JeepCSC wrote:Ok, so I think we need to move towards hard deadlines for everything. Write-ups, voting, etc. If someone doesn't do write-ups, you'll just have to vote and imagine the coach got suspended for the game. Can we move towards something like Wednesday 8 PM for the lower seed write-ups, Thursday 8 PM for the higher seed response, Friday 12 PM/8 PM for both rebuttals, and then Sunday 8 PM for final votes? Then rinse and repeat. Just examples, times can change. At this point we might be looking at next week as the start, but maybe not.
Agree we should take control. My opinions ...
I wouldn't say imagine the coach got suspended. People can figure in their own mental punishment or absence thereof for not posting, but we picked a coach external to us. My personal interpretation would probably be assume 32-16 split at each position (probably without regard to position strength), plus a marginal mental penalty if it appears to be absence through laziness (i.e. poster seemingly awol, rather than misinterpreting or not understanding present rulings or notifying competitors that they aren't able to post). I think that carries some punishment/deterrent, without ignoring a coach who has already been picked. That's just how I'd interpret it, like I say, personally I'd let each person react to absences in their own way.
Given we've had people strongly favour blind seedings, I wouldn't give any time advantages to the higher seeds (the implicit endorsement is advantage enough).
Any timings would need a time zone given.
I was wondering about staggering matchups (with some overlap) so that people could concentrate on comparing other matchups rather than worry exclusively about their own. However I'm now inclined to think the delay-extension caused would make the project more likely to die/peter out before completion.
WRT a games "GM" leaving discussions (after a counterpoint deadline), I think you'd be fine allowing them to converse (for instance clearing up misconceptions) and just be aware that overdoing it might be to their disadvantage.
Priorites would appear to be a voting window and who we are allowing to vote. You [JeepCSC] have suggested "involved members of the player comparison board", if we are going with that we'd need to nail down what (who) that means (and whether we're asking specific people to vote or pimping our threads on the PC board)? If I get time I may check into whether previous such leagues tended to decide results internally or have external voting.