"Floaters" Discussion

[Leones]

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.

To be fair I voted 1-20 but would have preferred 1-100 over the current system so there were certainly people at the opposite end of the spectrum as well.

[Leones]

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.

But this doesn't really make sense. If we hold the same vote again next year (Assuming no change in preferences) once again people will vote for a change in the system. It's impossible to come to a conclusion this way as the status quo is discriminated against. In order for the status quo to win it needs a majority of the votes, while for any other system to win they need all the non-status quo systems to receive 51% of the votes, then they need a mere plurality of those votes. Since its obvious there is no system with the majority of people behind it we will never settle on a final system this way.

In my opinion the ideal way to do voting would have been as follows: Offer 5 choices (Stats only, 1-5,1-10,1-20,1-100). Ask every owner to list their order of preference and then conclude the results from that, doing "rounds" of voting where the lowest voting bloc was eliminated (and owners with those votes moved to their 2nd/3rd choice). I think that could be a good way to do it next year that eliminates the status quo problem and lets people like Arlington have their 2nd choice be expressed.

[DanD]

As John said, we will be reviewing the scale system at some point this season.

In my opinion, the system we have in effect now was the correct interpretation of the votes on the original floater. (This doesn't mean that it is, or that anyone else has to think so :-) )

We, as a community, should probably be focusing on what we want to discuss in the review. Now, I'm not sure how it will work exactly (another floater? more open-forum based?) but perhaps we could come up with some ideas.

For example, here are my ideas:

- When we get to the evaluation point we will have had enough time to get used to the system. I think it would then be safe to discuss/vote on whether or not the community likes the new system. If people do come around and a majority wants to keep the 1-10 system, great. If not, perhaps another discussion.

- If we decide we don't like the 1-10 system, we could all discuss/vote whether or not we want more detail, or less.

- If "Less" wins, we can all discuss/vote on Stats-only, or 1-5 system.
- If "More" wins, we can all discuss/vote on 1-20, 20-80 (is this an option in OOTP? I forget) or 1-100.

I think that might enable owners who didn't get their first choice to guide the change towards something that is still acceptable to them. It will also be more of an active review, instead of just keeping or repealing the change.

What do you guys think we should discuss/cover when we review the rating change?

[DanD]

In my opinion the ideal way to do voting would have been as follows: Offer 5 choices (Stats only, 1-5,1-10,1-20,1-100). Ask every owner to list their order of preference and then conclude the results from that, doing "rounds" of voting where the lowest voting bloc was eliminated (and owners with those votes moved to their 2nd/3rd choice). I think that could be a good way to do it next year that eliminates the status quo problem and lets people like Arlington have their 2nd choice be expressed.

Also a valid system :-) I think I'm seeing a pattern that we agree that that it is important to take into account "second choices".

side note:
I think my first choice actually was 1-10. I voted yes to change, but wasn't familiar enough with the other systems to know for sure what I wanted. I ended up picking 1-10 because it was easier for me to 'convert' to 1-100 in my head if I needed to. I guess the colors coding the game does helps with determining what rating is considered "good". I'm willing to see how 1-10 plays because I know this league is flexible and that we won't be stuck with the system if owners ended up not liking it.

[Evas]

For example, here are my ideas:

- When we get to the evaluation point we will have had enough time to get used to the system. I think it would then be safe to discuss/vote on whether or not the community likes the new system. If people do come around and a majority wants to keep the 1-10 system, great. If not, perhaps another discussion.

- If we decide we don't like the 1-10 system, we could all discuss/vote whether or not we want more detail, or less.

- If "Less" wins, we can all discuss/vote on Stats-only, or 1-5 system.
- If "More" wins, we can all discuss/vote on 1-20, 20-80 (is this an option in OOTP? I forget) or 1-100.?

I like your proposal. It is reasonable way to sift through the variety of choices available. (20-80 is possible in OOTP btw)

But I disagree about 1-10 being the correct conclusion to the last vote. I don't see how a vote where 56% or 70% (depending on how you look at it) of the players don't have a choice in which system is chosen is a good vote. Personally, I think the last vote should be redone now, using a proposal like yours. I am willing to try a new system if the owners actually choose it. I just don't think the owners actually chose 1-10 last time. Only 23% of the PEBA votes cast were actually for the 1-10 system. No one in the LRS voted for it at all.

[klewis]

I think we will have the 1-10 for the 2010 season and evaluate it afterwards. Let's have it soak in before we make judgements. Who knows, maybe some will convert to loving it while others learn/convert to hating it. We only had one sim thus far with the new system. For some of us in PEBA, we have played with a 1-100 system for 2+ years. So I can see how it is a drastic change.

Lost all in this shuffle though is I think we are fortunate that we are in a league that allows for voices of the owners/players to be heard. We are constantly tweaking the league to make it better. I've joined a few leagues in the past where you were stuck with what you had.

[Denny]

"In Soviet Russia, scout scales you!"

I agree with Florida; John has always been uniquely open to other views etc., despite wielding what is essentially absolute authority. And I agree that, now that it's been chosen, we should stick with the current 1-10 through the rest of 2010.

But the other thing we should definitely do is continue to discuss the issue. Maybe if more people had weighed in beforehand, it would have influenced people's stances when it came to voting and things would have been more clear-cut; or maybe at least influenced the way John designed the vote tallying for this question (it seems obvious now that it would have been better to let people rank their preferences for no ratings, 1-10, 1-20, 1-100, etc. for each of the possible ratings, but I don't think any of us gave it much thought ahead of time). I am just as much to blame as anyone--I thought I had commented on the topic in this thread, but looking back I see it was just individually in my emailed vote to the commish.

[DanD]

"In Soviet Russia, scout scales you!"

hahaha

[Leones]

As John said, we will be reviewing the scale system at some point this season.

In my opinion, the system we have in effect now was the correct interpretation of the votes on the original floater. (This doesn't mean that it is, or that anyone else has to think so :-) )

We, as a community, should probably be focusing on what we want to discuss in the review. Now, I'm not sure how it will work exactly (another floater? more open-forum based?) but perhaps we could come up with some ideas.

For example, here are my ideas:

- When we get to the evaluation point we will have had enough time to get used to the system. I think it would then be safe to discuss/vote on whether or not the community likes the new system. If people do come around and a majority wants to keep the 1-10 system, great. If not, perhaps another discussion.

- If we decide we don't like the 1-10 system, we could all discuss/vote whether or not we want more detail, or less.

- If "Less" wins, we can all discuss/vote on Stats-only, or 1-5 system.
- If "More" wins, we can all discuss/vote on 1-20, 20-80 (is this an option in OOTP? I forget) or 1-100.

I think that might enable owners who didn't get their first choice to guide the change towards something that is still acceptable to them. It will also be more of an active review, instead of just keeping or repealing the change.

What do you guys think we should discuss/cover when we review the rating change?

But if we did it that way the results would be biased against the 1-10 system just like the previous method was biased against the 1-100 system. We could have a result where 40% want to keep the current system, but get outvoted by two blocs of 30% from both above and below.

The fundamental problem here is that the wrong question is being asked. Instead of saying "should we change the current system?" it should be "which system (or systems) do you prefer?". As long as PEBA is split into many opinions we will never come to an agreement under the first question. Asking whether to change something works when its a binary choice, and changing implies moving directly to something else. It doesn't work when there are 4 choices available, all of which can't claim a majority of the votes. In that case the vote will always come out for a change, which obviously doesn't make sense. If John held a vote tomorrow the majority (I'm pretty sure) would vote for changing the current system. Maybe that results in a 1-20 system. Then he could hold another vote and the majority would be against that system, prompting a change back to the 1-10 scale or something else. As long as the current system needs a majority to stay in place it will most likely never have enough support.

[Evas]

But if we did it that way the results would be biased against the 1-10 system just like the previous method was biased against the 1-100 system. We could have a result where 40% want to keep the current system, but get outvoted by two blocs of 30% from both above and below.

The fundamental problem here is that the wrong question is being asked. Instead of saying "should we change the current system?" it should be "which system (or systems) do you prefer?". As long as PEBA is split into many opinions we will never come to an agreement under the first question. Asking whether to change something works when its a binary choice, and changing implies moving directly to something else. It doesn't work when there are 4 choices available, all of which can't claim a majority of the votes. In that case the vote will always come out for a change, which obviously doesn't make sense. If John held a vote tomorrow the majority (I'm pretty sure) would vote for changing the current system. Maybe that results in a 1-20 system. Then he could hold another vote and the majority would be against that system, prompting a change back to the 1-10 scale or something else. As long as the current system needs a majority to stay in place it will most likely never have enough support.

That makes some sense. The questions them selves and the order they are asked in make a big difference. I think you would need a series of polls, not one poll with a lot of questions. I think this series of polls would work:

Poll #1: Do you have an opinion on what the scouting system should be? Yes/No

• If the majority of the votes are Yes, go on to Poll #2, if the majority votes No there will be no change to the current system and the issue is closed.

Poll #2: Do you want a scouts only system with no numerical ratings? Yes/No

• If the majority of the votes are Yes that system is adopted and the issue is closed, if the majority votes No go on to Poll #3.

Poll #3: The current level of detail is a 1-5 scale. Do you want more detail than this scale? Yes/No

• Repeat poll #3 for each higher level (1-5, 1-10, 1-20, 1-50, 20-80, 1-100, 1-250 etc. ) until a majority No vote takes place at which time that level becomes the new level that is used.

This method allows owners to choose whether or nor to use stats and the level of detail used. Everyone can vote on each poll so. no one is disenfranchised by an overly broad question.

[Leones]

That makes some sense. The questions them selves and the order they are asked in make a big difference. I think you would need a series of polls, not one poll with a lot of questions. I think this series of polls would work:

Poll #1: Do you have an opinion on what the scouting system should be? Yes/No

• If the majority of the votes are Yes, go on to Poll #2, if the majority votes No there will be no change to the current system and the issue is closed.

Poll #2: Do you want a scouts only system with no numerical ratings? Yes/No

• If the majority of the votes are Yes that system is adopted and the issue is closed, if the majority votes No go on to Poll #3.

Poll #3: The current level of detail is a 1-5 scale. Do you want more detail than this scale? Yes/No

• Repeat poll #3 for each higher level (1-5, 1-10, 1-20, 1-50, 20-80, 1-100, 1-250 etc. ) until a majority No vote takes place at which time that level becomes the new level that is used.

This method allows owners to choose whether or nor to use stats and the level of detail used. Everyone can vote on each poll so. no one is disenfranchised by an overly broad question.

That would work too, though it would take a while. Actually it makes more sense to just do it the 3rd way using 1 vote (assuming someone who votes 1-20 would vote yes for everything before that, and no for everything after that.) If thats the way polling had been conducted this time around it would have been (for actuals):

21 Total Votes

6 Stats Only
7 for 1-5
11 for 1-10 resulting in it passing with a tiny majority, which seems fairly in line with the discussion: a group that's pretty balanced between those who want the 1-20 or 1-100 scale and those who want the 1-10 scale or lower. It should be noted that the 20-80 scale in game is by increments of 5 and would serve as a pretty good middle ground between the two groups, especially given that its the scale that scouts use in real life.

[Evas]

That would work too, though it would take a while. Actually it makes more sense to just do it the 3rd way using 1 vote (assuming someone who votes 1-20 would vote yes for everything before that

I don't want to assume anything. People have all different reasons for voting the way they do. I think it works best when you give them a clear yes/no choice.

...which seems fairly in line with the discussion: a group that's pretty balanced between those who want the 1-20 or 1-100 scale and those who want the 1-10 scale or lower. It should be noted that the 20-80 scale in game is by increments of 5 and would serve as a pretty good middle ground between the two groups, especially given that its the scale that scouts use in real life.

I did not realize that the 20-80 scale is in increments of 5. If that is the case I don't really like it. You lose the 1-100 feel without gaining enough detail.

I think you are about right about the balance. I bet if 1-20 were the decision that was handed down, there would be less dissent.

[Leones]

That would work too, though it would take a while. Actually it makes more sense to just do it the 3rd way using 1 vote (assuming someone who votes 1-20 would vote yes for everything before that

I don't want to assume anything. People have all different reasons for voting the way they do. I think it works best when you give them a clear yes/no choice.

...which seems fairly in line with the discussion: a group that's pretty balanced between those who want the 1-20 or 1-100 scale and those who want the 1-10 scale or lower. It should be noted that the 20-80 scale in game is by increments of 5 and would serve as a pretty good middle ground between the two groups, especially given that its the scale that scouts use in real life.

I did not realize that the 20-80 scale is in increments of 5. If that is the case I don't really like it. You lose the 1-100 feel without gaining enough detail.

I think you are about right about the balance. I bet if 1-20 were the decision that was handed down, there would be less dissent.

Do you believe someone who voted for a 1-5 scale would then turn around on the next vote and say a 1-10 scale wasn't detailed enough? That makes zero sense to me.

I guess I'd have to see what everyone else says about the 1-100 "feel" it doesn't make much difference to me and its not really something where its immediately obvious what it is either. (using average values its 1->5,2->15,3->25 etc.).

[Evas]

Do you believe someone who voted for a 1-5 scale would then turn around on the next vote and say a 1-10 scale wasn't detailed enough? That makes zero sense to me.

That is not quite what I was trying to convey. I wanted people to keep voting on escalating levels of detail, not decreasing levels.

Regarding assuming what people think, they just have different priorities. I am saying that I do not know what everyone wants. I do not want to assume they want one choice over another because of something else they voted on. Its simpler to just add more voting. It is more activity and leads to more discussion and more fun I think.

[Matt]

Some thoughts on this now that it has had time to set in.

I can live with 1-10, though I am never going to be ecstatic about it. It's certainly not the worst option. I would have preferred we just left it alone, as I am usually of the mindset if it's not broke why fix it. I could probably even live with 20-80 if we ever went that way. However, if we ever went to stats only or to a 1-5 scale, I would most likely leave. I enjoy the scouting element of the game too much. That's not trying to be an ass or anything, it's just making the point that I get a lot of enjoyment from the scouting aspect, and if that's not there it won't be worth it for me to continue. Just stating that matter of factly.

Anyway, this scale leaves me in a position where I can't do reviews. That's not shutdown mode or anything like that. It's like this, I tried, I can't see enough differences in players to really write anything that will be worthwhile. It would be too generic. All 5's look the same to me, where as i could see enough difference between to a 45 and a 52 to write something completely different about what i thought of their potential. It's just one of those unintended consequences, I can't do it.

As for trading, this scale makes it harder. I have to be much more conservative in my approach. I'm going to be moving to much more building from within and not taking as many chances in the trade market. Any trades I make will be much more focused and probably on a much smaller scale than what I've done in the past.

I would offer this up for discussion on the subject of trading. This has been a very active league as far as trading, and I really think this scale hurts that. I think that is going to be another of those unintended consequences. Beyond just my own personal opinion, I'll offer you up an example.

Under the 1-100 scale, team A has a player who the scout for team A rates as a 36 contact potential. Team B is interested in said player, and the scout for team B rates the contact potential as a 44. Team B is willing to make a deal for the player, thinking the player has at least some potential to be at least maybe a bottom tier PEBA player, while Team A is certainly willing to move the player because they believe he is nothing more than a minor league journeyman.

Under the 1-100 scale, these types of differences were abundant. Under a 1-10 scale, both scouts are reporting the player as a 4, Team A might be less inclined to move him, and Team B is probably less excited about acquiring him.

Okay, that's as honestly constructive as i can be at 6 in the morning. I hope I added to the discussion without putting anyone off.