Well-intentioned seasoned GMs bickering about the rules

[Hedberg]

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

He removed his team name from the first post of the other thread. I guess he's gone for this draft (I hope he comes back).

 

[seventieslord]

I agree with this.

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.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Still, the idea of administrating and participating at the same time is a bit scary from a time standpoint. We'll see how it goes. Maybe VI cools off and it all goes back to the way it was. I dunno.

 

[seventieslord]

He removed his team name from the first post of the other thread. I guess he's gone for this draft (I hope he comes back).

oh, wow, I just saw that a second ago, too. VI, or JOOTG, if you read this, yeah, I hope you come back too.

 

[Hedberg]

Still, the idea of administrating and participating at the same time is a bit scary from a time standpoint.

Could we work out a system where several people help administer the draft?

 

[EagleBelfour]

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Still, the idea of administrating and participating at the same time is a bit scary from a time standpoint. We'll see how it goes. Maybe VI cools off and it all goes back to the way it was. I dunno.

I understand it can be time consuming. If you become a moderator before the start of the ATD, someone could create the threads and help you running it.

Until the last day of registration, we should at least keep the 40th spot available for VanI if he cools of and wants to return as a GM.

 

[hfboardsuser]

Could we work out a system where several people help administer the draft?

This only makes sense. It's too big a job for one person, especially if we a) vote to have some/all trades in a 40-team league b) the admin also would like to participate.

I propose a four-party system: a main administrator with moderator abilities, a sub-administrator for each of the two conferences, and a Trade Committee administrator who oversees the approval of deals (the committee being made up of the other three admins).

 

[seventieslord]

Could we work out a system where several people help administer the draft?

I've offered in the past to participate in such a system and I would definitely be interested in it.

I just applied to be a mod at your suggestion. If it goes through then we at least have someone who can close threads and edit the OP. but moderating and administrating are far from the same thing so if we can administrate by committee, let's go for it!

 

[seventieslord]

Until the last day of registration, we should at least keep the 40th spot available for VanI if he cools of and wants to return as a GM.

That's a good idea.

Or, the 40th spot is mine and he can come in and take it, leaving me just as the administrator. (maybe I'd team up with someone)

 

[Hedberg]

My votes:
1. Constitution of the division:

c: Each division are randomly selected (By the draft order or complete random)

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)
c: Louis Magnus division (First president of the IIHF)
i: Leo Dandurand (contributed extensively to the promotion and development of sports in Montreal)
m: Jim Hendy (Originator of the statistics used to track the performances of professional hockey players and teams since the 1930s)

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)

I don't think I should vote on trades because they don't personally interest me (I don't think I've ever proposed one, only accepted ones offered to me), but I don't particularly feel strongly they shouldn't be a part of the process. I'm willing to go with everyone else wants.

 

[VanIslander]

1. I presented options I could live with and there was interest in an option I was not interested in putting up with, as an administrator, one has to be committed to the cause and I made clear to several GMs via PM that I wasn't going to spend 8-10 hours of my week every week administrating a trade-happy 40-team draft. I thought all the hard work I'd put in over the years entitled me to some say in directing the process and was then put into my place by a couple of GMs who made it clear via PM that I was: "just one of the guys". So, I can live with that, as such. So you guys decide, and if you can accept my role as simply being one of the guys, then I can enjoy this, as indeed that is what this is all about: having fun. My personal ambitions for the development of this board was a fool's paradise as some GMs think I was overstepping my role even as moderator in enforcing the simpliest of board rules.

2. I closed the thread so that you could do what you have done: start another thread (this one) and update it as you go. Just copy and paste the names from the old sign-up thread to this one. There was no destructive or spiteful intention. I wanted to make a clear break and have it understood as such. EagleBelfour was willing to run with the ball and seventieslord also. Go with it. Notice how my actions led immediately to others stepping up! That was anticipated in doing what I did. Move on. Go for it guys!

3. I am Just One Of The Guys. I am interested in co-GMing but will GM if you need a 40th team. Good day.

 

[EagleBelfour]

You definitely misread my intentions of ''running the ball''. Anyway, glad you have no hard feelings, although I don't understand why you change your name like that, it seems ... excessive.

------

Anyway, I'm trying to remember what was the schedule for the following weeks.

Schedule:

19th of January: End of registration

20th to 26th of January: Sending the Top-5 position we want to be in the draft to (___________)

27th of January: Creation of the drafting thread

30th of January: Official start of the All-Time Draft clock

Did it looked something like that?

 

[jarek]

Here's something that bothers me quite a bit.

It was OK before for VI to do all the work administrating and modding for this ATD and this forum, nobody seemed to want to step up to help. Yet now here we are, where everyone seems to be willing to share the load all of a sudden. Where was this attitude prior to this radical change? How can you guys call VI "just one of the guys" via PM, yet he has to shoulder all the responsibilities for administering the draft? Seems quite ironic to me.. everyone wants a say in how this thing is run, yet nobody was willing to step up and lend a hand so willingly prior to this.

 

[EagleBelfour]

Here's something that bothers me quite a bit.

It was OK before for VI to do all the work administrating and modding for this ATD and this forum, nobody seemed to want to step up to help. Yet now here we are, where everyone seems to be willing to share the load all of a sudden. Where was this attitude prior to this radical change? How can you guys call VI "just one of the guys" via PM, yet he has to shoulder all the responsibilities for administering the draft? Seems quite ironic to me.. everyone wants a say in how this thing is run, yet nobody was willing to step up and lend a hand so willingly prior to this.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement (at least from my point of view, as I feel part of these comment are directed toward me). It was never my intention to steal anyone's thunder when I put together the 'list' (for lack of a better word). In the last couple of pages of the last thread, they were many questions asked without having been answered, and I felt it would be more convenient to put it all on a single post. If anyone analyzed my action for anything else than it really was, I won't take the blame for it.

As for the part that ''nobody was willing to step up and lend a hand so willingly prior to this'', I will also have to disagree. I will talk for myself only, but neither VanI or anyone responsible for for any administration duty came to me and asked me to help. In past ATD, when problems occur, I was there to help (even was the administrator for one of them). But that's beside the point. Any work done in this section is voluntary and done because we very well wants to: it doesn't entitle us to anything. No users, no matter how many drafts they have been in or many 'James Creighton Cup' they have won, are above anyone else. We're all equal, and we all have an equal voice.

I understand that the last part is personal opinion, and that's what made this ''situation'' happen. VanI felt he was entitle to more responsibility and could make decision for the rest of the group, because he's one of the oldest and most respected GM of this section. As I said earlier, I disagree with this. But the worst is that at this point, I had no clue that this was VanI thought of process. I knew only after his tantrum, reading his last post in this thread, that this was the way he felt. It would of been a better solution to at least talk about this to some of us. I wouldn't of agree, but at least I would've understand it. At the end, he decided to do ''this'' instead, and he surely has the right to do so. However, I have hard time either feeling sorry or guilty of the situation. I guess it's just the way it goes, and the best is to move on.

I hope VanI will decide to GM a team in this draft. He would definitely be a great addition, but most importantly because we all know how much he loves the draft. (And please, hope you will soon change this childish name back to VanI.)

 

[jarek]

I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement (at least from my point of view, as I feel part of these comment are directed toward me). It was never my intention to steal anyone's thunder when I put together the 'list' (for lack of a better word). In the last couple of pages of the last thread, they were many questions asked without having been answered, and I felt it would be more convenient to put it all on a single post. If anyone analyzed my action for anything else than it really was, I won't take the blame for it.

As for the part that ''nobody was willing to step up and lend a hand so willingly prior to this'', I will also have to disagree. I will talk for myself only, but neither VanI or anyone responsible for for any administration duty came to me and asked me to help. In past ATD, when problems occur, I was there to help (even was the administrator for one of them). But that's beside the point. Any work done in this section is voluntary and done because we very well wants to: it doesn't entitle us to anything. No users, no matter how many drafts they have been in or many 'James Creighton Cup' they have won, are above anyone else. We're all equal, and we all have an equal voice.

I understand that the last part is personal opinion, and that's what made this ''situation'' happen. VanI felt he was entitle to more responsibility and could make decision for the rest of the group, because he's one of the oldest and most respected GM of this section. As I said earlier, I disagree with this. But the worst is that at this point, I had no clue that this was VanI thought of process. I knew only after his tantrum, reading his last post in this thread, that this was the way he felt. It would of been a better solution to at least talk about this to some of us. I wouldn't of agree, but at least I would've understand it. At the end, he decided to do ''this'' instead, and he surely has the right to do so. However, I have hard time either feeling sorry or guilty of the situation. I guess it's just the way it goes, and the best is to move on.

I hope VanI will decide to GM a team in this draft. He would definitely be a great addition, but most importantly because we all know how much he loves the draft. (And please, hope you will soon change this childish name back to VanI.)

EB, my comment absolutely was NOT directed at you. In fact, quite the opposite, because I know how much effort you've put in the past into these ATDs and how much effort you'd be ready to put into this one if called upon. My statement was just a general one and the only thing I was hoping WASN'T happening was some sort of bias against VI. It's true that VI over-reacted with this like crazy, and it's also true that I feel that VI was very unrealistic expecting this draft to be done by his rules alone, despite the fact that it affects 39 other people, but I also feel that he does have a valid point too with how much effort he's put into these drafts, and I think in general we could have been more conscientious of that instead of brushing it off immediately. That being said, I'm pretty sure that all this has derailed any hope of this draft reaching 40 teams, and thus..

Should we maybe postpone the draft to the spring?

.. I feel this is the right move. VI came off a little too strongly with his large quantity of sudden rule changes and I think it's IDIOTIC that we didn't discuss these things IMMEDIATELY upon announcing the ATD so that everyone is chill with the rules well before the sign-ups end, AND so that other people know exactly what kind of draft they're getting into BEFORE they sign up. Let's give it some time for heads to cool, and re-visit the ATD at a later date.

 

[jarek]

I still want a no trades draft, but at this point, perhaps we should look at the lesser of the two evils and just do it the way it was done last year. Vote on new division names and then start it up. We waited FARRR too long to bring all this up all at once.

 

[Velociraptor]

I still want a no trades draft, but at this point, perhaps we should look at the lesser of the two evils and just do it the way it was done last year. Vote on new division names and then start it up. We waited FARRR too long to bring all this up all at once.

No trades can easily work.

 

[vancityluongo]

Should we maybe postpone the draft to the spring?

Absolutely. We need to figure things out completely before starting the draft.

 

[Velociraptor]

I'd also like to second the nomination of the "Marcus Vinnerborg Division"

Great story for him, and it is worthy of a division title.

 

[DoMakc]

Why should we postpone the draft? We are still at 32 teams, there is still enough time to join. As for trades, let's vote - vox populi, vox dei.

 

[seventieslord]

Count me out.

I was a total newcomer to this, so I'm sure I'm not a great loss, but I was looking forward to having some fun building a hypothetical all time team.. but this political crap kills it for me.

The rules should be decided upon before sign ups. That is a no brainer.

That way the administrators know ahead of time what their workload will be and can make an honest decision to commit to it, or ask for help, or let someone else do it.

Despite everyone ideally having their voice in creating the rules, I think it is very unfair to let the majority decide what one person's time obligation would amount to.

To me, that is basically what was happening in the original thread.

How can rules be decided until the people who are partcipating stand up and be counted? This isn't a criticism of VI or anyone else, but if one person just decides on all the rules and then opens the signup period, then what input do the other 39 GMs have? It would be a dictatorship. The rules have to be discussed; there's no other way.

Please reconsider joining. FWIW, your team was the one I was looking forward to seeing the most.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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.

I agree with this. And I vote to allow trades.

Just what is it that gives people a problem with trades? As far as I could tell, the only problem with trades in the last draft were lopsided trades where one GM overpaid a lot to move up.

Seventies/jarek, arrbez, nayld, and myself all made a killing in terms of depth by (in retrospect - I don't think any of us meant to at the time) basically ripping off other GMs who desperately wanted to move up. And not surprisingly, we had 4 of the strongest teams - some might say the 4 strongest (partly due to strength of GMs but definitely helped by our unbalanced trades).

So here's an easy black and white rule. Trades function like last time, but any trade where one GM gives up more than 3 times the picks that the other does is invalid.

You want to move up 15 picks? You have to give up less than 45 later. Deals with multiple picks involved, we add up the total picks involved on both sides and then compare.

Edit: The 2nd trade I posted below kind of busts this proposed rule. Anyone have a better idea?

I'll illustrate with trades I made myself last time:

To JohnFlyersFan & NGARV (Edmonton Armadillos): 64, 124, 177, 244
To TheDevilMadeMe (New Jersey Swamp Devils): 86, 95, 146, 266

Edmonton gets 22+22 = 44 picks. NJ gets 29+32 = 61 picks. 61/44 < 3, so good trade.

to papershoes (Kenora Thistles): 95, 266, 304
to TheDevilMadeMe (New Jersey Swamp Devils): 85, 276, 325

NJ gets 10 picks. Kenora gets 10+21 = 31. 31/10 > 3, so this trade would be bad. Oh well, I tried. I see no reason the above trade should be considered bad, so I guess the 3 times rule isn't good formula. Can anyone think of something better or should I just scrap the idea?


To TheDevilMadeMe (New Jersey Swamp Devils): 99, 199
To Nighthawks (New Haven Nighthawks): 86, 297

This is the kind of trade that people have problems with. New Haven gave up 98 picks in the middle of the draft to move up a mere 13 picks earlier.

To TheDevilMadeMe (New Jersey Swamp Devils): 168, 288
To DoMakc (Green Bay Gamblers): 199, 237

Meanwhile, I only gave up 51 picks to move up 31. This is the kind of trade that is fair to both teams.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Still, the idea of administrating and participating at the same time is a bit scary from a time standpoint. We'll see how it goes. Maybe VI cools off and it all goes back to the way it was. I dunno.

I really really think we need to try to get multiple mods on this board so that multiple people can edit the draft list. (I know we've tried before and they wouldn't give it to us). It would make things run so much more smoothly and not place the burden on running the thing on just one person.

I didn't realize just what a PITA it was to edit the draft list until I posted the 4th and final thread for the last ATD, and that was the short and easy one.

 

[DoMakc]

Can anyone think of something better or should I just scrap the idea?
[/B]

You should scrap that idea, i mean gaining 20 picks in the 1st/2nd/3rd for 100 in the 20ies is lopsided, just in wrong direction. i don't think there is any formula, you know common sence is hard to quantify. People should remember, it's a All Time Draft, there is always Plan B.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You should scrap that idea, i mean gaining 20 picks in the 1st/2nd/3rd for 100 in the 20ies is lopsided, just in wrong direction. i don't think there is any formula, you know common sence is hard to quantify. People should remember, it's a All Time Draft, there is always Plan B.

I'm sure we could make a formula, but it would have lots of "or" statements based off of the difference in rounds, which kind of defeats the purpose (which was supposed to be to create an easy to follow black and white rule).

I think you're right.

I mean, I really do prefer any way to keep trades between rounds, so long as they are reasonable, but not at the expense of breaking the draft before it starts.

 

[jarek]

The huge ambiguity in the valuations of trades is precisely why we should just scrap trades altogether.

That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of allowing PLAYER ONLY trades.. because THOSE are pretty easy to judge.