#SLOE: People's Basketball Sim League

Bowtothebill23 wrote:What if we did no max until you reach the cap. Then, once you each the cap, we instituted the strict 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 scale? That way we encourage more articles for the league as a whole, encourage people to write as many articles as possible, but make it hard for people to rack up an absurd amount of pointsZ

That's not exactly a cap...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

ballsohard wrote:

Bowtothebill23 wrote:What if we did no max until you reach the cap. Then, once you each the cap, we instituted the strict 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 scale? That way we encourage more articles for the league as a whole, encourage people to write as many articles as possible, but make it hard for people to rack up an absurd amount of pointsZ

That's not exactly a cap...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I highly doubt that prevented you from understanding the post...

Bowtothebill23 wrote:

ballsohard wrote:

Bowtothebill23 wrote:What if we did no max until you reach the cap. Then, once you each the cap, we instituted the strict 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 scale? That way we encourage more articles for the league as a whole, encourage people to write as many articles as possible, but make it hard for people to rack up an absurd amount of pointsZ

That's not exactly a cap...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I highly doubt that prevented you from understanding the post...

Again, I think I've stated my position on this. I think a cap is needed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm just of the mindset, you're not getting good articles if the only reason you are doing it is for the points. Trying to incentive to the nth degree just doesn't seem like it will accomplish what you want.

It will however bail out a few teams that can't manage the cap.

Inner_GI wrote:I'm just of the mindset, you're not getting good articles if the only reason you are doing it is for the points. Trying to incentive to the nth degree just doesn't seem like it will accomplish what you want.

It will however bail out a few teams that can't manage the cap.

Hahaha....people write articles for the points every season and we get tons of great articles. I understand someone who doesn't contribute wouldn't want ppl who do to get points. People who think making incentives for doing free work is a bad idea are usually the ppl who don't do any free work period.

Try asking ppl who write great articles every year if they would write more and most will say yes. I'm just pointing out the obvious here. People who don't write articles and don't really contribute to the league in any way probably aren't the best people to have an opinion on how we go about rewarding those who do contribute. Just saiyan.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I've written a few articles for this league. I think there are steps to this process. No need to jump to the end.

Remove the cap on the per article max. Keep the seasonal cap. Let's see what happens.

Curious what the point estimate would be for my most recent article about RFA.

10 years of RFA S&T

https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?url=ht ... are_type=t


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

2 points: first of all, I'm for eliminating the cap (or at the very least raising it). When the Rockets, Magic, and Jazz were racking up the biggest luxury tax bills in history, they weren't even reaching the 10-15 point allowance. I just don't see how raising it will give teams this new "out" from under the luxury tax. I spent about 10 hours on my draft article. If a 10 point article takes 5 hours, I just don't see people spending 30 hours just to pay a portion of their tax. I just know that a few people (the 4-5 who are writing multiple articles per year) have been discouraged from writing more because they've reached their limit. BUT, if it takes keeping the cap the same to remove the cap on articles, then I'm all for it. I think we need to be working towards a goal of the most possible activity in the media threads and if that's what it takes to make the first step, then let's do it and assess next year.

Secondly, and this is for Quail, Log, and anyone else asking about points. I say we keep a standard article at 5 points. If anything is close to standard, I say it's worth as much as it is now. This is more for anyone who goes way above or below the norm. I think we should be encouraging each. I'd love to read 2 paragraph (1 point) articles recapping a sim, and I'd love to read more elegant articles that take hours and hours to research and compose. As for what they should be worth, having a panel (even if it's just 2-3 people) should help that. Discretion is key here. No, I can't tell you what constitutes a 7 point article vs an 8 point article. But when it's all written out, I can tell you that each article deserves more than 5 but less than 10 points and one article probably deserves a smidge more than the other. Again, this would take maturity from the writers to accept that what the writer might view as a 9-10 point article might get 7 points. But even that is still better than the 5 people are getting now.

Bowtothebill23 wrote:2 points: first of all, I'm for eliminating the cap (or at the very least raising it). When the Rockets, Magic, and Jazz were racking up the biggest luxury tax bills in history, they weren't even reaching the 10-15 point allowance. I just don't see how raising it will give teams this new "out" from under the luxury tax. I spent about 10 hours on my draft article. If a 10 point article takes 5 hours, I just don't see people spending 30 hours just to pay a portion of their tax. I just know that a few people (the 4-5 who are writing multiple articles per year) have been discouraged from writing more because they've reached their limit. BUT, if it takes keeping the cap the same to remove the cap on articles, then I'm all for it. I think we need to be working towards a goal of the most possible activity in the media threads and if that's what it takes to make the first step, then let's do it and assess next year.

Secondly, and this is for Quail, Log, and anyone else asking about points. I say we keep a standard article at 5 points. If anything is close to standard, I say it's worth as much as it is now. This is more for anyone who goes way above or below the norm. I think we should be encouraging each. I'd love to read 2 paragraph (1 point) articles recapping a sim, and I'd love to read more elegant articles that take hours and hours to research and compose. As for what they should be worth, having a panel (even if it's just 2-3 people) should help that. Discretion is key here. No, I can't tell you what constitutes a 7 point article vs an 8 point article. But when it's all written out, I can tell you that each article deserves more than 5 but less than 10 points and one article probably deserves a smidge more than the other. Again, this would take maturity from the writers to accept that what the writer might view as a 9-10 point article might get 7 points. But even that is still better than the 5 people are getting now.

Well said. Nothing to add. I'll take the high road.

I've said all I've had to say. Look forward to the vote.

ballsohard wrote:I've said all I've had to say. Look forward to the vote.

I'll take the high road AGAIN. Man I take the high road a lot.

DarthVegito wrote:

ballsohard wrote:I've said all I've had to say. Look forward to the vote.

I'll take the high road AGAIN. Man I take the high road a lot.