Warrior General Games

Originally posted by SexualChocolate
should we allow voting for your own players?

Honestly, I don't think it would be that big of a problem. All of the owners seem to be fairly level headed and reasonable, so I don't see there being too many ridiculous votes.

No, no voting for your team's players. This has to be about respect earned around the league. Filling one slot with your own team is just odd.

I agree on owners only. 32 ballots, and I think this cam be a fair way of going at it.

I am far too busy to work on this as well. All I have to say about that is good luck.

I wouldn't mind being in charge of adding things up for Zeta.

Hopefully I can finally bring myself to put excel on my computer so I can make things a little easier

Maybe we should do it in two phases.

First the owner and a GM NOMINATES the top 5 players on their own team that they feel are deserving of recognition.

Then, after all the nominees have been declared, THEN owners and GMs vote ONLY on the nominees of other teams, and are not allowed to vote on their own nominees.

Basically, owners/GMs nominate their own players, but VOTE on opposing teams players.

absolutely no to owners voting for their own players. conflict of interest.

Originally posted by jprietman
Maybe we should do it in two phases.

First the owner and a GM NOMINATES the top 5 players on their own team that they feel are deserving of recognition.

Then, after all the nominees have been declared, THEN owners and GMs vote ONLY on the nominees of other teams, and are not allowed to vote on their own nominees.

Basically, owners/GMs nominate their own players, but VOTE on opposing teams players.

I think this is a good idea. It allows people to go back and look at potential all-stars that they may not necessarily have been following. I doubt most people have the time to follow the top playmakers from every team for every game.

Perhaps get the GMs to discuss with the owner and only have the owner nominate their top 5 players. That way you don't get a disproportionate and overwhelming number of players nominated from each team.

I see a problem with that if there are 9 WRs and no FSs nominated.

But that's an idea worth looking into.

Originally posted by Dublin
I wouldn't mind being in charge of adding things up for Zeta.

Hopefully I can finally bring myself to put excel on my computer so I can make things a little easier

I built a spreadsheet to make figuring out the PP easier as well, if you want to see it. I know you used to do it, and it might be better with two guys looking at the numbers, so that one person isn't obligated to do it every 2 days.

Originally posted by ArthurRiot
I see a problem with that if there are 9 WRs and no FSs nominated.

But that's an idea worth looking into.

well, maybe each team should decide their 5 nominated players like so...

2 players from offense
2 players from defense
1 player from either offense, defense, or special teams.

If we can get a lot of participants, we should be able to fill every position with nominees.

I think most team owners and GMs have a good idea who REALLY is holding the team together. Sometimes, even though a WR is racking up mad numbers, it might just be the result of a great left tackle, or a certain tactic that they've been using. Only the team owners and GMs would know that though.

And...

IF, by chance, a position does not get filled, all we would have to do is just revert back to the original plan to fill that specific position. Meaning, each owner/GM would vote on the best player at the unfilled position, but they can't vote for their own players.

I agree with Riot, there is going to be a bunch of LB's, WR's and HB's nominated.

Think how close the WR and the CB voting race are going to be. I agree that owners do know who is important but we also have to reward the playmakers. Like I mentioned before if we create a thread titled "State your case" then agents can make a post stating why they should be all-stars, it should be stated that it is not a discussion thread though so no debating will be allowed. You post about YOUR player and that is it. Then as owners we read through that, jot down some notes, review some highlights and stats and submit our picks. I personally will be voting partially on what I saw, I watched film on every team i had to face and there are a few players that I altered my gameplan around, that is what an all-star is. Also it should definately be divided between alpa and zeta because alpha only plays one game against zeta, while they play every team in their division.

If we made a nomination list, then I'd like to have groups of teams and more than 5. I think our defense has a LOT of notable talent, and our Linemen and HB should really be considered as well. I'd like to see no less than 10 guys on my team considered. And with a MAX of 16 nominating cards, and 2 teams being chosen, we're looking at 26 players to make the final cut.

Some owners won't participate, so that cuts down choices right there. I say every owner gets to nominate a max of 10 players, at least 3 of which have to be from each side, and no more than 2 from any position (although that one might be intuitive). If there aren't enough choices for a position, we need to go from there, but that way we at least get a better pool of choices.

well, should we really restrict it to participating teams, let's say a team has the best OT without argument, this OT deserves to be on the list, even if his owner chooses not to participate. So i guess while the nomination idea in theory is nice, I guess ballots would be better, let each Owner vote on the all-stars, without his players being able to be voted on.

I would reduce it to voting on one starting team plus special teamers, so everyone can vote on 26 players of his conference, but not his team.

This would bring out a majority decision.



Alternate idea, have a comitee pick 4 players at each position, and then owners vote on the allstar. But that also would take time.

The fastest way to decide is simply have every owner(and/or GM) have one voting ballot, and then the most votes win.

We could have a group of GMs pick the nominees, and the owners pick the team.

Originally posted by ArthurRiot
We could have a group of GMs pick the nominees, and the owners pick the team.

I like this.

I do think, however it may be possible, that there should be a nomination phase. There are a lot of players that consistently make a major impact on how games are won, even though they don't show up anywhere near the top of stat charts. A team nomination phase would definitely help bring some of those players out of the woodwork.