Welcome stoyko new GM New Jersey Celticsblog Draft 2010 Interest Thread

[Rondo2287]

Also I move to officially change the Toronto Mascot to the dinobots.

[JSD]

I just don't time this year... Stinks...

[Fafnir]

I just don't time this year... Stinks...

Sorry to hear that.

[JSD]

I just don't time this year... Stinks...

Sorry to hear that.

Thanks, hopefully next year will be better.

[The Walker Wiggle]

I just don't time this year... Stinks...

Sorry to hear that.

Thanks, hopefully next year will be better.

You'll be missed.

P.S. Dibs on the Celtics? (Kidding. Sort of.)

[Fafnir]

I just don't time this year... Stinks...

Sorry to hear that.

Thanks, hopefully next year will be better.

You'll be missed.

P.S. Dibs on the Celtics? (Kidding. Sort of.)

We'll be running a trivia game to determine who gets the C's.

So you'll have your chance!

[Gainesville Celtic]

Faf -- will you be doing an hour-long special announcing where we can all take our fake-GM talents to like last year?

If so please see if Paul Rudd or Steve Carrell are available to help out 

[Greenbean]

I would love to participate if it is not too late!

[nickagneta]

Wondering if there has been a better way to determine ties than just another vote off and if there has been any change to the voting process like not being able to vote for your own team or anything like that?

There were a bunch of good suggestions after some of the voting drama from last year and I wonder if there was anything changed? Or are we going to have to wait for the rules to be posted?

[ChampKind]

Wondering if there has been a better way to determine ties than just another vote off and if there has been any change to the voting process like not being able to vote for your own team or anything like that?

There were a bunch of good suggestions after some of the voting drama from last year and I wonder if there was anything changed? Or are we going to have to wait for the rules to be posted?

I think the vote-off idea was fine for most people. The only time that people ran into problems was when they created drama, spammed the board with messages, or made enemies otherwise that turned the votes against them. If everyone plays a fair and social game, then there's no problem with the voting mechanism.

A tall order for the CB Draft, but if you can make it through the draft without getting into a p---ing match you'll probably be subject to a fair vote and that makes sense in determining the right team in a tiebreaker. Annoy a lot of people and you subject yourself to a backlash vote, which may not be totally fair, but I like the idea that if you're being a jackass, you stand to risk a few points at the polls.

Then, the idea of an over-committed GM freaking out and lashing out at the board with an all-caps post yelling about nothing in particular (or taking the opposite road and moping through the rest of the Draft activities) is generally pretty enjoyable as well. So, yes, I like the tiebreaker vote-off and the idea that the draft community can police itself to a small extent.

[nickagneta]

Wondering if there has been a better way to determine ties than just another vote off and if there has been any change to the voting process like not being able to vote for your own team or anything like that?

There were a bunch of good suggestions after some of the voting drama from last year and I wonder if there was anything changed? Or are we going to have to wait for the rules to be posted?

I think the vote-off idea was fine for most people. The only time that people ran into problems was when they created drama, spammed the board with messages, or made enemies otherwise that turned the votes against them. If everyone plays a fair and social game, then there's no problem with the voting mechanism.

A tall order for the CB Draft, but if you can make it through the draft without getting into a [pee]ing match you'll probably be subject to a fair vote and that makes sense in determining the right team in a tiebreaker. Annoy a lot of people and you subject yourself to a backlash vote, which may not be totally fair, but I like the idea that if you're being a jackass, you stand to risk a few points at the polls.

Then, the idea of an over-committed GM freaking out and lashing out at the board with an all-caps post yelling about nothing in particular (or taking the opposite road and moping through the rest of the Draft activities) is generally pretty enjoyable as well. So, yes, I like the tiebreaker vote-off and the idea that the draft community can police itself to a small extent.

The point I was referring to was later on in the voting when there were times when there was, if I remember correctly, a second and/or third run off vote.

What it came down to eventually was people were just voting for the same teams over and over again and the process just came down to who's voters were going to consistently show up for the re-vote.

[Larrybird17]

There have been alot of posts... too many to read. Can somebody please let me know when the drafts are going to be held. Thanks

[Kwhit10]

Wondering if there has been a better way to determine ties than just another vote off and if there has been any change to the voting process like not being able to vote for your own team or anything like that?

There were a bunch of good suggestions after some of the voting drama from last year and I wonder if there was anything changed? Or are we going to have to wait for the rules to be posted?

I think the vote-off idea was fine for most people. The only time that people ran into problems was when they created drama, spammed the board with messages, or made enemies otherwise that turned the votes against them. If everyone plays a fair and social game, then there's no problem with the voting mechanism.

A tall order for the CB Draft, but if you can make it through the draft without getting into a [pee]ing match you'll probably be subject to a fair vote and that makes sense in determining the right team in a tiebreaker. Annoy a lot of people and you subject yourself to a backlash vote, which may not be totally fair, but I like the idea that if you're being a jackass, you stand to risk a few points at the polls.

Then, the idea of an over-committed GM freaking out and lashing out at the board with an all-caps post yelling about nothing in particular (or taking the opposite road and moping through the rest of the Draft activities) is generally pretty enjoyable as well. So, yes, I like the tiebreaker vote-off and the idea that the draft community can police itself to a small extent.

The point I was referring to was later on in the voting when there were times when there was, if I remember correctly, a second and/or third run off vote.

What it came down to eventually was people were just voting for the same teams over and over again and the process just came down to who's voters were going to consistently show up for the re-vote.

I didn't mind the runoff vote (of course I won the one I was in).  But I think teams should not be allowed to vote for themselves.  Some teams have co-GMs and some don't and whatnot.  So to remove that bias just you can't vote for your own team.

[ChampKind]

Wondering if there has been a better way to determine ties than just another vote off and if there has been any change to the voting process like not being able to vote for your own team or anything like that?

There were a bunch of good suggestions after some of the voting drama from last year and I wonder if there was anything changed? Or are we going to have to wait for the rules to be posted?

I think the vote-off idea was fine for most people. The only time that people ran into problems was when they created drama, spammed the board with messages, or made enemies otherwise that turned the votes against them. If everyone plays a fair and social game, then there's no problem with the voting mechanism.

A tall order for the CB Draft, but if you can make it through the draft without getting into a [pee]ing match you'll probably be subject to a fair vote and that makes sense in determining the right team in a tiebreaker. Annoy a lot of people and you subject yourself to a backlash vote, which may not be totally fair, but I like the idea that if you're being a jackass, you stand to risk a few points at the polls.

Then, the idea of an over-committed GM freaking out and lashing out at the board with an all-caps post yelling about nothing in particular (or taking the opposite road and moping through the rest of the Draft activities) is generally pretty enjoyable as well. So, yes, I like the tiebreaker vote-off and the idea that the draft community can police itself to a small extent.

The point I was referring to was later on in the voting when there were times when there was, if I remember correctly, a second and/or third run off vote.

What it came down to eventually was people were just voting for the same teams over and over again and the process just came down to who's voters were going to consistently show up for the re-vote.

I didn't mind the runoff vote (of course I won the one I was in).  But I think teams should not be allowed to vote for themselves.  Some teams have co-GMs and some don't and whatnot.  So to remove that bias just you can't vote for your own team.

That works for me. It won't totally fix the loaded voting if the procedure is kept the same as last year,  but will help even things out.

[nickagneta]

Wondering if there has been a better way to determine ties than just another vote off and if there has been any change to the voting process like not being able to vote for your own team or anything like that?

There were a bunch of good suggestions after some of the voting drama from last year and I wonder if there was anything changed? Or are we going to have to wait for the rules to be posted?

I think the vote-off idea was fine for most people. The only time that people ran into problems was when they created drama, spammed the board with messages, or made enemies otherwise that turned the votes against them. If everyone plays a fair and social game, then there's no problem with the voting mechanism.

A tall order for the CB Draft, but if you can make it through the draft without getting into a [pee]ing match you'll probably be subject to a fair vote and that makes sense in determining the right team in a tiebreaker. Annoy a lot of people and you subject yourself to a backlash vote, which may not be totally fair, but I like the idea that if you're being a jackass, you stand to risk a few points at the polls.

Then, the idea of an over-committed GM freaking out and lashing out at the board with an all-caps post yelling about nothing in particular (or taking the opposite road and moping through the rest of the Draft activities) is generally pretty enjoyable as well. So, yes, I like the tiebreaker vote-off and the idea that the draft community can police itself to a small extent.

The point I was referring to was later on in the voting when there were times when there was, if I remember correctly, a second and/or third run off vote.

What it came down to eventually was people were just voting for the same teams over and over again and the process just came down to who's voters were going to consistently show up for the re-vote.

I didn't mind the runoff vote (of course I won the one I was in).  But I think teams should not be allowed to vote for themselves.  Some teams have co-GMs and some don't and whatnot.  So to remove that bias just you can't vote for your own team.

The situation I am referring to isn't the one Champkind described above(which BTW I think was a swipe at someone more than anything else) but when there's a tie after a run off vote. I didn't have a problem with them, per se, just that they could get redundant and turned out to be just a matter of who's voter's came out the second and third time.

Thought I remembered a suggestion that someone gave during the suggestion thread last year that during runoff votes between two teams, have everyone give the series game results, like 4-2 or 4-0 and if after the run off vote it's still tied, add up the # of games won. Or something like that. I thought that a good suggestion.