S34 Awards Public Ballots

[Yeenoghu]

With the posting of the DSFL ballot, I'm back again to air my grievances with the rules being broken! But first, let's see if any action was taken after I posted about the various IA players appearing on the ISFL ballot. Aaand... looks like ballot stayed the same, and ineligible players won CBotY and Defensive Breakout. My condolences to those who should have won and those who weren't nominated. Onto DSFL--you know the drill!

Regular season ended on April 11th, so anyone that had not posted as of March 28th should be ineligible to win an award.
Furthermore, we have the rider in the DSFL that you must post 3 Activity Checks to be eligible.

• DutchFF last posted March 19th yet was nominated for MVP, DPotY, DRotY, LBotY, and Defensive Performance.
  
• Mobile is banned yet was nominated for DTotY.
  
• Slippy is banned yet was nominated for SotY.
  

I have only heard feedback on this issue from people I am otherwise close with in the league, so I feel like I'm talking into a void at this point as there has still been no official reply from anyone associated with awards. Why have this rule if it's just going to be ignored? We have banned players on the ballot?

I'm technically associated with awards so I guess you can count this as a response? I wouldn't personally lol

I'm too lazy to remove them from the ballot. So I will pass the buck on to awards committee. (Sorry guys)

Yeah, I don't think it's on you infinite. You should be able to trust the information received, but I do appreciate the reply.

[infinitempg]

With the posting of the DSFL ballot, I'm back again to air my grievances with the rules being broken! But first, let's see if any action was taken after I posted about the various IA players appearing on the ISFL ballot. Aaand... looks like ballot stayed the same, and ineligible players won CBotY and Defensive Breakout. My condolences to those who should have won and those who weren't nominated. Onto DSFL--you know the drill!

Regular season ended on April 11th, so anyone that had not posted as of March 28th should be ineligible to win an award.
Furthermore, we have the rider in the DSFL that you must post 3 Activity Checks to be eligible.

• DutchFF last posted March 19th yet was nominated for MVP, DPotY, DRotY, LBotY, and Defensive Performance.
  
• Mobile is banned yet was nominated for DTotY.
  
• Slippy is banned yet was nominated for SotY.
  

I have only heard feedback on this issue from people I am otherwise close with in the league, so I feel like I'm talking into a void at this point as there has still been no official reply from anyone associated with awards. Why have this rule if it's just going to be ignored? We have banned players on the ballot?

I'm technically associated with awards so I guess you can count this as a response? I wouldn't personally lol

I'm too lazy to remove them from the ballot. So I will pass the buck on to awards committee. (Sorry guys)

Yeah, I don't think it's on you infinite. You should be able to trust the information received, but I do appreciate the reply.

For what it's worth, managing the awards committee is a very stressful job and one I do not envy - they have less than a week to pile through all the players and get that list to me to ballot up and provide to GMs. So while they really should be checking for this (and I think an automated tool would help them out), I don't really blame them too hard for missing it.

[shadyshoelace]

With the posting of the DSFL ballot, I'm back again to air my grievances with the rules being broken! But first, let's see if any action was taken after I posted about the various IA players appearing on the ISFL ballot. Aaand... looks like ballot stayed the same, and ineligible players won CBotY and Defensive Breakout. My condolences to those who should have won and those who weren't nominated. Onto DSFL--you know the drill!

Regular season ended on April 11th, so anyone that had not posted as of March 28th should be ineligible to win an award.
Furthermore, we have the rider in the DSFL that you must post 3 Activity Checks to be eligible.

• DutchFF last posted March 19th yet was nominated for MVP, DPotY, DRotY, LBotY, and Defensive Performance.
  
• Mobile is banned yet was nominated for DTotY.
  
• Slippy is banned yet was nominated for SotY.
  

I have only heard feedback on this issue from people I am otherwise close with in the league, so I feel like I'm talking into a void at this point as there has still been no official reply from anyone associated with awards. Why have this rule if it's just going to be ignored? We have banned players on the ballot?

I'm technically associated with awards so I guess you can count this as a response? I wouldn't personally lol

I'm too lazy to remove them from the ballot. So I will pass the buck on to awards committee. (Sorry guys)

Yeah, I don't think it's on you infinite. You should be able to trust the information received, but I do appreciate the reply.

For what it's worth, managing the awards committee is a very stressful job and one I do not envy - they have less than a week to pile through all the players and get that list to me to ballot up and provide to GMs. So while they really should be checking for this (and I think an automated tool would help them out), I don't really blame them too hard for missing it.

I don't think the committee should be expected to manually check every player's activity status (although ideally they would, I get that it isn't really feasible) but when a helpful member of the community takes it upon themselves to check for them, there's really no excuse for them staying on the ballot. We slavishly stick to, like, pretty much every other rule in the book. Why is this one overlooked (I believe pretty regularly, but could be wrong)?

[mithrandir]

Disclaimer: Christian Marciano had a great season, I like Pat a lot and am happy he won, and I do not want to discredit the opinions of voters who disagree with me. However, I felt pretty confident that I was going to win DSFL MVP. I am curious if voters even considered rushing numbers, which gives Jones a leg up over Marciano, in my opinion. You decide for yourself which you like better. Btw, I got four first place votes to Marciano's two, but the ole runoff voting got me.

Christian Marciano: 
3,974 total yards, 29 total TDs, 13 INTs, 60% completion, 91.6 rating

Elessar Jones:
3,570 total yards, 33 total TDs, 9 TDs, 59.4% completion, 91.9 rating

The fact that I was left completely off of two ballots is a bit sad, but what's done is done. I'll just settle for an Offensive Player of the Year and hope to nab the MVP award next season.

[infinitempg]

I don't think the committee should be expected to manually check every player's activity status (although ideally they would, I get that it isn't really feasible) but when a helpful member of the community takes it upon themselves to check for them, there's really no excuse for them staying on the ballot. We slavishly stick to, like, pretty much every other rule in the book. Why is this one overlooked (I believe pretty regularly, but could be wrong)?

Diplomatic answer: Next time if I am notified, I will remove the offending players and ask the relevant parties to revote. The notice of this came after ballots were posted if I remember correctly, and so I did not have the time to do that here.

Honest answer: I’m swamped and this was not high on my priority list. I will reshuffle that list next go around to put this higher

[infinitempg]

Also, and this is off topic from the current discussion, but we need to have a discussion about MOP. A solid 32% of the ISFL MOP votes went to players who received a total of 1 or 2 votes. The two winners combined for a vote share of 22%. The top 5 vote recipients make up only 46% of votes. DSFL is similar - the winner only received 15.5% of the vote, top 2 combined for 25%, and the top 5 made up 40.5% of all votes. Players with 2 and 1 votes received made up 24.5% of votes.

People said that it would be taken seriously and not memed and I’m not convinced this is evidence for that. Perhaps my hunch was right about MOP and the decision to shut it down all those years ago was right.

[Pat]

I don't think the committee should be expected to manually check every player's activity status (although ideally they would, I get that it isn't really feasible) but when a helpful member of the community takes it upon themselves to check for them, there's really no excuse for them staying on the ballot. We slavishly stick to, like, pretty much every other rule in the book. Why is this one overlooked (I believe pretty regularly, but could be wrong)?

Diplomatic answer: Next time if I am notified, I will remove the offending players and ask the relevant parties to revote. The notice of this came after ballots were posted if I remember correctly, and so I did not have the time to do that here.

Honest answer: I’m swamped and this was not high on my priority list. I will reshuffle that list next go around to put this higher

Honest reply to your honest answer: can anyone help take some of the work off your plate? We have enough hands here to help out.

[Pvtpenne]

Regarding MOP, I don't think the distribution of votes is very surprising. Given that it is a TPE task most active users are going to do it whether or not they even look at a stat sheet at the end of the season. All that said, I still think the award winner will be (and was) accurate.

Regarding the IAs being nominated for and winning awards, as someone on awards committee this season, I don't think it was explicitly stated to me that IAs are ineligible (even though I had heard that rule previously) and I'm not sure it's feasible to ask the committee members to try to figure out who the IAs are and not include them. If we are looking for potential solutions, here is mine: somebody should scan the awards committee's initial nominations and filter out any IA players that were nominated there so that the IA's are not even discussed when we are making our top 5s to send to the GMs.

[infinitempg]

I don't think the committee should be expected to manually check every player's activity status (although ideally they would, I get that it isn't really feasible) but when a helpful member of the community takes it upon themselves to check for them, there's really no excuse for them staying on the ballot. We slavishly stick to, like, pretty much every other rule in the book. Why is this one overlooked (I believe pretty regularly, but could be wrong)?

Diplomatic answer: Next time if I am notified, I will remove the offending players and ask the relevant parties to revote. The notice of this came after ballots were posted if I remember correctly, and so I did not have the time to do that here.

Honest answer: I’m swamped and this was not high on my priority list. I will reshuffle that list next go around to put this higher

Honest reply to your honest answer: can anyone help take some of the work off your plate? We have enough hands here to help out.

In this case it’s IRL stuff unfortunately

In terms of the process for awards on my end, I don’t even scan the names or teams to make sure they are right - I just take a preformatted sheet and paste it into a form. This normally happens before I start the draft slides, and I am thankful to have lots of help on doing the render work that comes before making the slides.

[Yeenoghu]

Regarding the IAs being nominated for and winning awards, as someone on awards committee this season, I don't think it was explicitly stated to me that IAs are ineligible (even though I had heard that rule previously) and I'm not sure it's feasible to ask the committee members to try to figure out who the IAs are and not include them. If we are looking for potential solutions, here is mine: somebody should scan the awards committee's initial nominations and filter out any IA players that were nominated there so that the IA's are not even discussed when we are making our top 5s to send to the GMs.

I agree with you entirely. It should not be incumbent on individual committee members to figure out who is eligible, and they should be removed from the pool beforehand. It also seems like a smaller pool of players would also reduce your overall workload, as you'd have fewer players to argue over when deciding nominations.