What's new
By:

All-Time NBA Draft Round 2: Hekate vs. White Chocolate

Which team would win in a 7-game series?

  • Total voters
    32
  • Poll closed .
How is it that you guys don't have an agreement in place for how to break ties? ****ing amateurs.
 
colton said:
What do you have against my suggestion of a completely new vote with a beforehand agreed-on contingency for a tie?
Click to expand...

I'm in favor of figuring stuff out ahead of time instead of arguing results and making up solutions on the fly. I'd probably play it this way tbh.

Ideal winner should be -

#1. Received the most votes during the open poll time frame. . . that gives other Jazzfanz members a chance to chime in.

#2. In the event of a tie (or potential voter fraud controversy) , the first tiebreaker should be votes from participants in the competition. Those votes should hold a little more weight because we are the 16 most invested individuals. But only if they voted during the open poll - One Love wouldn't have counted towards this tiebreaker because he didn't vote in this round. . .

#3. If the tie continues there is a designated tiebreaker. This is agreed upon in advance and his only job is to vote as a sudden death tiebreaker if needed.

We're way past that at this point, so I'm not sure what the solution is. I will say, that I've run these in the past and WC does a good job - even if half the participants don't like him personally or like to screw with him for fun. I know that he wants to win, but he also tries to be a fair mediator when drama comes up.
 
Ellis269 said:
There has to be an easier way to figure out tiebreakers. The easiest solution (IMO) is having a designated tiebreaker who only votes in any of the contests if there is a tie. I'd nominate any of Jason, Colton or fish for that role. Outside of a tie, they're just observers. In the result of a tie, they're alone in deciding the result. Figure it out ahead of time who it is and eliminate all of this other noise. No more re-votes, runoff votes, or pandering to alt or troll accounts. Everyone who can't, or doesn't vote during the poll doesn't count. Just pick one, legitimate vote to decide things in the event of a tie. Winner takes all.
Click to expand...
In
#powerhungry
 
Ellis269 said:
I'm in favor of figuring stuff out ahead of time instead of arguing results and making up solutions on the fly. I'd probably play it this way tbh.

Ideal winner should be -

#1. Received the most votes during the open poll time frame. . . that gives other Jazzfanz members a chance to chime in.

#2. In the event of a tie (or potential voter fraud controversy) , the first tiebreaker should be votes from participants in the competition. Those votes should hold a little more weight because we are the 16 most invested individuals. But only if they voted during the open poll - One Love wouldn't have counted towards this tiebreaker because he didn't vote in this round. . .

#3. If the tie continues there is a designated tiebreaker. This is agreed upon in advance and his only job is to vote as a sudden death tiebreaker if needed. We're way past that at this point, so I'm not sure what the solution is. I will say, that I've run these in the past and WC does a good job - even if half the participants don't like him personally or like to screw with him for fun. I know that he wants to win, but he also tries to be a fair mediator when drama comes up.
Click to expand...
Good post. I agree about WC running this. I don't think he is trying to be unfair even if it comes across that way and he gets way too much flack from people.


(IIRC I voted for Hekate so it's not like I'm bias to WC or anything. Just think people give him too much **** for running something no one else wants to run)
 
Ellis269 said:
I'm in favor of figuring stuff out ahead of time instead of arguing results and making up solutions on the fly. I'd probably play it this way tbh.

Ideal winner should be -

#1. Received the most votes during the open poll time frame. . . that gives other Jazzfanz members a chance to chime in.

#2. In the event of a tie (or potential voter fraud controversy) , the first tiebreaker should be votes from participants in the competition. Those votes should hold a little more weight because we are the 16 most invested individuals. But only if they voted during the open poll - One Love wouldn't have counted towards this tiebreaker because he didn't vote in this round. . .

#3. If the tie continues there is a designated tiebreaker. This is agreed upon in advance and his only job is to vote as a sudden death tiebreaker if needed.

We're way past that at this point, so I'm not sure what the solution is. I will say, that I've run these in the past and WC does a good job - even if half the participants don't like him personally or like to screw with him for fun. I know that he wants to win, but he also tries to be a fair mediator when drama comes up.
Click to expand...
According to your method, we should look at who the other participants in the competition voted for to decide the winner in this series (not including OL). If this is the method we use going forward (it seems as good a method as any), then it makes sense to use it in this instance too. It would also eliminate the post-vote drama that has been going on.

Sent from my SM-G930P using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Just throwing this out there.

Whoever runs this shouldn't participate. They can't be unbiased with self interest. This situation has proven that.
 
Ron Mexico said:
Just throwing this out there.

However runs this shouldn't participate. They can't be unbiased with self interest. This situation has proven that.
Click to expand...

That's an extremely bad idea. I know I wouldn't run this this if I couldn't participate. Nobody will want to with all of the bitching and backlash they will receive especially if they aren't even participating.
 
spycam1 said:
According to your method, we should look at who the other participants in the competition voted for to decide the winner in this series (not including OL). If this is the method we use going forward (it seems as good a method as any), then it makes sense to use it in this instance too. It would also eliminate the post-vote drama that has been going on.

Sent from my SM-G930P using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

I like this method going forward as well.
 
Ron Mexico said:
Just throwing this out there.

However runs this shouldn't participate. They can't be unbiased with self interest. This situation has proven that.
Click to expand...

It's hard to run them without having a draft. It's a lot of time to invest in for everyone else without participating. If that guy becomes disinterested, they usually just quit updating things. The best draft I've ever done is a mock NFL draft every year on a different board. That guy is the one who runs it with two others to help (similar to how fish helps with this one.) Rules are mapped out in advance. Picks are made on time, or a pick is made for them based on a known value board. Completely transparent. Nobody misses their picks or takes forever eating up the clock. Trades are limited to a specific number to keep things moving quickly. In order to participate, you have to give your cell # to the guy running it so they can text you when you're on the clock. This one is pretty loose in all those areas, and WC has been figuring it out as we go. Kind of hard to know what the issues are until they come up.
 
White Chocolate said:
That's an extremely bad idea. I know I wouldn't run this this if I couldn't participate. Nobody will want to with all of the bitching and backlash they will receive especially if they aren't even participating.
Click to expand...
I'll run it and not participate next year.

There won't be the level of complaining with a neutral person in charge.

In fact I'll run the current draft when this ones over unless people don't want me to or someone insists on doing it.
 
Ron Mexico said:
I'll run it and not participate next year.

There won't be the level of complaining with a neutral person in charge.

In fact I'll run the current draft when this ones over unless people don't want me to or someone insists on doing it.
Click to expand...

I don't mind anyone else running it. The problem is with you we had a hard time getting you to make your picks in this draft.
 
tfivas said:
Man you didn't even watch Rick Barry, and probably not even Pippen because of age. Why is it so laughable?
Click to expand...

We're around the same age, dude. That was a dumb thing to say. There is a reason Barry routinely goes in the 70's in these drafts and Pippen in the top-25.
 
spycam1 said:
According to your method, we should look at who the other participants in the competition voted for to decide the winner in this series (not including OL). If this is the method we use going forward (it seems as good a method as any), then it makes sense to use it in this instance too. It would also eliminate the post-vote drama that has been going on.

Sent from my SM-G930P using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

It would make OL-style vote-trading all the more potent, though. That's the major weakness with this method: it incentivizes OL-style crookedness.
 
If we have a strict set of rules and system in place it shouldn't matter who runs it. Also just because you're not participating doesn't mean you're gonna be 100% impartial. Somebody you like OR don't like could be participating and your decision could consciously/unconsciously be biased for/against that person.


A proper set of rules/system is the best way of resolving this going forward no matter who runs it. Ron Mex shouldn't be ruled out of the competition just because he's running it, same thing for WC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top