RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #64 (Dikembe Mutombo)

[penbeast0]

Sure, counting alternates for nominations as well works.

[HeartBreakKid]

Don't change your votes to manipulate the system. That seems really counter-initiative. This is the system we have.

If everyone literally manipulates their votes to game the system then there isn't even anything to game anymore. It's a pointless exercise.

[Doctor MJ]

Okay, here's what I'm thinking I'll put in place:

1.There can be no more than 7 Nominees at any given time.
2. So it the Nominee vote ends in a tie of 4 ore more players that cannot be broke, and adding all of them would put the Nominee total above 7, then no players will be added as Nominees.
3. This would mean that if in every subsequent thread voting was identical, eventually there will come a time when they can all be added while keeping the total Nominees no higher than 7.
4. This of course wouldn't work if the number of players tied was greater than 7. In the unrealistic scenario where we had more than 7, and it stayed that way for many threads forcing such a situation, the structure of the project would have broken down to the point we'd have to re-think it all.

Incidentally, why 7? Well we've done it before, and we haven't done 8 or more. Makes as much sense as anything.

[AEnigma]

Don't change your votes to manipulate the system. That seems really counter-initiative. This is the system we have.

If everyone literally manipulates their votes to game the system then there isn't even anything to game anymore. It's a pointless exercise.

Well then I hate to break it to you, but this has always been a “pointless exercise” where people are in fact going to vote based on what they want to happen as well as what they want not to happen.

[HeartBreakKid]

Don't change your votes to manipulate the system. That seems really counter-initiative. This is the system we have.

If everyone literally manipulates their votes to game the system then there isn't even anything to game anymore. It's a pointless exercise.

Well then I hate to break it to you, but this has always been a “pointless exercise” where people are in fact going to vote based on what they want to happen as well as what they want not to happen.

I'm not sure what you want me to say.

[Doctor MJ]

Don't change your votes to manipulate the system. That seems really counter-initiative. This is the system we have.

If everyone literally manipulates their votes to game the system then there isn't even anything to game anymore. It's a pointless exercise.

Well then I hate to break it to you, but this has always been a “pointless exercise” where people are in fact going to vote based on what they want to happen as well as what they want not to happen.

I'm not sure what you want me to say.

So, I'm going to encourage you both to just leave it at that right now, but I'll comment on this with sympathy toward both perspectives.

It's true that whenever we use voting strategy, we are at least attempting specifically to have personal influence on the list beyond simply logging our own personal opinions along with others. And when we succeed in our goal when doing this, this can be seen as damage to the list in its own right.

Beyond this there's the danger of lack-of-good-faith perceptions of each other which can ruin the community and unravel the other project.

Beyond that, there's the matter that I personally as project lead can tank perception of the culture worst of all, and so it's best to try to come off as 180 in the other direction, and so I think I'll avoid doing what I just did again if an analogous situation emerges.

Now the other side to me relates to the "always been pointless" point as acknowledging the lack of intrinsic meaning of the result list.

My goal above all else when I run these projects is to try to keep them from dying on the vine. Our first Peaks project, for example, died prematurely due to not having continued participation.

From this perspective, what I feared with the Nomination vote here is that if I added all 5 tied guys it would essentially propagate the splintering issues to the Induction vote while getting us out of the habit of Nomination discussion.

I could have simply delayed the next thread for a day to get more people to break the tie, but there's an inherent time cost to doing this, and it runs the risk of those of us who are engaged waiting around without getting new votes from others now that the project has reached its dog days.

Add to that I was busy with work and wouldn't be in a position to have a live meeting on the matter, I decided the best thing for the continued running of the project was to move on, and since I was able to make that happen by sacrificing my own preference - had I voted for my guy Ben Wallace, he would have been added to the Nominee list - I felt like it was clear that I wasn't manipulating this for my own fanatical lens.

But this is one of those "customer is always right" situations. If me doing something like this bothers any of the core members of this project, I think it best for me to avoid doing so again.

I'm hopeful though that we have a solution now that will render these concerns moot.

Anyway, I appreciate folks who have stuck it out this far. We're most of the way there!

Cheers,
Doc