Doctor MJ wrote:AEnigma wrote:Interested in participating.
I suspect the runoff rule will needed to be changed but it should suffice early on.
How many names will be on voting ballots? I see 2020 had three and 2017 had two.
I appreciate you recognizing that what I've laid out doesn't have to be perfect to get us started, and we can discuss how to optimize the process later if we need to.
Re: names on ballot.
My intent is just 1 for the Induction and 1 for the Nomination.Using a vanilla scheme like this gives people the option to vote strategically. They can opt to Vote for Player B to keep Player C from winning even though they prefer Player A above all.
This is a distinct con of the system I'm intending to use, but the context we're doing this matters here.
I'm someone who has long been a proponent of a more sophisticated voting scheme in politics because I see strategic voting concerns crippling our public discourse. Because the winner in politics gains actual power, the result of the voting IS the goal.
But the purpose of this project is first and foremost to foster growth in basketball knowledge and community, and so strategic voting is a more minor concern. The reality is that if in strategically voting for Player B, it encourages you to learn/share more about Player B than you otherwise would have if you'd continued to just champion Player A, that's a value add in my book.
I will say that the potential to pile on tearing apart Player C IS a major concern. That can concentrate and accelerate negativity depending on the behavior of the participants, and if it ends up going in that direction unchecked, it will really kill the enthusiasm we use as fuel to get us through this marathon.
Were negativity starts to ensue, that's where moderators come. Please do Report any clear cut behavior violations as you normally would. I'm specifically going to be trying to steer us toward a positive vibe, so that people want to keep participating.
Yeah I pretty emphatically disagree with not making it at least a two-vote ballot. Just like in many actual political systems, that functionally cripples the ability to vote principally and instead necessitates acquiescing to a choice between two, maybe three potential pluralities.
Outright, if anyone does not vote for Lebron or Jordan in the first round, they are throwing away their vote. That is the simple truth. Regardless of how strongly they may feel about Russell or Kareem (or anyone else), they will be a minority and that vote will go nowhere.
Yeah, I can recognise that this is the “simplest” way to run the project. And honestly, I would tally the votes for you each round if it meant not doing it this way.
I do not see how it improves discussion, and I definitely do not see how it would produce a more positive message. If you care about the result for your vote, you should be looking to argue against the other main contender(s). And again going back to the first post, that will turn it entirely into yet another “Jordan versus Lebron” thread.
Past that, the few who do hold firm and “vote third party”, as it were, are essentially setting themselves up to be harassed (in a sense) by everyone else, because they constitute a swing vote and they are “throwing away their vote” otherwise.
Outside of the early rounds, I also think it excessively promotes homogeneity — which defeats the purpose of an update at all. 70sFan has Thurmond in his top forty, so either he can throw away his vote for twenty rounds (LouFan touched on this), or he can ignore that entirely and just decide between consensus. Okay, Thurmond needs to be nominated first, and top forty will be a stretch for that to succeed, but there too, he is probably throwing away his
nomination spot for fifteen rounds.
I am not saying increase the nomination ballot size (although you could), but what you are giving is essentially two slots to “foster growth in basketball knowledge”, with those two slots frequently compromised by electoral realities. People
can communicate more than that, but what will be the motivation past that? We saw people in the peak projects start to tire and feel frustrated when they just quoted the same reasoning vote after vote, and there they had minimum three opportunities to contribute their reasoning. It was concordat voting, but not many of us took full advantage, so I would not expect that to
improve when restricted to only one meaningful vote and then nomination. And in that situation, are we really going to expect people to just keep up posting repeats for ten plus rounds at a time, or otherwise stay invested by posting votes for players about whom they care little? I will participate either way, but I doubt I am alone in the sentiment that my participation would be a lot more consistent if I were not continually forced to do nothing meaningful but vote between pluralities I do not support.
I am fine with the nomination process broadly (although I share Colbinii’s sentiment that as the player range expands, so to should the range of nominees; six “valid” GOATs is much different from six “valid” choices at #75). It is the single ballot where I think that excessively hampers discourse.
