|
|
Post by TimPig on Nov 19, 2019 0:04:26 GMT
I brought this up when Scouting was first implemented but didn't have a great solution in mind at the time. Essentially, I think we should be able to scout players anonymously. If we look at this last draft, Alonzo Mourning dropped because he was scouted and passed on, two pieces of information that became available to all GMs. I don't think one GM should be able to gain what is, in essence, free advice that was paid for by another GM. To do this, I'd suggest that you tag me in the Offseason thread with whatever the cost is but don't name the player, then DM the players to eric that align with what you posted in the thread. Offseason thread: "Scout two players tier 4 -70,000 TimPig" DM to Eric: "Tier 4 scout Alonzo Mourning and Laphonso Ellis" |
|
|
|
Post by jhb on Nov 19, 2019 0:22:09 GMT
How did anyone learn anything though?
Just because he didn’t pick Zo doesn’t mean Zo isn’t worth taking all it means is that Ellis was more worthy of the pick
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Nov 19, 2019 0:22:33 GMT
I tried to do this but was told to use the current system, also shouldn't be able to tell about what you scouted or shouldn't be able for at least that season.
|
|
|
|
Post by TimPig on Nov 19, 2019 0:46:02 GMT
How did anyone learn anything though? Just because he didn’t pick Zo doesn’t mean Zo isn’t worth taking all it means is that Ellis was more worthy of the pick Ok, put differently, let’s say he gets the reports and doesn’t want either. That would be more clear to other GMs that the talent isn’t what he expected. He shouldn’t be harmed for having that knowledge. What is gained by making it public? |
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Nov 19, 2019 0:57:46 GMT
This is already optional, doesn't need a rule. Do what you will.
|
|
|
|
Post by jhb on Nov 19, 2019 0:59:37 GMT
Most people can put it together if you scout two anonymous players and then don’t make a selection immediately though
|
|
|
|
Post by jhb on Nov 19, 2019 1:00:15 GMT
How did anyone learn anything though? Just because he didn’t pick Zo doesn’t mean Zo isn’t worth taking all it means is that Ellis was more worthy of the pick Ok, put differently, let’s say he gets the reports and doesn’t want either. That would be more clear to other GMs that the talent isn’t what he expected. He shouldn’t be harmed for having that knowledge. What is gained by making it public? Intrigue *gasp* |
|
|
|
Post by TimPig on Nov 19, 2019 1:06:18 GMT
Most people can put it together if you scout two anonymous players and then don’t make a selection immediately though Scout someone anonymously and try and trade up for them. Maybe that doesn’t work with Shaq, but could’ve worked with Ellis or numerous other players. This is entirely defeated if people know who you want to trade up for. |
|
|
|
Post by TimPig on Nov 19, 2019 1:07:16 GMT
This is already optional, doesn't need a rule. Do what you will. No idea what you’re even trying to say here. Upgrades, assistant coaches, claiming box score rewards, trades, signing free agents, and about a million other things are optional but have rules associated with them. |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Nov 19, 2019 1:24:04 GMT
currently any info a GM pays for is theirs and everyone knows they have it
so i have concerns changing either side
on the first side i would have to police any info any GM shares by any medium, including posts on Medium, which is impossible
on the second it opens the door for sandbagging: with no publicly verifiable scout post someone (not naming names) (billy) could post in shout "hoo man i was gonna take XYZ but after i scouted them forget it", and then people are going to ask me if they actually did, and i am just gonna snap
.
i don't think other GMs learning that delap values ellis over mourning is a significant cost to delap, and i don't think it comes up often enough relative to how often the converse would come up to make the switch worth it. with the early draft delap could even start trying to trade up before he made the pick, when no one knew which player he preferred, or if he didn't want either.
|
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Nov 19, 2019 1:32:30 GMT
This is already optional, doesn't need a rule. Do what you will. No idea what you’re even trying to say here. Upgrades, assistant coaches, claiming box score rewards, trades, signing free agents, and about a million other things are optional but have rules associated with them. Eric covered it, but as you asked, once the cat is out of the bag he can do little to control it. The paying gm can do what they will, including lying. So your rule would do little and just bring about rule breakers. #freeinfo |
|
|
|
Post by TimPig on Nov 19, 2019 3:03:55 GMT
Eric covered it, but as you asked, once the cat is out of the bag he can do little to control it. The paying gm can do what they will, including lying. So your rule would do little and just bring about rule breakers. #freeinfo Please explain where eric says anything that pertains to the optionality that was your objection. currently any info a GM pays for is theirs and everyone knows they have it so i have concerns changing either side on the first side i would have to police any info any GM shares by any medium, including posts on Medium, which is impossible on the second it opens the door for sandbagging: with no publicly verifiable scout post someone (not naming names) (billy) could post in shout "hoo man i was gonna take XYZ but after i scouted them forget it", and then people are going to ask me if they actually did, and i am just gonna snap . i don't think other GMs learning that delap values ellis over mourning is a significant cost to delap, and i don't think it comes up often enough relative to how often the converse would come up to make the switch worth it. with the early draft delap could even start trying to trade up before he made the pick, when no one knew which player he preferred, or if he didn't want either. Why would there be any expectation that you would share that information? If it's anonymous, then obviously you're not going to share it. It's not like any GM has the expectation that you're going to share anonymous free agent bid information. Why would this be any different? GMs have the ability to lie about builds whether people know who they scouted or not. Build information is already being selectively shared between GMs with no verifiability (except scouting on your own), so I don't see how this is pertinent at all. People should be able to lie about build information if they want. If you want to take another GM's words at face value, that's your prerogative. If Fecta decides to scout Danny Manning and Mitch Richmond this offseason and decides neither is worth the first overall pick, why should the value of that draft pick be diminished should he decide to trade it, and him therefore penalized, because he spent money to scout? Other GMs shouldn't immediately benefit from the scouting he paid for. What if both players are really good and he wants to try and trade for 1.2 as well? If people know who he scouted, it's easy for them to make conclusions if he's trying to acquire the pick. If it's anonymous, the owner of 1.2 has no idea if he's eyeing one of the two aforementioned players or Anthony Mason or Dan Majerle or... Or maybe he decides that a few players are all generally the same and wants to move back? Again, other GMs shouldn't be privy to the information he paid for because they click the offseason thread. Teams constantly try and mislead each other in real life. Forcing scouting to be public eliminates at least a portion of that and I fail to see how there's any downside to anonymizing it. |
|
|
|
Post by jhb on Nov 19, 2019 3:08:23 GMT
Anonymity is for cowards
#Cowardsforanonymity
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Nov 19, 2019 3:52:13 GMT
Eric covered it, but as you asked, once the cat is out of the bag he can do little to control it. The paying gm can do what they will, including lying. So your rule would do little and just bring about rule breakers. #freeinfo Please explain where eric says anything that pertains to the optionality that was your objection. currently any info a GM pays for is theirs and everyone knows they have it so i have concerns changing either side on the first side i would have to police any info any GM shares by any medium, including posts on Medium, which is impossible on the second it opens the door for sandbagging: with no publicly verifiable scout post someone (not naming names) (billy) could post in shout "hoo man i was gonna take XYZ but after i scouted them forget it", and then people are going to ask me if they actually did, and i am just gonna snap . i don't think other GMs learning that delap values ellis over mourning is a significant cost to delap, and i don't think it comes up often enough relative to how often the converse would come up to make the switch worth it. with the early draft delap could even start trying to trade up before he made the pick, when no one knew which player he preferred, or if he didn't want either. Why would there be any expectation that you would share that information? If it's anonymous, then obviously you're not going to share it. It's not like any GM has the expectation that you're going to share anonymous free agent bid information. Why would this be any different? GMs have the ability to lie about builds whether people know who they scouted or not. Build information is already being selectively shared between GMs with no verifiability (except scouting on your own), so I don't see how this is pertinent at all. People should be able to lie about build information if they want. If you want to take another GM's words at face value, that's your prerogative. If Fecta decides to scout Danny Manning and Mitch Richmond this offseason and decides neither is worth the first overall pick, why should the value of that draft pick be diminished should he decide to trade it, and him therefore penalized, because he spent money to scout? Other GMs shouldn't immediately benefit from the scouting he paid for. What if both players are really good and he wants to try and trade for 1.2 as well? If people know who he scouted, it's easy for them to make conclusions if he's trying to acquire the pick. If it's anonymous, the owner of 1.2 has no idea if he's eyeing one of the two aforementioned players or Anthony Mason or Dan Majerle or... Or maybe he decides that a few players are all generally the same and wants to move back? Again, other GMs shouldn't be privy to the information he paid for because they click the offseason thread. Teams constantly try and mislead each other in real life. Forcing scouting to be public eliminates at least a portion of that and I fail to see how there's any downside to anonymizing it. trust me, there would be expectation the difference in scenarios is that in the current scenario third parties can at least know the GM has actually scouted a given prospect. i am helping the scouter by giving them the results of scouting and they (can) advance, and i am not helping them lie. in your new world i am; is this part of your scenario, commander? let me mspaint you a picture. fecta decides to scout (LOL) your two players, everyone knows it, and they're both good, but only he knows it. he tries to trade up for 1.2 - how does 1.2 know if they're both good or if fecta wants rik smits? or fecta decides to scout (LMBO) your precious two players, everyone knows it, and they're both bad, but only he knows it. he tries to trade up for 1.2 anyway, because he thinks by process of elimination rik smits and john starks are the smarks swaves of the sforzando sfutures - how does 1.2 know this isn't the case? long story short (too late) you are proposing a read in ability that is not, well, established. and there would definitely be a ly in' ability by anonymizing scouting. i see little gain and probable loss, and a poll underwater. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2019 19:00:21 GMT
i have a better idea
half price scouting but it gets posted in the thread rather than sent via pm
|
|
|
|
Post by TimPig on Nov 19, 2019 19:05:18 GMT
i have a better idea half price scouting but it gets posted in the thread rather than sent via pm So one person pays for it and everyone sees the attributes? Or are you referring to the request itself but not the attributes? |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2019 19:25:05 GMT
i have a better idea half price scouting but it gets posted in the thread rather than sent via pm So one person pays for it and everyone sees the attributes? Or are you referring to the request itself but not the attributes? the former even as commish i wanted to have public scouting |
|
|
|
Post by jhb on Nov 19, 2019 20:20:58 GMT
i have a better idea half price scouting but it gets posted in the thread rather than sent via pm  |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2019 20:59:03 GMT
i voted no because i like the free information from other people scouting players
|
|
