ATD 2013: Should teams get points for GMs contributions to assassination threads?

[VanIslander]

A simple yes or no. This topic begs a vote.

Click to read more...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You're being too specific. There are other possible incentives (such as only being able to give yourself a free first place vote) that don't directly involve giving teams points.

Edit: I changed the poll to something more broad - whether incentives should be given to assassinate teams. If it wins, we can discuss what those will be.

 

[VanIslander]

The issue at hand is: Should teams get points for GMs contributions to assassination threads? THAT is what we disagree about!!!!! NOT whether a team that submits votes should be allowed/expected to list its own team first overall as an incentive to vote. WE can agree on the latter but many of us DISAGREE about the former.

Anyways,... let's let others weigh in. The poll question is still about rewarding teams for GM participation in assassinations. THAT is what is disagreed about. So let it stand as such please.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The issue at hand is: Should teams get points for GMs contributions to assassination threads? THAT is what we disagree about!!!!! NOT whether a team that submits votes should be allowed/expected to list its own team first overall as an incentive to vote. WE can agree on the latter but many of us DISAGREE about the former.

The real issue is whether we should give incentives to teams at all. And my guess is that you don't want to vote on that, because you're not 100% sure that it will lose, like directly awarding points will.

 

[VanIslander]

directly awarding points

That is what we disagree about.

No one disagrees that a team who submits his rankings gets to place his team first in his ranking scheme of teams in his division (and if that team's GMs did not submit their rankings of teams they would have lost the opportunity of placing their team first overall). No one diagrees with that.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That is what we disagree about.

No one disagrees that a team who submits his rankings gets to place his team first in his ranking scheme of teams in his division (and if that team's GMs did not submit their rankings of teams they would have lost the opportunity of placing their team first overall). No one diagrees with that.

If you're going to keep lying about my position to advance your "no changes to the assassination format" agenda, I'm closing this poll.

Please stop it.

I want to give some form of incentive to a team that does ONE assassination; I'd prefer it to be something other than directly awarding points.

 

[seventieslord]

There should not be a vote on this until proper discourse. Right now people there is the potential for knee-jerk, "that's a radical change OMG!!!" voting, whereas if we stew on this and let good points rise to the top and bad points get the scrutiny they deserve, it may be different.

 

[seventieslord]

If you're going to keep lying about my position to advance your "no changes to the assassination format" agenda, I'm closing this poll.

Please stop it.

I want to give some form of incentive to a team that does ONE assassination; I'd prefer it to be something other than directly awarding points.

it should be closed anyway.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

That is what we disagree about.

No one disagrees that a team who submits his rankings gets to place his team first in his ranking scheme of teams in his division (and if that team's GMs did not submit their rankings of teams they would have lost the opportunity of placing their team first overall). No one diagrees with that.

Two key differences:
1) That rule is to punish teams who fail to do the bare minimum of post draft participation.
2) That rule can't be used to pump up a team in the standings.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Two key differences:
1) That rule is to punish teams who fail to do the bare minimum of post draft participation.
2) That rule can't be used to pump up a team in the standings.

That's where we differ. I think reviewing a single team that isn't your own SHOULD be part of the bare minimum. But seems like a lot of people disagree.

 

[seventieslord]

We don't vote on something the minute it is brought up for discussion. That is not how any democracy works. Are the people against the idea worried that more discussion wouldn't help their cause?

 

[Hobnobs]

That's where we differ. I think reviewing a single team that isn't your own SHOULD be part of the bare minimum. But seems like a lot of people disagree.

I dont disagree on that it should be a part of the minimum, I just dont think we should have a point system for it. Would be better to have something like a random player on the gms team gets injured during the playoff series and cant participate.

Edit: Btw the agressive tone will just keep people away from the discussion and it will just be three gms doing the discussion with no real result.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

We don't vote on something the minute it is brought up for discussion. That is not how any democracy works. Are the people against the idea worried that more discussion wouldn't help their cause?

Yes, especially when the "option" we are voting on was the one most guaranteed to lose among several discussed.

By the way, if this vote is strictly for awarding bonus points per assassination, change my yes vote (which was for incentives in general) to a no.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Edit: Btw the agressive tone will just keep people away from the discussion and it will just be three gms doing the discussion with no real result.

VI knows exactly what he's doing. He wants to cut off discussion about changing the format of the assassination thread, so he's picking an option that is guaranteed to lose, pretending that I support it, and rushing a vote that is guaranteed to go against it by a lopsided margin.

If someone was purposely misrepresenting your position, you'd be pissed too.

 

[VanIslander]

The disagreement is about whether GM participation in assassinations should affect TEAM standings in any way!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is what some of us object to, not just me.

The format of the assassinations being changed is a separate matter. This is NOT about whether there should be multiple assassination threads, one for each division!!

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

That's where we differ. I think reviewing a single team that isn't your own SHOULD be part of the bare minimum. But seems like a lot of people disagree.

Did anyone last draft fail to review at least one team?

 

[seventieslord]

Yes, especially when the "option" we are voting on was the one most guaranteed to lose among several discussed.

By the way, if this vote is strictly for awarding bonus points per assassination, change my yes vote (which was for incentives in general) to a no.

There should be incentives of some sort, and I think it would be hard for anyone to give a well-reasoned argument why there shouldn't be.

If we choose to go that route, bonus points should be on the table. People are seeing it as some sort of draft-altering points system when it would barely change anything (if at all) – did the data I showed not demonstrate this?

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Did anyone last draft fail to review at least one team?

I think so. If I remember correctly, there are usually 10-15 GMs that write all of the assassinations, and a few GMs writing a lot(TDMM, tony d, Velociraptor, myself, seventies, Sturm, maybe some others I'm forgetting).

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

There should be incentives of some sort, and I think it would be hard for anyone to give a well-reasoned argument why there shouldn't be.

1. There's only so much that needs to be said. I often pass on writing an assassination because I have nothing new to offer. If everyone was writing an assassination on every team, there would be so much overlap in points that actually finding new and salient points would be like finding a needle in a hay stack.
2. If everyone writes an assassination, then it isn't just a time commitment to write, but also to read. No one likes knowing their 30 minutes work was a waste of time and many GMs will scan or not read at all, which means that good points will be missed and not properly discussed because they are missed.
3. The more assassinations, the harder it is to respond to each one. Lets not forget that the dedication of time is not just writing an assassination, it is responding too. And just like writing an assassination, responding takes more time than merely the typing time, it requires that the GM take the time to properly think out their replies and in many instances research their replies.
4. GMs being forced to pump out assassinations is not fun, this whole process is fun. It's a game, not a job, we should never lose sight of that fact.
5. Everyone has a different personality. Some may get a lot more from simply reading an absorbing assassinations, and that is a form of participation in and of itself. A system of rewarding people for writing assassinations rewards those who's personality has them derive pleasure from writing assassinations, while in the long run discouraging GMs who find it tedious from participating in the first place.
6. If the assassinations thread is filled with everyone's opinions in full detail, it will provide a road map to how voting will play out, removing the suspense, surprise and mystery from the playoff process.
7. There is already so much to the process that rewards GMs who enjoy long drawn out debates and research. The system greatly rewards those who have the time and desire to dedicate their time and mental resources to the ATD. Given how these long drawn out debates drain the momentum out of the ATD, it is clear that we should not be trying to increase the prominence and reward for debate. This plays into the personality type argument, the more systems like this we have in place, the more we encourage one group to gain joy from the ATD and the more we discourage all other groups from enjoying the process.

So, in summary, this is a game, this is supposed to be fun. We should be setting in place rules that make the ATD fun for as many different people as possible, not as few as possible.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Did anyone last draft fail to review at least one team?

Considering the fact that we couldn't even get every team 2 reviews last time, combined with the fact that I reviewed about 15 teams myself, I'd say there were many GMs who didn't review at least one team.

Maybe dividing the assassinations by divisions will encourage participation. It will certainly make it easier to sort out arguments. The more we talk about this, the more I like that idea.

 

[markrander87]

It seems like every year we have these types of threads (with good intentions) but they never get anywhere. Can we just agree to avoid the bonus point system for reviews and try the seperate assassination page per division and see if they encourages more participation.

If we continue on this pace we arent going to accomplish anything, it doesn't matter what we land on you are never going to please everybody.

 

[VanIslander]

Can we just agree to avoid the bonus point system for reviews and try the seperate assassination page per division and see if they encourages more participation.

That's a reasonable alternative!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It seems like every year we have these types of threads (with good intentions) but they never get anywhere.

Completely disagree. I think we've accomplished a lot with these threads.

Such as the following reasonable compromise:

Can we just agree to avoid the bonus point system for reviews and try the seperate assassination page per division and see if they encourages more participation.

I am happy with the above. But if it doesn't encourage more participation, I would be in favor of more direct incentives for ATD 2014 (or ATD 2013.5 if we speed things up).

If we continue on this pace we arent going to accomplish anything, it doesn't matter what we land on you are never going to please everybody.

Who cares about the pace? The draft isn't starting for a few weeks, regardless.

 

[vecens24]

It seems like every year we have these types of threads (with good intentions) but they never get anywhere. Can we just agree to avoid the bonus point system for reviews and try the seperate assassination page per division and see if they encourages more participation.

If we continue on this pace we arent going to accomplish anything, it doesn't matter what we land on you are never going to please everybody.

That I'm okay with. Not a bad idea at all.

 

[VanIslander]

We just might have a consensus on an alternative! (It's good to seek agreement.)

"When men of good faith try, there is always a way."

Maybe we should mediate the NHL-NHLPA dispute.