T&T Games General Drafting/Off-Topic Thread

[JimmyPlopper]

https://civs1.civs.us/

Condorcet Internet Voting Service (CIVS) is a free, web-based ranked-choice / Condorcet election platform operated by Andrew C. Myers and hosted using Cornell-affiliated infrastructure. It lets organizations run secure, anonymous online elections where voters rank options, and it computes winners with Condorcet methods and proportional representation modes

Separately Helios:

https://vote.heliosvoting.org/

[flaco]

Serious question: Why the need to declare a winner in each game? Is it an ego thing? If not, what difference does it make?

I've long been toying with the idea of stop competing in the playoffs. Just draft my team and call it a day or let it play out without providing writeups. Generally speaking, I do not enjoy highly competitive environments. I believe in cooperation rather than competition. Would much rather work with other people instead of working against them. I realize my opinion flies in the face of sports culture or even western culture in general. So be it. I'd argue stop being competitive is liberating. Allows you to enjoy yourself to the fullest. Was watching a KG-Joakim Noah conversation the other day. They were fierce rivals and relentless competitors during their playing days. Now that's all said and done, they were having a good laugh about it. KG even apologised to Noah for being overly competitive and making Noah dislike him at the time.

Given the current mess with the voting system, I actually wanna give this a try. Won't be providing writeups for a few games. Curious to see whether I'll miss competition or not. Won't be casting votes either. I rarely do anyway unless I have a strong opinion. More often than not, I refrain from voting cause I'm undecided. Whatever you guys like regarding the voting system, I'm on board with it.

[JimmyPlopper]

Serious question: Why the need to declare a winner in each game? Is it an ego thing? If not, what difference does it make?

I've long been toying with the idea of stop competing in the playoffs. Just draft my team and call it a day or let it play out without providing writeups. Generally speaking, I do not enjoy highly competitive environments. I believe in cooperation rather than competition. Would much rather work with other people instead of working against them. I realize my opinion flies in the face of sports culture or even western culture in general. So be it. I'd argue stop being competitive is liberating. Allows you to enjoy yourself to the fullest.

Given the current mess with the voting system, I actually wanna give this a try. Won't be providing writeups for a few games. Curious to see whether I'll miss competition or not. Won't be casting votes either. I rarely do anyway unless I have a strong opinion. More often than not, I refrain from voting cause I'm undecided. Whatever you guys like regarding the voting system, I'm on board with it.

I was once in an NBA2k sim league and what could be kind of cool if someone here has NBA2k, would be to create the exact teams mentioned for the finals and have them play each other - with a link for people to actually watch the matchup and read the box score.

I think the competition element just keeps people interested more in some little way. I am open something like you said where we dont do a write up, maybe ChatGPT or something decides the whole thing, and the idea of who wins is more of a ritualistic architecture. Generally speaking - I'm very open minded for these things.

[JimmyPlopper]

What are your thoughts about the "Leftovers Team" concept? Do you think we should embrace it? Should keep in mind that the last two games were somewhat restricted, where in other more loaded pools, a leftovers team can be more competitive.

I remember I was a side-observer in one of the games I missed, and both Luka and Tatum were left on board at the end. That's a strong foundation in any pool. The "Late Departures" concept was very close to having Wemby left on board, which could have enabled for JP to build a team around Wemby + Houston Tracy / Knicks Brunson. That could have been competitive.

The general downside for this concept right now (beyond how tough it is to actually be competitive there), is: we didn't really establish a proper protocol for this. So stuff like "When is it fine to post the team" (after everyone finished their team? after the last drafter's final turn's clock expired?) are unestablished. That can be crucial sometimes - if someone actually waits for a "bang" in his final turn, and a "leftovers team" grabs his guy, that's a problem.

Also, kinda intuitive, but if we adopt it - it should probably be clearly stated that only one leftovers team is possible, otherwise it might also create issues like two guys working on a team -> one posts two minutes before the other -> half the work goes to waste.

I had always kinda thought about it but in one of those recent tournaments I felt a but more FOMO than usual and wanted to see if it would be palatable to others. thanks for being flexible there. In most pools, it is an extreme disadvantage. I think maybe if someone happened to develop a draft where being last was actually an advantage, we would prevent it from being a possibility.

[JimmyPlopper]

I think the slightly different reaction to this news is based on the slightly different things that we get out of it. I'm trying to think of a path forward that takes everyone's views into account.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but maybe people would be okay with this option:
1) One of these anonymized but verified services would be used for voting
2) We could also make writeups completely optional going forward and try to set the precedent of not penalizing those that don't write them. But for those that do like to write their approach, it would be ashame to take that joy away from them (I'm not personally one of them, but I can sense this as a common thread)

Just spitballing here

[JimmyPlopper]

https://civs1.civs.us/

Condorcet Internet Voting Service (CIVS) is a free, web-based ranked-choice / Condorcet election platform operated by Andrew C. Myers and hosted using Cornell-affiliated infrastructure. It lets organizations run secure, anonymous online elections where voters rank options, and it computes winners with Condorcet methods and proportional representation modes

Separately Helios:

https://vote.heliosvoting.org/

If people are willing to provide email addresses, we can use this Condorcet for ranked voting or our normal voting.

[Fadeaway_J]

Serious question: Why the need to declare a winner in each game? Is it an ego thing? If not, what difference does it make?

I've long been toying with the idea of stop competing in the playoffs. Just draft my team and call it a day or let it play out without providing writeups. Generally speaking, I do not enjoy highly competitive environments. I believe in cooperation rather than competition. Would much rather work with other people instead of working against them. I realize my opinion flies in the face of sports culture or even western culture in general. So be it. I'd argue stop being competitive is liberating. Allows you to enjoy yourself to the fullest. Was watching a KG-Joakim Noah conversation the other day. They were fierce rivals and relentless competitors during their playing days. Now that's all said and done, they were having a good laugh about it. KG even apologised to Noah for being overly competitive and making Noah dislike him at the time.

Given the current mess with the voting system, I actually wanna give this a try. Won't be providing writeups for a few games. Curious to see whether I'll miss competition or not. Won't be casting votes either. I rarely do anyway unless I have a strong opinion. More often than not, I refrain from voting cause I'm undecided. Whatever you guys like regarding the voting system, I'm on board with it.

Well if we're being honest, the "need" to have a winner is simply how most games work. How much you get invested in the specific results is up to you, but I certainly don't agree with the idea that competition is specifically linked to "Western culture". I mean, these games are based around a sport featuring some of the most competitive people in the world (like KG and Noah), and that's what draws most of us to watch it in the first place.

Personally, I always give my best effort to try and win, but what I enjoy more than anything is putting together a team that I feel would fit well together and thinking through the strategy of how that team would succeed in a hypothetical series. I haven't always loved posting a vote myself, for a variety of reasons - time constraints, lack of confidence in my opinion, limited knowledge about certain players, the prospect of someone being obnoxious about my vote - but I do care about the tactical/strategic side of roster construction and the interplay between the teams we create. I can only speak for myself, but I think that gets lost if you just draft a team and just opt out once the playoffs start.

[durantbird]

https://civs1.civs.us/

Condorcet Internet Voting Service (CIVS) is a free, web-based ranked-choice / Condorcet election platform operated by Andrew C. Myers and hosted using Cornell-affiliated infrastructure. It lets organizations run secure, anonymous online elections where voters rank options, and it computes winners with Condorcet methods and proportional representation modes

Separately Helios:

https://vote.heliosvoting.org/

I think trying to use those sites that are designed for complex voting systems and formal elections, is an overkill. If we get emails, we can use them for Google forms

[durantbird]

I was about to start a new game with the premise of using Google Forms. But then I realized this approach will be too much work for me, especially with current polls handled by a script / app. Essentially I'm reluctant to use any tool that is outside realgm. So we're kind of in a dead-end to me.

Maybe we can use ranking only, though I don't really like this compromise.

[JimmyPlopper]

I was about to start a new game with the premise of using Google Forms. But then I realized this approach will be too much work for me, especially with current polls handled by a script / app. Essentially I'm reluctant to use any tool that is outside realgm. So we're kind of in a dead-end to me.

Maybe we can use ranking only, though I don't really like this compromise.

Kind of an outside the box question here but since you mentioned that your script relies on being in RealGM - is there any way RealGM would be willing to offer us dogs a little bone by offering some sort of verified voting within the interface itself? If that exists on php, I dont know if RealGM would be open to development requests anyway.

[Laimbeer]

I haven't always loved posting a vote myself, for a variety of reasons - time constraints, lack of confidence in my opinion, limited knowledge about certain players, the prospect of someone being obnoxious about my vote -

I'm surprised to see this. You were probably our most frequent voter under the old system. While I didn't always agree with you, your write-ups were usually the most comprehensive. Most others were maybe a sentence or two and often just said they agreed with someone who had already voted.

[JimmyPlopper]

I may be joining flaco soon.

My least favorite part of these games is when people feel the need to present disingenuous arguments on behalf of their team. It goes against the spirit of what I thought we were doing here.

[migya]

Not a user of chatgpt much but that's an option. Making a thread in the Players Comparison forum is another one, listing all the teams and having posters give their rankings and deciding that way?

[durantbird]

Not a user of chatgpt much but that's an option. Making a thread in the Players Comparison forum is another one, listing all the teams and having posters give their rankings and deciding that way?

We had a game that was purely decided by ChatGPT. It helped establish it as a tiebreaker. The drawback is it's sometimes not fully aware of very recent seasons, and not automatically thinks hard enough to distinguish between specific chosen seasons for a player. When people use the last season, I usually start the thread with ChatGPT asking it to look for information about this season for the given player, to help mitigate the issue

[JimmyPlopper]

the fact that snake is gonna pull of simultaneous victories here in the first chapter of the new voting regime - after what struck me as a bit of a dry spell for him in the older regime - makes me feel like the rogue accounts may have been going against Snake

[Fadeaway_J]

If we're still going to use the 24-hour voting window, I think it would be a good idea to continue quoting everyone once the matchup is open.

[durantbird]

If we're still going to use the 24-hour voting window, I think it would be a good idea to continue quoting everyone once the matchup is open.

Many times it's open when I'm asleep, but I can quote on delay.

We should probably bring back as well a "first to three votes" advance rule. Maybe that, on top of closing it anyhow after 24 hours.

[durantbird]

If we're still going to use the 24-hour voting window, I think it would be a good idea to continue quoting everyone once the matchup is open.

Many times it's open when I'm asleep, but I can quote on delay.

We should probably bring back as well a "first to three votes" advance rule. Maybe that, on top of closing it anyhow after 24 hours.

I wasn't sure if to apply a "first to three votes" rules. What do you guys think? What if someone got 2 votes with rationale, and then another 3 votes without? Do we care? Is it fine to auto advance in this case, or do we prefer to wait 24 hours anyhow?

[Fadeaway_J]

If we're still going to use the 24-hour voting window, I think it would be a good idea to continue quoting everyone once the matchup is open.

Many times it's open when I'm asleep, but I can quote on delay.

We should probably bring back as well a "first to three votes" advance rule. Maybe that, on top of closing it anyhow after 24 hours.

I wasn't sure if to apply a "first to three votes" rules. What do you guys think? What if someone got 2 votes with rationale, and then another 3 votes without? Do we care? Is it fine to auto advance in this case, or do we prefer to wait 24 hours anyhow?

The rationale is optional so it shouldn't matter how many votes have one.

However, that also means we should be able to go first to 4 votes as the bare minimum.

[durantbird]

Many times it's open when I'm asleep, but I can quote on delay.

We should probably bring back as well a "first to three votes" advance rule. Maybe that, on top of closing it anyhow after 24 hours.

I wasn't sure if to apply a "first to three votes" rules. What do you guys think? What if someone got 2 votes with rationale, and then another 3 votes without? Do we care? Is it fine to auto advance in this case, or do we prefer to wait 24 hours anyhow?

The rationale is optional so it shouldn't matter how many votes have one.

However, that also means we should be able to go first to 4 votes as the bare minimum.

Yeah, first to 4 sounds like a reasonable middle ground. We can still close after 24 hours, in addition. We'll try to add that, and see if we actually get to 4 votes at a reasonable rate, or otherwise maybe we should consider first to 3.