Next Draft - Ideas and Discussions

1) joga bonito
2) invictus
3) DavidG
4) Sjor
5) Tuppet
6) Enigma
7) Mazhar
8) harms
9) Downcast
10) Skizzo/Pat_Mustard
11) Raees
12) ctp
13) Chesterlestreet
14) RedTiger
15) Cal?
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
It's pretty much what I posted before. i'm still debating to myself on power cards and player steal rounds, but somehow think they'll be a bit ott.
Click to expand...
Got it.

Would you have to pick a keeper in the auction stage as I saw a minimum bid for keeper 20m or it can be before that?
 
I'm in without reading the criteria. I'll play blind!
 
You can join me if you like as I'm in work early so night time I'll be offline a lot.
 
This occurred to me the other day, just going to throw it out there before I forget about it:

In my opinion the match write-ups could be slimmed down even more: Just stick to a basic description of the player and what his role amounts to, plus some general comments about how you intend to play (whatever you think is the most important/crucial about your tactical choices). Anything beyond that can be linked to if you feel this is necessary.

Now, what's the point? Well, the point is that a basic description is a good starting point for discussing the finer points: An essay about how how the player will operate, according to you, is not a very good starting point – in fact, it often leads to bickering rather than clarification and interesting debate.

My theory is – also – that less details in the OP will lead to more interesting points being covered in the actual discussion: The way it often is – now – people will simply refer to what they've already said in the OP, often in a more or less annoyed fashion (accusing the opponent/neutral of not having read the OP properly, etc.). But what is said in the OP is frequently biased (or at least an ideal representation of what will happen), which is – again – not a good starting point.

If you have a clear idea about the finer points, you should be able to explain these – and defend your choices – in a back-and-forth discussion during the actual match. The latter is much more interesting to follow for neutrals (I would argue) than “I've already explained this in the OP – go read that”.

Just a suggestion, of course, but I'd rather see this becoming the norm than to insist further on streamlining the OPs as such (i.e. insisting on people using templates, etc.). The latter can work well in some cases, but in general I don't really like the idea of forcing everyone into presenting their team in one way and one way only. There should be room for individuality there: You give a description of your players/roles (that's common courtesy) in your own way – and then you make a brief statement about – for instance – how you intend to play overall, how you expect the opponent to play, which players will be key, why you have an edge, or whatever you feel is most pertinent to highlight – much of which will undoubtedly be debatable, and that's the point, or rather the starting point.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
This occurred to me the other day, just going to throw it out there before I forget about it:

In my opinion the match write-ups could be slimmed down even more: Just stick to a basic description of the player and what his role amounts to, plus some general comments about how you intend to play (whatever you think is the most important/crucial about your tactical choices). Anything beyond that can be linked to if you feel this is necessary.

Now, what's the point? Well, the point is that a basic description is a good starting point for discussing the finer points: An essay about how how the player will operate, according to you, is not a very good starting point – in fact, it often leads to bickering rather than clarification and interesting debate.

My theory is – also – that less details in the OP will lead to more interesting points being covered in the actual discussion: The way it often is – now – people will simply refer to what they've already said in the OP, often in a more or less annoyed fashion (accusing the opponent/neutral of not having read the OP properly, etc.). But what is said in the OP is frequently biased (or at least an ideal representation of what will happen), which is – again – not a good starting point.

If you have a clear idea about the finer points, you should be able to explain these – and defend your choices – in a back-and-forth discussion during the actual match. The latter is much more interesting to follow for neutrals (I would argue) than “I've already explained this in the OP – go read that”.

Just a suggestion, of course, but I'd rather see this becoming the norm than to insist further on streamlining the OPs as such (i.e. insisting on people using templates, etc.). The latter can work well in some cases, but in general I don't really like the idea of forcing everyone into presenting their team in one way and one way only. There should be room for individuality there: You give a description of your players/roles (that's common courtesy) in your own way – and then you make a brief statement about – for instance – how you intend to play overall, how you expect the opponent to play, which players will be key, why you have an edge, or whatever you feel is most pertinent to highlight – much of which will undoubtedly be debatable, and that's the point, or rather the starting point.
Click to expand...

I don't why but I feel targeted :lol:

Hum, I admit it was not kind of my part to have told Enigma_87 one time something like “I've already explained this in the OP – go read that”.

Otherwise, I don't see a game only as a 'confrontation' but also as the opportunity to tell 'stories' (of course, everyone has the right not to like all the blah blah blah).

Any wording - including a brief description of a player -could be 'biased' but I'm sure the voters are able to form their own opinions.

We agree on the essential point: less details - so more mystery - could generate more questions and debates.

Maybe, we could try a OP with no texts: only 2 pictures showing the 22 players on the pitch. No description of the players/tactics/philosophy. It could incite the neutrals to read & participate in the discussions.

What are the views of the master of ceremonies @Edgar Allan Pillow and the other posters?
 
Downcast said:
We agree on the essential point: less details - so more mystery - could generate more questions and debates.
Click to expand...

This is the basic idea - yes.

Not mystery, though - just something which hasn't been elaborated on. The idea being that the details should be provided - and debated - as the "match" progresses.

You still have to outline what you intend to do, generally - and which basic roles your players have. It's just a question of keeping it simple: Let the voters, neutrals and your opponent get a general idea - and then they can begin questioning you about the finer points.

There's nothing wrong with being thorough as such - this isn't a criticism of people who put a lot of effort into their OPs as much as an idea about how to improve the "dynamics" of the match threads.
 
The Monopoly Draft:

Managers will be randomized in snake order.
Every turn I'll randomize number 1-16 and allocate to managers. Just like throwing a dice. You need to pick on criteria you get for that number in snake order.
Certain numbers like 1, 2, 7, 12, 15, & 16 will not feature in every round.

It'll be a criteria draft, but everyone will have different criteria's for the same round.

We could improve the criteria's to make it more interesting in the interim.

Monopoly.jpg


Opinions?
 
Last edited:
Yeah that's a quality idea. Need to keep the innovative drafts coming make them so much more interesting
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
The Monopoly Draft:

Managers will be randomized in snake order.
Every turn I'll randomize number 1-16 and allocate to managers. Just like throwing a dice. You need to pick on criteria you get for that number in snake order.
Certain numbers like 1, 2, 7, 12, 15, & 16 will not feature in every round.

It'll be a criteria draft, but everyone will have different criteria's for the same round.

We could improve the criteria's to make it more interesting in the interim.

Monopoly.jpg


Opinions?
Click to expand...
:lol: Brilliant. Have you come up with the picture yourself?
 
Skizzo said:
This is why I was against the complaining in the beginning. If one person is able to complain and get what they want, then it opens it up for everyone else too. otherwise you end up enforcing rules unfairly, or not at all.
Click to expand...

What usually happens is that a rule is stated, to begin with, without anyone complaining about it (even if it is a tough one) - and then, when it transpires that someone breaks it (which really shouldn't come as a surprise), the harshness of it is highlighted and bemoaned.

And very often it's just one transgressor, or a couple, not half the managers - which inevitably means that enforcing the rule will result in a distinct disadvantage for one individual, or a few at most, which is then used as an argument against enforcing it.

It's pretty senseless, as such. And avoiding it should be easy:

A) Go vanilla - as per the rules themselves. No harsh sanctioning for breaking the rules, just mild slaps.

B) Make it 100% clear before the draft starts that sanctions will be harsh - and that the rules will be enforced no matter what. Complaints will not be listened to. If you're not fine with this, do not sign up for the draft.
 
With Option B it seems easier to enforce in a Sheep or Reality draft for instance where all managers are basically signing up to be dicked over and the power relationships are clear.

The key as ever is nailing everything down in advance with buy-in from all participants.
 
Does anyone know what options for length of poll there are? E.g. 8 hrs, 12 hrs etc.
 
It's totally open now - or rather, not totally, but you can in theory run a poll that closes after just one hour.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
It's totally open now - or rather, not totally, but you can in theory run a poll that closes after just one hour.
Click to expand...


Thanks. Just thinking of how to incorporate a time of a match without a poll then adding it later but still having the match run 24hrs.
 
Physiocrat said:
Thanks. Just thinking of how to incorporate a time of a match without a poll then adding it later but still having the match run 24hrs.
Click to expand...

That shouldn't be a problem.

You can add a poll to the thread at any time. Start it at whatever time people find convenient, then add the poll after 12hrs. You need to time it fairly well, though, as it might be inconvenient for the thread starter (or a mod) to add polls in the middle of the night, etc.
 
I'm just wondering about this, but when can we incorporate the idea of a "match clock" within these drafts? We all know that draft matches go 12 hours long, so it's relatively easy to scale the match clock to the 12 hours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.