RealGM Top 100 All-Time (2017)

[BasketballFan7]

I like the single ballot for the reasons penbeast stated.

[SactoKingsFan]

Personally in favor of single vote system. Reasons being:
1. It's easier to manipulate with a ballot vote by just always leaving a player you don't like completely out of the top 3.
2. Requiring a top 3 ballot would probably increase desertion a lot after top 50 and it is better to have more participation.
3. Quicker to do a writeup on 1 player instead of 3 although this might only be a problem for me since I am a slow writer.

Edit: Seems like I am the only one in favor of the single vote...

I also prefer the single vote system for similar reasons.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[Narigo]

I would like to participate

[Texas Chuck]

It's a shame that we even have to concern ourselves with the voting process. I'll support whichever method is decided upon.

[trex_8063]

I'd like to participate, will do a trial period if necessary.

I am going to ask you to participate without a counted vote for a couple threads. If looking good at that point, we'll add you in.

[trex_8063]

any of you guys want to be part of the voter panel for this project?

Would I have to justify every single one of my votes?

Yes you would. You want in?

I would like to particpate.

I've added you. Please read OP (though realize the voting protocol may change, as that's what we're discussing presently).

[trex_8063]

Yeah, initially I thought the ballot system could reduce vote manipulation, but I guess I was thinking about it incorrectly. Clearly there is a GREATER ability to manipulate the vote that way. Between the two, I'm kinda swinging back toward single vote system; however, the RCV (Ranked Choice Vote) shows a lot of promise (sort of striking a balance between the two, and would likely cut the length of the entire project down by at least 6 weeks vs the single vote system). I'll wait for a few more responses though.....

[2klegend]

Knowing that participation dwindles in the later stages, I was hoping to beef up the size of the panel a little more than this, but it is what it is. Perhaps we'll get a few "Johnny come lately's" after the project starts.

Anyway, I wanted to go over an alternate voting protocol than that which is listed in the OP. Just for clarity (since there apparently was some confusion), the protocol in OP is as follows:
Each panel member submits a vote for ONE player. If a player has, at the end of the 48-hour voting window a majority of the total vote (NOT having more votes than any other one player, but an actual majority; that is: >50% of the total vote), he will be awarded the spot. In the event that no player has >50% of the total vote, we would enter a 24-hour run-off vote where panel members will choose between the top two vote recipients. Winner of the run-off is awarded the spot.


But as voting alternatives have been suggested by more than one poster, I'll propose an alternate ballot method, which would be as follows:
Each panel member will state their 1st ballot choice (that is: your top pick), a 2nd ballot choice, and a 3rd ballot choice. Points will be awarded to each ballot choice----I suggest probably a 3-2-1 weighting (3pts for 1st ballot, 2pts for 2nd ballot, 1pt for 3rd ballot), though that is open for debate. The player with the most points at the end of the 48-hour voting window is awarded the spot.
Or we could also discuss and vote upon some stipulations for when the point totals are really close......e.g. perhaps if the top two are separated by 2pts or less, we enter a 24-hour run-off between the top two, or if the player with the most points doesn't have at least .400 (or whatever) "shares", we must enter a run-off between the top two.

We can hash out those latter details later, if necessary. What I want to know from you guys right now is if you would prefer the ballot method instead of the single-vote method in OP.
The more I think about it, the ballot method does seem potentially better.
Advantages:
*Should make "strategic voting" or other attempts to manipulate the vote less effective.
**Probably ends up more fairly reflecting opinions of the panel around certain polarizing players.
***Will likely stimulate more discussion, as there will be more players on the table to discuss.
****Hypothetically it should allow us to get thru the project about a month sooner (by avoiding so many 24-hour run-offs).

Disadvantages:
*Does require a little more time on all our parts, as we now have THREE players to present arguments for instead of just one.


I am paging everyone on the voter panel, as well as those on "trial period" (who presumably/hopefully will be on the panel in due time), to get a feel of what you guys want. So please, everyone take a moment to reply here. Which method would you prefer: single-vote or ballot system?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

The ballot method seems fair to me. I must say that I "expect" the voter to completely disregard being a fanboy of any player and judge based on a consistent criteria.

[JordansBulls]

Yeah, initially I thought the ballot system could reduce vote manipulation, but I guess I was thinking about it incorrectly. Clearly there is a GREATER ability to manipulate the vote that way. Between the two, I'm kinda swinging back toward single vote system; however, the RCV (Ranked Choice Vote) shows a lot of promise (sort of striking a balance between the two, and would likely cut the length of the entire project down by at least 6 weeks vs the single vote system). I'll wait for a few more responses though.....

I think how we have done it in the past is better simply because we are talking thru top 100 players. Not sure how much support we will get later on.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Query, could a hybrid system work?

For each spot:

1) every voter nominates/seconds somebody to be on the ballot. Simple tally chooses which 3 guys make this ballot. (or some such method of preselection of limited choices)

2) then the ballot voting on a 3-2-1 scale.


that way it's highly unlikely that one person could singlehandedly mess up the "who is on the ballot" portion since its the tallied vote of 20 people or whatever. And then once the ballot is set, the strategic griefer could not entirely blank whoever their target is. They'd always have to at least give them 1 point.

P.S. having never done this before I have no skin in this game, so whatever works is fine.

[Clyde Frazier]

Yeah, initially I thought the ballot system could reduce vote manipulation, but I guess I was thinking about it incorrectly. Clearly there is a GREATER ability to manipulate the vote that way. Between the two, I'm kinda swinging back toward single vote system; however, the RCV (Ranked Choice Vote) shows a lot of promise (sort of striking a balance between the two, and would likely cut the length of the entire project down by at least 6 weeks vs the single vote system). I'll wait for a few more responses though.....

If I have to give an official vote for which process i'd prefer, I will, but as of right now i'm undecided. Fine with whichever you ultimately decide.

[wojoaderge]

Yes you would. You want in?

Sure, i'll give it a shot

[MyUniBroDavis]

[quote="trex_8063"][/quote]


Would it be ok if I like posted arguements but didn't vote? I def don't have the time to take part in the project but I'm interested in the discussion for certain players

[ardee]

IMO the nomination system is the messiest option. You're having two full-on simultaneous debates in the same thread, one of which will be rehashed ten threads later. It's going to be Jordan vs Russell in thread 1 along with say Oscar vs West, and then when it comes to thread 11, you'll see Oscar vs West all over again. It made the 2011 project very difficult to read through.

I'd say then we should just stick to the single vote and do a runoff if no one likes the 1/2/3 voting system.

[penbeast0]

Not real thrilled about THREE debates going on at the same time either; I think it would cut down on the quality of the debate.

[trex_8063]

Sure, i'll give it a shot

I've added you.

Would it be ok if I like posted arguements but didn't vote? I def don't have the time to take part in the project but I'm interested in the discussion for certain players

Of course. Anyone can participate in the discussion. Just to keep the pool relatively robust, please do vote whenever you have the time, though. I'm keeping you on the voter panel.

[Clyde Frazier]

Not real thrilled about THREE debates going on at the same time either; I think it would cut down on the quality of the debate.

~

More I think about it, agree with penbeast here. Single vote allows for more detailed thought and discussion within the given time limit. Think that's the way to go.

[TrueLAfan]

I'd like to participate. The voting panel looks great and I think the guidelines trex noted are terrific. (btw...one vote works better; otherwise you'll be sidetracked by secondary arguments.)

I’ve got the same problem/time issues some others have noted—I’ll be busy at times this summer (like … getting married), which may mean my input will slow down or be absent for a vote or two. But I’ll try my best to be consistent and stick to the end--I've done it before. I’ll understand if, because I haven’t been around, other voter/mods think it would be better to keep me in the “just discussion” group or out of this altogether.

[trex_8063]

I'd like to participate.

I've added you to panel.

[trex_8063]

OK, I'm casting out the three-ballot idea. We didn't get responses from anywhere near the whole panel, but so far it's over 2-to-1 against the idea (and again it does allow too much possibility for manipulation).


However, I'm liking the idea of RCV (ranked choice vote) that fpliii and micahclay have suggested:

Pretty simple: basically you'd state who your top pick is, then also stipulate who your second pick would be (you will not necessarily be required to do a substantial write-up for your secondary pick, though other posters may ask you your reasoning)). If no single player has the majority (>50%) of first place votes, then the player with the LEAST number of first place votes is eliminated.....and every voter who voted for that eliminated player has their second choice votes added to the total (the first place total) of the surviving candidates. If that doesn't result in somebody having a majority, the player with the next least number of first place votes is eliminated, and again second choice votes are transferred. Lather, rinse, repeat until a majority is reached.

Here's the graphic that fpliii provided:

This method makes my job of tabulating things a little more cumbersome and difficult. However, the trade-off is that this system basically cannot be manipulated any more than a single-vote system can, and it would entirely eliminate the need for 24-hour run-offs; which means we can probably wrap up the whole project in about 7 months (instead of 8-9).

Any objections to the Ranked Choice Vote system? Speak now or forever hold your peace.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.