#SLOE: People's Basketball Sim League

Want to propose an idea to reward activity. The Results threads have been slow fot seasons. Usually the first few sims have decent responses, but tends to get quiet after All Star Weekend.

My proposal is to award 1 point for each thread posted in the regular season results threads. We can set a cap if needed, but I think there's about 12 of these threads a season. May seem high, but I believe the benefits of higher forum activity and an easily obtainable reward could help the league.



Sent via Morse code

I love this idea. Result threads used to be amazing

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Well seeing other people post about their great sims makes me depressed. Haven't had a great sim since 2005. So I ban this proposal out of spite.

I'm kidding. Please approve this. I support the idea.

Maybe we do a point for every two sims posted? That way it caps at 6 points for the season...

If a cap is wanted then we can set a cap.

Since it's my suggestion, I would volunteer to run this duty. It's similar to the depth chart participation.

Sent via Morse code

No cap is needed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

78# wrote:No cap is needed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe the cap doesn't need to be here but rather on an entire section of earnings in season.

As a standalone though, i think the 12 weeks will be easier to manage than some sort of cap on just this area. I'm afraid that capping at 6 just means most people will get their first six sim posts in and bail. 10 points at the least.

great idea and im down for it

TrayWithAnA wrote:

78# wrote:No cap is needed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe the cap doesn't need to be here but rather on an entire section of earnings in season.

As a standalone though, i think the 12 weeks will be easier to manage than some sort of cap on just this area. I'm afraid that capping at 6 just means most people will get their first six sim posts in and bail. 10 points at the least.

That's why I suggested a point for each 2 weeks with a relatively full post. Accomplishes a cap as well as rewards participation.

If we make it worth 12 points, I'd vote for an incremental rise in the lux tax. I think the points/tax ratios are pretty fair currently.

TheSyndicate wrote:If we make it worth 12 points, I'd vote for an incremental rise in the lux tax. I think the points/tax ratios are pretty fair currently.

I feel most GMs will start seeing that paying for trainings is not worth the points, and instead will save for just luxury tax payments. I may be in a small group but many will begin seeing the benefits of saving the 40 points rather than pump up 6 rating points.

I think the extra points will begin balancing the scale, but I like the idea of more points in circulation.

Sent via Morse code

NOLa. wrote:

TheSyndicate wrote:If we make it worth 12 points, I'd vote for an incremental rise in the lux tax. I think the points/tax ratios are pretty fair currently.

I feel most GMs will start seeing that paying for trainings is not worth the points, and instead will save for just luxury tax payments. I may be in a small group but many will begin seeing the benefits of saving the 40 points rather than pump up 6 rating points.

I think the extra points will begin balancing the scale, but I like the idea of more points in circulation.

Sent via Morse code

I think I agree. I'm not totally sure though. I think teams not keeping their players is also playing a huge role in them not seeing the value. If you keep a guy and use 3 trainings on him, then it's more than worth it. But if you train a guy twice then trade him...then those points are truly thrown down the trash. What do you think about that aspect of it?

DarthVegito wrote:

NOLa. wrote:

TheSyndicate wrote:If we make it worth 12 points, I'd vote for an incremental rise in the lux tax. I think the points/tax ratios are pretty fair currently.

I feel most GMs will start seeing that paying for trainings is not worth the points, and instead will save for just luxury tax payments. I may be in a small group but many will begin seeing the benefits of saving the 40 points rather than pump up 6 rating points.

I think the extra points will begin balancing the scale, but I like the idea of more points in circulation.

Sent via Morse code

I think I agree. I'm not totally sure though. I think teams not keeping their players is also playing a huge role in them not seeing the value. If you keep a guy and use 3 trainings on him, then it's more than worth it. But if you train a guy twice then trade him...then those points are truly thrown down the trash. What do you think about that aspect of it?

I think it's a good point, but trainings are normally reserved for those players that are franchise/foundation players. Training canps have also have hit players after getting individual trainings, causing 40 points to be flushed down the drain.

In the end, my points are reserved only for tax and tradr purposes.

Sent via Morse code

NOLa. wrote:

DarthVegito wrote:

NOLa. wrote:If we make it worth 12 points, I'd vote for an incremental rise in the lux tax. I think the points/tax ratios are pretty fair currently.

I feel most GMs will start seeing that paying for trainings is not worth the points, and instead will save for just luxury tax payments. I may be in a small group but many will begin seeing the benefits of saving the 40 points rather than pump up 6 rating points.

I think the extra points will begin balancing the scale, but I like the idea of more points in circulation.

Sent via Morse code

I think I agree. I'm not totally sure though. I think teams not keeping their players is also playing a huge role in them not seeing the value. If you keep a guy and use 3 trainings on him, then it's more than worth it. But if you train a guy twice then trade him...then those points are truly thrown down the trash. What do you think about that aspect of it?

I think it's a good point, but trainings are normally reserved for those players that are franchise/foundation players. Training canps have also have hit players after getting individual trainings, causing 40 points to be flushed down the drain.

In the end, my points are reserved only for tax and tradr purposes.

Sent via Morse code

I think this could help by the 'do-over' suggestion for a bad TC from a couple seasons ago.

before he comes in here everyone please ignore Nick

what about handling this similar to DC participation?

Miss 0 threads = 5pts
Miss 1 thread = 4pts
etc

This would help maintain sustainability IMO.

It really depends on the quality of responses. If I'm just going to see a whole bunch of variations on the post: "Meh. 3-4 sim" it's generating noise, not signal.

Would rather see teams posting team-centric articles.

WigNosy wrote:It really depends on the quality of responses. If I'm just going to see a whole bunch of variations on the post: "Meh. 3-4 sim" it's generating noise, not signal.

Would rather see teams posting team-centric articles.

Agreed.

If someone posts "My team sucked or did well this sim." then that shouldn't be rewarded. Make it creative, point out reasons why. Make it more interesting than just saying the equivalent "I'm here, now give me my point."

WigNosy wrote:It really depends on the quality of responses. If I'm just going to see a whole bunch of variations on the post: "Meh. 3-4 sim" it's generating noise, not signal.

Would rather see teams posting team-centric articles.

As long as exact guidelines are clearly posted prior to this rule coming into place. I'm okay with this. I do think 12 points is a lot. I agree with Doug that it should be similar to DC participation with losing points for missing posts.

Also, a deadline for each week should be set clearly. Clarifying that the post must be made prior to the next SIM.

logpmess wrote:

WigNosy wrote:It really depends on the quality of responses. If I'm just going to see a whole bunch of variations on the post: "Meh. 3-4 sim" it's generating noise, not signal.

Would rather see teams posting team-centric articles.

As long as exact guidelines are clearly posted prior to this rule coming into place. I'm okay with this. I do think 12 points is a lot. I agree with Doug that it should be similar to DC participation with losing points for missing posts.

Also, a deadline for each week should be set clearly. Clarifying that the post must be made prior to the next SIM.

Agree with both Quail and Logan.

logpmess wrote:

WigNosy wrote:It really depends on the quality of responses. If I'm just going to see a whole bunch of variations on the post: "Meh. 3-4 sim" it's generating noise, not signal.

Would rather see teams posting team-centric articles.

As long as exact guidelines are clearly posted prior to this rule coming into place. I'm okay with this. I do think 12 points is a lot. I agree with Doug that it should be similar to DC participation with losing points for missing posts.

Also, a deadline for each week should be set clearly. Clarifying that the post must be made prior to the next SIM.

BOOM, i actually said that to Tani earlier and forgot to post it here. I think you need to have the deadline of next sim DC lock or something like that. Always a set time. But yep, 100% agree

PS - HAY

I want to thank everyone for their support, critiques, and good discussion. Opposed to the idea or not, this will have to go to a vote first in which you will get your say and vote. For now I hope more discussions take place if needed to fine tune the idea.

From what I have read and weighing the costs/benefits of each, this is what I am drafting up as my proposal, how it works, and a basic guideline:

1) NOLa. will take the responsibility of Results Thread Participation tracker.

2) The reward system will be setup as a mirror image of the Depth Chart Participation system:

a) Perfect attendance = +5
b) Missed 1 = +4
c) etc.

3) Substance matters, not length. Not looking for an essay, and not looking for a tl;dr version of your sim. As Wig stated, this is not to generate noise. Failing to submit an appropriate post will result in an ignored sim particpation.

4) Post must be before the next depth chart is due for upcoming sim. For last regular season of the sim, post is due before playoff depth chart is due.

5) Not for playoffs. Only for regular season.


Sent via Morse code

NOLa. wrote:I want to thank everyone for their support, critiques, and good discussion. Opposed to the idea or not, this will have to go to a vote first in which you will get your say and vote. For now I hope more discussions take place if needed to fine tune the idea.

From what I have read and weighing the costs/benefits of each, this is what I am drafting up as my proposal, how it works, and a basic guideline:

1) NOLa. will take the responsibility of Results Thread Participation tracker.

2) The reward system will be setup as a mirror image of the Depth Chart Participation system:

a) Perfect attendance = +5
b) Missed 1 = +4
c) etc.

3) Substance matters, not length. Not looking for an essay, and not looking for a tl;dr version of your sim. As Wig stated, this is not to generate noise. Failing to submit an appropriate post will result in an ignored sim particpation.

4) Post must be before the next depth chart is due for upcoming sim. For last regular season of the sim, post is due before playoff depth chart is due.

5) Not for playoffs. Only for regular season.


Sent via Morse code