2023 ATD Poll #4: Public Voting

[Professor What]

Vote here on whether voting should be made public at the end of the ATD.

Click to read more...

 

[ResilientBeast]

I see no downsides to keeping this

 

[Sturminator]

What to do with the outcomes of public voting is the next question.

I'll throw this out there: I think we should keep public voting, and I think GMs should have the prerogative to exclude the voting of non-GMs they think may carry a grudge. I can think of a name I'd exclude immediately.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

I'd like to split the difference on this- and have revealed but anonymous results. We'd (still) be able to see exactly how close (or not) each series is.

[Down-side for public voting is that anybody who feels hard-done by a voter might vindictively retaliate at a later time. Perhaps that's one way "grudge-holding" could happen.]

I've put in a "no" vote, because I'd prefer the compromise solution.... but I'm comfortable enough with my ability to justify any of my votes that I wouldn't be too perturbed if the motion carried.

This might be a good year to bag the "three stars" selections... and simply vote on a series MVP. [And, of course, keep the whole matter as far away from being used as a tiebreak procedure as we can possibly make it(!)] I've seen too many series where the losing team has Star #1 & Star #3 to believe that it has any value at all. It's also a bunch of extra (and, I'd argue- pointless) effort for the poll-worker(s).

 

[BenchBrawl]

I see no downsides to keeping this

same

 

[tinyzombies]

A team should have to post their lines with vsx and defensive abilities.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

A team should have to post their lines with vsx and defensive abilities.

Just what the ATD needs- more VsX hyperdulia.

 

[tinyzombies]

Just what the ATD needs- more VsX hyperdulia.

I also think the votes in this thread should be made public.

 

[Professor What]

I also think the votes in this thread should be made public.

They are. I did so to make sure it was GMs voting.

 

[tinyzombies]

They are. I did so to make sure it was GMs voting.

I mean private.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I'll throw this out there: I think we should keep public voting, and I think GMs should have the prerogative to exclude the voting of non-GMs they think may carry a grudge. I can think of a name I'd exclude immediately.

I understand why this view could be popular, but I have a hard time being on board with discrediting a voters if you feel they have a grudge against you.

The whole point of us getting non-GMs to vote is to help increase the sample size and bring in more diverse perspectives and just being able to toss out a voter you think doesn't seem particularly fair....

 

[BenchBrawl]

I understand why this view could be popular, but I have a hard time being on board with discrediting a voters if you feel they have a grudge against you.

The whole point of us getting non-GMs to vote is to help increase the sample size and bring in more diverse perspectives and just being able to toss out a voter you think doesn't seem particularly fair....

This guy was notorious for holding a grudge against Sturm, quit the ATD, and 15 years later comes in, strictly vote for the RS, and votes our team last. Refreshing perspective.

 

[ResilientBeast]

This guy was notorious for holding a grudge against Sturm, quit the ATD, and 15 years later comes in, strictly vote for the RS, and vote our team last. Strong appearance of unethical behavior.

Unethical sure.

But did it matter in the end? No, you guys were still the one seed because we had 17 other voters.

And I understand that is something we can only say with the benefit of hindsight, but I think just having the ability to ignore select voters is a slippery slope.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Unethical sure.

But did it matter in the end? No, you guys were still the one seed because we had 17 other voters.

And I understand that is something we can only say with the benefit of hindsight, but I think just having the ability to ignore select voters is a slippery slope.

Did I say it mattered? It could've mattered though, which is the point.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Did I say it mattered? It could've mattered though, which is the point.

The last line of my post acknowledged this.

 

[BenchBrawl]

The last line of my post acknowledged this.

I am against letting outsiders vote anyway. This "diversified perspective" thing is hogwash.

I am NOT claiming it had any effect on last year's result though. It did not.

You guys won fair and square and that's the end of it.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Always blows my mind as to why people vote no on this. I won't continue on if we're going back to votes being hidden. Just based on last year, it has to make at least some people wonder what public voting would have showed when we had 30-40 GM's involved.

If you are unbiased and voting for who you truly believe is the best team, you shouldn't give a damn as to who sees your votes.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Always blows my mind as to why people vote no on this. I won't continue on if we're going back to votes being hidden. Just based on last year, it has to make at least some people wonder what public voting would have showed when we had 30-40 GM's involved.

If you are unbiased and voting for who you truly believe is the best team, you shouldn't give a damn as to who sees your votes.

The argument for private voting is to avoid GMs pressuring each other to vote a certain way. Or holding grudges against GMs who voted against them. Not saying that's been an issue, but those are the arguments for private voting.

 

[Dreakmur]

Always blows my mind as to why people vote no on this. I won't continue on if we're going back to votes being hidden. Just based on last year, it has to make at least some people wonder what public voting would have showed when we had 30-40 GM's involved.

If you are unbiased and voting for who you truly believe is the best team, you shouldn't give a damn as to who sees your votes.

When shameless people still vote dishonestly, and then there are no consequences for those people, public voting serves no real purpose.

 

[ImporterExporter]

The argument for private voting is to avoid GMs pressuring each other to vote a certain way. Or holding grudges against GMs who voted against them. Not saying that's been an issue, but those are the arguments for private voting.

I understand that line of thinking but at the end of the day, I'd much rather see who is voting where to completely remove any doubt as it pertains to people throwing a draft in a certain direction, be it collusion, or someone just shitting on a particular GM for whatever reason.

We saw a couple of votes last year that were obviously sketchy and without that being made public you take results at face value.

Look, it's a fantasy game at the end of the day but if we're really going to make a big deal out of the competitive aspect of said fantasy game, we should try and assure those who've had suspicions (a lot of people have voiced this over the years) that the members who are voting are doing it in an honest manner and showing votes, accomplishes that.

When shameless people still vote dishonestly, and then there are no consequences for those people, public voting serves no real purpose.

Consequences can be added as we've only had 1 year (last year) that showed who was voting for whom publicly. And in 1 year, we already saw that 2 people by my eye, weren't voting honestly.

Personally I'd vote to bar those who clearly are involved in shenanigans, from participating in future drafts but that's another discussion to have in a separate thread.

Closing it back up only invites more BS and kicks the can down the road IMO.

 

[Professor What]

It's probably too late for this year, but in future drafts, would it be possible to have non-GMs put themselves forward as potential voters, and then if there are a certain number of vetoes, a specific individual isn't allowed to vote? That could address some of the concerns here. (I'm still in favor of public voting though.)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

When shameless people still vote dishonestly, and then there are no consequences for those people, public voting serves no real purpose.

Wasn't there a big delay in releasing public voting last time? By the time anyone could "call out" anyone, the draft was long over.

It's probably too late for this year, but in future drafts, would it be possible to have non-GMs put themselves forward as potential voters, and then if there are a certain number of vetoes, a specific individual isn't allowed to vote? That could address some of the concerns here. (I'm still in favor of public voting though.)

Frankly, the only people who should vote are those who follow the draft closely from beginning to end.

 

[Sturminator]

I understand why this view could be popular, but I have a hard time being on board with discrediting a voters if you feel they have a grudge against you.

The whole point of us getting non-GMs to vote is to help increase the sample size and bring in more diverse perspectives and just being able to toss out a voter you think doesn't seem particularly fair....

I agree with Dreak here. What's the point of having the votes public if we're not able to act on the information?

Suspect voting should be called out. Maybe we need more than one draft's worth of data here, but we'll see what happens after two drafts. For now, I think we should keep the voting open.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Frankly, the only people who should vote are those who follow the draft closely from beginning to end.

I don't see why that is at all necessary

Are 70s votes any less "legitimate" because he blindly voted in the RS on the teams?

 

[ResilientBeast]

Suspect voting should be called out

What do you consider suspect voting?