ATD 2013 - should all teams make the playoffs? | Page 3 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

ATD 2013 - should all teams make the playoffs?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I really thought that my idea of 8 divisions of 4 teams, with the first seed with a bye, second and third place fighting in out, and a little relegation tournament for the fourth places was a very nice compromise between GM's who wants everyone in the playoffs and those who want to highlight the value of players with strong regular seasons. Even the one missing the main playoffs will have the chance to get reviews for their teams through at least one playoff matchup, which seems to have been the main reasons why GM's want everyone to participate to the big dance.

I'm against giving points in the standing for everyone who assassinate teams.
 
EagleBelfour said:
I'm against giving points in the standing for everyone who assassinate teams.
Click to expand...

Can you please explain why?

We reward people for voting with 8 whole points, and that takes no thought or insight if they choose not to incorporate them. I’m suggesting rewarding people with 3 points, max, for adding more thought and insight to this process.

Nalyd Psycho said:
Under no circumstances will I support a system that punishes people for having a life.
Click to expand...

You’re making a false equivalency.

Able to do assassinations = I have no life and I get points
Not able to do assassinations = I have a life and I get punished for it.

There are ridiculously easy rebuttals to such an argument.

1. The argument that you don’t have enough time to do a few reviews when you had the time to participate in the draft in the first place is an extremely weak one. Assassinations are but a drop in the bucket.
2. If people truly don’t have enough time, give them more and stop trying to constantly whisk things along to the next step.

Debate and analysis are the most important parts of this. If we have a "draft draft draft" mentality and no time for debate and analysis, we're doing it wrong.
 
VanIslander said:
Team rankings should be determined only by the merits of the teams not the effort of its GMs.

To give a real-world example: Brian Burke can work his butt off but his team ain't moving up the standings until he goes out and gets better players to make it happen!
Click to expand...

vecens24 said:
Under NO circumstances should you get points for assassinating people.

There is literally no correlation between having a good team and being someone who assassinates people. The two are not related at all, nor should they be related in the voting process.
Click to expand...

We already give a free 1st place to anyone who votes for regular season standings. How is this any different?
 
I would add that I want people who write assasination cares about them. If you like doing them and wanna do them, write some down. If you don't want/have time to do them, I don't wanna read half-hearted, meaningless assasination made by someone who doesn't want to.
 
TheDevilMadeMe said:
Funny that so many GMs can spend hours on each of 20 bios, but can't spare 20-30 minutes to review another team.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much the point I'm making above. People make bios and do them well because they care. If I'm gonna read an assasination, I want to read it by someone who took the time and effort and cared about it, not doing it cheaply as part of an homework
 
There are several strong opinions on each side of this issue. It begs for a vote. Majority rules.
 
EagleBelfour said:
That's pretty much the point I'm making above. People make bios and do them well because they care. If I'm gonna read an assasination, I want to read it by someone who took the time and effort and cared about it, not doing it cheaply as part of an homework
Click to expand...

I guess I'm just sore because my team went into the playoffs each of the last two seasons without a single review of the final roster.

My opinion is that anything that increases participation in the assassination thread is worth looking at (hell, change it's name from "assassination" to "roster discussion" or something if "assassination" sounds too negative).
 
TheDevilMadeMe said:
Funny that so many GMs can spend hours on each of 20 bios, but can't spare 20-30 minutes to review another team.
Click to expand...

I never have the time to do as many bios as I want. Nor do i have time to do as many assassinations as I want. I do not want to be punished for that.

And for some of us, we don't spend 20-30 minutes for an assassination. I need to spend more time than that to get a good feel for what a team is trying to accomplish and how well I believe they achieve it.
 
vecens24 said:
Under NO circumstances should you get points for assassinating people.

There is literally no correlation between having a good team and being someone who assassinates people. The two are not related at all, nor should they be related in the voting process.
Click to expand...
THis is what you and I and some others have a strong disagreement with TDMM and a couple of others about!

There is a poll question to let the majority decide, not three or four people on one side or another.
 
VanIslander said:
THis is what you and I and some others have a strong disagreement with TDMM and a couple of others about!

There is a poll question to let the majority decide, not three or four people on one side or another.
Click to expand...

What a bunch of straw man crap.

I was never for directly giving out points for assassinations (in fact, I'm the first one who shot down the "point per assassination" idea that a good starting point for discussions but I don't think would work in reality).

Why don't you create 2 more accounts and have them lie about my positions, also?
 
seventieslord said:
Imagining that the rankings don’t have something to do with GM effort is turning a blind eye to reality. In alternate realities if two guys draft the exact same team in the same draft, and one is more skilled at highlighting his players’ strengths, promotes their players relentlessly and makes extensive bios, and the other does nothing at all, they will place very differently in the standings. Also, as we have all seen, the GM that “shows up†for the playoffs when their opponent doesn’t, also has an advantage.

The idea I brought forward is much less impactful to the whole process than the two principles listed above. You are a big proponent of lineup assassinations and have, in the past, lamented how little some GMs seem to care to do them (though we all love getting them). This provides a real, tangible reason for everyone to do them.

GM effort leading to success is a real thing, and this would be just one more (and the smallest) facet of that.

And if you say you don’t have the time to do a couple assassinations (after researching your players, drafting, discussing during the draft, and making bios), you’re just not trying hard enough to have the time.

TDMM’s idea of not allowing teams to vote on the standings could work, but at the same time, we want MORE votes, not fewer.
Click to expand...


VI, you are free to defeat this argument with an argument of your own, instead of a "spite poll"....
 
TheDevilMadeMe said:
We already give a free 1st place to anyone who votes for regular season standings. How is this any different?
Click to expand...

Because I like to think that voting is more important.

Also, it's really the only fair way to do it. If you don't give yourself a first place vote (I actually attempted last year to not give my team a first place vote because I thought my team was kind of a mess), then you're basically putting yourself behind the 8-ball because everyone else will.
 
vecens24 said:
Because I like to think that voting is more important.
Click to expand...

What do you say to this?

We reward people for voting with 8 whole points, and that takes no thought or insight if they choose not to incorporate them. I’m suggesting rewarding people with 3 points, max, for adding more thought and insight to this process.
 
seventieslord said:
What do you say to this?

We reward people for voting with 8 whole points, and that takes no thought or insight if they choose not to incorporate them. I’m suggesting rewarding people with 3 points, max, for adding more thought and insight to this process.
Click to expand...
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :headache:
 
A team should be judged based on the players and coaches NOT on the identity of the GMs !!!!!!

That is the issue of justice in this matter.
 
VanIslander said:
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :headache:
Click to expand...

Is this the VI equivalent of a facepalm? If so, explain yourself. We’re here to hammer out details, not throw emoticons at eachother :laugh: :naughty: :rant: :nopity:

VanIslander said:
A team should be judged based on the players and coaches NOT on the identity of the GMs !!!!!!

That is the issue of justice in this matter.
Click to expand...

No, a team should not be judged based on the identity of the GMs. Obviously not.

It should be judged on merit. But no one is an expert on every single player. We all need to be “sold†on why so and so is better than what’s his face. GMs that do better at this (i.e. are smarter, more shrewd and more hard working) will always do better, and there is no problem with that.

Plus, It encourages others to be smarter, shrewder, and harder working…
 
VanIslander said:
The merit of the drafting: the assembling of a team of players and coaches NOT on the merits of the GMs.

That is the crux of the issue.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you’re not getting it. There is no “universal truth†that we are all tuned into, where the best team can be 100% agreed on by all with a formula. We all have our own starting opinions, but they are malleable by good arguments posted by others. Those who can post good arguments will do better.

Is there a problem with that?

Also, I asked you another question.
 
seventieslord said:
We all have our own starting opinions, but they are malleable by good arguments posted by others. Those who can post good arguments will do better.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Help others see the strengths of your own squad and weaknesses of others if they don't already. The INCENTIVE to contribute to assassinations (especially with our thread-per-division idea) is built into the idea of convincing others of how good one's team really is.

Try to SHOW others how you see things. Everyone votes, and trying to convince others of the merits of one's team is a great part of the process we all think.

Just don't artificially reward by points those who simply type posts on threads: LET THE MERITS OF THE TEAMS decide standings, as determined by each and every one of us according to our own criteria.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom