Let's not re-invent the wheel. Build on tradition and improve the forum with each successive draft. The development of the ATD subforum has been something I've appreciated as partially justifying all the time commitment I've made to this.

 

[EagleBelfour]

The MLD cup is the James Creighton Cup. We have Sir Montagu Allen and J. Ambrose O'Brien divisions too.

Let's not re-invent the wheel. Build on tradition and improve the forum with each successive draft. The development of the ATD subforum has been something I've appreciated as partially justifying all the time commitment I've made to this.

Let's not re-invent the wheel? It feels like that's what is happening since a couple of days!

And I had no clue that Allan and O'Brien already were linked to the ATD. I agree we shouldn't use them to name our division.

-----

I'm going to sleep now. Everyone that want to give their opinion, just quote me and write your name under the options you prefer. If you have any new suggestion, write them down and people will be able to vote for them afterwards.

 

[hfboardsuser]

1) d
2) abjk
3) b
4) Option 3

 

[jarek]

1. b
2. a, d, h, Charles L. Coleman division (writer of The Trail)
3. a
4. a

 

[overpass]

What divisional names do you suggest? Names of historically important figures in the game who are NOT draft picks (e.g., owners, referees, journalists, builders, etc).
.

Jim Hendy. As his HHOF bio mentions, his work tracking statistics in the early NHL was important for future generations, and especially for the ATD!

Jim Hendy was a statistician, historian, and writer whose work was enjoyed by his contemporaries and future generations. He was the originator of the statistics used to track the performances of professional hockey players and teams since the 1930s.
mances.
...
Hendy was elected into the Hockey Hall of Fame in 1968.

As for the other questions, I'd prefer a no-trade draft. I would rather not have trades swinging the balance of the draft and don't care for the constant debate over whether a trade is veto-worthy. But whatever we decide is fine, of course. Other than that I'm OK with whatever we end up doing.

 

[jarek]

Hendy seems like a worthy selection, I would get behind that.

 

[DoMakc]

1) c
2) a,b,c,i (Joe Pelletier Division )
3) If we dropping 8 teams after the regular season, we may actually do it NHL style and drop 24. Makes regular season voting more important. I think this suggestion won't be very popular, so i vote for a), don't know if it matters, but MLB-like one game playoffs would make more sence, because goal differential and away goal advantage rules really don't belong to hockey.
4) options 1 or 4 work for me.

 

[Leafs Forever]

No clue. I have an ominous feeling it has much to do with the last post in the thread.

And based on the last post on the "You may be an ATDer if.." something unfortunate has happened to VanI.

 

[hfboardsuser]

VI/JustOneofTheGuys is apparently no longer a mod either. What the heck?

 

[seventieslord]

Well, I did tell him that I expected the will of the majority to be what we go with, and that he gets one vote just like me or anyone else...

I had been gone for 12 hours and as soon as I saw "last post by JustOneOfTheGuys" I just knew that had to be VI's new name.

If it really was my message that caused his name change I find it odd that his name is a sarcastic rewording of me reminding him he's not more important than anyone else. When things don't go VI's way... he gets like this, but never like this.

Just really confused here. I was ready to reply to EB's list of suggestions and make a couple of my own, and was stunned to see the thread was closed? I mean, who do you think did that, and why would they do it? If the simplest answer is the correct one, well.... it seems pretty spiteful.

I am going to apply to mod this section, not because I really want to, but because someone has to in order to keep this going smoothly. Also, I might drop out and just moderate, but only if we get to 40 teams and we get someone who wants to be the 41st... but no guarantees. The itch to draft might overtake me.

 

[EagleBelfour]

A. Division Name and Geography

1. Constitution of the division:
a: Each team could submit a list of teams they want and don't want in their division
b: Each division can choose which division they want to be part of
- jareklajkosz
c: Each division are randomly selected (By the draft order or complete random)
- EagleBelfour, DoMakc, Hedberg
d: Each division are decided by simple geography
- Mr Bugg
e: (Suggestion?)

2. Since we have 8 division (4 are already name) we need to find 4 new names:

a: Thomas D. Green division (First president of the AHAC)
- EagleBelfour, Mr Bugg, jareklajkosz, DoMakc, Hedberg
b: William Northey division (Influential executive in Montreal and co-builder of the Montreal Forum)
- Mr Bugg, DoMakc
c: Louis Magnus division (First president of the IIHF)
- EagleBelfour, DoMakc, Hedberg
d: Marcus Vinnerborg division (First European referee in the NHL)
- jareklajkosz
e: Ron MacLean division (Hockey analyst)
f: James Creighton division (But it seems our ''Cup'' is actually the 'James Creighton Cup')
g: Yvon Pedneault (Hockey analyst and HHOF)
h: Sir Montagu Allan (Donator of the Allan Cup)
- jareklajkosz
i: Leo Dandurand (contributed extensively to the promotion and development of sports in Montreal)
- EagleBelfour, DoMakc, Hedberg
j: J. Ambrose O'Brien (actively connected with hockey from its earliest years)
- Mr Bugg
k: Sam Pollock (One of the shrewdest and most successful executives in NHL history)
- EagleBelfour, Mr Bugg
l: Charles L. Coleman (Writer of the Trail of the Stanley Cup Trilogy)
- jareklajkosz
m: Jim Hendy (Originator of the statistics used to track the performances of professional hockey players and teams since the 1930s)
- overpass, (jareklajkosz), Hedberg
n: (Suggestion?)

B. Playoffs

1. With 8 division of 5 teams:
a: All 40 teams makes the playoffs, #4 and #5 seed play an Home-Away two game series (Like in European football)
- EagleBelfour, jareklajkosz, DoMakc, Hedberg
b: Bottom 4 teams in each conference don't make the playoffs, 1-16 are qualified (1-2-3 for top seeds of each division)
- Mr Bugg
c: Only the Top-8 teams of each conference makes the playoffs
(DoMakc)
d: (Suggestion?)


C. Trades (RANK THESE OPTIONS IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE)

1. No trades
- jareklajkosz
2. Allow trade
- eaglebelfour, Mr Bugg

(If option 1 land the majority, there will be no trades in this year All-Time Draft, if option 2 gets more vote, we will then decide which restriction we will use in the trading process, or if we want any restriction at all)

 

[seventieslord]

as for EB's suggestions, I think we need two votes on trading, because one of the options is so fundamentally different from the rest. We should first vote on the following:

- absolutely no trades,
- trades, the terms of which are to be decided in the next vote

and then, if the latter wins, then we can vote on no restrictions, no trading out of round, one conference has no trades, and any other variation there may be.

alternatively, we can continue to vote on all options and variations together but then everyone should rank their choices. This lessens the impact of "vote splitting" among all the similar options.

 

[hfboardsuser]

Well, I did tell him that I expected the will of the majority to be what we go with, and that he gets one vote just like me or anyone else...

I had been gone for 12 hours and as soon as I saw "last post by JustOneOfTheGuys" I just knew that had to be VI's new name.

If it really was my message that caused his name change I find it odd that his name is a sarcastic rewording of me reminding him he's not more important than anyone else. When things don't go VI's way... he gets like this, but never like this.

Just really confused here. I was ready to reply to EB's list of suggestions and make a couple of my own, and was stunned to see the thread was closed? I mean, who do you think did that, and why would they do it? If the simplest answer is the correct one, well.... it seems pretty spiteful.

Although it is perhaps unfair to speculate in his absence, VI has not returned to explain his rationale and would have had time to do that while waiting for his moderator status to be removed.

As such, your view is likely correct:

1) VI got insulted by your comment
2) VI changed his username and posted his pithy comment
3) VI locked the thread to sabotage the decision-making process
4) Without telling anyone about 2) and 3), VI asked that he no longer be a moderator

It's also possible an admin saw 2) and 3) themselves and stripped VI of his powers, but then the thread would likely have been unlocked immediately and an explanation provided.

Either way, this is an unfortunate and sad development. We all appreciate VI's contributions, but he's made it clear that when the rules are not his, he'll take the ball and go home. To use a hockey analogy, he's our Eddie Livingstone.

However, the ATD can continue without him, and I should hope it can do so without having to lose a GM like seventies (ie a handful of people should share responsibilities). It's just too bad it had to happen so close to the start and at a time when so many new GMs are experiencing the ATD for the first time. I don't want them to get the impression this kind of thing is the norm.

 

[EagleBelfour]

as for EB's suggestions, I think we need two votes on trading, because one of the options is so fundamentally different from the rest. We should first vote on the following:

- absolutely no trades,
- trades, the terms of which are to be decided in the next vote

and then, if the latter wins, then we can vote on no restrictions, no trading out of round, one conference has no trades, and any other variation there may be.

I agree with this.

Although it is perhaps unfair to speculate in his absence, VI has not returned to explain his rationale and would have had time to do that while waiting for his moderator status to be removed.

As such, your view is likely correct:

1) VI got insulted by your comment
2) VI changed his username and posted his pithy comment
3) VI locked the thread to sabotage the decision-making process
4) Without telling anyone about 2) and 3), VI asked that he no longer be a moderator

It's also possible an admin saw 2) and 3) themselves and stripped VI of his powers, but then the thread would likely have been unlocked immediately and an explanation provided.

Either way, this is an unfortunate and sad development. We all appreciate VI's contributions, but he's made it clear that when the rules are not his, he'll take the ball and go home. To use a hockey analogy, he's our Eddie Livingstone.

However, the ATD can continue without him, and I should hope it can do so without having to lose a GM like seventies (ie a handful of people should share responsibilities). It's just too bad it had to happen so close to the start and at a time when so many new GMs are experiencing the ATD for the first time. I don't want them to get the impression this kind of thing is the norm.

I really like VanI presence and as a GM around here, but I think you resume the situation well.

I think we can all agree that 70's is a very adequate replacement as the administrator of this draft (And as a moderator, but that's one's man opinion and none of my business). We can all post and discuss are feelings about the situation, but let's not derail the schedule of the ATD. It's a fun draft first and foremost, and it should always be the main priority.

 

[seventieslord]

To use a hockey analogy, he's our Eddie Livingstone.

!!!

read this book: http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?kn=holzman+nieforth&sts=t&x=0&y=0

you'll never say such things about Eddie Livingstone again. The guy had more honour than the scum he was dealing with, and unfortunately they won, and the winners wrote the history book. Holzman and Nieforth did an awesome job putting the story back together using newspapers, private league memos, and meeting minutes. It was such an outstanding job that they won an SIHR award. I can't possibly recommend this book more than this. It's outstanding. I'd read it again before 200 other books that I own and have yet to read.

However, the ATD can continue without him, and I should hope it can do so without having to lose a GM like seventies (ie a handful of people should share responsibilities). It's just too bad it had to happen so close to the start and at a time when so many new GMs are experiencing the ATD for the first time. I don't want them to get the impression this kind of thing is the norm.

I really, really wish the ATD did not have to go on without him. He has a great passion for respecting the history of the game. And he was willing to do the work to make this all happen. He and I were a strange pair, I've never known someone who I can 100% agree with on one thing, and then 100% disagree with on another.

Does anyone even know, if he's not moderating, is he not in the draft at all, or just not running it?