Login

***Blastmeaway*** · 02-08-2021, 04:41 PM

Smh no love for the grit or the CHADs

@Frick_Nasty when’s the real all-star Team gonna be announce?

Shout out to ml002, schultzy, slashacm, tedward!
[Image: blastmeaway.gif]

I

I

I

I

09-05-2018, 10:04 PMBeaver Wrote: Wow look what the PT affiliation has done to our pristine league.

12-19-2018, 12:31 AMBeaver Wrote: I personally blame the PT affiliation for handing out massive amounts of free TPE to all these players, inflating the TPE they're at when they get called up.

[Image: Capture21.PNG?width=400&height=90]

TnlAstatine · 02-08-2021, 04:42 PM

02-08-2021, 03:19 PMJulio Tokolosh Wrote: I’m flattered to be included, and even happier that first-name alphabetization pushes me visually ahead of Luffy.

o

**RomanesEuntDomus** · 02-08-2021, 04:55 PM

02-08-2021, 03:24 PMFlowseidon Wrote:
02-08-2021, 03:02 PMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: Congrats everyone!

I think it might be worth to look into tweaking the voting system for this though... I think some people are missing out on the spots they deserve and its not due to voters being stupid but the system not working as it is supposed to, because votes are being split between the positional votes and wildcard ones and it makes for quite muddled results.

I'm always willing to listen to discuss this a bit. Do you have any suggestions?

I think we have some struggles one way or another. If we don't include the wildcard forward, we may be leaving out deserving centers in favour of having to fit the WCW format. I feel that ranked choice voting and allocating the points through that gives us the best bit. I don't think it's ideal, but of course people may have some better ideas for how to handle this in a way to get us the most accurate team possible, and allowing us to do it in a timely matter without having to re-vote several times.

As said though, I am 100% open to suggestions on this, and people can always feel free to hit me up here/discord with ideas

Thanks for your constructive reply!

One thing you could do of course would be to just get rid of the positional requirements and just go for the nine best forwards. Of course that does come with some caveats as well so it's not necessarily better, but it would be easier to make sure that the nine most deserving players make it so the idea does have some charme i think.

In regards to the Wildcard-spots however I think more consistency is needed. Either have them for all three teams or don't have them at all, just using them for some of the teams but not others seems rather messy and convoluted. I for one would lean towards not having them. I think it's better to either take position into account consistently by making it W-C-W for all three teams or to just ignore the positional aspect and make it the nine best forwards overall. Both seem clearer and fairer than the wildcard-hybrid.

And can you maybe explain a bit how the Wildcard votes worked exactly during the voting itself? Because without knowing all the details I would argue that even if you have Wildcard-spots on the all-star-teams, there shouldn't be a designated Wildcard category in the vote itself - those wildcards spots should just go to the people who earned them in the Center and Winger categories. What could be done here is to just have people vote for nine forwards overall, but then split them up into C's and W's depending on how the vote shaped up.

I haven't looked at all players in detail yet but the one where I think the issue becomes most clear is Slothface who, yes, is on my team. He is a possible MVP this season, one of only two Forwards nominated for the Award, yet he didn't make the first all star team and didn't even make the second team in his natural position. Now of course a lot of that can be chalked up to different committees having different opinions as well as the fact that an MVP might have slightly different requirements than an All-Star. However, if you look at the actual voting in his case then I think the issue becomes clearer. Simply put there were three Centers in contention here, Scarn, Westbroek and Slothface. Scarn ended up being the favorite of the Committee and got #1C, no issue there. Then it was neck-and-neck between Westbroek and Sloth and Westbroek narrowly won and there are couple of problems about that:

1. You are wrong. Have you seen the season Slothface had especially compared to the rest of his team? (Okay half kidding here but I had to get that in Tongue

. The other two points are more legit though, I promise!)

2. If Sloth legit loses out to Westbroek then just give him the #3C spot as the third best Center (or put him on the first-team in the top-wildcard spot). Because having him on the second team in not even his natural position is just awkward for a player of his caliber. Either way, no matter who exactly would've won between Sloth and Westbroek, we did end up with two players on the first team who I'd argue were both worse than either Westbroek or Slothface. They only got their spots on the first on merit of their Winger-position alone over two more deserving players, which I think shows that something about the system doesn't work as it should.

3. The voting-system did not seem to work properly or at least not all committee members seem to have been on the same page. Now this is a bit tough to judge without knowing the details I asked about earlier, but simply put: What is the value or a positional vote in relation to a Wildcard vote? How much value do the different categories carry and what are the committee members told priot to their vote, how are they supposed to decide whether to put someone in one category or the other?

Look at User 5 for example, who did not even have Slothface in his Center votes but had him as his top Wildcard vote. This user voted for Pepperoni over Slothface at C which makes absolutely no sense but I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he didn't do that because he is bad at his job, but because he thought it made sense to have Slothface as top-seeded Wildcard over third-seed Center for structural reasons? Hence my questions about the voting system. User 2 also didn't have Slothface in his C selection but at his top Wildcard, but his choices make a bit more sense still even if I don't agree with them. And then there is User 3 who had Slothface in his C-votes but not Westbroek, and he didnt even put him as his top-wildcard either, instead he put not one but two Buffalo Centers above him... This one is a bit tougher to excuse through structural reasons and just seems like a bad homer vote, I hope that particular vote isn't on Buffalo...

But yeah this isn't too much about inidividual voters but about the way the system is set up and the incentives it gives, as outlined in the first part of my post.

SlashACM · 02-08-2021, 04:58 PM

02-08-2021, 02:57 PMsköldpaddor Wrote: THIS IS MY KIND OF TOWN

CHICAGO IS

You like being carjacked?

PremierBromanov · 02-08-2021, 05:27 PM

02-08-2021, 04:58 PMSlashACM Wrote:
02-08-2021, 02:57 PMsköldpaddor Wrote: THIS IS MY KIND OF TOWN

CHICAGO IS

You like being carjacked?

large urban city scary

*Good_Ole_Kimmy* · 02-08-2021, 05:35 PM

I got snubbed

*Katth* · 02-08-2021, 05:44 PM

02-08-2021, 04:55 PMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote:
02-08-2021, 03:24 PMFlowseidon Wrote: I'm always willing to listen to discuss this a bit. Do you have any suggestions?

I think we have some struggles one way or another. If we don't include the wildcard forward, we may be leaving out deserving centers in favour of having to fit the WCW format. I feel that ranked choice voting and allocating the points through that gives us the best bit. I don't think it's ideal, but of course people may have some better ideas for how to handle this in a way to get us the most accurate team possible, and allowing us to do it in a timely matter without having to re-vote several times.

As said though, I am 100% open to suggestions on this, and people can always feel free to hit me up here/discord with ideas

Thanks for your constructive reply!

One thing you could do of course would be to just get rid of the positional requirements and just go for the nine best forwards. Of course that does come with some caveats as well so it's not necessarily better, but it would be easier to make sure that the nine most deserving players make it so the idea does have some charme i think.

In regards to the Wildcard-spots however I think more consistency is needed. Either have them for all three teams or don't have them at all, just using them for some of the teams but not others seems rather messy and convoluted. I for one would lean towards not having them. I think it's better to either take position into account consistently by making it W-C-W for all three teams or to just ignore the positional aspect and make it the nine best forwards overall. Both seem clearer and fairer than the wildcard-hybrid.

And can you maybe explain a bit how the Wildcard votes worked exactly during the voting itself? Because without knowing all the details I would argue that even if you have Wildcard-spots on the all-star-teams, there shouldn't be a designated Wildcard category in the vote itself - those wildcards spots should just go to the people who earned them in the Center and Winger categories. What could be done here is to just have people vote for nine forwards overall, but then split them up into C's and W's depending on how the vote shaped up.

I haven't looked at all players in detail yet but the one where I think the issue becomes most clear is Slothface who, yes, is on my team. He is a possible MVP this season, one of only two Forwards nominated for the Award, yet he didn't make the first all star team and didn't even make the second team in his natural position. Now of course a lot of that can be chalked up to different committees having different opinions as well as the fact that an MVP might have slightly different requirements than an All-Star. However, if you look at the actual voting in his case then I think the issue becomes clearer. Simply put there were three Centers in contention here, Scarn, Westbroek and Slothface. Scarn ended up being the favorite of the Committee and got #1C, no issue there. Then it was neck-and-neck between Westbroek and Sloth and Westbroek narrowly won and there are couple of problems about that:

1. You are wrong. Have you seen the season Slothface had especially compared to the rest of his team? (Okay half kidding here but I had to get that in . The other two points are more legit though, I promise!)

2. If Sloth legit loses out to Westbroek then just give him the #3C spot as the third best Center (or put him on the first-team in the top-wildcard spot). Because having him on the second team in not even his natural position is just awkward for a player of his caliber. Either way, no matter who exactly would've won between Sloth and Westbroek, we did end up with two players on the first team who I'd argue were both worse than either Westbroek or Slothface. They only got their spots on the first on merit of their Winger-position alone over two more deserving players, which I think shows that something about the system doesn't work as it should.

3. The voting-system did not seem to work properly or at least not all committee members seem to have been on the same page. Now this is a bit tough to judge without knowing the details I asked about earlier, but simply put: What is the value or a positional vote in relation to a Wildcard vote? How much value do the different categories carry and what are the committee members told priot to their vote, how are they supposed to decide whether to put someone in one category or the other?

Look at User 5 for example, who did not even have Slothface in his Center votes but had him as his top Wildcard vote. This user voted for Pepperoni over Slothface at C which makes absolutely no sense but I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he didn't do that because he is bad at his job, but because he thought it made sense to have Slothface as top-seeded Wildcard over third-seed Center for structural reasons? Hence my questions about the voting system. User 2 also didn't have Slothface in his C selection but at his top Wildcard, but his choices make a bit more sense still even if I don't agree with them. And then there is User 3 who had Slothface in his C-votes but not Westbroek, and he didnt even put him as his top-wildcard either, instead he put not one but two Buffalo Centers above him... This one is a bit tougher to excuse through structural reasons and just seems like a bad homer vote, I hope that particular vote isn't on Buffalo...

But yeah this isn't too much about inidividual voters but about the way the system is set up and the incentives it gives, as outlined in the first part of my post.