2023 ATD Poll #4: Public Voting

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I can't wait for the draft to start

 

[The Macho King]

I want a side draft on what dumb drama is going to start.

 

[Sturminator]

If more participating GMs voted in the playoffs, agenda-driven votes probably wouldn't matter.

We got down to 9 voters at one point in the last draft, and one of them was Batis. That means more than half of participating GMs did not vote at some point during the playoffs. This is the ATD's elephant in the room.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I want a side draft on what dumb drama is going to start.

1st Overall - I tell whoever picks Taylor that he's overrated and can't play defense or center effectively

 

[ResilientBeast]

If more participating GMs voted in the playoffs, agenda-driven votes probably wouldn't matter.

We got down to 9 voters at one point in the last draft, and one of them was Batis. That means more than half of participating GMs did not vote at some point during the playoffs. This is the ATD's elephant in the room.

Yup

I see two arguments here

1 - As I've said I don't really understand what the problem is. We barely can have half the GMs vote in the playoff series (including one of the people I'm going back in forth with)

Conference Finals - 11 votes would be 9 without externals so just over half of eligible voters bothered to spare some time
Finals - 13 votes - 13 votes would be 10 without externals.

I have a hard time arguing with someone over the "integrity" of voting after they dropped out of voting after their team was eliminated.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I went to the Finals and missed many deadlines last year. For that, I apologize.

 

[Sturminator]

Hmmm...maybe we should dangle a carrot to encourage better voting behavoir?

Maybe the franchises with clean voting records (meaning those who voted in every matchup they could) should be allowed to choose their positions in the following draft? I'm not suggesting we do that this year, but it would be a good rule going forward.

Non-voting is too big a problem for punishment to do anything other than kill the draft, but we can at least reward those who do reliably participate.

I went to the Finals and missed many deadlines last year. For that, I apologize.

Eh, you knew I was voting, so you had no pressure to do it and possibly split our vote.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Maybe the franchises with clean voting records (meaning those who voted in every matchup they could) should be allowed to choose their positions in the following draft? I'm not suggesting we do that this year, but it would be a good rule going forward.

We've tried some variation of this, and I don't think it made that much of a difference

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Hmmm...maybe we should dangle a carrot to encourage better voting behavoir?

Maybe the franchises with clean voting records (meaning those who voted in every matchup they could) should be allowed to choose their positions in the following draft? I'm not suggesting we do that this year, but it would be a good rule going forward.

Non-voting is too big a problem for punishment to do anything other than kill the draft, but we can at least reward those who do reliably participate.


Eh, you knew I was voting, so you had no pressure to do it and possibly split our vote.

We've done that before. Some GMs hated "rewarding" returning GMs more than newbies.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Eh, you knew I was voting, so you had no pressure to do it and possibly split our vote.

I wasn't aware our votes would be split. Or maybe I was but forgot.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I wasn't aware our votes would be split. Or maybe I was but forgot.

the only time co-GMs should get half votes is when they vote in their own division in the regular season.

at least that's how I did it when I collected votes

 

[Sturminator]

I wasn't aware our votes would be split. Or maybe I was but forgot.

Heh...yeah, you forgot.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Heh...yeah, you forgot.

Very possible.

the only time co-GMs should get half votes is when they vote in their own division in the regular season.

at least that's how I did it when I collected votes

Yeah, since we have so many co-GMs this year, I don't think they should vote as "one block". We need everyone's vote, and co-GMs may have different ideas on far away series.

For same conference/division, then yes, split the votes.

 

[seventieslord]

Determine the order of round 3 of the draft as follows:

- GMs who voted in all 4 playoff rounds last draft come first, with their "proper" draft position used as a tiebreaker
- then all GMs who voted 3 times, then the ones who voted twice, the ones who voted once, then the ones who peaced out.

GMs who do not apply because they were not in the previous draft, we use their performance from whichever draft was their last, and if they're new, they come after the 4-voters and before the 3-voters.

teams with Co-GMs with different vote histories, will go by whichever of the two had the worst voting performance.

If this is too harsh, then use round 5. or 7. or whatever.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Very possible.



Yeah, since we have so many co-GMs this year, I don't think they should vote as "one block". We need everyone's vote, and co-GMs may have different ideas on far away series.

For same conference/division, then yes, split the votes.

no need for half votes in the playoffs at all. just in the same division (or conference if we don't have divisions) for the regular season, which is the only time GMs can vote for their own teams.

 

[ImporterExporter]

If more participating GMs voted in the playoffs, agenda-driven votes probably wouldn't matter.

We got down to 9 voters at one point in the last draft, and one of them was Batis. That means more than half of participating GMs did not vote at some point during the playoffs. This is the ATD's elephant in the room.

Agree with this 100%.

And because so many who do play, don't vote, sketchy voting can impact a series more easily, which is why I'm adament about making sure we keep voting public AND, beginning next year (and beyond) police those who decide to derail the match ups.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Agree with this 100%.

And because so many who do play, don't vote, sketchy voting can impact a series more easily, which is why I'm adament about making sure we keep voting public AND, beginning next year (and beyond) police those who decide to derail the match ups.

we should however be careful not to try to "police" honest minority opinions, no matter how misguided they may be.

 

[Sturminator]

Determine the order of round 3 of the draft as follows:

- GMs who voted in all 4 playoff rounds last draft come first, with their "proper" draft position used as a tiebreaker
- then all GMs who voted 3 times, then the ones who voted twice, the ones who voted once, then the ones who peaced out.

GMs who do not apply because they were not in the previous draft, we use their performance from whichever draft was their last, and if they're new, they come after the 4-voters and before the 3-voters.

teams with Co-GMs with different vote histories, will go by whichever of the two had the worst voting performance.

If this is too harsh, then use round 5. or 7. or whatever.

Tabarnak.

This would certainly address the problem. Maybe the 5th round would make more sense here?

 

[ImporterExporter]

we should however be careful not to try to "police" honest minority opinions, no matter how misguided they may be.

Correct, as I said in a post earlier today, in this thread. It's not about nitpicking. Outliers are fine, minority votes that go against the majority, are fine.

It's the blatant patterns that should be called out and put to the group to determine bias and punishment. And in just 1 year, multiple people saw 2 GM's who were clearly engaging in some very sketchy voting patterns.

If 20 GM's (or the vast majority of the playing GMs) vote, those sketchy votes probably don't matter. Given we have trouble getting even 65%-75% of GM's to vote, bad actors can more likely skew a final result.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Determine the order of round 3 of the draft as follows:

- GMs who voted in all 4 playoff rounds last draft come first, with their "proper" draft position used as a tiebreaker
- then all GMs who voted 3 times, then the ones who voted twice, the ones who voted once, then the ones who peaced out.

GMs who do not apply because they were not in the previous draft, we use their performance from whichever draft was their last, and if they're new, they come after the 4-voters and before the 3-voters.

teams with Co-GMs with different vote histories, will go by whichever of the two had the worst voting performance.

If this is too harsh, then use round 5. or 7. or whatever.

Intriguing idea. My problem is if say we use the 3rd round, and the guy's natural slot is last in the 3rd round, he doesn't pay any price.

Here's a proposal in the same spirit: There are usually 5 rounds of voting: RS, 1st series, 2nd series, Conference Finals and Finals. For every round you don't vote, your 2nd round pick drops one spot back (5 in total maximum). This hurts your balls, but doesn't kill your chance of winning like it would with the 1st round pick.

If we want harsher, we can do 2 spots back for your 2nd round pick (or 3rd round pick?) for every missed round of voting.

Thoughts anyone?

 

[seventieslord]

At the time of voting in ATD2023, the person has no idea where in round 3 he will be set to draft naturally in ATD2024, so all he can do is give himself the best chance. It's incentive/deterrent enough.

Also, if we were to just set a certain amount of spots for each GM to drop based on number of votes missed, it puts us in a likely scenario where we have as many as 10 GMs to drop by a certain number of picks. A few by 2 spots, a few by four, a few by six. That's very complicated. In what order do they drop? if a guy is set to draft 15th and drops two, but happens to be just after a few guys who drop six, he drafts higher after they leapfrog him.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I

Intriguing idea. My problem is if say we use the 3rd round, and the guy's natural slot is last in the 3rd round, he doesn't pay any price.

Here's a proposal in the same spirit: There are usually 5 rounds of voting: RS, 1st series, 2nd series, Conference Finals and Finals. For every round you don't vote, your 2nd round pick drops one spot back (5 in total maximum). This hurts your balls, but doesn't kill your chance of winning like it would with the 1st round pick.

If we want harsher, we can do 2 spots back for your 2nd round pick (or 3rd round pick?) for every missed round of voting.

Thoughts anyone?

worh discussing in about thread I think. no rush to get that one decided before the draft starts. I'm generally more in favor of rewards than punishments in games

 

[BenchBrawl]

At the time of voting in ATD2023, the person has no idea where in round 3 he will be set to draft naturally in ATD2024, so all he can do is give himself the best chance. It's incentive/deterrent enough.

Also, if we were to just set a certain amount of spots for each GM to drop based on number of votes missed, it puts us in a likely scenario where we have as many as 10 GMs to drop by a certain number of picks. A few by 2 spots, a few by four, a few by six. That's very complicated. In what order do they drop? if a guy is set to draft 15th and drops two, but happens to be just after a few guys who drop six, he drafts higher after they leapfrog him.

Good point. It wouldn't work, you're right.

I

worh discussing in about thread I think. no rush to get that one decided before the draft starts. I'm generally more in favor of rewards than punishments in games

We tried rewards, they weren't enticing enough, and AFAIK we have nothing better to offer.

 

[Habsfan18]

How about for every post-season round you don’t vote in, you get docked a point in the next year’s regular season voting? Too extreme?

 

[BenchBrawl]

How about for every post-season round you don’t vote in, you get docked a point in the next year’s regular season voting? Too extreme?

RS is irrelevant as long as every team make the playoffs. Only the playoffs matter.