2024 Retro Player of the Year Project UPDATE [Discussion Thread]

[70sFan]

So, I don't participate on consistent basis unfortunately (I have less and less time on basketball these days), but I caught up with the discussion. It seems that grainmaster200 has full green light from AEnigma who runs the project. She spent a lot of time preparing her ballots in unique, but interesting way (I struggle to get all the info from it, but that's a different matter ). So what's the problem?

I wonder when the PC Board became so "elitist" that we stop allowing new people participating? When I joined the forum, I found immediate warm greetings from the old guard, even though I didn't bring up much knowledge or value at the beginning. It was always a place where unique (sometimes crazy) basketball ideas could clash with no problems. Why should we change that?

Maybe I misunderstand the rules behind our board, but I don't think that's the case after so many years of consistent activity. I don't like all the narratives pushed by the younger group recently, but I don't like many narratives pushed by the "old guard" either and I don't mind disagreeing with them. I never thought to ask mods to delete any poster from the project (even though the project could gain a lot by that in particular cases in my subjective opinion).

I kindly ask to bring back grainmaster200 votes to the project regardless of his situation on the board, because she did not do anything worth of ban as far as I know.

[AEnigma]

The question here is the poster who is a brand new gimmick account with zero history. Really, the strongest grain master? What's next, the last air bender?

You have experience as a project runner, so I think you know the standards need to be consistent. If I would allow established posters to do it, I need to allow new posters to do it. If I allow established posters to submit briefly explained ballots, then I need to allow new posters to submit briefly explained ballots too (and here I agree that more work and thought seems to have gone into these ballots than many that have gone unremarked upon by established posters, even if the formatting is indeed a gimmick).

So that leaves me with:

1) Do not permit new users entry. Obviously I chose to not do that, and on principle I oppose excluding new voices who timely join (as I think do you and Doc, considering how the past few board-wide projects have been run between the two of you).

2) Do not permit “gimmicks”. But so long as there is an appropriate level of comprehension — which I feel is evident here, even if the framework is unusual — I am unconcerned with ballot aesthetics.

And aesthetics is ultimately what I think the broader complaint would be, because the content is not an issue (provided we can control ourselves from reflexively lashing out at the ordering of a favourite player). Let us look at one of these broken down:

2) Larry Bird - (Grain Version) Todo
Grade: 1
Hoop Expansion - None

Mostly filler, although from what I can tell, the Grade here indicates that they are assessing the player’s season as elite but not necessarily all-time (“special” grade).

Ball Techniques:
+ Precision Passer

^ Comment on his passing.

+ Idle Cardio

^ Comment on his passive movement.

+ Bucket-Getter - Grade 2

^ Comment on how he is a good scorer but not an elite one.

+ Rim-Protection - Grade 3

^ Comment on how he is a positive rim protector but not more than that.

+ Floor-General - Grade 1

^ Comment on how he is an elite, if not all-time, offensive playmaker.

+ Board-Bringer - Grade 3

^ Comment on how he is a positive rebounder but not more than that.

Baller Vow:
+ In exchange for a successful non-player NBA career, Bird will have to deal with a chronic back condition while he plays

Filler but personally find it clever.

Key Chapters:
+ Boston School wins Conference Cross-over

^ Comment on how Boston wins the conference.

- Hooper Burnout vs Los Angeles School - Floor-General - Grade 3

^ Comment on how his playmaking took a hit against the Lakers.

- Hooper Burnout vs Milwaukee School - Floor-General - Grade 3

Admittedly not clear on why this is here. Seems like it applies better to 1983.

- Hooper Hiccup vs Los Angeles School, Battle 7 - Bucket-Getter - Grade 4

^ Comment on how his scoring takes a hit against the Lakers in game 7.

+ Hooper Flash Flurry vs New York School - Bucket-Getter - Special Grade

^ Comment on how he scores phenomenally against the Knicks.

+ Hooper Flash vs Los Angeles School, Battle 5 - Bucket-Getter - Special Grade

^ Comment on how he scores phenomenally against the Lakers in game 5.

The vote is fine. If I saw it as incomprehensible, I would say something (and indeed I privately have when needed), but the content is perfectly in line with what I have permitted, and that is what matters most.

[penbeast0]

I would love to have grainmaster200 show up and post. I'm not happy with anyone being proxied; even if it's an established poster. If there's a site or board ban involved, I would have to say no to it as a mod. If it's because they have a one time problem other than that, such as a vacation, okay. But not multiple years of posts for unknown reasons from an unknown account.

[AEnigma]

As stated, as far as I know, there is no ban in play. I would appreciate moderator notification if that stops being true. And I agree that proxy voting should generally be a rare exception because of how it stands in the way of potential discussion. However, I see a difference with early voting in anticipation of an absence, which is what this should have been, and if people want to engage with the early ballots, I encourage them to do so in this general discussion thread.

[OhayoKD]

The project-runner probably knows my position on all this but for posterity I'll give 2 cents.

First, let's start with the facts,

Unless I(and seemingly everyone) has missed something, Kola(thestrongestgrainer200) has a total of 3 posts.

1. A post announcing her interest in the project

2. A post breaking down some players that was removed with, according to kola, no warnings or comment, and, according to the mod team, no notes in the log

3. A post the project-runner requested her to make which was promptly reported under false pretenses by another voter and subsequently deleted. I have provided 3 of those ballots.

From these facts I think a conclusion can reasonably be derived:

If there was a ban, it happened because a voter falsely reported a legitimate ballot as bait.

I am not a mod or a project-runner, so what comes below should not be interpreted as a demand. Nonetheless, in light of the above conclusion I feel compelled to offer my opinion on the matter:

Kola's ballots should be counted, no matter what, unconditionally, and whatever other adjectives one wishes to add to that string.

In case the parties with the power to make decisions are interested, here's my reasoning

Kola's votes not counting

1. Would massively damage this project's credibility. Voters should not, in my opinion, be throwing out, directly or indirectly, completely legitimate votes from other voters. Not counting Kola's vote undermines the project(and to a degree, the board) as a fora of open discourse and insight, setting the precedent that if you don't like someone's opinion, you can just erase it.

2. Would remove one of the higher quality votes. With all due respect:

brand new gimmick account with zero history.

The "brand new gimmick account's" votes offered a more detailed breakdown of each player than the votes of almost anyone here including you (and me tbf), while also lapping the field in terms of creativity

3. (and imo, this is the most important) Would be absurdly unfair to Kola herself who spent a week and who knows how many hours writing detailed breakdowns for 45 separate player seasons on a malfunctioning iphone because their computer was dead. As the project runner can verify, those ballots amounted to over 20 pages of effort. Well-executed, and unusually insightful effort. All so that when she did as she was asked to do, another voter could report her vote as trolling, and other people would use that report to justify something, in my opinion, completely indefensible: throwing out a ballot, asked for and approved of by the project runner, because it was falsely interpreted as bait

In my opinion the votes should count, no ifs or buts.

That said, it is not my decision, and in the case, there is confirmation of a ban or some other complication and her vote is discounted, for the years she has submitted a ballot, I would be happy to forfeit my own ballot and take her votes as my own.

While I can post my own opinion separately, if one must go, her submissions are likely more interesting and insightful than mine will be, and with all the above considered, more deserving of consideration.

I hope in the case that the bulk of the above falls on deaf ears, at least that final proposal is deemed acceptable.

[AEnigma]

detailed breakdowns for 45 separate player seasons on a malfunctioning iphone because their computer was dead. As the project runner can verify, those ballots amounted to over 20 pages of effort.

Cannot say I did a page check, nor do I think “20 pages” is some inherently meaningful standard, but yes, the effort here should not be questioned, and the sincerity of the analysis should be evident for anyone willing to parse the meaning. The dismissive response to the formatting is why I would never encourage people to adopt that formatting, but all I care about is whether the ballot engaged with what happened during the season, and from what I saw, the ballots generally did.

in the case, there is confirmation of a ban or some other complication and her vote is discounted, for the years she has submitted a ballot, I would be happy to forfeit my own ballot and take her votes as my own.

While I can post my own opinion separately, if one must go, her submissions are likely more interesting and insightful than mine will be, and with all the above considered, more deserving of consideration.

I hope in the case that the bulk of the above falls on deaf ears, at least that final proposal is deemed acceptable.

Without endorsing this, I will affirmatively note that I would not forbid it. Everyone dictates the contents of their own ballot. Would be a shame if it came to that though.

[Dr Positivity]

Their method seems cool and all but honestly I'd prefer to just count people actually posting in the thread, the discussion is the point of them.

[LA Bird]

So that leaves me with:

1) Do not permit new users entry. Obviously I chose to not do that, and on principle I oppose excluding new voices who timely join (as I think do you and Doc, considering how the past few board-wide projects have been run between the two of you).

2) Do not permit “gimmicks”. But so long as there is an appropriate level of comprehension — which I feel is evident here, even if the framework is unusual — I am unconcerned with ballot aesthetics.

1. Every project has allowed new users - the standard process is to have them post for a few rounds to establish a track record first before they are included. I haven't been up to date on the forum lately so maybe I missed the deleted posts but to my knowledge, this poster made one post to request entry and was approved immediately with zero history.

2. The thing with gimmick accounts is not the what but the why. Unless this poster talks like a grain master in real life, it is a lot of extra effort for both them to write like this and for us to read it like this. And for what purpose? Only people interested in serious basketball discussion would be on this board and said poster clearly shows some understanding of basketball history underneath the gimmick. There is no logical reason for them to then distract from the content of their post with this blatant grain master shtick... unless it's a secondary account of a regular who wants to differentiate from their main. It doesn't help this brand new poster is also voting through a proxy, who just so happens to share similar votes, somehow knows them on a first name basis and the details of their personal life, and is selflessly willing to ride or die for someone they just met. Suuure.

As the project runner, the final decision here is yours. And at the end of the day, 1 gimmick vote out of 10+ isn't really going to swing the results. But from my perspective, it is exceedingly obvious what I would do if I was in charge here.

[OhayoKD]

2.unless it's a secondary account of a regular who wants to differentiate from their main.

Several witnesses including the project-runner can attest to them being their own person. Witnesses who have known this person well before they joined Realgm.

With your one and really only legitimate concern squashed I would hope you are now in favor of their vote counting.

[AEnigma]

So that leaves me with:

1) Do not permit new users entry. Obviously I chose to not do that, and on principle I oppose excluding new voices who timely join (as I think do you and Doc, considering how the past few board-wide projects have been run between the two of you).

2) Do not permit “gimmicks”. But so long as there is an appropriate level of comprehension — which I feel is evident here, even if the framework is unusual — I am unconcerned with ballot aesthetics.

1. Every project has allowed new users - the standard process is to have them post for a few rounds to establish a track record first before they are included. I haven't been up to date on the forum lately so maybe I missed the deleted posts but to my knowledge, this poster made one post to request entry and was approved immediately with zero history.

Well I know from personal experience at least one instance where you counted the vote of a brand new account.

2. The thing with gimmick accounts is not the what but the why. Unless this poster talks like a grain master in real life, it is a lot of extra effort for both them to write like this and for us to read it like this. And for what purpose? Only people interested in serious basketball discussion would be on this board and said poster clearly shows some understanding of basketball history underneath the gimmick. There is no logical reason for them to then distract from the content of their post with this blatant grain master shtick... unless it's a secondary account of a regular who wants to differentiate from their main.

This is not a remotely logical train of thought, no. And for you to see it as logical you would need to find it legitimately incomprehensible that someone could ever enjoy basketball while also enjoying this type of gimmick, which… is just bafflingly myopic.

It doesn't help this brand new poster is also voting through a proxy,

They are not. They posted their vote, and then it was apparently deleted by some overzealous outside moderator.

who just so happens to share similar votes, somehow knows them on a first name basis and the details of their personal life, and is selflessly willing to ride or die for someone they just met. Suuure.

Again, bafflingly myopic.

As the project runner, the final decision here is yours. And at the end of the day, 1 gimmick vote out of 10+ isn't really going to swing the results. But from my perspective, it is exceedingly obvious what I would do if I was in charge here.

I am sorry to see that in the years since you have apparently decided to reverse where you once stood, but I have no intention to not extend the same courtesy that was offered to me when I joined this forum.

Several witnesses including the project-runner can attest to them being their own person. Witnesses who have known this person well before they joined Realgm.

No, I absolutely cannot attest to that; that is not how internet anonymity works. But to LA Bird’s barely implicit accusation, I find it substantially more likely that you encouraged them to join this board from a previously established outside connection — which is only a bad thing for those who prefer to see this forum slowly wither and die because of some principle where word of mouth must be forbidden.

[OhayoKD]

No, I absolutely cannot attest to that; that is not how internet anonymity works. But to LA Bird’s barely implicit accusation, I find it substantially more likely that you encouraged them to join this board from a previously established outside connection — which is only a bad thing for those who prefer to see this forum slowly wither and die because of some principle where word of mouth must be forbidden.

Huh? You and I and a bunch of other people here have been talking to them intermittently for months...

[AEnigma]

If that is true then they certainly did not make much of an impression on me, but more to the point, that means nothing as far as whether I can definitively state they are a separate person.

If the rule were that I could only permit accounts I definitively knew were independent entities, then this project would be me and a random user of choice, and if I needed to also consider outside perception, then it could only be one of us. That is what it means to be an anonymous entity. Fortunately, I am capable of recognising the absurdity of assuming that everyone I encounter is an alt of someone else, and for the sake of convenience I tend to assume most other people are capable of that recognition too.

[OhayoKD]

Fair enough. Lets not bury the lede though

It doesn't help this brand new poster is also voting through a proxy,

They are not. They posted their vote, and then it was apparently deleted by some overzealous outside moderator.

And it was apparently deleted because another voter falsely reported it as bait as opposed to a legitimate ballot that anenigma asked them to post here.


I would encourage the former project-runner to think through the implications of that before grasping at the "well it's not theoretically impossible they're an alt" straw

Not counting the ballots which were submitted is an implicit acknowledgement that is acceptable for voters to throw out the votes of other voters.

[LA Bird]

Well I know from personal experience at least one instance where you counted the vote of a brand new account.

If you want to expose me for allowing a questionable voter in a previous project, name who it is because I have no idea who you are suggesting. Also, even if I made mistakes as a previous project runner, that doesn't mean you can't make mistakes too.

This is not a remotely logical train of thought, no. And for you to see it as logical you would need to find it legitimately incomprehensible that someone could ever enjoy basketball while also enjoying this type of gimmick, which… is just bafflingly myopic.

You failed to address my points and instead argue about the strawman that people can have multiple interests. Spoiler alert: everyone in the world enjoy many things. Difference is we can enjoy hobbies without basing our entire identity around it in such an overwhelming manner as to call into question the legitimacy of the account.

They are not. They posted their vote, and then it was apparently deleted by some overzealous outside moderator.

Unless they are banned, they can vote again. Or just contact the mod team to fix the situation behind the scene since we are weeks away from the 84/86/88 rounds that they voted in anyway.

Again, bafflingly myopic.

Again, another personal attack. If you think I am being ridiculous for questioning the connection, let me know how many brand new posters under gimmick accounts you know that well in real life and are willing to sacrifice your own account for.

I am sorry to see that in the years since you have apparently decided to reverse where you once stood, but I have no intention to not extend the same courtesy that was offered to me when I joined this forum.

The grain master joined the forum as a gimmick account. You didn't. The difference is obvious even if you refuse to accept it.

Anyway, you have made it very clear where you stand on this topic and since you are the project runner, there is literally nothing more to discuss here.

[AEnigma]

Well I know from personal experience at least one instance where you counted the vote of a brand new account.

If you want to expose me for allowing a questionable voter in a previous project, name who it is because I have no idea who you are suggesting. Also, even if I made mistakes as a previous project runner, that doesn't mean you can't make mistakes too.

I thought the ending to the post made it clear: I was talking about myself. Feel free to go look at my very first posts if you want. And I would like to think it was not a mistake on your end, especially because I might not have been interested enough to stick around these forums otherwise.

This is not a remotely logical train of thought, no. And for you to see it as logical you would need to find it legitimately incomprehensible that someone could ever enjoy basketball while also enjoying this type of gimmick, which… is just bafflingly myopic.

You failed to address my points and instead argue about the strawman that people can have multiple interests. Spoiler alert: everyone in the world enjoy many things. Difference is we can enjoy hobbies without basing our entire identity around it in such an overwhelming manner as to call into question the legitimacy of the account.

You assume it calls that into question because you apparently cannot imagine anyone doing it for any other reason. There is nothing to address; this is an issue of your personal aesthetic biases.

They are not. They posted their vote, and then it was apparently deleted by some overzealous outside moderator.

Unless they are banned, they can vote again. Or just contact the mod team to fix the situation behind the scene since we are weeks away from the 84/86/88 rounds that they voted in anyway.

I agree.

Again, bafflingly myopic.

Again, another personal attack.

It is not an attack, it a description of you seemingly only being able to perceive one inexplicably narrow possibility with no attempt to even imagine an alternate view that should come naturally to pretty much anyone who recognises the diversity of internet communication.

If you think I am being ridiculous for questioning the connection, let me know how many brand new posters under gimmick accounts you know that well in real life and are willing to sacrifice your own account for.

So because I have not had that experience, logically no one can? Is that the conclusion you want me to make here?

I am sorry to see that in the years since you have apparently decided to reverse where you once stood, but I have no intention to not extend the same courtesy that was offered to me when I joined this forum.

The grain master joined the forum as a gimmick account. You didn't. The difference is obvious even if you refuse to accept it.

I accept it and acknowledge it for what it is: aesthetics. My goal here is to be consistent, not arbitrarily pick and choose what posting format I like most. I will take it as a compliment that you were willing to accept me from the outset, but I am disappointed that you could have just as easily disregarded me if I used a looser tone or post structuring even while maintaining the same general content.

Anyway, you have made it very clear where you stand on this topic and since you are the project runner, there is literally nothing more to discuss here.

Here I will reiterate that people should be free to discuss the content of ballots. To the extent the discussion is about anything outside of that, you are right, there should be nothing more.

[Dutchball97]

Fair enough. Lets not bury the lede though

They are not. They posted their vote, and then it was apparently deleted by some overzealous outside moderator.

And it was apparently deleted because another voter falsely reported it as bait as opposed to a legitimate ballot that anenigma asked them to post here.


I would encourage the former project-runner to think through the implications of that before grasping at the "well it's not theoretically impossible they're an alt" straw

Not counting the ballots which were submitted is an implicit acknowledgement that is acceptable for voters to throw out the votes of other voters.

I wanted to just stay quiet but these blatant lies of "false reports" is too much. I never intended for grainmaster not to be able to vote. My only intention with the report was about the comments made about certain players. I found them to be very clear bait, especially in the context of a thread just being closed due to you being unable to behave because someone dared to suggest Jordan was a better leader than Kareem.

Either way I'd say just let their votes count, AEnigma took on the burden of running this project and if they want things to go like this all the power to them.

[Dutchball97]

Either way I'll no longer be participating in the project (and probably the PC board as a whole tbh) due to how my actions were misinterpreted as malicious voter manipulation even after I've already explained my intention was only to limit bait posts and keep this project open to all different opinions. I don't feel welcome anymore and it'd be silly of me to stick around somewhere I'm only getting frustrated by.

The POY sheet is up to date till 1976 for all 3 awards and also includes the 2015-2024 votes in a different tab already if someone wants to take over keeping track of the shares. I think it's possible to just copy it into a new sheet so it can be edited by others but if not, let me know and I'll post a link to the sheet with editing permission.

[AEnigma]

Either way I'll no longer be participating in the project (and probably the PC board as a whole tbh) due to how my actions were misinterpreted as malicious voter manipulation even after I've already explained my intention was only to limit bait posts and keep this project open to all different opinions.

I do not think you maliciously tried to manipulate votes. I believe you initially interpreted it as deliberate bait, and while I do feel it was excessively preemptive of you to report it and tbh that you would not have reported it if the ballots were lower on someone like Magic instead, I should/could have commented on it too so everyone immediately knew they were legitimate. I also never really considered the possibility that an outside moderator would waltz in to an established forum project and take it upon themselves to remove a post with zero input from anyone else. So that is ultimately on me.

I don't feel welcome anymore and it'd be silly of me to stick around somewhere I'm only getting frustrated by.

The POY sheet is up to date till 1976 for all 3 awards and also includes the 2015-2024 votes in a different tab already if someone wants to take over keeping track of the shares. I think it's possible to just copy it into a new sheet so it can be edited by others but if not, let me know and I'll post a link to the sheet with editing permission.

Thank you for the months of tracking. I have enjoyed your participation in the project, and I appreciate all the work you voluntarily did behind the scenes. For everyone else, I have alluded to this before, but Dutchball has been thoroughly doubling checking every tally and letting me know when I failed to properly record a share or vote total, which has been a massive help.

I do not want you to exit the project, especially on such a sour note, but I also recognise that there seems to be a high chance of further frustration at some point here, so I understand wanting to separate yourself from that in advance. I hope that down the line you feel comfortable enough to rejoin for a less contentious string of years than what seems to be coming up soon.

[B-Mitch 30]

Since we're nearing the three-point era, does Enigma mind if I join voting with 1979-1980 like we discussed?

[AEnigma]

Since we're nearing the three-point era, does Enigma mind if I join voting with 1979-1980 like we discussed?

Yep, you can vote whenever comfortable.