|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Jan 31, 2016 6:34:33 GMT
Current Rating: 77
Suggested: 74
Shooting 37% generally just chucks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar on Jan 31, 2016 10:45:30 GMT
73 ^^
|
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838 
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Jan 31, 2016 13:27:10 GMT
75
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jan 31, 2016 15:08:19 GMT
74.5
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Jan 31, 2016 18:34:01 GMT
74
|
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Jan 31, 2016 23:12:14 GMT
74
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Mar 3, 2016 23:45:32 GMT
FTR my vote is a 74
Thread Closed.
Final Verdict: 74
Gavel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Mar 4, 2016 0:40:34 GMT
wtf no one even saw this. why would Speights get a decrease was open for a month man... not my fault |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Mar 4, 2016 1:03:05 GMT
you arbitrarily close threads with hardly any votes how is it not your fault I didn't arbitrarily close any threads. the threads I closed had been open for a month or more. those were the ones that were closed. we give GMs 4-6 weeks to vote on threads. The problem here isn't me closing threads. The problem is that no one votes on certain players, because they are either A) classified as not important to GMs, or B) they miss the thread completely. Neither me or Walt have the ability to close threads and move them to the back. It is imperative that people actually search, read, and look at the Stock Watch every day. Not just when they feel like it. You had at least a month to vote on Speights. Don't start bitching now. |
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Mar 4, 2016 1:11:17 GMT
wtf no one even saw this. why would Speights get a decrease I fucking cracked up at this |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Mar 4, 2016 1:40:30 GMT
I just wish there was some sort of actual system rather than arbitrarily closing votes. I mean you guys have a thread in the ratings section right now where you are legitimately debating whether to lower the ratings on tanking teams first to help them tank. What? Guess I better go read some threads but I think I'm caught up and don't remember that being brought up. Also, if it's going to be "you guys," meaning you are not participating in any way in the RC, then I don't know why you still have access. But please, point me to the thread where this is being said. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 30, 2024 20:54:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2016 2:09:46 GMT
New system:
Open for a minimum of 2 weeks AND requires an 8 vote threshold.
Guys that only receive 4 votes shouldn't get any change at all.
Problem solved.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Mar 4, 2016 2:36:04 GMT
I just wish there was some sort of actual system rather than arbitrarily closing votes. I mean you guys have a thread in the ratings section right now where you are legitimately debating whether to lower the ratings on tanking teams first to help them tank. If you read the thread, we didn't discuss that. It was brought up and shot down immediately by Walt and myself. Threads are closed by the date of them being open. If you're upset about the number of votes a player did not receive, and you did not vote on that player, gtfoh. We need a folder in the SW where the closed threads go. Someone just moves the closed threads under the folder and it becomes a sub-forum. That way, we don't have hundreds of guys that have had threads up and are closed. Having less threads in the SW allows more people to see threads to vote on. To Adam's point, we cannot make people vote on players. If GMs refuse to vote on certain players, the players will never receive changes. Speights had been up long enough that I felt comfortable closing the thread and releasing his change. A lot of the threads that had been open for a month, or more, did not have 8 votes. If we had 4 more votes on Speights at the time this occurred, I would bet that the same outcome would occur. When a player has 8 votes, it is really 6 votes. I felt comfortable tallying threads that had at least 6 votes, meaning really 4. It also doesn't help when people comment on a thread and never vote. Perfect example is Adam in Biyombo's thread. Votes a 99 for shoe rating. Like wtf? Take the process seriously or don't complain about the shit that happens. Be proactive and not reactive. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Mar 4, 2016 3:09:34 GMT
This is actually hilarious and plays right into what I say about you Josh. You're stirring up shit and making shit up. Here is the actual line you have to be referring to - "Can we prioritize tanking team raises and contending team decreases with the next rating push." It actually says to INCREASE tanking team players and DECREASE contending team players first. Of course, first of all, meaning only the ones that are up for increases already on tanking teams and the ones up for decrease on the contending teams. I get what the spirit of that comment was after, make sure the standings/results aren't being influenced TOO much by out of date ratings. But, as was said 3-4 times in that thread, we process based on when threads are started/closed, not by what team those players happen to be on. |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Mar 4, 2016 3:27:08 GMT
If you are going to crack something, at least make sure that you have an acceptable basis for it.
Be sensitive to the feelings of others and do your part.
-Excited about the GSW-OKC 3-
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 30, 2024 20:54:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2016 4:10:41 GMT
I don't see why someone that gets like 5 votes needs to be changed. You know, maybe someone just doesn't need changed sometimes? If people thought he needed changed they would vote.
The opinion of the OP or the RC shouldn't matter there... just keep the thread open until someone wanders along and votes in it.
While I'm on that... Fucking moving all the closed threads out of this forum would fix 99% of the issues. Why are there 900 threads in the main stock watch forum? Why do we make new threads for completed rating changes? Post the new ratings at the end of the thread here where the votes are, and just MOVE that thread into completed rating changes. That way, the only threads here are the ones that need votes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brandon Roy on Mar 4, 2016 5:16:39 GMT
75
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Mar 4, 2016 5:33:27 GMT
as I said earlier im over it. please don't personally attack me in threads. you can clearly see the spirit of my argument. I'm getting closer and closer to being done with this league. this will be my last post in the stock watch thread. Couple of weeks ago you said you were embracing the Donald Trump method. What am I supposed to think when you put out misleading statements? If it was an accident or you didn't read the post correctly, just say it. But putting out false, misleading, and harmful (to the RC's repuation) statements doesn't really help anyone out. Not sure the purpose of it. |
|
Washington Wizards
Minnesota Timberwolves
New Orleans Pelicans
Charlotte Hornets
Cleveland Cavaliers
