RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - General Thread

[Doctor MJ]

Doc, the voting structure in the OP doesn't seem to match what's in post #1, in which you say:

"1. In this thread you are to vote for your GOAT, and you also get a second vote to give you a say if your GOAT isn't one of the top 2 candidates."

I don't see any mention of 6 candidates nor of nominating a player to join the pool for the #2 thread, etc.

So in thread #1, are we to vote for our #1 and #2 GOAT, or just the #1 GOAT for now, and should it be needed, a further vote among the top 2 candidates in a runoff?

Maybe I'm a little clueless today --- the Lillard trade request has my head spinning a bit.

My apologies for the confusion Moonbeam. My original plan was amended based on suggestions in this thread.

1. We will not have a set of Nominees until after the first vote so as to not limit options and avoid bias. Based on the first voting, with the ordering of the 2020 project as a tiebreaker, we will have a 5 candidate list for vote 2, and voters will be able to also nominate another player for vote 3.

2. Participants were concerned about the pull to strategic voting if there was no runoff list at all. It was pointed out that the first vote will likely come down to Jordan & LeBron, and without even a 2-man list, that made some voters have to choose between voting for their GOAT or having a say on who actually got the top spot. Many wanted a longer list, but only added one more to the length.

Anything else confusing with the change I can clarify?

[Moonbeam]

Doc, the voting structure in the OP doesn't seem to match what's in post #1, in which you say:

"1. In this thread you are to vote for your GOAT, and you also get a second vote to give you a say if your GOAT isn't one of the top 2 candidates."

I don't see any mention of 6 candidates nor of nominating a player to join the pool for the #2 thread, etc.

So in thread #1, are we to vote for our #1 and #2 GOAT, or just the #1 GOAT for now, and should it be needed, a further vote among the top 2 candidates in a runoff?

Maybe I'm a little clueless today --- the Lillard trade request has my head spinning a bit.

My apologies for the confusion Moonbeam. My original plan was amended based on suggestions in this thread.

1. We will not have a set of Nominees until after the first vote so as to not limit options and avoid bias. Based on the first voting, with the ordering of the 2020 project as a tiebreaker, we will have a 5 candidate list for vote 2, and voters will be able to also nominate another player for vote 3.

2. Participants were concerned about the pull to strategic voting if there was no runoff list at all. It was pointed out that the first vote will likely come down to Jordan & LeBron, and without even a 2-man list, that made some voters have to choose between voting for their GOAT or having a say on who actually got the top spot. Many wanted a longer list, but only added one more to the length.

Anything else confusing with the change I can clarify?

Still a little confused. There are a couple interpretations. Again, probably just my headspace at the moment, so my apologies. Which of these (if any) are we supposed to do?

1. Vote for our #1 and #2 GOAT in the same post
2. Vote for our #1 GOAT and vote for the preferred player we believe will be among the top 2 candidates in the same post
3. Vote for our #1 GOAT in one post, and if necessary, vote for a second player once the top 2 candidates are determined (guaranteed runoff)
4. Something else?

I’m thinking you mean either option 1 or option 2, but I’m not entirely sure.

[eminence]

Doc, the voting structure in the OP doesn't seem to match what's in post #1, in which you say:

"1. In this thread you are to vote for your GOAT, and you also get a second vote to give you a say if your GOAT isn't one of the top 2 candidates."

I don't see any mention of 6 candidates nor of nominating a player to join the pool for the #2 thread, etc.

So in thread #1, are we to vote for our #1 and #2 GOAT, or just the #1 GOAT for now, and should it be needed, a further vote among the top 2 candidates in a runoff?

Maybe I'm a little clueless today --- the Lillard trade request has my head spinning a bit.

My apologies for the confusion Moonbeam. My original plan was amended based on suggestions in this thread.

1. We will not have a set of Nominees until after the first vote so as to not limit options and avoid bias. Based on the first voting, with the ordering of the 2020 project as a tiebreaker, we will have a 5 candidate list for vote 2, and voters will be able to also nominate another player for vote 3.

2. Participants were concerned about the pull to strategic voting if there was no runoff list at all. It was pointed out that the first vote will likely come down to Jordan & LeBron, and without even a 2-man list, that made some voters have to choose between voting for their GOAT or having a say on who actually got the top spot. Many wanted a longer list, but only added one more to the length.

Anything else confusing with the change I can clarify?

Still a little confused. There are a couple interpretations. Again, probably just my headspace at the moment, so my apologies. Which of these (if any) are we supposed to do?

1. Vote for our #1 and #2 GOAT in the same post
2. Vote for our #1 GOAT and vote for the preferred player we believe will be among the top 2 candidates in the same post
3. Vote for our #1 GOAT in one post, and if necessary, vote for a second player once the top 2 candidates are determined (guaranteed runoff)
4. Something else?

I’m thinking you mean either option 1 or option 2, but I’m not entirely sure.

I believe it's your personal preference between options 1 and 2.

[Doctor MJ]

My apologies for the confusion Moonbeam. My original plan was amended based on suggestions in this thread.

1. We will not have a set of Nominees until after the first vote so as to not limit options and avoid bias. Based on the first voting, with the ordering of the 2020 project as a tiebreaker, we will have a 5 candidate list for vote 2, and voters will be able to also nominate another player for vote 3.

2. Participants were concerned about the pull to strategic voting if there was no runoff list at all. It was pointed out that the first vote will likely come down to Jordan & LeBron, and without even a 2-man list, that made some voters have to choose between voting for their GOAT or having a say on who actually got the top spot. Many wanted a longer list, but only added one more to the length.

Anything else confusing with the change I can clarify?

Still a little confused. There are a couple interpretations. Again, probably just my headspace at the moment, so my apologies. Which of these (if any) are we supposed to do?

1. Vote for our #1 and #2 GOAT in the same post
2. Vote for our #1 GOAT and vote for the preferred player we believe will be among the top 2 candidates in the same post
3. Vote for our #1 GOAT in one post, and if necessary, vote for a second player once the top 2 candidates are determined (guaranteed runoff)
4. Something else?

I’m thinking you mean either option 1 or option 2, but I’m not entirely sure.

I believe it's your personal preference between options 1 and 2.

Well put. Up to you how you want to use the 2nd spot on the ballot, or if you want to use it at all really.

[f4p]

i would like to vote in this project. i've been looking forward to it for a long time, but was away from the board when the other thread got started. can i be added to the list?

[eminence]

i would like to vote in this project. i've been looking forward to it for a long time, but was away from the board when the other thread got started. can i be added to the list?

I'd guess you'll be approved, but regardless feel free to participate in the thread

[f4p]

i would like to vote in this project. i've been looking forward to it for a long time, but was away from the board when the other thread got started. can i be added to the list?

I'd guess you'll be approved, but regardless feel free to participate in the thread

yeah, i guess i didn't realize it would start so quickly with the last one starting in october i think. scrambling to get things together.

[Doctor MJ]

i would like to vote in this project. i've been looking forward to it for a long time, but was away from the board when the other thread got started. can i be added to the list?

You're in. Go get'em tiger!

[Doctor MJ]

yeah, i guess i didn't realize it would start so quickly with the last one starting in october i think. scrambling to get things together.

So first: No worries, glad to have you aboard.

But there's another thing going on here: Last time was 2020, during the Pandemic. That delayed the end of the '19-20 season, and so also delayed the project. Normally we would have started it around this time.

[f4p]

yeah, i guess i didn't realize it would start so quickly with the last one starting in october i think. scrambling to get things together.

So first: No worries, glad to have you aboard.

But there's another thing going on here: Last time was 2020, during the Pandemic. That delayed the end of the '19-20 season, and so also delayed the project. Normally we would have started it around this time.

oh yeah

[OhayoKD]

Other than locking the voter roll (questionable) I don't see a way to prevent this, out voter base simply isn't large enough to prevent outside intervention at that level.

Not risking a pluraity/majority split isn't a bad start.

And of course, discussion is just going to be more varied, and there will be significantly more engagement with greater vote-flexibility, which off course also turns the thread into a better tool of future educational merit, more representative of the community, and more insightful for whatever "audience" may be procured.

That seems like a pretty clear-cut upgrade in terms of discussion quality and at 3, we have seen it works very well. It may make decision-making "less effecient" as iggy and doc seemed to outline for some posters, so if that's what we're prioritizing here, then you can make it 2 and accept the trade-offs.

Making the extra votes optional also lets participants choose for themselves, but discussion will be more "focused" without that choice

I support a 2 or 3 vote ranked choice method, but I'm not seeing some of these arguments.

Less of a risk early for sure, which is a positive, but it'll still be there later in the project with any realistically sized ballot (ie not 20 places). There's simply too varied of opinions on who the #56 guy is for that to be avoided.

Your position is that discussion will be more varied, and perhaps you can guarantee it will be on your end, but I don't see a reason for that being a logical necessity. Posters aren't idiots and can read the tea leaves well enough to see which candidates will be viable each thread (based off past threads). Discussion will strongly centralize around those candidates regardless of voting method.

With basically a day left of voting the discussion has basically centered on two candidates. Very little has been mentioned of anyone else. I think in a comparison to the 2020 thread that variety is almost entirely missing.

Off course I am partially to blame here, but Kareem and Russell have barely been mentioned

[AEnigma]

But Kareem and Russell will be mentioned in full later.

While in the moment I appreciate the ability to develop longer approaches for players across threads, I admit a frustration reading prior projects and seeing a player’s victory thread disproportionately focused on other names and often featuring pared down ballots for that player than what you would find for them in preceding threads, to the point that the thread before a player’s admittance tended to be more insightful.

[Tim Lehrbach]

But Kareem and Russell will be mentioned in full later.

While in the moment I appreciate the ability to develop longer approaches for players across threads, I admit a frustration reading prior projects and seeing a player’s victory thread disproportionately focused on other names and often featuring pared down ballots for that player than what you would find for them in preceding threads, to the point that the thread before a player’s admittance tended to be more insightful.

I've thought about this too when reading the past projects, but I'm not sure it's avoidable. If a player is a strong #2 for a given spot, he is likely to get significant attention for that spot, and many who do not vote for him may become convinced he is the worthy runner-up. Then, when the next thread rolls around, he doesn't need or receive as much advocacy to get the votes.

[AEnigma]

But Kareem and Russell will be mentioned in full later.

While in the moment I appreciate the ability to develop longer approaches for players across threads, I admit a frustration reading prior projects and seeing a player’s victory thread disproportionately focused on other names and often featuring pared down ballots for that player than what you would find for them in preceding threads, to the point that the thread before a player’s admittance tended to be more insightful.

I've thought about this too when reading the past projects, but I'm not sure it's avoidable. If a player is a strong #2 for a given spot, he is likely to get significant attention for that spot, and many who do not vote for him may become convinced he is the worthy runner-up. Then, when the next thread rolls around, he doesn't need or receive as much advocacy to get the votes.

Sure, but my point is small ballots consolidate discussion on players. Worse in the moment, possibly, but makes for an easier posterity read.

[eminence]

Your position is that discussion will be more varied, and perhaps you can guarantee it will be on your end, but I don't see a reason for that being a logical necessity. Posters aren't idiots and can read the tea leaves well enough to see which candidates will be viable each thread (based off past threads). Discussion will strongly centralize around those candidates regardless of voting method.

With basically a day left of voting the discussion has basically centered on two candidates. Very little has been mentioned of anyone else. I think in a comparison to the 2020 thread that variety is almost entirely missing.

Off course I am partially to blame here, but Kareem and Russell have barely been mentioned

I see the same ~4 names mentioned, with the focus once again dominated by LeBron/MJ (they had 32/37 votes last go around and a similar amount of the discussion, 3 for Russell, forget the others off the top, I presume at least one KAJ - LeBron dominating the vote more this go around, potentially a bit of a discussion damper), Russell/KAJ with a lesser, but significant presence. A few others mentioned more in passing in each thread (Wilt, Duncan, Hakeem, Mikan from memory). The project itself is smaller, but that's true of general board activity (18 votes currently by my count - 13 LBJ, 3 Russell, 2 MJ - so a better showing for Russell this go around in votes if not in discussion), approximately half the votes and half the total thread participation of 15.5 pages last time when the vote was called). Seems about on track, with 60% of the voters from last project (we'll see where final participation lands).

[ardee]

It's already begun, and I guess it IS tradition to do these every 3 years for the last 15, but man I just feel like waiting one more year may have been appropriate because I feel like 2024 is going to be a VERY consequential season.

[Tim Lehrbach]

Man, this is hard. My first vote was neither timely nor up to the standard I'd set for myself. This works best conversationally, I think, and some of you really excel at that, whereas I do not.

Anyway, still reading a few more posts, but great work so far!

[ijspeelman]

I know I am late to the party, but I'd like to become a voter.

[HeartBreakKid]

Add me to the voters list. I already let Bill Russell down.

[Samurai]

I would like to be added to the voters list. The new rules are interesting and I'll do my best to properly comply (but as an old guy, screw ups on my part are likely!).