HeartBreakKid wrote:How's about for tie-breakers we just do a sudden-death type of thing? Next vote wins (like Pen voted a bit after the tie breaker for Pierce).
MLS style penalty shoot-out >>>>
Moderators: penbeast0, trex_8063, PaulieWal, Doctor MJ, Clyde Frazier
HeartBreakKid wrote:How's about for tie-breakers we just do a sudden-death type of thing? Next vote wins (like Pen voted a bit after the tie breaker for Pierce).
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
Doc MJ wrote:This is one of your trademark data-based arguments in which I sigh, go over to basketballreference, and then see all the ways you cherrypicked the data toward your prejudiced beliefs rather than actually using them to inform you
HeartBreakKid wrote:I think we should consider changing voting system again.
Now that we are getting to the half way mark, votes are starting to split in many different directions for nominations and there is now a huge amount of disfranchisement in the most recent threads, and it's likely going to be like this for 50 more threads.
WintaSoldier1 wrote:Hey, Looking to have a vote by the 50th Mark. Want to engage in more conversation and immerse myself to build some mental dedication towards this project.
What are the guidelines for getting a vote?
sp6r=underrated wrote:HeartBreakKid wrote:I think we should consider changing voting system again.
Now that we are getting to the half way mark, votes are starting to split in many different directions for nominations and there is now a huge amount of disfranchisement in the most recent threads, and it's likely going to be like this for 50 more threads.
I haven't read most of the threads so feel free to disregard if this process has been tried and failed. The further you move down the list the more viable candidate there are. That's the essential problem this project always faces, besides waning interest the further you move down.
I'd recommend a two round voting process
Stage 1: Every voter recommends 3 candidates for the run-off votes with weights (3 for tentative first).
Stage 1 should be very brief.
Stage top 3 candidates move forth with discussion limited to those 3 candidates. 1 vote for first.
Doctor MJ wrote:sp6r=underrated wrote:HeartBreakKid wrote:I think we should consider changing voting system again.
Now that we are getting to the half way mark, votes are starting to split in many different directions for nominations and there is now a huge amount of disfranchisement in the most recent threads, and it's likely going to be like this for 50 more threads.
I haven't read most of the threads so feel free to disregard if this process has been tried and failed. The further you move down the list the more viable candidate there are. That's the essential problem this project always faces, besides waning interest the further you move down.
I'd recommend a two round voting process
Stage 1: Every voter recommends 3 candidates for the run-off votes with weights (3 for tentative first).
Stage 1 should be very brief.
Stage top 3 candidates move forth with discussion limited to those 3 candidates. 1 vote for first.
So I'll just say that I'm reluctant to add more complexity to the system. More complexity would make for slightly better preference calibration, but I don't think it would help the discussion/disfranchisement.
Doctor MJ wrote:sp6r=underrated wrote:HeartBreakKid wrote:I think we should consider changing voting system again.
Now that we are getting to the half way mark, votes are starting to split in many different directions for nominations and there is now a huge amount of disfranchisement in the most recent threads, and it's likely going to be like this for 50 more threads.
I haven't read most of the threads so feel free to disregard if this process has been tried and failed. The further you move down the list the more viable candidate there are. That's the essential problem this project always faces, besides waning interest the further you move down.
I'd recommend a two round voting process
Stage 1: Every voter recommends 3 candidates for the run-off votes with weights (3 for tentative first).
Stage 1 should be very brief.
Stage top 3 candidates move forth with discussion limited to those 3 candidates. 1 vote for first.
So I'll just say that I'm reluctant to add more complexity to the system. More complexity would make for slightly better preference calibration, but I don't think it would help the discussion/disfranchisement.
AEnigma wrote:The only real change I might suggest is to look at the top three nominees to start rather than the top two.To some extent people should be paying attention to whether their nomination ordering makes sense (e.g. if you are the only person voting for or nominating a player, you should be prepared to make them your alternate if listing them as your primary is sabotaging your intended alternates).
Another idea might be to count the top two based on primaries… and then also add in whomever had the most alternate votes as a third. Say we have a hypothetical initial nomination distribution of 1-1-3-4-2, but the voters for Players B, C, and E all have Player A as their alternate (Player D voters declined to list any). So then you go to the second round, and the count becomes 4-0-3-4-0, and then third round the count becomes 7-0-0-4-0. That is an extreme hypothetical which to some extent I would expect to solve itself (if two people switch their order, that would suffice), but the potential marginalisation of the most popular secondary votes is the only major “flaw” I see in the present system.
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
eminence wrote:Modernish guys I'd like to see still make the ballot at some point, have any been discussed at length yet?
Paul George
Rudy Gobert
Jrue Holiday
Damian Lillard
Kyle Lowry
Shawn Marion
Rasheed Wallace
eminence wrote:Modernish guys I'd like to see still make the ballot at some point, have any been discussed at length yet?
Paul George
Rudy Gobert
Jrue Holiday
Damian Lillard
Kyle Lowry
Shawn Marion
Rasheed Wallace
eminence wrote:Modernish guys I'd like to see still make the ballot at some point, have any been discussed at length yet?
Paul George
Rudy Gobert
Jrue Holiday
Damian Lillard
Kyle Lowry
Shawn Marion
Rasheed Wallace
Dr Positivity wrote:eminence wrote:Modernish guys I'd like to see still make the ballot at some point, have any been discussed at length yet?
Paul George
Rudy Gobert
Jrue Holiday
Damian Lillard
Kyle Lowry
Shawn Marion
Rasheed Wallace
I’d rather vote for Tatum and Doncic than some of these guys
Doctor MJ wrote:I'm low on Marion compared to most. I think he absolutely had the chance to have a clear cut Top 100 career. Unfortunately, he developed a horrendous attitude and pushed his way out of the only place he ever looked like a star. Clearly the fact that he eventually landed in Dallas and played as a role player on a champion really washed away the bitter taste for many, but I think folks should never forget that this was a man who thought he was capable of going from a 20 PPG guy in Phoenix to a 30 PPG on another team, and instead his scoring went down and the first two post-Phoenix teams pretty quickly realized he really wasn't that useful to them.