RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #26 (Nikola Jokic)

[AEnigma]

I read your point in that seven people gave votes to Jokic in some capacity and seven people gave votes to Barkley in some capacity (assuming there were no Barkley/Jokic ballots), but a) it is not some injustice that Jokic won, b) Jokic did have more first place votes, and c) Barkley is probably going to win this next vote with his main competitor being the guy to whom you gave your lead vote. I am sure it is annoying, but you had time to count votes and reach out to non-voters (or non-alternates) to create a clearer sense that Barkley’s support was even with Jokic’s support.

I support your suggestion that future threads count secondaries in this situation to avoid three-way votes. However, that was not Doc’s standard in this thread.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

I read your point in that seven people gave votes to Jokic in some capacity and seven people gave votes to Barkley in some capacity (assuming there were no Barkley/Jokic ballots), but a) it is not some injustice that Jokic won, b) Jokic did have more first place votes, and c) Barkley is probably going to win this next vote with his main competitor being the guy to whom you gave your lead vote. I am sure it is annoying, but you had time to count votes and reach out to non-voters (or non-alternates) to create a clearer sense that Barkley’s support was even with Jokic’s support.

I will wait for Doc to make the call.

Like I said, I didn't realize that in this type of case - 5-4-4 - that no secondary votes from anyone who voted from those three would be considered. I'm not sure if we've actually had this situation so far in the project, so I was unaware, otherwise I would've changed my vote. It just strikes me as anti-democratic to not let it go to a runoff given the actual vote-counts and I hope Doc sees it that way.

It is an injustice if a runoff would potentially give Barkley a win at #26 instead of #27.

EDIT: Again, I don't think we've been in this situation so far, and there's nothing in the OP about how votes are to be counted in that situation.

[AEnigma]

There will always be some mess. Hypothetically, if you had 8/15 ballots specifying Player A first, Player B second, and 7/15 ballots specifying Player B first and Player C second, Player A would win despite Player B having unanimous support. It is what it is.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

There will always be some mess. Hypothetically, if you had 8/15 ballots specifying Player A first, Player B second, and 7/15 ballots specifying Player B first and Player C second, Player A would win despite Player B having unanimous support. It is what it is.

But that's a two-person contest, this is a three-person contest. And being that, based on what I can see, there is nothing either in the OP or in the general thread specifically describing how votes are to be counted in such a situation, I did not know that it would end up like this, or I would have voted Barkley for my #1. It literally didn't cross my mind that the votes could be counted this way.

If the whole argument is that Jokic had more #1 votes, than why bother counting any #2 votes at all?

[trex_8063]

I read your point in that seven people gave votes to Jokic in some capacity and seven people gave votes to Barkley in some capacity (assuming there were no Barkley/Jokic ballots), but a) it is not some injustice that Jokic won, b) Jokic did have more first place votes, and c) Barkley is probably going to win this next vote with his main competitor being the guy to whom you gave your lead vote. I am sure it is annoying, but you had time to count votes and reach out to non-voters (or non-alternates) to create a clearer sense that Barkley’s support was even with Jokic’s support.

I will wait for Doc to make the call.

Like I said, I didn't realize that in this type of case - 5-4-4 - that no secondary votes from anyone who voted from those three would be considered. I'm not sure if we've actually had this situation so far in the project, so I was unaware, otherwise I would've changed my vote. It just strikes me as anti-democratic to not let it go to a runoff given the actual vote-counts and I hope Doc sees it that way.

It is an injustice if a runoff would potentially give Barkley a win at #26 instead of #27.

EDIT: Again, I don't think we've been in this situation so far, and there's nothing in the OP about how votes are to be counted in that situation.

Pitching in my 2c as someone who's chaired a number of these projects in the past (and who voted for Barkley, fwiw).

The method to this point: eliminating the low-vote recipients [in event of no majority], and transfering alternate votes to any of the remaining candidates [if applicable]; re-assess for majority, often until down to 2 players (in which case a plurality will suffice in some cases).

Here we could not eliminate down to two candidates as Barkley and Pettit were tied. Placing one beneath the other in order to eliminate down to two would have been a bit arbitrary and without precedent (and could thus ruffle OTHER peoples' feathers).

fwiw, even if Doc elected to do so [eliminate Pettit, and transfer those votes], that would bring it to a 7-7 tie.........and one could just as arbitrarily decide that Jokic deserves it for having won 5-4 on 1st PLACE votes.

Or if you had strategically switched your 1st place vote to Barkley, that would have only made for a 5-5 tie in the 1st-place votes, and still a 7-7 tie after transferring alternates........which would bring us to a runoff (which Jokic may still have won).

It is what it is, though can't really be called an injustice, based on what I've outlined above. No method is perfect; but this allows as decent a representation of the consensus as most methods, without overtaxing the chairman (I've overtaxed myself with more complicated protocols in the past; it gets time-consuming).
And speaking from experience: the protocol **NEVER** pleases everyone.

Anyway, I'd not get too emotionally involved in the actual order.

.

**Can't please 'em all. It's "lonely at the top" time for you .

[OldSchoolNoBull]

I read your point in that seven people gave votes to Jokic in some capacity and seven people gave votes to Barkley in some capacity (assuming there were no Barkley/Jokic ballots), but a) it is not some injustice that Jokic won, b) Jokic did have more first place votes, and c) Barkley is probably going to win this next vote with his main competitor being the guy to whom you gave your lead vote. I am sure it is annoying, but you had time to count votes and reach out to non-voters (or non-alternates) to create a clearer sense that Barkley’s support was even with Jokic’s support.

I will wait for Doc to make the call.

Like I said, I didn't realize that in this type of case - 5-4-4 - that no secondary votes from anyone who voted from those three would be considered. I'm not sure if we've actually had this situation so far in the project, so I was unaware, otherwise I would've changed my vote. It just strikes me as anti-democratic to not let it go to a runoff given the actual vote-counts and I hope Doc sees it that way.

It is an injustice if a runoff would potentially give Barkley a win at #26 instead of #27.

EDIT: Again, I don't think we've been in this situation so far, and there's nothing in the OP about how votes are to be counted in that situation.

Pitching in my 2c as someone who's chaired a number of these projects in the past (and who voted for Barkley, fwiw).

The method to this point: eliminating the low-vote recipients [in event of no majority], and transfering alternate votes to any of the remaining candidates [if applicable]; re-assess for majority, often until down to 2 players (in which case a plurality will suffice in some cases).

Here we could not eliminate down to two candidates as Barkley and Pettit were tied. Placing one beneath the other in order to eliminate down to two would have been a bit arbitrary and without precedent (and could thus ruffle OTHER peoples' feathers).

fwiw, even if Doc elected to do so [eliminate Pettit, and transfer those votes], that would bring it to a 7-7 tie.........and one could just as arbitrarily decide that Jokic deserves it for having won 5-4 on 1st PLACE votes.

Or if you had strategically switched your 1st place vote to Barkley, that would have only made for a 5-5 tie in the 1st-place votes, and still a 7-7 tie after transferring alternates........which would bring us to a runoff (which Jokic may still have won).

It is what it is, though can't really be called an injustice, based on what I've outlined above. No method is perfect; but this allows as decent a representation of the consensus as most methods, without overtaxing the chairman (I've overtaxed myself with more complicated protocols in the past; it gets time-consuming).
And speaking from experience: the protocol **NEVER** pleases everyone.

Anyway, I'd not get too emotionally involved in the actual order.

.

**Can't please 'em all. It's "lonely at the top" time for you .

You're right, it would go to a runoff, which could go either way, and this seems more fair to me that what's already happened. Especially since, as I've said, the way the votes would be counted in such a situation were not, imo, made clear ahead of time, or I would've voted differently.

Even if you counted all the secondary votes, it would be 7(Jokic)-7(Barkley)-5(Pettit).

[trex_8063]

There will always be some mess. Hypothetically, if you had 8/15 ballots specifying Player A first, Player B second, and 7/15 ballots specifying Player B first and Player C second, Player A would win despite Player B having unanimous support. It is what it is.

But that's a two-person contest, this is a three-person contest. And being that, based on what I can see, there is nothing either in the OP or in the general thread specifically describing how votes are to be counted in such a situation, I did not know that it would end up like this, or I would have voted Barkley for my #1. It literally didn't cross my mind that the votes could be counted this way.

If the whole argument is that Jokic had more #1 votes, than why bother counting any #2 votes at all?

Messes will always happen, especially the further we get on the list. Take a look at the Protocol description for the 2020 Project [in spoiler]. We went with a more complex ranked choice vote because I REALLY wanted to best-represent the forum consensus. But unforeseen complications and events kept occurring, requiring new contingencies and sub-protocols.......it led to a RIDICULOUS number of alterations, augmentations, ammendments, and so on [all the way out the #86 thread!!], trying to make it fair and predictable and agreeable for everyone. It's too much. This isn't [or shouldn't be] a full-time job for the chairperson.

Spoiler:

BASIC PROTOCOL (for those new to these project)
*We will start shortly after the conclusion of the 2020 NBA Finals. This project will run well into the next season, but for active players you are to ONLY consider what has taken place up thru the end of the 2019-20 season.

**We vote for one position/rank at a time, starting with the #1 thread, and proceeding to #100.

***Each thread will be open for approximately 48 hours (occasionally longer as circumstance may dictate, especially if there's a need of a runoff vote). [If you do the math, you realize that means this project will take 7-8 months to complete; it takes serious dedication to consistently contribute from start to finish.]

****You MUST provide some arguments/reasoning in support of your vote for it to be counted. That reasoning must pass a minimum standard of relevance or validity---->pretty easy bar to clear. As long as you're not doing something completely mindless and infantile [like basing your order strictly on # of All-Star selections] or something super extraneous [like basing it on which players you enjoyed watching the most], you'll be fine.
That reasoning must also pass a minimum standard of volume of content. You don't need to write a novel, but a single line may be deemed insufficient [particularly if the one line is particularly light on content or relevance].
e.g. Something like "1-time scoring champ" as the sole argument provided is unlikely to get a pass. You would be asked to dig a little deeper, and failing to do so prior to the deadline will result in your vote not being counted (with rare exception).

*****You are allowed to change your vote if you feel compelled to do so. Generally speaking it probably creates the least confusion/mistakes in counting votes if you change your ORIGINAL vote post, and then just give the chair a heads-up about it.

EDIT (12/6/20, as result of #26 thread):
Moving forward, I want to make sure everyone knows EXACTLY what to expect in a future contentious vote; so below is a flow-chart (which is consistent with precedent that has already occurred in this project):

1) We start with ranked vote system (RVS) like we've been doing with three ordered picks. If a majority winner or **default victory is NOT obtained by a single player with this method.....

2) ....we go to Condorcet method [of the "finalist" players] among the original counted voters to determine a winner. BUT we will wait no longer than 24 hours after the original deadline to hear from everyone (and there's no mystery to figuring if you're one of the people I need to hear from: it's easy enough for any of you to tell without my asking each of you [if two or more of the three "finalists" were not on your original vote post, I don't know what your position is on them]). (And as per OP of #60 thread, I am tabulating the length of time anyone holds up the project by not providing said information in advance; anyone who crossed 120 hours of delay time with have voting privileges suspended).

IF the Condorcet method yields a tie OR I do not hear from every original voter wrt his player hierarchy within 24 hours of the original deadline and the tabulated Condorcet results still indicate undecided (i.e. that it could go either way if all votes were in).....

3) .....we will go to a "sudden death" 24-hour [maximum] runoff, wherein the first finalist to receive [at least] TWO new votes [which can come from one of the original Condorcet hold-outs] AND be in the lead by Condorcet method (including BOTH original voters and runoff voters) will be awarded the spot. If 24 hours transpire with these criteria having not been met, we simply go with the Condorcet leader.
Provision A: if NO new votes are received within the first 12 hours of runoff OR a player still has a Condorcet lead of 2 or more votes after 12 hours, we will cut the runoff short and declare the Condorcet leader the winner.
Provision B: if applicable, the original non-majority "default winner" will be awarded the spot in the event that it is a Condorcet tie when the runoff period times out.
Provision C (added 4/13/21, to avoid fruitless delays): If, while validating a "default winner" via Condorcet, one of the challengers is found to have a Condorcet lead of 3 [or more] votes, the default winner will be eliminated, and the Condorcet leader will be awarded the spot [reason: with limited participation in late stages of project, it is assumed a deficit of 3+ votes is too large (realistically impossible) to overcome].
Provision D (5/1/21): In the event that there are MORE THAN ONE challengers with a 3+ Condorcet lead on the default winner, we will look at all-around Condorcet findings between those two [or more] challengers to decide the winner among them (as per flow-chart shown in post 15 of #86 thread).

**All default victories will be "validity checked" via the Condorcet method. As long as the default victor does NOT lose to one of the other finalists via Condorcet, the default victory will be upheld, and he will be awarded the spot.
IF, otoh, he loses to one [or more] competitors via Condorcet method, we will enter a "sudden death" runoff that follows the same rules as indicated in #3 above (except for conditions noted in "Provision C" above).


EDIT: Additional protocol details listed in post 15 of #86 thread.


TWO NEW ANNOUNCEMENTS (from #60 thread onward):
1) I'm sorry to do this, but we're running into so many delays and in danger of not finishing before the conclusion of the 2021 season......so to facilitate fewer unnecessary delays in the project, I am tentatively instituting a rule by which any poster who has [cumulatively] held up the project by 120+ hours (5 days) will be suspended from the voter pool for 5 threads. Upon his return from suspension, if he again holds up the project by >12 hours EVEN ONCE or an additional 24 hours cumulatively, he will be suspended an additional 5 threads. Upon return from the 2nd suspension, any ONE delay of 12+ hours or 24 hours cumulative will be met with a permanent elimination from the voter panel.
I have done a rough audit of all previous threads to see how many hours members of the panel have held things up. Anyone who wishes to know where his total hours is presently may PM me. There are a couple of posters who are dangerously close to the 120-hour threshold.
To avoid being the one who holds things up: just be proactive. Numerous posters are doing so and giving extensive lists including anyone with traction--->anyone voted for last thread is a good bet; anyone with multiple 2nd/3rd votes is also a good one to include; beyond that, just take 2 minutes toward the end of the 48-hour period to see who is gaining traction. It's not a lot being asked.

2) Also to facilitate speedier conclusions to threads [and noting runoff participation is often lacking at this stage]: any runoff that is going for 12 hours with NO runoff votes cast OR has gone 12+ hours and a candidate still maintains a 2+ vote lead over other finalists via Condorcet, will be ended and we will go with the Condorcet leader as the winner.
All-around Condorcet leader will be used to determine victor in the event that runoff criteria are not met after 24 hours, too.


*** "new votes" must come from posters who have previously been established on the voter panel [even if they haven't participated in awhile]. i.e. Brand new voices will not be allowed to jump in and decide the spot.

****In the event that these runoff criteria have NOT been satisfied within 24 hours of the start of the runoff, the Condorcet winner at the time the clock runs out will take the spot (or potentially will eliminate one or more contestants in a multiplayer runoff, and continue a second runoff between the two remaining, as may be appropriate based on Condorcet count).[/size][/color]
EDIT (2/21/21): To effect speedier conclusions to threads where runoff participation is lacking--->if a runoff has been in effect for 12 hours with NO runoff votes cast OR if the runoff has been in effect for 12 hours and one candidate still has a Condorcet lead of 2+ over all other finalists, we will end runoff and go with the Condorcet leader as the winner.

******We (the moderators) will be watching closely for any evidence of collusion or “manipulation” of the vote. If we become suspicious an individual is participating in this manner, he or she may be removed from the voter panel, pending further investigation and/or trial period. EDIT: those guilty of any other general misbehavior may also be removed from the voter panel.


SPECIFIC VOTE/BALLOT METHOD
Ranked Vote System
This is somewhat similar to a Ballot System in that you'll declare a 1st choice AND a 2nd choice (possibly even a third???).
On the initial count ONLY the 1st choices are added up. If no player has the majority of the vote----NOT just the lead, but an actual majority of ALL votes----then the player(s) with the LEAST number of votes are eliminated from contention. The "2nd choice" votes of those posters [who voted for the player(s) who were just eliminated] are then applied to any of the other existing candidates [the remaining players who received 1st-choice votes] as applicable. If that still does not yield a majority for someone, the next lowest score is eliminated (and 2nd choice votes again transferred). Lather, rinse, repeat until a majority is reached for someone.

[Doctor MJ]

I read your point in that seven people gave votes to Jokic in some capacity and seven people gave votes to Barkley in some capacity (assuming there were no Barkley/Jokic ballots), but a) it is not some injustice that Jokic won, b) Jokic did have more first place votes, and c) Barkley is probably going to win this next vote with his main competitor being the guy to whom you gave your lead vote. I am sure it is annoying, but you had time to count votes and reach out to non-voters (or non-alternates) to create a clearer sense that Barkley’s support was even with Jokic’s support.

I will wait for Doc to make the call.

Like I said, I didn't realize that in this type of case - 5-4-4 - that no secondary votes from anyone who voted from those three would be considered. I'm not sure if we've actually had this situation so far in the project, so I was unaware, otherwise I would've changed my vote. It just strikes me as anti-democratic to not let it go to a runoff given the actual vote-counts and I hope Doc sees it that way.

It is an injustice if a runoff would potentially give Barkley a win at #26 instead of #27.

EDIT: Again, I don't think we've been in this situation so far, and there's nothing in the OP about how votes are to be counted in that situation.

Don't have time for a long post right now but the essence:

Not a mistake, so it will stand, but I do recognize it to be an imperfect process.

[Doctor MJ]

There will always be some mess. Hypothetically, if you had 8/15 ballots specifying Player A first, Player B second, and 7/15 ballots specifying Player B first and Player C second, Player A would win despite Player B having unanimous support. It is what it is.

But that's a two-person contest, this is a three-person contest. And being that, based on what I can see, there is nothing either in the OP or in the general thread specifically describing how votes are to be counted in such a situation, I did not know that it would end up like this, or I would have voted Barkley for my #1. It literally didn't cross my mind that the votes could be counted this way.

If the whole argument is that Jokic had more #1 votes, than why bother counting any #2 votes at all?

Messes will always happen, especially the further we get on the list. Take a look at the Protocol description for the 2020 Project [in spoiler]. We went with a more complex ranked choice vote because I REALLY wanted to best-represent the forum consensus. But unforeseen complications and events kept occurring, requiring new contingencies and sub-protocols.......it led to a RIDICULOUS number of alterations, augmentations, ammendments, and so on [all the way out the #86 thread!!], trying to make it fair and predictable and agreeable for everyone. It's too much. This isn't [or shouldn't be] a full-time job for the chairperson.

Spoiler:

BASIC PROTOCOL (for those new to these project)
*We will start shortly after the conclusion of the 2020 NBA Finals. This project will run well into the next season, but for active players you are to ONLY consider what has taken place up thru the end of the 2019-20 season.

**We vote for one position/rank at a time, starting with the #1 thread, and proceeding to #100.

***Each thread will be open for approximately 48 hours (occasionally longer as circumstance may dictate, especially if there's a need of a runoff vote). [If you do the math, you realize that means this project will take 7-8 months to complete; it takes serious dedication to consistently contribute from start to finish.]

****You MUST provide some arguments/reasoning in support of your vote for it to be counted. That reasoning must pass a minimum standard of relevance or validity---->pretty easy bar to clear. As long as you're not doing something completely mindless and infantile [like basing your order strictly on # of All-Star selections] or something super extraneous [like basing it on which players you enjoyed watching the most], you'll be fine.
That reasoning must also pass a minimum standard of volume of content. You don't need to write a novel, but a single line may be deemed insufficient [particularly if the one line is particularly light on content or relevance].
e.g. Something like "1-time scoring champ" as the sole argument provided is unlikely to get a pass. You would be asked to dig a little deeper, and failing to do so prior to the deadline will result in your vote not being counted (with rare exception).

*****You are allowed to change your vote if you feel compelled to do so. Generally speaking it probably creates the least confusion/mistakes in counting votes if you change your ORIGINAL vote post, and then just give the chair a heads-up about it.

EDIT (12/6/20, as result of #26 thread):
Moving forward, I want to make sure everyone knows EXACTLY what to expect in a future contentious vote; so below is a flow-chart (which is consistent with precedent that has already occurred in this project):

1) We start with ranked vote system (RVS) like we've been doing with three ordered picks. If a majority winner or **default victory is NOT obtained by a single player with this method.....

2) ....we go to Condorcet method [of the "finalist" players] among the original counted voters to determine a winner. BUT we will wait no longer than 24 hours after the original deadline to hear from everyone (and there's no mystery to figuring if you're one of the people I need to hear from: it's easy enough for any of you to tell without my asking each of you [if two or more of the three "finalists" were not on your original vote post, I don't know what your position is on them]). (And as per OP of #60 thread, I am tabulating the length of time anyone holds up the project by not providing said information in advance; anyone who crossed 120 hours of delay time with have voting privileges suspended).

IF the Condorcet method yields a tie OR I do not hear from every original voter wrt his player hierarchy within 24 hours of the original deadline and the tabulated Condorcet results still indicate undecided (i.e. that it could go either way if all votes were in).....

3) .....we will go to a "sudden death" 24-hour [maximum] runoff, wherein the first finalist to receive [at least] TWO new votes [which can come from one of the original Condorcet hold-outs] AND be in the lead by Condorcet method (including BOTH original voters and runoff voters) will be awarded the spot. If 24 hours transpire with these criteria having not been met, we simply go with the Condorcet leader.
Provision A: if NO new votes are received within the first 12 hours of runoff OR a player still has a Condorcet lead of 2 or more votes after 12 hours, we will cut the runoff short and declare the Condorcet leader the winner.
Provision B: if applicable, the original non-majority "default winner" will be awarded the spot in the event that it is a Condorcet tie when the runoff period times out.
Provision C (added 4/13/21, to avoid fruitless delays): If, while validating a "default winner" via Condorcet, one of the challengers is found to have a Condorcet lead of 3 [or more] votes, the default winner will be eliminated, and the Condorcet leader will be awarded the spot [reason: with limited participation in late stages of project, it is assumed a deficit of 3+ votes is too large (realistically impossible) to overcome].
Provision D (5/1/21): In the event that there are MORE THAN ONE challengers with a 3+ Condorcet lead on the default winner, we will look at all-around Condorcet findings between those two [or more] challengers to decide the winner among them (as per flow-chart shown in post 15 of #86 thread).

**All default victories will be "validity checked" via the Condorcet method. As long as the default victor does NOT lose to one of the other finalists via Condorcet, the default victory will be upheld, and he will be awarded the spot.
IF, otoh, he loses to one [or more] competitors via Condorcet method, we will enter a "sudden death" runoff that follows the same rules as indicated in #3 above (except for conditions noted in "Provision C" above).


EDIT: Additional protocol details listed in post 15 of #86 thread.


TWO NEW ANNOUNCEMENTS (from #60 thread onward):
1) I'm sorry to do this, but we're running into so many delays and in danger of not finishing before the conclusion of the 2021 season......so to facilitate fewer unnecessary delays in the project, I am tentatively instituting a rule by which any poster who has [cumulatively] held up the project by 120+ hours (5 days) will be suspended from the voter pool for 5 threads. Upon his return from suspension, if he again holds up the project by >12 hours EVEN ONCE or an additional 24 hours cumulatively, he will be suspended an additional 5 threads. Upon return from the 2nd suspension, any ONE delay of 12+ hours or 24 hours cumulative will be met with a permanent elimination from the voter panel.
I have done a rough audit of all previous threads to see how many hours members of the panel have held things up. Anyone who wishes to know where his total hours is presently may PM me. There are a couple of posters who are dangerously close to the 120-hour threshold.
To avoid being the one who holds things up: just be proactive. Numerous posters are doing so and giving extensive lists including anyone with traction--->anyone voted for last thread is a good bet; anyone with multiple 2nd/3rd votes is also a good one to include; beyond that, just take 2 minutes toward the end of the 48-hour period to see who is gaining traction. It's not a lot being asked.

2) Also to facilitate speedier conclusions to threads [and noting runoff participation is often lacking at this stage]: any runoff that is going for 12 hours with NO runoff votes cast OR has gone 12+ hours and a candidate still maintains a 2+ vote lead over other finalists via Condorcet, will be ended and we will go with the Condorcet leader as the winner.
All-around Condorcet leader will be used to determine victor in the event that runoff criteria are not met after 24 hours, too.


*** "new votes" must come from posters who have previously been established on the voter panel [even if they haven't participated in awhile]. i.e. Brand new voices will not be allowed to jump in and decide the spot.

****In the event that these runoff criteria have NOT been satisfied within 24 hours of the start of the runoff, the Condorcet winner at the time the clock runs out will take the spot (or potentially will eliminate one or more contestants in a multiplayer runoff, and continue a second runoff between the two remaining, as may be appropriate based on Condorcet count).[/size][/color]
EDIT (2/21/21): To effect speedier conclusions to threads where runoff participation is lacking--->if a runoff has been in effect for 12 hours with NO runoff votes cast OR if the runoff has been in effect for 12 hours and one candidate still has a Condorcet lead of 2+ over all other finalists, we will end runoff and go with the Condorcet leader as the winner.

******We (the moderators) will be watching closely for any evidence of collusion or “manipulation” of the vote. If we become suspicious an individual is participating in this manner, he or she may be removed from the voter panel, pending further investigation and/or trial period. EDIT: those guilty of any other general misbehavior may also be removed from the voter panel.


SPECIFIC VOTE/BALLOT METHOD
Ranked Vote System
This is somewhat similar to a Ballot System in that you'll declare a 1st choice AND a 2nd choice (possibly even a third???).
On the initial count ONLY the 1st choices are added up. If no player has the majority of the vote----NOT just the lead, but an actual majority of ALL votes----then the player(s) with the LEAST number of votes are eliminated from contention. The "2nd choice" votes of those posters [who voted for the player(s) who were just eliminated] are then applied to any of the other existing candidates [the remaining players who received 1st-choice votes] as applicable. If that still does not yield a majority for someone, the next lowest score is eliminated (and 2nd choice votes again transferred). Lather, rinse, repeat until a majority is reached for someone.

I really appreciate your support trex.

To everyone: Part of my stipulation in taking the reins of this project was the ability to simplify the voting scheme. I admire what trex was doing before, but I don't have time for it.

And yes, I think no matter what we do, there will always be imperfections in result. I think it helps to remember that the discussion is the true heart of the project.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

I read your point in that seven people gave votes to Jokic in some capacity and seven people gave votes to Barkley in some capacity (assuming there were no Barkley/Jokic ballots), but a) it is not some injustice that Jokic won, b) Jokic did have more first place votes, and c) Barkley is probably going to win this next vote with his main competitor being the guy to whom you gave your lead vote. I am sure it is annoying, but you had time to count votes and reach out to non-voters (or non-alternates) to create a clearer sense that Barkley’s support was even with Jokic’s support.

I will wait for Doc to make the call.

Like I said, I didn't realize that in this type of case - 5-4-4 - that no secondary votes from anyone who voted from those three would be considered. I'm not sure if we've actually had this situation so far in the project, so I was unaware, otherwise I would've changed my vote. It just strikes me as anti-democratic to not let it go to a runoff given the actual vote-counts and I hope Doc sees it that way.

It is an injustice if a runoff would potentially give Barkley a win at #26 instead of #27.

EDIT: Again, I don't think we've been in this situation so far, and there's nothing in the OP about how votes are to be counted in that situation.

Don't have time for a long post right now but the essence:

Not a mistake, so it will stand, but I do recognize it to be an imperfect process.

Imperfect is putting it nicely.

I strongly object to this, but I will not push any further. I do hope you explain more fully when you have time though.

[SHAQ32]

NBA & ABA Career Combined (Regular Season + Playoffs) Leaders and Records for Win Shares:

1. LeBron James

9. Chris Paul

20. Kevin Durant

35. Steph Curry


93. Giannis Antetokounmpo
95. Nikola Jokic

[One_and_Done]

I'd be complaining more, but Jokic was coming up soon either way, and in the long term is sure to pass Barkley, so I'm not too fussed. It'll probably lead to better outcomes for the project as well.

[trex_8063]

Although I didn't vote for him (and indicated he would have been 4th among the 5 candidates we had for this round), it does feel "right" from an internal consistency standpoint that Giannis and Jokic are very very close on the list; for they are contemporaries with very comparable career resumes, imo.

[Colbinii]

NBA & ABA Career Combined (Regular Season + Playoffs) Leaders and Records for Win Shares:

1. LeBron James

9. Chris Paul

20. Kevin Durant

35. Steph Curry


93. Giannis Antetokounmpo
95. Nikola Jokic

Do you have Stockton Top 10 All-Time? Ahead of Kobe and Shaq?

Bird is 27, so you must think he is far too high as well?

I assume you will be nominating Parish and Issel soon?

Oh, you don't agree with any these? Then why did you even post Career WS without context?

[mdonnelly1989]

Our system is now as follows:

1. We have a pool of Nominees you are to choose from for your Induction (main) vote to decide who next gets on the List. Choose your top vote, and if you'd like to, a second vote which will be used for runoff purposes if needed.

2. Nomination vote now works the same way.

3. You must include reasoning for each of your votes, though you may re-use your old words in a new post.

4. Post as much as they want, but when you do your official Vote make it really clear to me at the top of that post that that post is your Vote. And if you decide to change your vote before the votes are tallied, please edit that same Vote post.

5. Anyone may post thoughts, but please only make a Vote post if you're on the Voter list. If you'd like to be added to the project, please ask in the General Thread for the project. Note that you will not be added immediately to the project now. If you express an interest during the #2 thread, for example, the earliest you'll be added to the Voter list is for the #3.

5. I'll tally the votes when I wake up the morning after the Deadline (I don't care if you change things after the official Deadline, but once I tally, it's over). For this specific Vote, if people ask before the Deadline, I'll extend it.

Here's the list of the Voter Pool as it stands right now (and if I forgot anyone I approved, do let me know):

Spoiler:

AEnigma
Ambrose
ceilng raiser
ceoofkobefans
Clyde Frazier
Colbinii
cupcakesnake
Doctor MJ
Dooley
DQuinn1575
Dr Positivity
DraymondGold
Dutchball97
eminence
f4p
falcolombardi
Fundamentals21
Gibson22
HeartBreakKid
homecourtloss
iggymcfrack
LA Bird
JimmyFromNz
Joao Saraiva
lessthanjake
ljspeelman
Lou Fan
Moonbeam
Narigo
OhayoKD
OldSchoolNoBull
One_and_Done
penbeast0
rk2023
Samurai
ShaqAttac
Taj FTW
Tim Lehrbach
trelos6
trex_8063
ty 4191
ZeppelinPage

Alright, the Nominees for you to choose among for the next slot on the list (in alphabetical order):



Charles Barkley


James Harden


Nikola Jokic


Bob Pettit


Dwyane Wade

Where can I see the list who's been taken 1-25 so far....?

[Doctor MJ]

Where can I see the list who's been taken 1-25 so far....?

You can go to the OP of the project thread stickied on the PC Board, or go to our historical spreadsheet which I'm updating as we go.

[mdonnelly1989]

Wow and I thought MJ was considered at minimum Top 2 GOAT. Also KG has clearly got overrated over the past 10 years.

He was closer to where he should be 10 - 15 years ago. No way he should be ahead of Magic or Kobe. Period.

[ZeppelinPage]

As someone who values defense, when would you consider Nate Thurmond, Artis Gilmore and Dikembe Mutombo?

I'll start to consider them as we get closer to around #40, along with Ben Wallace and Alonzo Mourning, who I also have higher than most. They're all definitely top 50 for me. With my personal emphasis on defense and rebounding and how vital it has been to winning throughout NBA history, I also place a high value on Dennis Rodman's skill set as well.

I think the rest struggles with longevity a bit, but Gilmore is worthy consideration for top 35 in my opinion (along with Ewing of course).

If you value Rodman highly, how about Draymond Green? Also, would you have guys like Mark Eaton and Marc Gasol inside top 100?

Definitely Draymond Green not far after those guys, although I'm not a fan of Draymond as a teammate he's certainly a valuable player, but still would have Rodman ahead of him (I probably have Rodman higher than nearly everybody.)

I'm not sure if I would have either Gasol or Eaton, personally. Not quite the versatility on defense as other guys, nor are they the level of rebounders as many other centers listed. I think Eaton just wasn't good enough on offense to make my list either.

[70sFan]

I'll start to consider them as we get closer to around #40, along with Ben Wallace and Alonzo Mourning, who I also have higher than most. They're all definitely top 50 for me. With my personal emphasis on defense and rebounding and how vital it has been to winning throughout NBA history, I also place a high value on Dennis Rodman's skill set as well.

I think the rest struggles with longevity a bit, but Gilmore is worthy consideration for top 35 in my opinion (along with Ewing of course).

If you value Rodman highly, how about Draymond Green? Also, would you have guys like Mark Eaton and Marc Gasol inside top 100?

Definitely Draymond Green not far after those guys, although I'm not a fan of Draymond as a teammate he's certainly a valuable player, but still would have Rodman ahead of him (I probably have Rodman higher than nearly everybody.)

I'm not sure if I would have either Gasol or Eaton, personally. Not quite the versatility on defense as other guys, nor are they the level of rebounders as many other centers listed. I think Eaton just wasn't good enough on offense to make my list either.

Thanks for the answer. Just one interesting thought - do you think Ben Wallace was a better offensive player than Mark Eaton? To me, it's not clear at all.

[ZeppelinPage]

I think the rest struggles with longevity a bit, but Gilmore is worthy consideration for top 35 in my opinion (along with Ewing of course).

If you value Rodman highly, how about Draymond Green? Also, would you have guys like Mark Eaton and Marc Gasol inside top 100?

Definitely Draymond Green not far after those guys, although I'm not a fan of Draymond as a teammate he's certainly a valuable player, but still would have Rodman ahead of him (I probably have Rodman higher than nearly everybody.)

I'm not sure if I would have either Gasol or Eaton, personally. Not quite the versatility on defense as other guys, nor are they the level of rebounders as many other centers listed. I think Eaton just wasn't good enough on offense to make my list either.

Thanks for the answer. Just one interesting thought - do you think Ben Wallace was a better offensive player than Mark Eaton? To me, it's not clear at all.

Yes, absolutely. Wallace is underrated on offense and I've done a lot of film study for him. He was a better passer and lower turnover player compared to Eaton (he always had more assists than turnovers), a great screener, and more importantly he was a massive threat with his athleticism and offensive rebounding. Teams couldn't just sag off on Wallace and not defend him because he was always going for rebounds with his non-stop motor that Eaton didn't have. In the 2003 series against the Nets, for instance, two players at once were having to box him out because he had relentless effort around the rim. Even Derrick Coleman said that "You always have to make sure you know where he is at" after one of the games. I think this playstyle would really wear teams down and, much like a player can provide gravity with shooting or slashing ability, one can also do so with rebounding to bring defenders towards him and provide openings for teammates.