Moderators: trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ
OhayoKD wrote:
Kola's votes not counting
1. Would massively damage this project's credibility.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
AEnigma wrote:lessthanjake wrote:I’ve not perused other threads in this project, so maybe I’ve decided to look at a time when it happens to be particularly egregious, but it really does seem obvious to me what’s going on. And, to be clear, I don’t even really blame people for strategic voting—the incentives are just there to do so, so it’s an ever-present issue with these sorts of things. Your vote essentially provides more weight towards your preferred outcome if you do so. I guess in some sense one could argue that that makes strategic voting a reflection of exactly how strongly one feels about their choice, but it’s probably more just a reflection of how much one cares if people will criticize one’s picks.
Yes, and while for now all I will do is strongly discourage people from voting that way — at the moment, the one ballot excluding Magic entirely is functionally cancelled out by the one ballot putting Jordan at fifth (restraint noted) — if it continues to be a problem I will be taking firmer measures. This is not supposed to be a project where we throw darts at a board to pick names, or where we stop voting for players because we think they have been doing too well in the project, or where we lower a player’s placement because you are mad at their fans. And while contrarian votes can be and have been sincere, they look a lot more sincere when you take the time to fully present your reasoning rather than transparently pretend nothing is amiss. I may not be a mind-reader, but I have been recording everyone’s votes and watching how they change over the course of a thread for long enough that it is easy to tell when people start selectively applying the standards they have relied upon throughout the project. Those types of changes are a lot less subtle than a couple of you seem to assume they are, and serial line-stepping will have consequences if it continues in the fashion it has throughout this thread.
Therefore, everyone may consider this an informal warning. Because lenience has evidently hit its limit, from this point, ballots which threaten to derail project discussion via blatant vote manipulation are liable to be tossed. If it happens twice, the offending poster will be removed from the project.
Again, I am not forbidding contrarian votes when they are properly justified and internally consistent. The goal is not homogeneity; if it were, the project would be pointless and would also have strict guidelines for what reasoning everyone is intended to use to vote (beyond “look at the year in question”). Those who have been voting sincerely to this point, even when their ballots break with consensus, are fine and encouraged to continue on as normal. But these little games where people artificially create 9-10 point gaps between ballot “rivals” or invent excuses to change a ballot when they see trends developing a certain way? Entirely opposed to the spirit of the project and quite evidently toxic to the overall discussion.
If anyone wishes to discuss this further, they can do so in the general discussion thread. This thread is for discussing 1988-89.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
One_and_Done wrote:AEnigma wrote:lessthanjake wrote:I’ve not perused other threads in this project, so maybe I’ve decided to look at a time when it happens to be particularly egregious, but it really does seem obvious to me what’s going on. And, to be clear, I don’t even really blame people for strategic voting—the incentives are just there to do so, so it’s an ever-present issue with these sorts of things. Your vote essentially provides more weight towards your preferred outcome if you do so. I guess in some sense one could argue that that makes strategic voting a reflection of exactly how strongly one feels about their choice, but it’s probably more just a reflection of how much one cares if people will criticize one’s picks.
Yes, and while for now all I will do is strongly discourage people from voting that way — at the moment, the one ballot excluding Magic entirely is functionally cancelled out by the one ballot putting Jordan at fifth (restraint noted) — if it continues to be a problem I will be taking firmer measures. This is not supposed to be a project where we throw darts at a board to pick names, or where we stop voting for players because we think they have been doing too well in the project, or where we lower a player’s placement because you are mad at their fans. And while contrarian votes can be and have been sincere, they look a lot more sincere when you take the time to fully present your reasoning rather than transparently pretend nothing is amiss. I may not be a mind-reader, but I have been recording everyone’s votes and watching how they change over the course of a thread for long enough that it is easy to tell when people start selectively applying the standards they have relied upon throughout the project. Those types of changes are a lot less subtle than a couple of you seem to assume they are, and serial line-stepping will have consequences if it continues in the fashion it has throughout this thread.
Therefore, everyone may consider this an informal warning. Because lenience has evidently hit its limit, from this point, ballots which threaten to derail project discussion via blatant vote manipulation are liable to be tossed. If it happens twice, the offending poster will be removed from the project.
Again, I am not forbidding contrarian votes when they are properly justified and internally consistent. The goal is not homogeneity; if it were, the project would be pointless and would also have strict guidelines for what reasoning everyone is intended to use to vote (beyond “look at the year in question”). Those who have been voting sincerely to this point, even when their ballots break with consensus, are fine and encouraged to continue on as normal. But these little games where people artificially create 9-10 point gaps between ballot “rivals” or invent excuses to change a ballot when they see trends developing a certain way? Entirely opposed to the spirit of the project and quite evidently toxic to the overall discussion.
If anyone wishes to discuss this further, they can do so in the general discussion thread. This thread is for discussing 1988-89.
This sounds nice, but how exactly can such rules be enforced? From my point of view, about a 3rd of the votes in some recent threads appear to have not been serious. You mention excluding Magic, but to my mind putting Ewing over Jordan seems far more ridiculous and calculated. Was there any point in their overlapping primes when anyone seriously thought Ewing was better than Jordan?
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
One_and_Done wrote:You're right, I should just preface any unpopular opinions by stating that the player I am rating lower didn't fulfill their 'Baller vow'.
OhayoKD wrote:One_and_Done wrote:You're right, I should just preface any unpopular opinions by stating that the player I am rating lower didn't fulfill their 'Baller vow'.
You should start by reading. At no point was the fufillment or lackthereof mentioned. Targeting the most detailed player-breakdown offered in the thread(which adhered nearly exactly to voter-consensus) says more about your motivations than anything
Magic Johnson - (Grain Version) Yuki
Grade: Special
Hoop Expansion - Showtime Slaughter
Ball Techniques:
+ Perfect Passer
+ Bom-Ba-Ball handling; Reverse-Ball Technique - Turbo Transition; Maximum Output - Layup Limbo
+ Bucket-Getter - Grade 2
+ Floor-General - Special Grade
Baller Vow:
+ In Exchange for playing with Kareem, Magic must retire early and let MJ three-peat
Key Chapters:
+ Los Angeles School reach Conference Cross-over - No battles lost
- Sealed for Conference Cross-Over
- Detroit School get revenge
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
OhayoKD wrote:One_and_Done wrote:AEnigma wrote:Yes, and while for now all I will do is strongly discourage people from voting that way — at the moment, the one ballot excluding Magic entirely is functionally cancelled out by the one ballot putting Jordan at fifth (restraint noted) — if it continues to be a problem I will be taking firmer measures. This is not supposed to be a project where we throw darts at a board to pick names, or where we stop voting for players because we think they have been doing too well in the project, or where we lower a player’s placement because you are mad at their fans. And while contrarian votes can be and have been sincere, they look a lot more sincere when you take the time to fully present your reasoning rather than transparently pretend nothing is amiss. I may not be a mind-reader, but I have been recording everyone’s votes and watching how they change over the course of a thread for long enough that it is easy to tell when people start selectively applying the standards they have relied upon throughout the project. Those types of changes are a lot less subtle than a couple of you seem to assume they are, and serial line-stepping will have consequences if it continues in the fashion it has throughout this thread.
Therefore, everyone may consider this an informal warning. Because lenience has evidently hit its limit, from this point, ballots which threaten to derail project discussion via blatant vote manipulation are liable to be tossed. If it happens twice, the offending poster will be removed from the project.
Again, I am not forbidding contrarian votes when they are properly justified and internally consistent. The goal is not homogeneity; if it were, the project would be pointless and would also have strict guidelines for what reasoning everyone is intended to use to vote (beyond “look at the year in question”). Those who have been voting sincerely to this point, even when their ballots break with consensus, are fine and encouraged to continue on as normal. But these little games where people artificially create 9-10 point gaps between ballot “rivals” or invent excuses to change a ballot when they see trends developing a certain way? Entirely opposed to the spirit of the project and quite evidently toxic to the overall discussion.
If anyone wishes to discuss this further, they can do so in the general discussion thread. This thread is for discussing 1988-89.
This sounds nice, but how exactly can such rules be enforced? From my point of view, about a 3rd of the votes in some recent threads appear to have not been serious. You mention excluding Magic, but to my mind putting Ewing over Jordan seems far more ridiculous and calculated. Was there any point in their overlapping primes when anyone seriously thought Ewing was better than Jordan?
As someone who is in favor of just letting voters vote how they wish to vote, this line shows you're missing the point.
The votes placing ewing over jordan acknowledged they were lowering jordan and then explained why they were lowering jordan while directly comparing MJ to ewing. The vote excluding Magic did not even acknowledge Magic's exclusion. Shouldn't be hard to see why the former could be treated differently than the latter (even though I support treating them the same).
Implying that the latter ballot is more legitimate is pretty absurd. And it's interesting all the voters you single out here offered significantly more detailed and coherent reasoning for their votes than you did.
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
lessthanjake wrote:OhayoKD wrote:One_and_Done wrote:This sounds nice, but how exactly can such rules be enforced? From my point of view, about a 3rd of the votes in some recent threads appear to have not been serious. You mention excluding Magic, but to my mind putting Ewing over Jordan seems far more ridiculous and calculated. Was there any point in their overlapping primes when anyone seriously thought Ewing was better than Jordan?
As someone who is in favor of just letting voters vote how they wish to vote, this line shows you're missing the point.
The votes placing ewing over jordan acknowledged they were lowering jordan and then explained why they were lowering jordan while directly comparing MJ to ewing. The vote excluding Magic did not even acknowledge Magic's exclusion. Shouldn't be hard to see why the former could be treated differently than the latter (even though I support treating them the same).
Implying that the latter ballot is more legitimate is pretty absurd. And it's interesting all the voters you single out here offered significantly more detailed and coherent reasoning for their votes than you did.
I don’t really think it makes sense to have a standard in which votes with a lengthy explanation are considered valid by virtue of having the explanation. Someone can write an explanation for anything. The entire practice of litigation is proof of that. It doesn’t mean it’s actually something they believe, rather than being a pretext. I’d say that how much explanation is written is really more just a function of how much time someone has to post on an Internet forum than it is a function of how genuine their vote is. I think strategic voting can (and does) definitely come in both long-form and short-form. Lengthy explanations are better for discussion more generally, but they aren’t proof-positive of a lack of strategic voting.
One_and_Done wrote:I'll let others decide how this reads to them, but 'most detailed' was not my first thought. Worse, we can't even interact with this post to work out what most of it means.
OhayoKD wrote:One_and_Done wrote:I'll let others decide how this reads to them, but 'most detailed' was not my first thought. Worse, we can't even interact with this post to work out what most of it means.
It rates several attributes for the player, notes injuries and team result, offers an overall grade for the player, notes how opposing teams react to those attributes and isn't even the most detailed vote here:Spoiler:
Ontop of doing all the things the vote you cited did, it also compares how the attributes here are different from the iteration of the player they consider peak, and goes through how they felt the player performed relative to their regular-season in various playoff series.
By comparison, your ballot quite simply said:
-> jordan help better
-> jordan best player easily
-> so what if he lost
Verbosity =/ detail. You used more words to convey a tiny fraction of the information the ballot you've been singling out for several threads has portrayed. Show some self-awareness please.
You are not entitled to changing their vote, and you are in no position to be criticizing the quality of other people's ballots.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
One_and_Done wrote:OhayoKD wrote:One_and_Done wrote:I'll let others decide how this reads to them, but 'most detailed' was not my first thought. Worse, we can't even interact with this post to work out what most of it means.
It rates several attributes for the player, notes injuries and team result, offers an overall grade for the player, notes how opposing teams react to those attributes and isn't even the most detailed vote here:Spoiler:
Ontop of doing all the things the vote you cited did, it also compares how the attributes here are different from the iteration of the player they consider peak, and goes through how they felt the player performed relative to their regular-season in various playoff series.
By comparison, your ballot quite simply said:
-> jordan help better
-> jordan best player easily
-> so what if he lost
Verbosity =/ detail. You used more words to convey a tiny fraction of the information the ballot you've been singling out for several threads has portrayed. Show some self-awareness please.
You are not entitled to changing their vote, and you are in no position to be criticizing the quality of other people's ballots.
Sure, I'm brief for alot of my votes here. But people have a long history of my posts they can refer to where I often discuss these views in more depth, and people have the ability to discuss disagreements with me. I might not always bother replying, but sometimes I do.
IlikeSHAIguys wrote:Could we make Lebronnygoat a voter? They got super detailed posts and doing alot of effort in terms of watching stuff and actually talk ball. I know we aren't supposed to add guys without good reason but I feel like there's pretty good reason to add them.
lessthanjake wrote:Kyrie was extremely impactful without LeBron, and basically had zero impact whatsoever if LeBron was on the court.
lessthanjake wrote: By playing in a way that prevents Kyrie from getting much impact, LeBron ensures that controlling for Kyrie has limited effect…
