The need of having a freedom to change your vote based on the discussion justifies the risk of allowing tactical voting, which, I'm sure, most on here doesn't do.
We can't change the switching vote feature. Renders the match discussions pointless. People can definitely vote with their own presumptions and then wish to change based on particular arguments they may not have thought of themselves.Think being a small community and playing each other numerous times over and over sometimes impacts decision making. It's normal to carry a beef from time to time.
Since I started those we clashed probably 5-6 times in the first 7-8 drafts or something. I haven't gone through the full stats but the discrepancy is too big not to catch my eye. It's not like we don't rate most of those players the same as we have picked the same lads over and over again.
I think the same thing happened to both Gio and Theon when they began winning these things and probably due to some heated debates from time to time, so it is pretty much normal, you can't remove personal feelings from tthe equation.
The only thing I'd probably propose to change is the vote change as when the score is revealed you could have some tactical voting and that defies the point of hidden scores, otherwise nothing personal against Gio and I think we agree on many points around here and the voting process is part of the game.
PS: what is with this, we can't use abbreviations now?
Sorry, you cannot use the word 'f.w.i.w' in your message. If it is text speak, please write the word or phrase fully.
That’s a really convenient option, especially in threads that go on for 5+ pages, while both managers have to keep in mind that the actual score is different. And for what? So that managers who were supposedly planning to do a tactical vote can do it anyway, but by making a post instead of changing their vote in the poll?
So you can still switch votes then? Just let that be done in the poll.
 and here I thought it was my marinho arguments
100% this
I’m on your people your like list?
No beer. No mate. Gtfo!
Sorry to bump this again, but I didn't get time to respond yesterday. There's no way to prove anything one way or the other obviously, but I'd make the point that the tight matches are almost by definition ones where the teams are sufficiently evenly-matched that you can easily find reasons to vote for either team. In that situation it often comes down to the 'debating contest' aspect of the matches. There's nothing wrong with that either, but it's unavoidable that you find some managers' debating styles particularly persuasive, and others less persuasive or an active turn-off. For example, I'm pretty sure I would have routinely voted for Joga in tight matches when he was participating in drafts, as his knowledge of the players shone through clear as day in his posts, and also I liked his style, where he generally gave a realistic, almost neutral account of how the match could pan out, and acknowledged the strengths of the other team. Others probably gravitate more to the managers who drum home their advantages more emphatically.
I don't think it screams 'vendetta' for Gio to vote against you in those tight matches, not when his overall voting pattern is only 4-6 against you in the past 10 matches. Given that you routinely do very well in these drafts you clearly have voters that agree with you more often than not, and I find it unfortunate that there's a spotlight on Gio and his votes now when 1) he's close to 50/50 in voting pattern in your matches and 2) his voting against you is easily explicable by factors such as rating players differently or not finding your debating style particularly persuasive rather than outright bias against you.
On a broader note, and as Theon alluded to yesterday, due to Tuppet-gate, the relatively low number of proper neutrals voting on matches, and the very high likelihood of low-level grudges forming between regular managers down the years, there's just no point in getting too invested in the outcomes of matches. It's not as if winning a draft match really means that you know more about football than the guy who lost. @Šjor Bepo is hands down one of the most knowledgeable posters in our community, and I've heard that they declare a national holiday in Croatia now if he ever makes it out of the first round
It's 5 - 16 if you add the 10-1 or something in a row before that, which on broader note and bigger sample goes to show that we have different understanding of the game, which IMO isn't valid since we often pick same players and rarely make controversial formations or stylistic fits. It's also some of the last minute shenanigans in some of the matches that has caught my eye and also from what he posted it's not just me that called him out on that.
But either way I get what you and Moby are saying and probably better to close it down at the time. To me, as you said with smaller community, there is always some grudges formed over the years and that take part in the voting process. Water under the bridge and all..
I don't really care by all means on winning stuff, I've won drafts but never has been my priority - the biggest pull to win a game is still the option to improve and upgrade your team, it's not like Edgar will begin handing Kenwyn juicers all of a sudden for each win
Sjor is indeed one of the most knowledgeable chaps around and losing first round in drafts means feck all in terms of knowing less about football, as I said if we scrap the reinforcement process matches would probably mean feck all to me.
Sort it out it @Edgar Allan Pillow .Think being a small community and playing each other numerous times over and over sometimes impacts decision making. It's normal to carry a beef from time to time.
Since I started those we clashed probably 5-6 times in the first 7-8 drafts or something. I haven't gone through the full stats but the discrepancy is too big not to catch my eye. It's not like we don't rate most of those players the same as we have picked the same lads over and over again.
I think the same thing happened to both Gio and Theon when they began winning these things and probably due to some heated debates from time to time, so it is pretty much normal, you can't remove personal feelings from tthe equation.
The only thing I'd probably propose to change is the vote change as when the score is revealed you could have some tactical voting and that defies the point of hidden scores, otherwise nothing personal against Gio and I think we agree on many points around here and the voting process is part of the game.
PS: what is with this, we can't use abbreviations now?
Sorry, you cannot use the word 'f.w.i.w' in your message. If it is text speak, please write the word or phrase fully.
Well you know what, I thought maybe you've got a point - perhaps I'm doing that subconsciously - so I had a look at the previous games.
Yes I get that there was a bit of a running joke a few years ago, before you took part in these drafts, when I (and a few others for that matter) would leave our vote late (which I voluntarily shared with you earlier). There was a different feel to those early drafts where games were sometimes seen as a 90 minute match because you were allowed to use subs and make tactical changes. And the more enthusiastic/geeky drafters like myself would get immersed in that 90 minute concept and often vote later on. 'Shenanigans' is a novel way of describing what was simply enthusiasm for the draft match.
As I said there was a streak of like 10 or 11 games in a row that you voted for the opposition. Some might not be decided by one vote but 2-3 etc, and late in the matches can be decisive.
