Future Draft Games

[Snakebites]

I hear your concerns, but I think as a small group we could think of a way to mitigate those risks while also allowing for someone like Jordan Syndrome from not being screwed late rounds by an honest mistake that he would have been able to quickly change without anyone else picking. Maybe we can come back to this in the future drafts thread - I realize this is now distracting from discussion on the draft. Thanks for hearing me out.

I just think it makes the games messier and isnt fair to the people who are careful with the rules. Nor is it pair to the commissioner who would now need to process all of those protests.

Someone has to be inconvenienced when a mistake is made. I see no reason why that should be anyone other than the person who made the mistake.

It’s not a question of trust.

I also really don’t appreciate you questioning my motivation in participating in these games just because I disagree with you.

It was a rhetorical question - just to be clear. Like I said to Laimbeer, I would encourage you to look beyond any perception of personal attack. If it's not a question of trust, then just let them make the change. It's as easy as that. That's not asking a whole lot of additional consideration.

I went on to explain the non trust related reason not to do it.

If you wanna ignore that, that’s fine.

[JimmyPlopper]

I just think it makes the games messier and isnt fair to the people who are careful with the rules. Nor is it pair to the commissioner who would now need to process all of those protests.

Someone has to be inconvenienced when a mistake is made. I see no reason why that should be anyone other than the person who made the mistake.

It’s not a question of trust.

I also really don’t appreciate you questioning my motivation in participating in these games just because I disagree with you.

It was a rhetorical question - just to be clear. Like I said to Laimbeer, I would encourage you to look beyond any perception of personal attack. If it's not a question of trust, then just let them make the change. It's as easy as that. That's not asking a whole lot of additional consideration.

I went on to explain the non trust related reason not to do it.

If you wanna ignore that, that’s fine.

To make someone pay for their mistake or thing being to onerous for the commissioner to handle?

[Snakebites]

It was a rhetorical question - just to be clear. Like I said to Laimbeer, I would encourage you to look beyond any perception of personal attack. If it's not a question of trust, then just let them make the change. It's as easy as that. That's not asking a whole lot of additional consideration.

I went on to explain the non trust related reason not to do it.

If you wanna ignore that, that’s fine.

To make someone pay for their mistake or thing being to onerous for the commissioner to handle?

Both. I’d also add as I’ve said in other posts on the matter that this makes the draft messier for everyone.

I realize you think those are mean and nasty positions, but I stand by them. It’s up to the commish to lay out the rules clearly, and if they’ve done that in a way that most have managed to draft without messing up, they’ve met their burden. I fail to see why that’s wrong.

I really don’t think it’s that hard to follow the rules. Your argument is essentially that it’s too onerous to read the rules and follow them, and you’ve implied on other posts that there’s some “communication” burden the commish isn’t meeting. I’ve seen none of that.

[JimmyPlopper]

I went on to explain the non trust related reason not to do it.

If you wanna ignore that, that’s fine.

To make someone pay for their mistake or thing being to onerous for the commissioner to handle?

Both. I’d also add as I’ve said in other posts on the matter that this makes the draft messier for everyone.

I realize you think those are mean and nasty positions, but I stand by them. It’s up to the commish to lay out the rules clearly, and if they’ve done that in a way that most have managed to draft without messing up, they’ve met their burden. I fail to see why that’s wrong.

I really don’t think it’s that hard to follow the rules. Your argument is essentially that it’s too onerous to read the rules and follow them, and you’ve implied on other posts that there’s some “communication” burden the commish isn’t meeting. I’ve seen none of that.

I don't think I've been involved in a single competition where it hasn't happened to someone. So for me, it's not a hypothetical matter of whether or not its too harsh. It's a real matter of having people get caught by a rule and then the competition is immediately over for them. It makes the whole competition worse for everyone IMO.

I didn't imply that there is a communication burden the commish isn't meeting. I explicitly said that the commission shares communication responsibilities with the readers of this rules. And this is the golden rule of communication in every corner of life so I don't see what is so controversial here. Your statement that 100% of the burden goes on the participant doesn't seem to be in agreement with what is otherwise known as a universal truth. Would you care to explain that stance?

Also the notion of wanting someone to pay for their mistake strikes me as very petty more than mean or nasty. I don't think that's the message we want to communicate as a competition.

[Snakebites]

To make someone pay for their mistake or thing being to onerous for the commissioner to handle?

Both. I’d also add as I’ve said in other posts on the matter that this makes the draft messier for everyone.

I realize you think those are mean and nasty positions, but I stand by them. It’s up to the commish to lay out the rules clearly, and if they’ve done that in a way that most have managed to draft without messing up, they’ve met their burden. I fail to see why that’s wrong.

I really don’t think it’s that hard to follow the rules. Your argument is essentially that it’s too onerous to read the rules and follow them, and you’ve implied on other posts that there’s some “communication” burden the commish isn’t meeting. I’ve seen none of that.

I don't think I've been involved in a single competition where it hasn't happened to someone. So for me, it's not a hypothetical matter of whether or not its too harsh. It's a real matter of having people get caught by a rule and then the competition is immediately over for them. It makes the whole competition worse for everyone IMO.

I didn't imply that there is a communication burden the commish isn't meeting. I explicitly said that the commission shares communication responsibilities with the readers of this rules. And this is the golden rule of communication in every corner of life so I don't see what is so controversial here. Your statement that 100% of the burden goes on the participant doesn't seem to be in agreement with what is otherwise known as a universal truth. Would you care to explain that stance?

Also the notion of wanting someone to pay for their mistake strikes me as very petty more than mean or nasty. I don't think that's the message we want to communicate as a competition.

It’s become a lot more common in recent games, yes. I’m not sure why that is.

Has it ever been the case that the rules were unclear? In that case I’d say a change should be made, but in that case you’d also see more than just one person or 2. But I’ve never seen that. It’s more people simply missing a rule that’s clearly stated.

If that makes me petty, fine. I think people need to be reading the instructions and making sure they understand the implications of a pick.

[JimmyPlopper]

Both. I’d also add as I’ve said in other posts on the matter that this makes the draft messier for everyone.

I realize you think those are mean and nasty positions, but I stand by them. It’s up to the commish to lay out the rules clearly, and if they’ve done that in a way that most have managed to draft without messing up, they’ve met their burden. I fail to see why that’s wrong.

I really don’t think it’s that hard to follow the rules. Your argument is essentially that it’s too onerous to read the rules and follow them, and you’ve implied on other posts that there’s some “communication” burden the commish isn’t meeting. I’ve seen none of that.

I don't think I've been involved in a single competition where it hasn't happened to someone. So for me, it's not a hypothetical matter of whether or not its too harsh. It's a real matter of having people get caught by a rule and then the competition is immediately over for them. It makes the whole competition worse for everyone IMO.

I didn't imply that there is a communication burden the commish isn't meeting. I explicitly said that the commission shares communication responsibilities with the readers of this rules. And this is the golden rule of communication in every corner of life so I don't see what is so controversial here. Your statement that 100% of the burden goes on the participant doesn't seem to be in agreement with what is otherwise known as a universal truth. Would you care to explain that stance?

Also the notion of wanting someone to pay for their mistake strikes me as very petty more than mean or nasty. I don't think that's the message we want to communicate as a competition.

It’s become a lot more common in recent games, yes. I’m not sure why that is.

Has it ever been the case that the rules were unclear? In that case I’d say a change should be made, but in that case you’d also see more than just one person or 2. But I’ve never seen that. It’s more people simply missing a rule that’s clearly stated.

If that makes me petty, fine. I think people need to be reading the instructions and making sure they understand the implications of a pick.

I don't think you are petty. I think you want to enjoy playing the game at a high standard which is cool. I am just trying to be realistic about what has been happening. For me, I feel deflated when that happens to someone. I feel like I care less about the competition at hand afterward. I would be more inclined to feel like a part of the competition if there was some understanding conveyed in certain situations. Someone tries to pick Dwight Howard and once we point to the rule they missed, they immediately change the pick - no harm and no foul. Optimally that is how I see that situation working out. Same with James Harden. No one got away with anything - they just picked within their new found understanding of the actual rules. Now if someone chose a player and then said "oh I forgot about X" that is a whole different story in which you have to say - too bad you forgot them. Being able to remember the players is part of what the draft is about to me. I guess for me the reading the rules things can be overemphasized in a way that takes away from my experience - even when it wasn't me who broke the rules.

[Snakebites]

I don't think I've been involved in a single competition where it hasn't happened to someone. So for me, it's not a hypothetical matter of whether or not its too harsh. It's a real matter of having people get caught by a rule and then the competition is immediately over for them. It makes the whole competition worse for everyone IMO.

I didn't imply that there is a communication burden the commish isn't meeting. I explicitly said that the commission shares communication responsibilities with the readers of this rules. And this is the golden rule of communication in every corner of life so I don't see what is so controversial here. Your statement that 100% of the burden goes on the participant doesn't seem to be in agreement with what is otherwise known as a universal truth. Would you care to explain that stance?

Also the notion of wanting someone to pay for their mistake strikes me as very petty more than mean or nasty. I don't think that's the message we want to communicate as a competition.

It’s become a lot more common in recent games, yes. I’m not sure why that is.

Has it ever been the case that the rules were unclear? In that case I’d say a change should be made, but in that case you’d also see more than just one person or 2. But I’ve never seen that. It’s more people simply missing a rule that’s clearly stated.

If that makes me petty, fine. I think people need to be reading the instructions and making sure they understand the implications of a pick.

I don't think you are petty. I think you want to enjoy playing the game at a high standard which is cool. I am just trying to be realistic about what has been happening. For me, I feel deflated when that happens to someone. I feel like I care less about the competition at hand afterward. I would be more inclined to feel like a part of the competition if there was some understanding conveyed in certain situations. Someone tries to pick Dwight Howard and once we point to the rule they missed, they immediately change the pick - no harm and no foul. Optimally that is how I see that situation working out. Same with James Harden. No one got away with anything - they just picked within their new found understanding of the actual rules. Now if someone chose a player and then said "oh I forgot about X" that is a whole different story in which you have to say - too bad you forgot them. Being able to remember the players is part of what the draft is about to me. I guess for me the reading the rules things can be overemphasized in a way that takes away from my experience - even when it wasn't me who broke the rules.

I guess that’s where we differ. You view it as something that happens to someone. I view it as something someone does.

[Kiwifan]

I can remember several instances in the past before the "no pick change rule" (Before i had an account and would watch along) several unpleasant interactions when a pick was wanting to be changed, there's normally people on both sides, all the onus would fall on the commissioner to make a decision which ultimately would never please everyone, which isn't pleasant for the commish, who already is doing everyone a favor by running the game. Since the no change rule came in these situations have been clear cut. Personally I'm a fan of the rule. Yes there are instances where an honest mistake is made but in my mind the onus is on the drafter to read the rules and understand (ive never seen a commish not clarify a rule when asked). At the end of the day these drafts are run every 7-10 days so there's always another opportunity!

[JimmyPlopper]

It’s become a lot more common in recent games, yes. I’m not sure why that is.

Has it ever been the case that the rules were unclear? In that case I’d say a change should be made, but in that case you’d also see more than just one person or 2. But I’ve never seen that. It’s more people simply missing a rule that’s clearly stated.

If that makes me petty, fine. I think people need to be reading the instructions and making sure they understand the implications of a pick.

I don't think you are petty. I think you want to enjoy playing the game at a high standard which is cool. I am just trying to be realistic about what has been happening. For me, I feel deflated when that happens to someone. I feel like I care less about the competition at hand afterward. I would be more inclined to feel like a part of the competition if there was some understanding conveyed in certain situations. Someone tries to pick Dwight Howard and once we point to the rule they missed, they immediately change the pick - no harm and no foul. Optimally that is how I see that situation working out. Same with James Harden. No one got away with anything - they just picked within their new found understanding of the actual rules. Now if someone chose a player and then said "oh I forgot about X" that is a whole different story in which you have to say - too bad you forgot them. Being able to remember the players is part of what the draft is about to me. I guess for me the reading the rules things can be overemphasized in a way that takes away from my experience - even when it wasn't me who broke the rules.

I guess that’s where we differ. You view it as something that happens to someone. I view it as something someone does.

I am not even making a distinction between those two choices because I'm not moralizing it or making it about personal responsibility.

I'm acknowledging that as human beings, we are all going to make mistakes, it's just a matter of when and how do we deal with them. In this case, I'm proposing that rather than moralize the situation in which someone must pay because they didn't understand the rules correctly - that we simply let it roll off our shoulders without passing a judgment because it costs us nothing to do so and benefits the overall competition by creating a path for the participant to remain in the competition unhindered.

[wackbone]

I don't think you are petty. I think you want to enjoy playing the game at a high standard which is cool. I am just trying to be realistic about what has been happening. For me, I feel deflated when that happens to someone. I feel like I care less about the competition at hand afterward. I would be more inclined to feel like a part of the competition if there was some understanding conveyed in certain situations. Someone tries to pick Dwight Howard and once we point to the rule they missed, they immediately change the pick - no harm and no foul. Optimally that is how I see that situation working out. Same with James Harden. No one got away with anything - they just picked within their new found understanding of the actual rules. Now if someone chose a player and then said "oh I forgot about X" that is a whole different story in which you have to say - too bad you forgot them. Being able to remember the players is part of what the draft is about to me. I guess for me the reading the rules things can be overemphasized in a way that takes away from my experience - even when it wasn't me who broke the rules.

I guess that’s where we differ. You view it as something that happens to someone. I view it as something someone does.

I am not even making a distinction between those two choices because I'm not moralizing it or making it about personal responsibility.

I'm acknowledging that as human beings, we are all going to make mistakes, it's just a matter of when and how do we deal with them. In this case, I'm proposing that rather than moralize the situation in which someone must pay because they didn't understand the rules correctly - that we simply let it roll off our shoulders without passing a judgment because it costs us nothing to do so and benefits the overall competition by creating a path for the participant to remain in the competition unhindered.

To me, it goes back to what Laimbeer said earlier. It can be hard to determine motivation in why someone would want to change their pick. Sure maybe they missed the rule (which like Snakebites said is on them, the rules are stated), but maybe they simply want to change their pick to someone else before someone else picks. This could greatly hinder the game.

Having a clear cut, no changing picks unless it's an illegal pick rule makes it so much simpler for both the commish and for the drafters. If you don't read the rules, that's on you. Personally I am a fan of the rule, as it is very cut and dry.

It could get messy if it is up to the commish to determine intent every time someone wants to change their pick. Not worth the headache. It's better that in the cases that someone legitimately misses a rule then they should be the only ones affected, and if that screws them over moving forward then they should've read the rules. There is ample time at the beginning and during the draft to ask clarifying questions if you don't understand something.

[JimmyPlopper]

I guess that’s where we differ. You view it as something that happens to someone. I view it as something someone does.

I am not even making a distinction between those two choices because I'm not moralizing it or making it about personal responsibility.

I'm acknowledging that as human beings, we are all going to make mistakes, it's just a matter of when and how do we deal with them. In this case, I'm proposing that rather than moralize the situation in which someone must pay because they didn't understand the rules correctly - that we simply let it roll off our shoulders without passing a judgment because it costs us nothing to do so and benefits the overall competition by creating a path for the participant to remain in the competition unhindered.

To me, it goes back to what Laimbeer said earlier. It can be hard to determine motivation in why someone would want to change their pick. Sure maybe they missed the rule (which like Snakebites said is on them, the rules are stated), but maybe they simply want to change their pick to someone else before someone else picks. This could greatly hinder the game.

Having a clear cut, no changing picks unless it's an illegal pick rule makes it so much simpler for both the commish and for the drafters. If you don't read the rules, that's on you. Personally I am a fan of the rule, as it is very cut and dry.

It could get messy if it is up to the commish to determine intent every time someone wants to change their pick. Not worth the headache. It's better that in the cases that someone legitimately misses a rule then they should be the only ones affected, and if that screws them over moving forward then they should've read the rules. There is ample time at the beginning and during the draft to ask clarifying questions if you don't understand something.

In literally every instance I have seen so far, it has been very obvious to everyone when someone misunderstood a rule. I haven't seen any examples of someone trying to change except for when they misunderstood a rule. In my proposed version of the game, that's all that would be different. The only way you can change is from clearly misunderstanding the rule. That seems pretty clear and would have seamlessly resolved both issues so far in this game for example.

[wackbone]

I am not even making a distinction between those two choices because I'm not moralizing it or making it about personal responsibility.

I'm acknowledging that as human beings, we are all going to make mistakes, it's just a matter of when and how do we deal with them. In this case, I'm proposing that rather than moralize the situation in which someone must pay because they didn't understand the rules correctly - that we simply let it roll off our shoulders without passing a judgment because it costs us nothing to do so and benefits the overall competition by creating a path for the participant to remain in the competition unhindered.

To me, it goes back to what Laimbeer said earlier. It can be hard to determine motivation in why someone would want to change their pick. Sure maybe they missed the rule (which like Snakebites said is on them, the rules are stated), but maybe they simply want to change their pick to someone else before someone else picks. This could greatly hinder the game.

Having a clear cut, no changing picks unless it's an illegal pick rule makes it so much simpler for both the commish and for the drafters. If you don't read the rules, that's on you. Personally I am a fan of the rule, as it is very cut and dry.

It could get messy if it is up to the commish to determine intent every time someone wants to change their pick. Not worth the headache. It's better that in the cases that someone legitimately misses a rule then they should be the only ones affected, and if that screws them over moving forward then they should've read the rules. There is ample time at the beginning and during the draft to ask clarifying questions if you don't understand something.

In literally every instance I have seen so far, it has been very obvious to everyone when someone misunderstood a rule. I haven't seen any examples of someone trying to change except for when they misunderstood a rule. In my proposed version of the game, that's all that would be different. The only way you can change is from clearly misunderstanding the rule. That seems pretty clear and would have seamlessly resolved both issues so far in this game for example.

I have seen quite a few people change their pick in the games I have played for no reason other than wanting a different player. They post one player, then edit their post to change it to someone else. I have seen that at least a dozen times. Having the rule of no changing allowed automatically cuts that out, and leaves the commish with an easy rule to fall back on when something comes up.

I am just saying, if we get rid of the rule, other issues could arise, as has happened in the past. I am a very strong supporter of the rule as it is so cut and dry, and also makes people read the rules.

[JimmyPlopper]

To me, it goes back to what Laimbeer said earlier. It can be hard to determine motivation in why someone would want to change their pick. Sure maybe they missed the rule (which like Snakebites said is on them, the rules are stated), but maybe they simply want to change their pick to someone else before someone else picks. This could greatly hinder the game.

Having a clear cut, no changing picks unless it's an illegal pick rule makes it so much simpler for both the commish and for the drafters. If you don't read the rules, that's on you. Personally I am a fan of the rule, as it is very cut and dry.

It could get messy if it is up to the commish to determine intent every time someone wants to change their pick. Not worth the headache. It's better that in the cases that someone legitimately misses a rule then they should be the only ones affected, and if that screws them over moving forward then they should've read the rules. There is ample time at the beginning and during the draft to ask clarifying questions if you don't understand something.

In literally every instance I have seen so far, it has been very obvious to everyone when someone misunderstood a rule. I haven't seen any examples of someone trying to change except for when they misunderstood a rule. In my proposed version of the game, that's all that would be different. The only way you can change is from clearly misunderstanding the rule. That seems pretty clear and would have seamlessly resolved both issues so far in this game for example.

I have seen quite a few people change their pick in the games I have played for no reason other than wanting a different player. They post one player, then edit their post to change it to someone else. I have seen that at least a dozen times. Having the rule of no changing allowed automatically cuts that out, and leaves the commish with an easy rule to fall back on when something comes up.

I am just saying, if we get rid of the rule, other issues could arise, as has happened in the past. I am a very strong supporter of the rule as it is so cut and dry, and also makes people read the rules.

I understand that but even with my proposal, it would be illegal to change your pick unless its clearly obvious the person misunderstood the rule. I was trying to find a balance which doesn't inconvenience all of the competitors and that seemed to address the concerns that everyone has had so far.

[JimmyPlopper]

I decided to host a game as soon as we get to the voting round for this current one. In this game I will outline a new set of rules pertaining to pick changes that will be very clear and very fair.

[migya]

Doing the current game again would be interesting?

[Laimbeer]

Doing the current game again would be interesting?

It was interesting, but I felt some people got locked into worse slots and luck played a bigger factor than it normally does.

A similar game several people have mentioned is increasing fga's. There is no limit on each pick, but each pick must use a higher fga than your prior pick.

[migya]

Doing the current game again would be interesting?

It was interesting, but I felt some people got locked into worse slots and luck played a bigger factor than it normally does.

A similar game several people have mentioned is increasing fga's. There is no limit on each pick, but each pick must use a higher fga than your prior pick.

That would be interesting but even more so would be fgas minimum and maximum limits for each round.

[Fadeaway_J]

Not the most intricate idea in the world, but I'd like to try a game where you can only have a maximum of two or maybe three All-Stars. Just to shift the focus to building around a core as opposed to just loading up on talent.

[Jordan Syndrome]

Not the most intricate idea in the world, but I'd like to try a game where you can only have a maximum of two or maybe three All-Stars. Just to shift the focus to building around a core as opposed to just loading up on talent.

This would be fun. I've said it before but I am always a fan of these types of games. I've had good success with super loaded games but they have been on the back of "Pick BPA every round".

[Fadeaway_J]

Not the most intricate idea in the world, but I'd like to try a game where you can only have a maximum of two or maybe three All-Stars. Just to shift the focus to building around a core as opposed to just loading up on talent.

This would be fun. I've said it before but I am always a fan of these types of games. I've had good success with super loaded games but they have been on the back of "Pick BPA every round".

I feel like these games often give us a warped perspective on what you need to build a great team. Voters won't accept you having enough "firepower" without a literal All-Star team, even though a) plenty of real-life teams score at an elite level with far less star power and b) it's hard enough to maximise even two stars in the same team let alone four or five. Some people do prefer the loaded teams which is cool, but for me the more realistic the better.