+- International Simulation Football League (https://forums.sim-football.com)
+-- Forum: Community (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Discussion (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=33)
+---- Forum: Suggestion Box (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=34)
+----- Forum: Archived Suggestions (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=349)
+----- Thread: Pass Rule 10 (/showthread.php?tid=16811)
Pass Rule 10 - Baron1898 - 12-02-2019
The suggestion is as follows: to reintroduce and pass Rule #10 of this most recent rule change committee.
The current text of the rule reads:
Create an awards committee.
An independent committee of 5-7 individuals that are not HO members or GMs to nominate, discuss, and vote on awards. A group who is dedicated to this specific task can go deeper into the award minutiae and give one of the league's biggest events a 100% focus. GMs and HO members simply cannot do this. Evidence of this is as simple as the fact that somebody misses their vote almost every season. If you want more look at the fact that measures have had to be put into place to stop people from simply copying other votes. Multiple times.
Despite any myths that a committee solves nothing, what it solves is the problem of the current voting system basically ensuring that the awards will never be a full focus. The current voting pool simply doesn't have time amidst all of the other offseason events to really dig beyond basic statlines. An awards committee could start the minute the regular season ended and go into stats, games, and how the performances effected individual games and season.
Ideally the committee would be vetted and requires volunteers who are former gms or ho members or department heads or league mvps or any number of other potential qualifications. I would argue that we don't pay them now, and if we decide to change that later we can reimburse them.
It’s honestly a pretty cut and dry argument as to why the creation of a new awards committee is necessary.
The current system does not work. GMs and HO are unable to devote the necessary time required to do offseason awards justice, especially with the other offseason duties of their jobs proving far more present. It is incredibly common for voters to not fill out ballots, or worse, to fill out ballots without the requisite attention put into the candidates nominated. Many GMs simply nominate their team the whole way down the ballot, which disrupts the competitive balance of the system and results in many decisions that are ill-advised or controversial.
The proposed awards committee would provide an easy solution. With an unbiased committee of non-GMs and HO, whose sole job is to select the best candidates for each award, there can be much more actual discussion and debate going into each pick. No team bias, no straight copying of other ballots, and no absenteeism. The primary argument leveled against the system is the larger number of voters in the current voting pool, yet if few to none of these voters are able to give their undivided attentions and considerations, then there is no advantage to a larger number. A small committee with a tight focus, qualified members, and (ideally) open ballots could put an end to the malaise and lack of transparency with our current system.
This rule needs to be once again submitted for discussion in the next rules committee and passed by the body of voters. We cannot allow a broken system to move on just because it has existed for a long time.
Pass Rule 10 - ValorX77 - 12-02-2019
Now I’m gonna intentionally vote no
Pass Rule 10 - ADwyer87 - 12-02-2019
This is my argument against this:
(12-02-2019, 05:04 PM)Baron1898 Wrote:GMs and HO are unable to devote the necessary time required to do offseason awards justice, especially with the other offseason duties of their jobs proving far more present.
I hear this argument. I dont think its necessarily true. GMs have said it, but with the amount of discussion they've had about awards in the past, and the amount of discussion they put into the awards committee, i believe that to be totally false. On top of that, this is the same time we have the rules summit proposals. If the argument is that GMs cannot vote for awards simply because its offseason and its too much time, then I think it must be equally said that rules voting needs to be taken out of the GMs hands. No one is saying this, and i'm sure i'll be told that i'm being silly for saying this. But I dont see much of a difference.
(12-02-2019, 05:04 PM)Baron1898 Wrote:It is incredibly common for voters to not fill out ballots, or worse, to fill out ballots without the requisite attention put into the candidates nominated. Many GMs simply nominate their team the whole way down the ballot, which disrupts the competitive balance of the system and results in many decisions that are ill-advised or controversial.
This is incredibly false. it is not common for voters to not fill out a ballot. Look at the fines in the past and the statement "incredibly common" is laughably false. Implying many GMs, or even a few GMs simply nominate their team the whole way down is also just not true and there is no way for you to have even an educated guess as to if that was the case.
EDIT: and just to be clear i do think GMs sometimes do favoritism, but the suggestion that many do it and that they do it across the board i think is just not true
(12-02-2019, 05:04 PM)Baron1898 Wrote:The proposed awards committee would provide an easy solution. With an unbiased committee of non-GMs and HO, whose sole job is to select the best candidates for each award, there can be much more actual discussion and debate going into each pick. No team bias, no straight copying of other ballots, and no absenteeism.
People bring this up every time. I dont know if they look over it or just dont see it. But an awards committee fixes exactly none of this. Team bias will still be just active, copying ballots will still be equally as likely as the current system, and people will still get just as upset at the results. Also implying this is in any way easy is not true
(12-02-2019, 05:04 PM)Baron1898 Wrote:A small committee with a tight focus, qualified members, and (ideally) open ballots could put an end to the malaise and lack of transparency with our current system.
This again. So you're saying GMs and HO are not qualified? I think that is a crazy statement to make. open ballots, why is that something only an awards committee can solve? So many of the issues brought up are things that can be solved within the current system. We dont need a separare awards committee for this, we can fix it right here and now. In fact we have been taking steps to fix it throuhg the last 3 seasons.
Pass Rule 10 - PDXBaller - 12-02-2019
(12-02-2019, 03:55 PM)ADwyer87 Wrote:This again. So you're saying GMs and HO are not qualified? I think that is a crazy statement to make. open ballots, why is that something only an awards committee can solve? So many of the issues brought up are things that can be solved within the current system. We dont need a separare awards committee for this, we can fix it right here and now. In fact we have been taking steps to fix it throuhg the last 3 seasons.
As I reflect on this more, I think this is the compromise. I can see both sides and wanted to root for the awards committee, but it may not be necessary if we can remedy the issues that have been brought up.
Are there any plans to make the GM and HO voting open?
Pass Rule 10 - ADwyer87 - 12-02-2019
(12-02-2019, 06:07 PM)PDXBaller Wrote:As I reflect on this more, I think this is the compromise. I can see both sides and wanted to root for the awards committee, but it may not be necessary if we can remedy the issues that have been brought up.we dont necessarily have plans, but i dont think we really have anyone against it. I know in GM chat just after this thing dropped GMs talked about it and no one in that convo was opposed. I'm certainly not opposed either. THat could be a discussion we have in GM chat pretty quickly i think and have that done before week 2, and if it passes (which im sure it would) i dont think people would mind retroactively releasing the ballots to this year
Are there any plans to make the GM and HO voting open?
EDIT: just posted a vote in GM chat about this now
One thing we have done is try and move to a google form. First attempt was done openly, so everyone could see each others ballots. Second one was done closed. This takes away any chances to copy ballots, though we did have some issues with going back and editing ballots which we will work on fixing in the future.
Two things that have been brought up by both GMs and sapp2013 in an official proposal were having a 1st/2nd/3rd place voting instead of just a one person takes all vote. The other is having set candidates to vote on, like you are given 3-5 people who are nominated and we vote on those people. Personally, I like the 1st/2nd/3rd place voting, but am not a fan of having set candidates
Pass Rule 10 - PDXBaller - 12-02-2019
(12-02-2019, 04:15 PM)ADwyer87 Wrote:we dont necessarily have plans, but i dont think we really have anyone against it. I know in GM chat just after this thing dropped GMs talked about it and no one in that convo was opposed. I'm certainly not opposed either. THat could be a discussion we have in GM chat pretty quickly i think and have that done before week 2, and if it passes (which im sure it would) i dont think people would mind retroactively releasing the ballots to this year
One thing we have done is try and move to a google form. First attempt was done openly, so everyone could see each others ballots. Second one was done closed. This takes away any chances to copy ballots, though we did have some issues with going back and editing ballots which we will work on fixing in the future.
Two things that have been brought up by both GMs and sapp2013 in an official proposal were having a 1st/2nd/3rd place voting instead of just a one person takes all vote. The other is having set candidates to vote on, like you are given 3-5 people who are nominated and we vote on those people. Personally, I like the 1st/2nd/3rd place voting, but am not a fan of having set candidates
I love all that and I think we could maybe have a 'committee' or group of people decide set candidates. Having it be open-ended can lead to ties due to the wide range of possible players.
Pass Rule 10 - infinitempg - 12-02-2019
(12-02-2019, 06:15 PM)ADwyer87 Wrote:Personally, I like the 1st/2nd/3rd place voting, but am not a fan of having set candidates
Having first and second choices can help kill off tied awards too
Pass Rule 10 - RainDelay - 12-02-2019
#PassRule10
Pass Rule 10 - 37thchamber - 12-03-2019
(12-03-2019, 01:15 AM)ADwyer87 Wrote:1st/2nd/3rd place voting instead of just a one person takes all vote.Yes. End plurality voting systems. They are fundamentally flawed and I hate them.
Schulze method is the future.
...I will accept instant-runoff, however, since I am aware of the potential complexity of computing winners for the Schulze method (no really, I've tried to automate that shit in googledocs, it's ... painful)
Pass Rule 10 - manicmav36 - 12-03-2019
(12-02-2019, 06:04 PM)Baron1898 Wrote:The current system does not work. GMs and HO are unable to devote the necessary time required to do offseason awards justice, especially with the other offseason duties of their jobs proving far more present. It is incredibly common for voters to not fill out ballots, or worse, to fill out ballots without the requisite attention put into the candidates nominated. Many GMs simply nominate their team the whole way down the ballot, which disrupts the competitive balance of the system and results in many decisions that are ill-advised or controversial.
I won't address the comment about voters not filling out ballots again as Dwyer already did but, I will address the statement that GMs don't devote time to their ballots and that they vote strictly for their own team.
Every off-season, when the awards voting post is made, there is a solid discussion among GMs for at least 48 hours almost entirely devoted to award candidates. To say there is no thought put into their ballots is just outright wrong. Even worse, though, is the claim that GMs just vote their team down ballot. I've been involved in the awards voting process since S7 and have seen a GM do that exactly once. The blowback from other GMs was so strong, that they ended up changing their ballot completely. Please stop perpetuating this blatant falsehood.