"Floaters" Discussion

[John]

Just a reminder to make sure you email your official preferences to me personally. You can discuss your preferences here, but your official ballot should be sent in via email.

[John]

Every so often I find it helpful to take a step back and reflect on why I'm taking a particular position. As much as I'd prefer it to be otherwise, the truth is I err, and quite frequently so. I believe I've recently struck a position that's in error and I'd like to rectify that now.

Before I do so, a couple words. For better or for worse, I'm a guy that takes a great deal of pride in my integrity. I suppose that makes sense in that integrity is intrinsic to success in my field, but it's more than just a professional thing for me. I want to be able to trust others and I feel, in order to achieve that goal, it's important that others feel they can trust me. So I try my best to give people cause to have confidence in my integrity.

Even more important to me is respect and civility, and this is where I can get into trouble. When you have a public forum, you're inviting all kinds of voices and opinions into the discussion. That means not everyone is going to agree with you all the time, and you'd better be prepared for that reality. Usually I think I do alright in that regard. Where I find myself getting tripped up is when I feel that someone isn't just disagreeing with me but breaking down the respect/trust bridge that I work to build. It's those instances where I have a tendency to dig in my heels, fold my arms and get overly rigid.

That's a poor response on my part, and upon reflection I believe I'm guilty of it on the topic of the floater votes. A couple owners have expressed that they would like to see the results of the private votes. I've been taking the position that, no, I don't owe you that since we had this open forum thread to discuss the votes already, and after all don't you trust me? Well, trust isn't something that's gained by saying, "Don't you trust me?" Furthermore, I need to be mindful of the fact that we have 12 new owners on board who don't know me as well as the 26 PEBA owners do.

I suppose my philosophy has been, "You're capitulating if you give in to demands." And to some extent that's a valid concern. I most certainly will not ever give in and make changes to appease loud complaints when those changes aren't warranted or backed by the majority, nor should I. On the other hand, it's silly of me to view displaying the floater votes as capitulation. Rather, I should look at it as an opportunity to earn trust.

So I'm going to make the choice to do just that. Attached to this post is my Excel spreadsheet showing the results of the 2010 floater votes. Please look it over and let us know if you feel your vote has been misrepresented in any way. And please accept my apologies for my rigidness on this subject; I will try to be more flexible where I can be in the future.

[Leones]

I assume from the results that you essentially made the decision like this

IF((sum of all votes for differing new systems>Nay votes)
use new system that receives majority of votes
ELSE
use old system

Can I ask why you did it this way instead of merely considering the Nays independent votes? After all they were really just votes for a 1-100 system. It seems like the results were biased by the fact that we were already using a 1-100 system.

[Leones]

I missed all the stats only votes so that might influence things more than I think actually. If it was the average of the votes that makes a lot more sense.

[John]

Yes, the Stats Only people had their own section. There were several who wanted to go that way but more owners expressed that, while they were interested in breaking from the 1-100 scale, they were cautious about going all in right off the bat. As you can see, there were differing opinions on exactly how to change from the old scale. Still, there was little question that making a change was the majority preference.

[Dinosaurs]

Just an idea for next years floaters, if the rating system comes up again. How about making it a two part vote? A first vote on a strict keeping the system as is vs. changing it to another system, and then if the change is voted for, allow everyone to vote on what system they would like to see (excluding the current system from the possible outcomes)? This way the the specific system is voted on by the whole of the league rather than just those who voted for a change. I can see a few flaws in doing it this way, but just thought about throwing it out there for consideration.

I mention this because it looked as though it was pretty close in choosing the 1-10 scale vs. the 1-20 scale and we may be playing a season where given the choice of the two scales the majority of the league would have chosen the 1-20 scale (or maybe they would have went with the 1-10 scale).

[klewis]

I mentioned it in the neat stuff thread but I'll post here as it is more appropriate. I'd be curious to know what our talent random factor and scouting accuracy is set at. I think those two factors also plays a role in how much "fog of war" there is with any scouting system.

I can definitely see both sides of the argument. I can see how a scaled down rating system devalues the amount of money that you invest into your budget simply because you get less for what you paid for.

I also can see how those pointing to an increased "fog of war" element be in favor of a scaled down system.

I remember reading on the OOTP forums that the original scouting system that Markus implemented was not very accurate. People complained that it was all over the place especially when it came to drafting. So Markus patched it up by adding a "scouting accuracy" option. So depending on what option PEBA chose, it could impact how much gray area we are receiving. I assume the accuracy rating is set fairly high because I think the scouts have been fairly accurate for me under the 1-100 system.

[Tyler]

I'd be curious to know what our talent random factor and scouting accuracy is set at.

Our talent randomness factor is set at a custom variable that John chose based on some of his test sims for the league.

Scouting accuracy is set at "3" or "average" on a 1-5 scale. I can't remember if this was a feature added in a patch to OOTP 7/8 or 9, but when that feature was added someone asked and John said he left it at the default value. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on either of these points.

[Evas]

Thank you for posting this. It's interesting to look over the actual votes. For the record, I wasn't trying to imply that I didn't trust you. I was just very confused by the outcome of the vote after the discussion I saw on the forum. After looking it over I think my instincts were correct. I don't think there is support for a 1-10 system.

I broke down the voting in excel to make things a little easier for myself to understand.

Here are my observations:

• 1. Most owners had an opinion on numerical scouting systems in PEBA (96%), LRS (72%) and over all (85%).
  2. Of owners with an opinion, there was very high support for a numerical rating system in both PEBA (72%) and LRS (75%).
  3. Of owners who supported a numerical scouting system there was lowest support for a 1-5 or 1-10 system: Peba (33%), LRS (0%) and over all (26%).
  4. Of owners who supported a numerical scouting system there was higher support for a 1-20 system: Peba (27%), LRS (33%) and over all (32%).
  5. Of owners who supported a numerical scouting system there was highest support for a 1-100 system: in Peba (40%), LRS (66%) and over all (47%).

Here is the % of owners that would have been content (either having no opinion or having chosen that selection) for each of the 4 major choices.

• 1. No rating scale: 35.3%
  2. 1-5 or 1-10 rating scale: 26.5%
  3. 1-20 rating scale: 30.4%
  4. 1-100 rating scale: 42.2%

It seems to me that you decided that the option with the least support was the right one to choose. I don't see how that decision is justified by the votes.

[klewis]

It seems to me that you decided that the option with the least support was the right one to choose. I don't see how that decision is justified by the votes.

I don't think that is so cut and dry. For example, my voting is as follows:

Do I want to scale down the rating system?
Yes

If scaled down, what system do I prefer?
1-20 with no stars

If a 1-20 scale not been implemented, would I have been ok with a 1-10 system over a 1-100 system?
Yes

Another way to look at it is what percentage of people wanted a change in the system? For example, there were 23 people who voted for a new "actual rating" scale versus 10 people who wanted to keep the old scale.

[Evas]

If a 1-20 scale not been implemented, would I have been ok with a 1-10 system over a 1-100 system?
Yes.

That is a perfectly valid opinion. But that opinion is not represented in the votes that were tallied. A further round of voting would have been required to demonstrate that. My point was not about what owners would decide if further rounds of voting took place, but that the votes that were actually cast do not support a 1-10 system.

[John]

I will remind you that, as was stated from the beginning of the 2010 floater process, for this year only the opinions of PEBA owners weigh much more heavily than the opinions of LRS owners. That will of course change next year once our LRS owners have spent a full season with us. For now, though, I feel it's appropriate to give added weight to the opinions of owners who have put in their time.

[Evas]

I will remind you that, as was stated from the beginning of the 2010 floater process, for this year only the opinions of PEBA owners weigh much more heavily than the opinions of LRS owners. That will of course change next year once our LRS owners have spent a full season with us. For now, though, I feel it's appropriate to give added weight to the opinions of owners who have put in their time.

And you are well within your rights to do that. But even if you completely disregard LRS votes, I don't see how you come to the conclusion the 2nd least popular choice is the winner.

To use a political comparison, if you had a general election where 27% of people voted for the Green party, 23% for Democrats, 20% for Republicans and 29% for Libertarians it would make no sense to declare the winner to be the Democrats. That is essentially what happened here.

I think the real problem is the way the voting was done. This sort of decision needs to go through multiple stages of voting like a run off.

[DanD]

I'm not sure it's fair to interpret the "nay" votes as votes for a 1-100 system. While this is effectively what they represent, it was my understanding that there were two parts to the floater:

1) Change the system
2) If yes, to what?

When I look at it that way, part 1 passed handily while item two was pretty close with 1-10 being the second most popular and "stats-only" the winner. However, seeing the number of people who wanted SOME kind of number system (which would result in unhappy campers if the numbers went away totally) we compromised and went with a 1-10 system (which was #2 choice).

Now I guess the problem with this would be that everyone who voted "nay" was disenfranchised for part 2. I supposed, ideally, it could have been three separate floaters with everyone voting on each:

1) Change the system?
2) Stats-only or Numbers
3) If Numbers wins, which system?

Effectively, that is what went down (minus the everyone voting part). So I suppose the reason some people are unhappy with the results is because they voted "nay" for part 1, but then didn't get to help choose what new system to use.

With the results we did get though, I think the 1-10 makes sense.

[Evas]

Now I guess the problem with this would be that everyone who voted "nay" was disenfranchised for part 2.

I supposed, ideally, it could have been three separate floaters with everyone voting on each:

1) Change the system?
2) Stats-only or Numbers
3) If Numbers wins, which system?

Effectively, that is what went down (minus the everyone voting part). So I suppose the reason some people are unhappy with the results is because they voted "nay" for part 1, but then didn't get to help choose what new system to use.

The "(minus the everyone voting part)" was a problem. Just look at the explanation the Featherheads gave for his 1-20 vote. These things need to be decided by votes, not by trying to draw a conclusion about one question by seeing how they voted on another.

Very good observation about the "Nays" and part 2. I hadn't thought about it like that, but you are exactly correct. I would also point out that the people who voted Stats-only were effective disenfranchised by part 3. So that means in the end you have 56% of the PEBA electorate who did not get to help choose the new rating scale. That number jumps to 70% if you include the LRS.