LA Bird wrote:What is the problem we are trying to fix with a nomination system? Because if it is scrabbarista's example of voting for the same player in 30 straight threads, he would then just be nominating the same player for 30 straight threads instead. His ranking of that specific player will still be a lot higher than the rest of the board's regardless of what voting system we go by. I personally don't see how a nomination system changes anything except adding another layer of complexity. If a player is not already in the nomination pool from the 10 previous rounds, him being nominated now is irrelevant because he is very unlikely to leapfrog all those already nominated ahead of him to win in the next round. Essentially, he would just be added to the backlog of nominated candidates until it is his turn around 10 rounds later. We will be doubling the amount of work with two concurrent tracks of unrelated discussions, the second of which will inevitably be repeated 10 rounds later when we actually vote on the players we are nominating now.
I don't think nominating a player 30 times in a row but voting someone new every few threads, is as bad as having to vote for someone 30 times in a row and feeling like your post is completely useless.
In terms of repeating discussion, there's also benefits to that as it leads to a longer discussion about a player and gives people more time to think about it before it comes to vote on them. It also gives people something to do during blowout votes.
Ftr, the nominating system is nothing new, it's been used on many projects including the 08 and 11 top 100s and has always worked well. Albeit in the past there wasn't as much voting for 2nd and 3rd choices to avoid pluralities so if the mods think that's a good replacement for the nominating system then I guess that's ok.
LA Bird wrote:What is the problem we are trying to fix with a nomination system? Because if it is scrabbarista's example of voting for the same player in 30 straight threads, he would then just be nominating the same player for 30 straight threads instead. His ranking of that specific player will still be a lot higher than the rest of the board's regardless of what voting system we go by. I personally don't see how a nomination system changes anything except adding another layer of complexity. If a player is not already in the nomination pool from the 10 previous rounds, him being nominated now is irrelevant because he is very unlikely to leapfrog all those already nominated ahead of him to win in the next round. Essentially, he would just be added to the backlog of nominated candidates until it is his turn around 10 rounds later. We will be doubling the amount of work with two concurrent tracks of unrelated discussions, the second of which will inevitably be repeated 10 rounds later when we actually vote on the players we are nominating now.
I don't think nominating a player 30 times in a row but voting someone new every few threads, is as bad as having to vote for someone 30 times in a row and feeling like your post is completely useless.
In terms of repeating discussion, there's also benefits to that as it leads to a longer discussion about a player and gives people more time to think about it before it comes to vote on them. It also gives people something to do during blowout votes.
Ftr, the nominating system is nothing new, it's been used on many projects including the 08 and 11 top 100s and has always worked well. Albeit in the past there wasn't as much voting for 2nd and 3rd choices to avoid pluralities so if the mods think that's a good replacement for the nominating system then I guess that's ok.
I (too) would have thought it was functionally the same nominating and voting a guy for 30 threads (especially since for circa the latter 20 of them you'd want to be voting them anyway), but this may just be a taste thing.
I get that having your only vote "not matter" hurts but then, as you allude to, that's why you don't do single preference "first past the post" (terrible name) plurality voting.
There's a case (that I can see) for the depth of discussion stuff (though also that could create unrelated discussions, and a thing where a player drops off the radar for a few rounds once nominated) but deeper points-based ballots could also do that, fwiw.
Whatever y'all decide is cool by me. I'm struggling with creating a formula at the moment. It's driving me crazy! If I can't get it satisfactory, I may either come in late or even not vote at all. I definitely want and plan to participate, though. I'm sure I will lurk, in which case the odds of getting sucked into commenting would be high. I just probably won't vote unless I can get a formula working well.
All human life on the earth is like grass, and all human glory is like a flower in a field. The grass dries up and its flower falls off, but the Lord’s word endures forever.
Regarding interest in potentially utilizing a nomination system to create the eligible pool of candidates....
From what I'm reading, the primary motive for this is to not have votes repeatedly "wasted" on a preferred candidate who just doesn't have traction with others (with a possibly ancillary benefit of generating marginally more discussion).
Though as LA Bird illustrated, the nomination process doesn't necessarily eliminate this. If you get your candidate "on the ballot" early via nomination, but he still doesn't really have the support outside of yours, you'll still end up "wasting" your vote on him for awhile before he has traction.
And fwiw, I'll go with THREE picks for the Ranked Vote System (RVS).......that in an of itself should eliminate a lot of "wasted vote" issues [I hope]: even if your first pick has no traction, your vote will be transferred to your 2nd candidate [if eligible]; and if your 2nd choice is also ineligible it'll transfer to your 3rd choice. Hopefully between THREE choices, one of them will have solid traction.
So unless there is WIDE support for the nomination process, I'd like to start with just the 3-choice RVS for at least a few threads and see how it goes [mostly just for simplicity's sake]. If we do begin to see a lot of "ghost/wasted" votes, I'm certainly willing to alter course slightly and add-in a nomination system.
Additionally, I'll [with some *trepidation] mention another potential tactic (I'm sure many do this either consciously or semi-consciously anyway): there is what I'd call "non-malicious strategic voting" to avoid too many wasted votes. Here I'm referring to temporarily postponing your preferred vote due to the fact that he simply has no traction with other voters, and basically just moving down your list to the next guy in line [who hopefully does have a little traction; or in some instances late in the game (where there are so many valid candidates) you may have to move a couple spots]. It's strategic, but it is still supporting a candidate you actually believe is [more or less] deserving of the spot, and is NOT done with malicious intent [against some other candidate]. ^^That is something I don't necessarily have a problem with people doing.
That, as opposed to "malicious strategic voting", which is where you're structuring your votes not so much [or at all] toward your preferred candidate(s), but rather in effort to push out a candidate you do NOT want to win the spot; and is something we'd frown upon.
Example: let's say my top choice for a spot would be Player A, and my 2nd choice would be player B, 3rd choice Player C.......but Player A has basically no traction outside of myself, Players B has only a little support aside from mine, and Player C has some [though a clear underdog to actually take the spot]. Meanwhile, there is Player X who is one of the front-runners [along with Players D and E, who I'm indifferent to], and is someone I desperately do NOT want to win the spot. Thus, I cast my three choices something like D > E > C.......basically ignoring my preferred choices and voting in a way that maximizes the chances of Player X losing.
See the difference in motive?
*the trepidation I have in mentioning strategic voting at all is that the line between malicious and non-malicious can sometimes be very very blurry. For instance, suppose in the above example that instead of being players I was indifferent to, Player D was actually tied with Player C my 3rd preferred choice anyway, and Player E would have been my 4th or 5th choice. That would sort of make it unclear whether I'd totally acted with malicious intent against Player X, or if it was honourable strategic voting considering Player A had no support [and B very little]. tbh, I don't know for sure where the line is in certain scenarios like that. So I guess if you do engage in any strategic voting, try to be very aware of your true motives, and act as honourably as possible.
Alternately, you can just be a hardline voter, sticking with your actual preferred candidate. Just realize there will be instances where you'll be frustrated and be stuck there for awhile. You can perhaps take it as a challenge to mount the arguments to pull people to your way of thinking.
Aside from scabbarista, penbeast0 historically is a hardline voter: I recall him voting for George Mikan and Mel Daniels relatively early and having to just lather/rinse/repeat for like a dozen threads on each of them before they got in.
I voted for Bellamy and DeBusschere for the final 4-5 threads of the last project, and ultimately NEITHER of them got in.
idk, if there's a majority that really wants the nomination system, I'll do it right away. But otherwise I'd suggest we see how it goes with a 3-choice RVS.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
The frustration comes from the voter pool being hung up wrong perceptions about certain players.
RealGM PC board is the top quality place to talk about this, all-time greats stuff and even in here, some perceptions about players like Moses Malone, Elvin Hayes, Earl Monroe so off. Mentioning Moses Malone alone made me frustrated as hell because how he's perceived in general is so inaccurate, etc.
I'm OK with nomination system and also non-nomination system. They are fine. I think nomination system is still slightly better against strategic voting. The frustration and strategic vote come from a vote not making any impact. With nomination system, there'd be still some frustrating moments but it gives a better chance to carry on and make your vote count.
Like I said though, both systems are pretty fine and there's no such thing as the perfect system. So, I don't think we should be focusing on this part for so long. If there's a vote about the voting systems, I'm an abstainer that gave an opinion about nomination system.
The issue with per75 numbers; 36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins? The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine. Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
I'll participate. I'll doubt I'll be able to spend a huge amount of time on this project so I'll probably rely more on other people's posts to inform my vote this time around.
I would like to participate, but I don't have enough time to make proper preparations and I wouldn't feel good voting unprepared. It makes no sense to participate for top 30-40 and then stop, at least in my opinion.
I can take part in discussion, but I'm not sure if I am needed here to be honest. There are many posters smarter and more knowledgeable about the game than me on this board
I'd like to request one or two days - maybe three - after the Finals end, to give time for people to think about the implications for James, Davis, etc..
All human life on the earth is like grass, and all human glory is like a flower in a field. The grass dries up and its flower falls off, but the Lord’s word endures forever.
scrabbarista wrote:I'd like to request one or two days - maybe three - after the Finals end, to give time for people to think about the implications for James, Davis, etc..
I agree. I think some time to update my GOAT with new data and legacy point. A lot has changed since the last update.
scrabbarista wrote:I'd like to request one or two days - maybe three - after the Finals end, to give time for people to think about the implications for James, Davis, etc..
I agree. I think some time to update my GOAT with new data and legacy point. A lot has changed since the last update.
Yeah, I think that's necessary too. I don't anticipate starting sooner than Wednesday; Tuesday night at the absolute soonest.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Odinn21 wrote:Edit; BTW the previous project took 9 months (6 months in 2017 and 3 months in 2018). Considering majority of this project will be happenning in 2021, I think we should dub this as the 2021 project.
fwiw, it's dubbed the 2020 Project because anything that happens after today is NOT to be considered. It's about where things stand at THIS point in history: at the conclusion of the 2019-20 season.
That way active players who come into consideration at the start of the list [before the next season starts] are not at a disadvantage [relatively] to active players who come into consideration later in the list.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
scrabbarista wrote:I'd like to request one or two days - maybe three - after the Finals end, to give time for people to think about the implications for James, Davis, etc..
I agree. I think some time to update my GOAT with new data and legacy point. A lot has changed since the last update.
Yeah, I think that's necessary too. I don't anticipate starting sooner than Wednesday; Tuesday night at the absolute soonest.
Wednesday is good.
All human life on the earth is like grass, and all human glory is like a flower in a field. The grass dries up and its flower falls off, but the Lord’s word endures forever.
Don’t think I’ll actively participate, but I’m definitely going to check in and post once in a while
About 2018 Cavs:
euroleague wrote:His team would be considered a super-team in other eras, and that's why commentators like Charles Barkley criticize LBJ for his complaining. He has talent on his team, he just doesn't try during the regular season
trex_8063 wrote:Alternately, you can just be a hardline voter, sticking with your actual preferred candidate. Just realize there will be instances where you'll be frustrated and be stuck there for awhile. You can perhaps take it as a challenge to mount the arguments to pull people to your way of thinking.
Aside from scabbarista, penbeast0 historically is a hardline voter: I recall him voting for George Mikan and Mel Daniels relatively early and having to just lather/rinse/repeat for like a dozen threads on each of them before they got in.
I voted for Bellamy and DeBusschere for the final 4-5 threads of the last project, and ultimately NEITHER of them got in.
idk, if there's a majority that really wants the nomination system, I'll do it right away. But otherwise I'd suggest we see how it goes with a 3-choice RVS.
Funny you mention Mikan (and me), because I'm thinking about voting him (what others will likely consider) extremely high. Not sure, though.
I'm not putting my voice behind any particular voting system. As I've stated a few times, I'm willing to leave it entirely in the hands of yourself and/or whoever else is in a position to decide. I will say this, though: personally, I feel the top priority should be selecting a system that will mitigate as much as possible the kind of (malicious) voting you described in your post. I would gladly vote the same candidate 50 times in a row if it meant eliminating any chance of people voting disingenuously. However, I'm fine with the "strategic" voting you mentioned. I don't think I will do it (we'll see) - I will likely remain "hardline" - but I have no problem with others doing it.
All human life on the earth is like grass, and all human glory is like a flower in a field. The grass dries up and its flower falls off, but the Lord’s word endures forever.
I sent you both a PM days ago, but I note they're still sitting in my Outbox. I'm wondering if maybe there's a site restriction where PM's are not allowed/accessible to you because you're so new. You would have received a notification that you had received a PM. If you didn't get a notification, it must not be sent.
Alternately, you can click on my "trex_8063" name which should take you to my profile page. There [if you're allowed PM's] under the header "Contact trex_8063" there should be an option---> "PM: Send private message".
If you're not seeing that and didn't get my PM, it must not be an available option for you yet. Please let me know.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
