RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project/List

[Odinn21]

I think #2 is the least susceptible method to manipulate. So, I'd say #2 is the best.

As mentioned, method #2 actually gives the MOST opportunity to massage or manipulate the result. Not only can one support his primary candidate [and deny a vote to someone he DOESN'T want to get the spot], he can lend support/points to two OTHER candidates to help "crowd out" the guy he doesn't want to win it.
Of if his preferred candidate just doesn't have traction yet, he can endeavor to keep the guy he DOESN'T want in by lending support to THREE other candidates who DO have traction.

Man, I've been having far too many brain farts in recent days. I thought I wrote 3 and not 2. Meant #3. I'll edit my message.

[Whopper_Sr]

I'd like to join and the ballot system worked quite well for the 2017 project so I'll vote for that option.

It was actually method #3 that we did last time.

My mistake. I'll vote for #3.

[penbeast0]

I vote for option #1. I like simplicity.

[Dutchball97]

3 is basically 1 with a better build-in tiebreaker so I prefer that.

[limbo]

Question. Is it possible to just participate up to like the Top 50?

I generally just keep a top 50 list, because once you start getting in the 70,80 territory things get really clunky where there's really a bunch of guys you can justify being either #63 or #88 depending on how you look at things. And especially if you're doing a project like this where a lot of different people are going to bring their own criteria to the mix, it becomes even harder to kind of come to agreements the further you stray away from the top.

[Jaivl]

Option #3

[Doctor MJ]

Regarding the voting options, to me this is about what the "tallier" can commit to for this marathon.

The 3rd option is the best if you can do it, but it's asking for a lot.

So if you're asking for me to vote on the voting method, I guess I'll say #3, but I'm 100% fine with #1.

[trex_8063]

Question. Is it possible to just participate up to like the Top 50?

I generally just keep a top 50 list, because once you start getting in the 70,80 territory things get really clunky where there's really a bunch of guys you can justify being either #63 or #88 depending on how you look at things. And especially if you're doing a project like this where a lot of different people are going to bring their own criteria to the mix, it becomes even harder to kind of come to agreements the further you stray away from the top.

As long as you're considering all of NBA/ABA/BAA history, that's fine. A lot of people bow out after 40 or 50 (or even 15 or 20).

[trex_8063]

Here to be in the voter panel.

I'll start adding names to the voter list soon, but I need input on which of the three voting protocols people would like to go with.

I would prefer option 3 but with at least 3 ranked choices. With only an alternative choice, there were a lot of ghost votes that were wasted when the scores were tallied up in the last top 100 project.

Option 2 is the worst since you can stack the deck against a player too easily. For example, let's imagine there are two players close together in the lead for a round. If you really want your candidate to win, you can just snub the other player of a #2 and #3 vote to artificially widen the point totals. With option 1 and 3, you can't do any damage to a player you are not voting for.

.

As there seems to be a near-consensus for option #3, that's the way we'll go (Ranked Vote System).

Last time we did just a 1st and a 2nd choice. LA Bird is suggesting a 3rd choice as well. However, that raises some questions [and potential problems] as to the methodology of using that 3rd choice.

Example: suppose my 1st choice pick is the first player eliminated from the pool, and my 2nd choice is NOT one of the eligible players on the table. Do we then IMMEDIATELY look at who my 3rd choice is [and transfer that vote if applicable]? Or do we wait until EVERYONE'S 2nd choice votes have been transferred [or "ghosted"] before moving on to people's 3rd choices?

The latter seems like it would be difficult to track for the tallier; but the former sort of seems unfair in that my 3rd choice is getting tallied at the same time as [or even sooner than] the 2nd choices of others.

Thoughts?

[Dutchball97]

Tiebreakers aren't probably going to be needed that often, at least at first. I feel like a 2nd choice would be enough to cover potential tiebreakers.

[Doctor MJ]

Here to be in the voter panel.

I'll start adding names to the voter list soon, but I need input on which of the three voting protocols people would like to go with.

I would prefer option 3 but with at least 3 ranked choices. With only an alternative choice, there were a lot of ghost votes that were wasted when the scores were tallied up in the last top 100 project.

Option 2 is the worst since you can stack the deck against a player too easily. For example, let's imagine there are two players close together in the lead for a round. If you really want your candidate to win, you can just snub the other player of a #2 and #3 vote to artificially widen the point totals. With option 1 and 3, you can't do any damage to a player you are not voting for.

.

As there seems to be a near-consensus for option #3, that's the way we'll go (Ranked Vote System).

Last time we did just a 1st and a 2nd choice. LA Bird is suggesting a 3rd choice as well. However, that raises some questions [and potential problems] as to the methodology of using that 3rd choice.

Example: suppose my 1st choice pick is the first player eliminated from the pool, and my 2nd choice is NOT one of the eligible players on the table. Do we then IMMEDIATELY look at who my 3rd choice is [and transfer that vote if applicable]? Or do we wait until EVERYONE'S 2nd choice votes have been transferred [or "ghosted"] before moving on to people's 3rd choices?

The latter seems like it would be difficult to track for the tallier; but the former sort of seems unfair in that my 3rd choice is getting tallied at the same time as [or even sooner than] the 2nd choices of others.

Thoughts?

Generally in an instant runoff type system you keep going down a voter's list until you either 1) find someone still in the running or 2) you hit the end of the list.

The fairness of everyone getting a vote trumps the fairness of considering everyone's nth choice as a cohort.

And yes it's hard to do manually. I haven't worked with programs that do it for you, but here's a site that list some options that may work:

Computerized Counting Programs

[trex_8063]

Generally in an instant runoff type system you keep going down a voter's list until you either 1) find someone still in the running or 2) you hit the end of the list.

The fairness of everyone getting a vote trumps the fairness of considering everyone's nth choice as a cohort.

And yes it's hard to do manually. I haven't worked with programs that do it for you, but here's a site that list some options that may work:

Computerized Counting Programs

Good point with the bolded.

Yeah, so if people prefer having three choices for this ranked vote system, I'm fine with that.

It's not too hard to track [I think; guess I haven't actually tried doing so with 3 candidates, but we'll see how it goes].
I doubt I'll use the program, but it'll be here if I change my mind; thanks.

I just have a simple Google spreadsheet: posters along one axis, 1st-choice candidates along another. And then in the cell where the two intersect I'd write "Player A [1st choice] > Player B > Player C", to indicate who to transfer votes to as needed.
Worked well enough last time with two choices; I don't think it'll be too much more difficult with three.


So is that also the consensus: that 3 picks is better than 2?

[Owly]

Here to be in the voter panel.


I would prefer option 3 but with at least 3 ranked choices. With only an alternative choice, there were a lot of ghost votes that were wasted when the scores were tallied up in the last top 100 project.

Option 2 is the worst since you can stack the deck against a player too easily. For example, let's imagine there are two players close together in the lead for a round. If you really want your candidate to win, you can just snub the other player of a #2 and #3 vote to artificially widen the point totals. With option 1 and 3, you can't do any damage to a player you are not voting for.

.

As there seems to be a near-consensus for option #3, that's the way we'll go (Ranked Vote System).

Last time we did just a 1st and a 2nd choice. LA Bird is suggesting a 3rd choice as well. However, that raises some questions [and potential problems] as to the methodology of using that 3rd choice.

Example: suppose my 1st choice pick is the first player eliminated from the pool, and my 2nd choice is NOT one of the eligible players on the table. Do we then IMMEDIATELY look at who my 3rd choice is [and transfer that vote if applicable]? Or do we wait until EVERYONE'S 2nd choice votes have been transferred [or "ghosted"] before moving on to people's 3rd choices?

The latter seems like it would be difficult to track for the tallier; but the former sort of seems unfair in that my 3rd choice is getting tallied at the same time as [or even sooner than] the 2nd choices of others.

Thoughts?

Generally in an instant runoff type system you keep going down a voter's list until you either 1) find someone still in the running or 2) you hit the end of the list.

The fairness of everyone getting a vote trumps the fairness of considering everyone's nth choice as a cohort.

And yes it's hard to do manually. I haven't worked with programs that do it for you, but here's a site that list some options that may work:

Computerized Counting Programs

Concur regarding how you do it.

I would also say I don't see the problem of a third vote getting tallied whilst your second isn't that isn't also there in your second not getting tallied when someone else's second is. It's intrinsic to the system (and per the above is "fair" in the sense that all get one vote in the final count).

tangent

Spoiler:

A points based system counting all the way down everyone's ballot as mooted gets around this but as has been noted allows for more cynical voting (though that could be mitigated somewhat by a private ballot though that opens up more problems, besides trust, what do you release at the end off the voting? Winner and total ranked order but not numbers so somewhat harder to game the next round but giving some info who's "on the board"?). There is a case that there's value in a sincere "this candidate isn't in my top 3 or 5 or wherever" and you're losing info by taking less info from each voter, but you [all?] have to trust that people aren't trying to game the system.

[DQuinn1575]

I would like to vote. I like the idea of a Ranked vote system. I havent made a full Top 100 list myself in a long time, so it will be fun.

[ZeppelinPage]

I'm definitely down, been looking forward to this.

[Jaivl]

I prefer only top 2 choices.

[scrabbarista]

I would like to participate, please, though I'm not completely certain I'll have my list ready by the beginning of the process. Whatever voting method you all decide on is fine by me, but if you're asking, I'd prefer something that means I won't be stuck voting for Elvin Hayes for like 30 straight rounds like I did last time. (Tbh, I think he's going to be considerably lower on my list this time - but you get my point, I hope.)

[drza]

I'd like to be a voter again. Participating in these projects really helps me focus on stories and angles that aren't always obvious, and this project times well with me wanting to dig into history a bit.

[Ainosterhaspie]

I'd like to participate as a voter.

[trex_8063]

Just quoting some folks we haven't heard from yet, mostly those who were active in the last Top 100 Project (several who I don't know if they're active anymore). Let me know if you want to participate, love to have you along on this....

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.