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

[OhayoKD]

I must say, you are quite good at finding relationships that doesn't exist.

You're good at deflecting.

How would you call you failing to admit that you turn all debates into meta-MJ discussion?

2 posts in a 40 post thread joining in an ongoing MJ discussion "turned the debate into meta-MJ discussion"?

I admit I like things turning into MJ-meta discussions. Especially for the project MJ fans flocked in to complain about MJ-voting and attack whoever voted against him (including trying to get one's votes thrown out). I'm a sucker for motifs. And also a sucker for irony.

But I'm one poster. If people didn't want to talk about MJ or talk about people talking about MJ, what I like wouldn't matter. But they do. And then whenever they do there's another cadre of people complaining that they do.

Nothing's stopping y'all from making Jason Kidd or Oakley or Hakeem or Duncan the focus of my rgm activity. But Jason Kidd doesn't interest you guys as much as Jordan does. So Jordan's who we end up talking about.

[70sFan]

2 posts in a 40 post thread joining in an ongoing MJ discussion "turned the debate into meta-MJ discussion"?

Actually, you first MJ post was like 26th and since then, another thread turned into Jordan discussion (even though it has nothing to do with Jordan). You started MJ talk, not other posters.

I admit I like things turning into MJ-meta discussions.

Thanks for a brief act of honesty.

Especially for the project MJ fans flocked in to complain about MJ-voting and attack whoever voted against him (including trying to get one's votes thrown out). I'm a sucker for motifs. And also a sucker for irony.

I haven't seen anyone being "attacked". Also, it's funny that you call it "voted against him" as if that's the whole purpose of the voting of these people... which I don't find likely. Some people simply believe that what they vote for is true (like, thinking Hakeem peaked higher than Jordan). I have doubts in your case though.

But I'm one poster. If people didn't want to talk about MJ or talk about people talking about MJ, what I like wouldn't matter. But they do. And then whenever they do there's another cadre of people complaining that they do.

All of that doesn't change the fact that you start these discussions and you keep them being well fed.

Nothing's stopping y'all from making Jason Kidd or Oakley or Hakeem or Duncan the focus of my rgm activity. But Jason Kidd doesn't interest you guys as much as Jordan does. So Jordan's who we end up talking about.

You should be careful about using the word "you". I don't engage in MJ discussions with you at all.

The difference is that you create separate threads about Kidd or Duncan etc, you don't come with Kidd talk out of nowhere in non-related threads. It sucks that people don't focus on your tracking work, because they are significantly more valuable.

I realized that's how PC Board works these days though, people don't read long posts. I made a Dantley post recently that would have created a lot of discussion 10 years ago, but now nobody cares. PC Board now is all about creating narratives for top 20 players ever in historical terms. People aren't as interested in actual basketball as they used to be here.

[OhayoKD]

2 posts in a 40 post thread joining in an ongoing MJ discussion "turned the debate into meta-MJ discussion"?

Actually, you first MJ post was like 26th and since then, another thread turned into Jordan discussion (even though it has nothing to do with Jordan). You started MJ talk, not other posters.

Yes, MJ's defense with a post citing an MJ defensive vote as an example and another post defending that MJ vote. You were saying something about honesty?

Especially for the project MJ fans flocked in to complain about MJ-voting and attack whoever voted against him (including trying to get one's votes thrown out). I'm a sucker for motifs. And also a sucker for irony.

I haven't seen anyone being "attacked".

So what's this?
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=115842853#p115842853

Also, it's funny that you call it "voted against him" as if that's the whole purpose of the voting of these people...

Nice strawman.

All of that doesn't change the fact that you start these discussions and you keep them being well fed.

You do have a curious definition of "start".

Nothing's stopping y'all from making Jason Kidd or Oakley or Hakeem or Duncan the focus of my rgm activity. But Jason Kidd doesn't interest you guys as much as Jordan does. So Jordan's who we end up talking about.

You should be careful about using the word "you". I don't engage in MJ discussions with you at all.

Your forum engagement with me as of late has largely been MJ based.

The difference is that you create separate threads about Kidd or Duncan etc, you don't come with Kidd talk out of nowhere in non-related threads. It sucks that people don't focus on your tracking work, because they are significantly more valuable.

Just because you say a direct response to a point is "out of nowhere" does not actually make it "out of nowhere". Instead of pretending MJ's rim-protection is not relevant to...a dpoy vote for MJ, you could just engage or start discussion on the players you want discussed.

I realized that's how PC Board works these days though, people don't read long posts. I made a Dantley post recently that would have created a lot of discussion 10 years ago, but now nobody cares. PC Board now is all about creating narratives for top 20 players ever in historical terms. People aren't as interested in actual basketball as they used to be here.

Interesting take from someone who tried to use me crossing a nickname to suggest I didn't watch the 2009 and 2010 Cleveland cavaliers, agreed "contemporarily watching" supersedes knowing how a team's role players functioned, and makes a regular-habit of telling people they didn't watch players play, having started watching later than most of the people they're saying that to, and then turns around and says it's ridiculous for someone who is actually breaking down how those role players played to question the ball-watching of someone telling other posters "if they watched the game" instead of actually discussing the basketball.

You're literally complaining about a post which talked about how a role player named Oakley functioned on two separate teams, alongside a bunch of other role players from four different teams.

This project has had way more "talking basketball" than the 2010 one did in large part thanks to the new posters the old guard has kept complaining about, but I guess that's hard to notice when the only thing you actually want to talk about is whether people are talking about the players you want them to and how well they remember superficial trivia.

The new realgm is full of posters discussing basketball at a level of detail the old realgm basically never did. No one is stopping you from engaging with the Paul's, strongest-grainers, lebronny's, falcos, Konr's, and ceo's, or you know, the actual substance of my posts. But when you're more interested in selective refereeing, the conversation will naturally revolve around narratives as opposed to basketball.

[70sFan]

Yes, MJ's defense with a post citing an MJ defensive vote as an example and another post defending that MJ vote. You were saying something about honesty?

AEnigma mentioned 4 other players as an example and for some reason you didn't mention any of the rest 4 in your reply. My honest is perfectly fine.

So what's this?
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=115842853#p115842853

So you're bringing up a troll from GB who didn't contribute at all in the project as an example of how the project was going? It'd be like me bringing up guys who think Garnett is outside top 30 who say PC Board is stupid as an example of PC Board consensus on KG in the late 2010s.

Just because you say a direct response to a point is "out of nowhere" does not actually make it "out of nowhere". Instead of pretending MJ's rim-protection is not relevant to...a dpoy vote for MJ, you could just engage or start discussion on the players you want discussed.

This thread wasn't about 1988 DPOY it was completely unnecessary. You've talked about it with Djoker many times before, what's the reason to derail the actual discussion another time?

It's also funny that you act like it's the one time that happened throughout the project.

Interesting take from someone who tried to use me crossing a nickname to suggest I didn't watch the 2009 and 2010 Cleveland cavaliers, agreed "contemporarily watching" supersedes knowing how a team's role players functioned, and makes a regular-habit of telling people they didn't watch players play, having started watching later than most of the people they're saying that to, and then turns around and says it's ridiculous for someone who is actually breaking down how those role players played to question the ball-watching of someone telling other posters "if they watched the game" instead of actually discussing the basketball.

I have no idea what this all rambling is about.

You're literally complaining about a post which talked about how a role player named Oakley functioned on two separate teams, alongside a bunch of other role players from four different teams.

I never complained about these posts in POY threads that were related to the actual years when Oakley played basketball. I didn't know that Oakley was relevant to 2013 POY thread though.

This project has had way more "talking basketball" than the 2010 one did in large part thanks to the new posters the old guard has kept complaining about, but I guess that's hard to notice when the only thing you actually want to talk about is whether people are talking about the players you want them to and how well they remember superficial trivia.

I wasn't active in 2010 on the board and I don't find any pleasure in finding low-effort posts from that project. I also never said that the average level of understanding of basketball is lower now (it's not, posters know more about basketball these days). Unfortunately, most people don't use this knowledge to anything beyond creating specific narratives for top 20 players.

The new realgm is full of posters discussing basketball at a level of detail the old realgm basically never did. No one is stopping you from engaging with the Paul's, strongest-grainers, lebronny's, falcos, Konr's, and ceo's, or you know, the actual substance of my posts.

I had plenty of conversations with Paul, falco or ceo and I don't have any problems with them. They are very good posters indeed.

But when you're more interested in selective refereeing, the conversation will naturally revolve around narratives as opposed to basketball.

So now you act like you care about anything else than creating narratives? Interesting...

[OhayoKD]

Yes, MJ's defense with a post citing an MJ defensive vote as an example and another post defending that MJ vote. You were saying something about honesty?

AEnigma mentioned 4 other players as an example and for some reason you didn't mention any of the rest 4 in your reply. My honest is perfectly fine.

And I'm obligated to talk about the other 4, why? No one stopped you from talking about the defense of one of the others. Me talking about the one I want to is not "derailing".

So what's this?
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=115842853#p115842853

So you're bringing up a troll from GB who didn't contribute at all in the project as an example of how the project was going? It'd be like me bringing up guys who think Garnett is outside top 30 who say PC Board is stupid as an example of PC Board consensus on KG in the late 2010s.

No I'm bringing up an example of what has been going on for a large stretch of the project from several posters. Who like you showed less interest in talking about the content of their votes but instead talking about them in third person. Speaking of

The new realgm is full of posters discussing basketball at a level of detail the old realgm basically never did. No one is stopping you from engaging with the Paul's, strongest-grainers, lebronny's, falcos, Konr's, and ceo's, or you know, the actual substance of my posts.

I had plenty of conversations with Paul, falco or ceo and I don't have any problems with them. They are very good posters indeed.

Not on project threads you didn't. You've spent way more posts complaining about my or oneanddone's posts than engaging with any of their votes. Plenty of talk about non-top 20 guys from them but nah, you just want to pretend me talking about Jordan is why discussion isn't going the way you want it to.

But when you're more interested in selective refereeing, the conversation will naturally revolve around narratives as opposed to basketball.

So now you act like you care about anything else than creating narratives? Interesting...

Why are you acting like the two can't go hand in hand?. I do like creating narratives, I also like those narratives being detailed and immersive. Hence why I've posted and am encouraging others to post film-tracking covering **** not currently captured. Which of my posts were not "basketball" enough for you?

2013 is a Jordan thread because some of you are more interested in my posting tendencies than generating convos. Kola posted a bunch of ballots full of skillset breakdowns and how those skillsets fluctuated from season to season and series to series, yet the only thing anyone discussed was a joke at the expense of MJ and how it's apparently impossible to have discussion about someone's vote if they don't directly reply to you. Lebronny pulls up creation stuff every other thread and told they didn't watch the game because cherrypicked box-stats and what a commentator said.

If you really care so much about the quality of discussion on this project, why don't you go and look through those votes and comment where you agree, disagree, or are surprised, or unsure? Or maybe you just want the general project thread to be an OhayoKD one.

[tsherkin]

This seems like a pretty useless discussion at this point, guys... Not going anywhere, just derailing. Maybe have it in DMs or something, because this is all just... eh.

[70sFan]

This seems like a pretty useless discussion at this point, guys... Not going anywhere, just derailing. Maybe have it in DMs or something, because this is all just... eh.

Yes, I decided to take something good out of this conversation and engage with OhayoKD's Duncan's tracking. No more discussions like the above.

[eminence]

Oakley deserves a lot better than 'role player'.

[Jaivl]

But I'm one poster.

Lol, is that so?

[AEnigma]

This iteration of the “Retro Player of the Year” project spanned all seasons from 1950-2014 (seventy-five threads). Twenty-eight active posters contributed at least one ballot, with participation in any given thread ranging from nine ballots to nineteen ballots. The most frequent voters were Djoker, trelos, and AEnigma.

This iteration of the project awarded different RPoYs from the 2010 project in the following years: 2008, 2002, 1989, 1988, 1986, 1985, 1982, 1976, 1970, 1966, and 1964, plus a tie in 2001. When including the 2010 project in the voting tallies, there were three changed RPoY winners in aggregate: in 2002 (Shaq to Duncan), in 1985 (Bird to Magic), and in 1966 (Wilt to Russell), plus a new tie in 2008 (Garnett and Kobe). The youngest RPoY winners were 1982 Magic Johnson (22), 1999 Tim Duncan (23), 1970 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (23), 1986 Hakeem Olajuwon (23), and 2008 Lebron James (23); Kareem was the only rookie winner. The oldest winners were 2020 Lebron James (separate from this iteration), 1998 Michael Jordan, and 1969 Bill Russell (all 35). The record for the lowest winning vote share in this iteration of the project was 1975 Rick Barry (0.683 vote shares), and the record for the lowest winning combined vote share was 2008 Garnett/Kobe (0.664 vote shares). The thread with the smallest range of RPoY ballot selections in this iteration was 1960 (5), and the threads with the smallest range of combined RPoY ballot selections were 1962 and 1964 (6). Further analysis of the aggregated ballots will be provided at a later date.

This iteration of the project also added ballots for (Retro) Offensive and Defensive Player of the Year, which the annual Player of the Year project first introduced in 2015. We added 22 new names alongside the 4 OPoY winners from 2015-24, and we added 27 new names alongside the 3 DPoY winners from 2015-24. The youngest OPoYs were 1982 Magic Johnson and 1961 Oscar Robertson (both 22; Oscar was the only rookie winner), and the oldest OPoY was 2010 Steve Nash (36). The youngest DPoYs were 1957 Bill Russell and 2009 Dwight Howard (both 23; Russell was the only rookie winner), and the oldest DPoYs were 1973 Wilt Chamberlain and 2012 Kevin Garnett (both 36). The record for the lowest winning OPoY vote share was 1994 Reggie Miller (0.360 vote shares), and the record for the lowest winning DPoY vote share was 1980 Caldwell Jones and 1981 Robert Parish (0.422 vote shares). 1980 was especially divisive for DPoY voting, as twelve different players received votes — which is fifty percent larger than the largest range for any single OPoY vote, and matches the largest range this project had for RPoY voting!

Multiple-Time Offensive Players of the Year

1. Magic Johnson (10 wins)
2. Oscar Robertson (9* wins)
3. Lebron James (4 + 2 wins)
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (6 wins)
5. Michael Jordan (5 wins)
5. Shaquille O’Neal (5 wins)
7a. Steve Nash (4 wins)
7a. Nikola Jokic (0 + 4 wins)
7c. Bob Cousy (4* wins)
10a. Steph Curry (0 + 3 wins)
10a. Bob Pettit (3 wins)
10c. Jerry West (3* wins)
13a. Dirk Nowitzki (2 wins)
13b. Paul Arizin (2* wins)

Elgin Baylor had the most top two finishes without a win (4), and Karl Malone had the most top three finishes without a win (6*).

If we applied the same 5-3-1 scoring system to podium finishes, these would be the top fifteen:

1a. Magic Johnson (10-0-1* for 51 total)
1b. Oscar Robertson (9*-2*-0 for 51 total)
3. Lebron James (6-6*-1 for 49 total)
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (6-3*-2* for 41 total)
5. Michael Jordan (5-4-1 for 38 total)
6. Jerry West (3*-4-3 for 30 total)
7. Shaquille O’Neal (5-1-1 for 29 total)
8. Bob Cousy (4*-2-0 for 26 total)
8. Steph Curry (3-3*-2* for 26 total)
10. Steve Nash (4-1-1 for 24 total)
10. Nikola Jokic (4-1*-1 for 24 total)
12. Dirk Nowitzki (2-3*-1 for 20 total)
12. Larry Bird (1-4-3* for 20 total)
14. Bob Pettit (3-1-1* for 19 total)
15. Kobe Bryant (1-3*-2* for 16 total)

Multiple-Time Defensive Players of the Year

1. Bill Russell (13 wins)
2. Hakeem Olajuwon (6 wins)
3. Rudy Gobert (0 + 5 wins)
3. George Mikan (5 wins)
5. Tim Duncan (4 wins)
5. Kevin Garnett (4 wins)
7. Ben Wallace (3 wins)
7. Mark Eaton (3 wins)
7. Draymond Green (0 + 3 wins)
7. Dikembe Mutombo (3 wins)
11. Wilt Chamberlain (2 wins)
11. David Robinson (2 wins)
11. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (2 wins)
11. Mel Hutchins (2 wins)
11. Anthony Davis (0 + 2 wins)
11. Bill Walton (2 wins)

Nate Thurmond had the most top two (4) and top three (9) finishes without a win. He came closest in 1967 (0.689 shares, only two points behind Bill Russell).

If we applied the same 5-3-1 scoring system to podium finishes, these would be the top fifteen:

1. Bill Russell (13-0-0 for 65 total)
2. Hakeem Olajuwon (6-4-1 for 43 total)
3. Tim Duncan (4-5-3 for 38 total)
4. Kevin Garnett (4-2-7* for 33 total)
4. Wilt Chamberlain (2-7-2 for 33 total)
6. Rudy Gobert (5-1-2* for 30 total)
7. Ben Wallace (3-3-0 for 24 total)
7. Mark Eaton (3-3-0 for 24 total)
9. Draymond Green (3-2-2 for 23 total)
10. Dikembe Mutombo (3-2-0 for 21 total)
10. David Robinson (2-2-5* for 21 total)
12. Nate Thurmond (0-4-5 for 17 total)
13. Elvin Hayes (1-3-1 for 15 total)
14. Bobby Jones (0-3*-5* for 14 total)
15. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (2-1-0 for 13 total)
15. Dwight Howard (1-2-2 for 13 total)

Multiple-Time Players of the Year

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (10 wins)
1. Lebron James (6 + 4 wins)
3. Bill Russell (9 wins)
4a. Michael Jordan (6 wins)
4b. Tim Duncan (6* wins)
6. Magic Johnson (5 wins)
6. George Mikan (5 wins)
8. Hakeem Olajuwon (4 wins)
9. Nikola Jokic (0 + 3 wins)
10a. Larry Bird (2 wins)
10a. Bob Pettit (2 wins)
10c. Shaquille O’Neal (2* wins)

In this iteration of the project, Julius Erving had the most top two (4), top three (5) and top four (8) finishes without a win, and Oscar Robertson had the most top four (8) and top five (9) finishes without a win. Using the combined project results (which give a win to 1976 Erving and 1970 West), Kevin Durant and David Robinson have the most top two (3) finishes without a win, and Oscar Robertson has the most top three (5), top four (9), and top five (10) finishes without a win.

If we applied the same 10-7-5-3-1 scoring system to podium finishes, these would be the top twenty-five for this iteration of the project:

1. Lebron James (10-2-1-0-1 for 120 total)
2. Bill Russell (9-4-0-0-0 for 118 total)
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (10-0-3*-0-2 for 117 total)
4. Tim Duncan (6*-2-1-3-2 for 90 total)
5. Magic Johnson (5-4-1-1-0 for 86 total)
6. Michael Jordan (6-3-0-1-1 for 85 total)
7. Wilt Chamberlain (2-6-2-2-0 for 78 total)
8. Hakeem Olajuwon (4-2-3-0-1 for 70 total)
9. Shaquille O’Neal (2*-3-3-3-0 for 65 total)
10. Dolph Schayes (1-4*-4-0-2 for 60 total)
11. Larry Bird (2-2-3*-2-0 for 55 total)
12. George Mikan (5-0-0-0-0 for 50 total)
13. Kevin Garnett (1-2-4-1-1 for 48 total)
14. Nikola Jokic (3-1-1-0-1 for 43 total)
14. Bob Pettit (2-1-2-1-3 for 43 total)
14. Julius Erving (0-4-1-3-1 for 43 total)
17. Steph Curry (1-3-0-2-1 for 38 total)
18. Oscar Robertson (0-1-3-4-3 for 37 total)
19. Jerry West (0-3-1-2-2 for 34 total)
20. Kevin Durant (0-3-1-1-1 for 30 total)
21. Kobe Bryant (0-2-2-1-2 for 29 total)
21. Bob Cousy (0-2-2-1-2 for 29 total)
21. David Robinson (0-3-1-0-3 for 29 total)
24. Moses Malone (1-1-2-0-1 for 28 total)
25. Dwyane Wade (1-1-1-1-0 for 25 total)

The official share aggregating will take quite some time and will not be a direct match, but I hope this list will give people a sense of how the total share count might look.

Thank you again to everyone who put in the time to vote.

[capfan33]

Great job running the project Enigma, did a fantastic job as expected. Logical, thoughtful and even-keeled just like your posts.

Would love if you ran the next project, and if not any projects that come up in the future.

[trelos6]

Agreed. Fantastic running of the project and well moderated.

[IlikeSHAIguys]

Great job running the project Enigma, did a fantastic job as expected. Logical, thoughtful and even-keeled just like your posts.

Would love if you ran the next project, and if not any projects that come up in the future.

Honestly that's cool and all but the thing for me was them standing up to all the guys trying to like lets just be honest bully voters because they're new or vote in a different way or are doing some anime thing. It was nice to have someone with clout and **** stand up for us.

I know people aren't happy with the final results and whatever but there was alot of really cool posts with info I learnt alot from the new guys people have been going at. I also thought it was cool they let us have a say when they were deciding stuff and listened to the feedback.

I know it's just an internet board and all but there were a few people I gained alot of respect for and they were for sure one of them.

[mikejames23]

Couldn't join this one, but congrats to all the winners.

[Lebronnygoat]

I appreciate and applaud Enigma’s ability run the recent project. I thank him for making me involved as I didn’t submit an application to be in at the start, though it took time for him to consider it and track my involvement prior, he let me in. Thanks.

[tsherkin]

Big project, and long-running, too. Excellent job running it, and thanks to everyone participating for giving us good content to read. And also Ohayo

<3

[homecourtloss]

Great job running the project Enigma, did a fantastic job as expected. Logical, thoughtful and even-keeled just like your posts.

Would love if you ran the next project, and if not any projects that come up in the future.

100% agree. There were some contentious moments when there were accusations thrown out when voting didn’t go the way some people wanted but AEnigma did a good job navigating it all and being consistent throughout. It’s not easy to run a 7 month long project like this. I think he’d be an excellent candidate to run the next peaks project.

[Djoker]

Good job running this AEnigma.

We don't always or even usually agree when it comes to basketball discussions but you ran this well.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Yeah, good job running this, and I appreciate being let in at a late date.

[One_and_Done]

Now that the project is over, I will provide some thoughts of my own about how it went.

Firstly, I think the final result is better and more accurate than the previous results were, even if I didn’t agree with every result. A top 4 vote share of Lebron, Russell, Kareem, and Duncan, is a more representative calibration of who actually dominated the league for the most sustained period. 3 of those 4 guys are in my top 3 of all-time, and the last is Russell who I dismiss for era reasons (but if we throw those aside, he definitely belongs in the top 4). Magic at 5, Jordan at 6, Bird at 11, KG at 13, Kobe at 21… these all feel about right. I think Lebron and Kareem tying for the most #1 finishes at 10 a piece is also appropriate, as is Duncan being equal 4th with Jordan.

So the results were better.

Unlike most people though, I don’t think the project was well run. There were a number of problems, but the biggest was that the project runner demonstrated that they lacked the temperament to objectively run such a project. There were some threads where Enigma got multiple warnings from mods for his behaviour, and honestly the Mods were being lenient with him. If I posted the exact same things Enigma did throughout the project, I have no doubt I would have been banned multiple times and kicked out of the project. Too often personal attacks were made by Enigma, or accusations of bad faith, that you wouldn’t think would be appropriate for a project runner. I don’t mean to suggest there was no bad faith from participants, but it’s not something that should be called out in such an abrasive way by the project runner, who was fairly abrasive throughout to be honest.

I also noted a number of instances of my own posts where the project runner appeared to either misunderstand what I had said, or imagine I said something else. It was tiresome, and often prompted lazy and short replies from me because why bother getting into a long argument with someone who often doesn’t even read what you’re writing properly.

I also thought very little of the inclusion of write-in-votes, or accounts that had almost zero-history of posting, some of which seemed to be not taking the project too seriously. The defence of some of these voters strained credibility, and was juxtaposed unfavourably to the attacks on other posters for supposedly having bad faith. I don’t want to hear how other posters have bad faith when you’re allowing a mail-in voter posting incoherent nonsense about “baller vows” to vote.

That said, the outcome of the project was better than some other projects, so maybe there is no improvement from having an apparently objective person run the project. Jefferson said “impartiality is always partial”, and it certainly applied to the top 100 project, which I remember being kicked out of because I was annoying a lot of the regular posters. When posters are banned or suspended, it is usually for that reason, not because they’re saying anything different to what the regulars on the board are. Moderation of projects just defends the status quo, even if the status quo have diverse views. At least Enigma didn’t remove anyone from the project, or issue any warnings (though that might have been because he lacked the power to do so). In future maybe all PC board projects should be done by non-moderators. On balance it might lead to better outcomes.