RealGM Top 100 All-Time (2017)

[RCM88x]

I don't​ really have any objections to the system itself. But I think it might add a lot of extra work and hurt participation later in the voting. Might be an interesting experiment just to see how it changes from years past, so I think if everyone is on board then we should go for it.

[eminence]

I'm still against anything other than single vote due to increased voter burden lowering turnout and also likely spreading out the discussion more in any one thread (mostly the first reason).

[Jaivl]

I like RCV.

[trex_8063]

I don't​ really have any objections to the system itself. But I think it might add a lot of extra work and hurt participation later in the voting. Might be an interesting experiment just to see how it changes from years past, so I think if everyone is on board then we should go for it.

I'm still against anything other than single vote due to increased voter burden lowering turnout and also likely spreading out the discussion more in any one thread (mostly the first reason).

Valid concerns. What if very minimal (even one or two lines) argumentation were all that was required for your secondary candidate (I have edited my last post to reflect this)? One or two lines doesn't really add relevant work.
And again, let's not forget how much time this will shave off the whole project. A lot of people drift away from it just because of the exhaustive amount of time it takes to finish. And this could potentially shave literally two months off the project time.

[penbeast0]

I'd like to participate. The voting panel looks great and I think the guidelines trex noted are terrific. (btw...one vote works better; otherwise you'll be sidetracked by secondary arguments.)

I’ve got the same problem/time issues some others have noted—I’ll be busy at times this summer (like … getting married), which may mean my input will slow down or be absent for a vote or two. But I’ll try my best to be consistent and stick to the end--I've done it before. I’ll understand if, because I haven’t been around, other voter/mods think it would be better to keep me in the “just discussion” group or out of this altogether.

I would love to have you back, missed you!

[JordansBulls]

I don't​ really have any objections to the system itself. But I think it might add a lot of extra work and hurt participation later in the voting. Might be an interesting experiment just to see how it changes from years past, so I think if everyone is on board then we should go for it.

This to me would be the concern as well. I think maybe for the top 10-15 all time it wouldn't matter, you will have participation all the time, but say once you get to like 35-40 and further the participation will easily dwindle. It has even happened with just voting for 1 player in the past so imagine 3 guys.

[trex_8063]

I don't​ really have any objections to the system itself. But I think it might add a lot of extra work and hurt participation later in the voting. Might be an interesting experiment just to see how it changes from years past, so I think if everyone is on board then we should go for it.

This to me would be the concern as well. I think maybe for the top 10-15 all time it wouldn't matter, you will have participation all the time, but say once you get to like 35-40 and further the participation will easily dwindle. It has even happened with just voting for 1 player in the past so imagine 3 guys.

See above post #164 (minimal supportive arguments required for secondary pick). Also, read more closely the protocol for RCV: it's 2 guys, not 3.

[Winsome Gerbil]

that'll work

[BasketballFan7]

RCV is fine.

[Dr Positivity]

I don't love the 2nd and 3rd place vote ideas because it condenses everyone's arguments into the first time they bring up the player, and then they're not as interested to revisit those arguments by the time they actually get in. I would vote against the above 2nd place vote system as well since I think people will feel obligated to explain their votes, I prefer the run-off in the event of a tie

IMO the nomination system is the messiest option. You're having two full-on simultaneous debates in the same thread, one of which will be rehashed ten threads later. It's going to be Jordan vs Russell in thread 1 along with say Oscar vs West, and then when it comes to thread 11, you'll see Oscar vs West all over again. It made the 2011 project very difficult to read through.

Fair enough, for me I like the nomination system because it allows people to be engaged in new arguments even when their player has no chance of getting in for multiple threads in a row

[Doctor MJ]

My only objection to ranked choice is the difficulty involved in actually doing the counting. I'd encourage you to formalize your process, meaning spreadsheets, etc, whatever you're going to use to do this, and give it a try on fake data before you actually tally real votes this way.

If you conclude you can do it without issue, it is indeed a stronger voting system.

[Tesla]

Im ok with RCV as well.

[ardee]

It's probably a good idea that we're delaying this another 2 weeks because I just realized I need to do a lot of thinking now when it comes to comparing players. Might redo my entire top 50.

[THKNKG]

Found something that easily calculates it for you, and the format is easy. Here are the examples I typed in (in the proper format):

Russell>Jordan>Kareem
Kareem>Russell>Jordan
Jordan>Lebron>Kareem
Jordan>Kareem>Russell
Kareem>Russell>Jordan
Russell>Duncan>Kareem
Duncan>Russell>Hakeem
Jordan>Shaq>Wilt
Wilt>Kareem>Jordan



Those were the results. It would take 15 minutes or less to do one whole thread I think. Plus, it gives you multiple options to play with. Here's the link:

http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~legrand/rbvote/calc.html

So with that particular example, Kareem won with a greater variety of methods, so he wins.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[THKNKG]

We could have a rule that discussion only focuses on the number 1 choice of a person's ballot, so no nitpicking their 2nd/3rd choice. If they want to pick an unreasonable 2nd choice, fine - it won't have any effect whatsoever on the voting.

So only discuss the first choice.

Here's what a sample ballot for #1 could be (using my current top 3).

1. Bill Russell
Insert long winded explanation....

2. Tim Duncan
I have him over Kareem because he peaked at the same time on O/D, and I value his post prime defensive longevity over KAJ's post prime scoring. I have him over Lebron/MJ because of longevity, and because I feel big men can be/are more impactful than wings.

3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Same as #2.



Then, in response to my ballot, people would only deal with my first choice, Russell.

This works because let's say someone thinks I'm crazy for having Duncan over MJ (I'm sure some do). There's no reason to address my second choice because 1. The #1 vote is the most important anyway and 2. If I really am that far off, that second vote won't make a difference at all (literally none - not just figuratively). Therefore it means if someone decides to be cute and vote Scalabrine, or try to agenda someone into the top 10, unless a lot of people agree with them, it's a waste, and thus we can save our breath by only addressing the #1 choice on the ballot.

[trex_8063]

We could have a rule that discussion only focuses on the number 1 choice of a person's ballot, so no nitpicking their 2nd/3rd choice. If they want to pick an unreasonable 2nd choice, fine - it won't have any effect whatsoever on the voting.

fwiw, I'm not going to place limitations regarding what can or cannot be discussed, as long as it's not obnoxious or derailing (to do so would sort of go against the spirit of the project). If people want to do a write-up about their secondary pick, that's great. And if other posters wish to discuss their secondary picks, fantastic.

However---since "extra work" appears to be a sticking point for some---if we do go with this RCV system, I've decided I will not require people do a write-up for their secondary picks. Presumably these secondary choices will be valid candidates who will be earning discussion (and potentially first ballots) from other posters anyway.

[THKNKG]

We could have a rule that discussion only focuses on the number 1 choice of a person's ballot, so no nitpicking their 2nd/3rd choice. If they want to pick an unreasonable 2nd choice, fine - it won't have any effect whatsoever on the voting.

fwiw, I'm not going to place limitations regarding what can or cannot be discussed, as long as it's not obnoxious or derailing (to do so would sort of go against the spirit of the project). If people want to do a write-up about their secondary pick, that's great. And if other posters wish to discuss their secondary picks, fantastic.

However---since "extra work" appears to be a sticking point for some---if we do go with this RCV system, I've decided I will not require people do a write-up for their secondary picks. Presumably these secondary choices will be valid candidates who will be earning discussion (and potentially first ballots) from other posters anyway.

I certainly think that's reasonable.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Colbinii]

I am open minded and open to anything that we think should happen. Let's not let Russia infiltrate the ad's on this website with Jordan gear though.

[An Unbiased Fan]

I don't love the 2nd and 3rd place vote ideas because it condenses everyone's arguments into the first time they bring up the player, and then they're not as interested to revisit those arguments by the time they actually get in. I would vote against the above 2nd place vote system as well since I think people will feel obligated to explain their votes, I prefer the run-off in the event of a tie

I think you're exactly right. The run-off system worked well enough before, and allows better discussion by far. Simply put, it's inviting all sorts of issues and trouble to add 2nd/3rd places. The POY project comes to mind where people were deliberately dropping players low, and people felt compelled to just follow their previous ranks which negated discussion.

[LA Bird]

RCV is alright but if the preferences on a vote is exhausted and does not transfer to any of the remaining candidates, is it removed from the total vote count? It is not guaranteed we will end up with only 2 candidates after transferring the votes in which case we might not end with a majority.

I still think a single vote with run off for majority is the simplest and most straightforward way to tally up the votes.