Suggestions for the 2014 PC Tournament?

I think we should get started right away.
Also include some live drafts in the mix.

Agree with both of these thoughts.

Just quoting this to bump it towards the end of the previous discussion.

By the way, starting it "right away" probably means to get the rules and schedule for 2014 out as soon as I can, and to get the sign-up's going as soon as it makes sense (i.e. shortly after the rules and schedule are published). I'm thinking I can get those things done during this month of April.

To be fair to the 2013 finalists, I wouldn't want to start event 1 unless it meant keeping the deadline for event 1 open till after the 2013 PC finals are done. So I could start event 1 in late April or early May (1 month earlier than last year), but event 1 couldn't close out until after about June 15 or so, to allow the 2013 finalists to get in after they're done their finals. In any case, that would be a lot earlier than last year.

Alright alright alright!

I think it's safe to say that there won't be any more suggestions in the suggestion box from here on out!

I apologize if there's any hard feelings. I think my frustration boiled over because I think I am making a very simple point, but I hear a distortion in the interpretation of that simple point when it's repeated back to me with words I am not intending to use and thoughts I am not trying to express.

I think Professor I.strether is funning with me, so I'm going to fun back for nothing more than comic relief. Everyone can sit back and enjoy - Professor, you of course get the last word!

Your point may be simple, but it is actually specious, and there are two significant problems with it.

No it is not and no there are not. You're argument is everything but ratiocinative. Not only did you specifically not address my points, I will counter your casuistic assertions and prove your suggestions nugatory.

First of all, your insistence that there be no points rewarded for finals made or finals won because you want a purer representation of accomplishments is bogus.

This is deceptive, bordering on sophistical. No where in any post at any time did I ever suggest or imply what you are positing. You are claiming I said something I did not, then arguing correctly against your false claim. What I don't understand is if you are being deliberately imposturous or if you are simply failing to understand the salient points of my argument.

Simply adding up all the wins (including playoff wins) for every player, as you propose, is itself a distortion of the player's accomplishments, since it neglects to recognize two of his most significant achievements--finals won and finals made. Those finals won and finals made must be included in a player's point total if that point total is to accurately represent his accomplishments; they are a natural requirement of that representation.

Everything stated here is unequivocally incorrect. Adding four numbers to get a sum is the definition of objective simplicity. That you go on to state that playoff wins neglect to recognize...wait for it...PLAYOFF WINS is incongruent. Then we have another dose of you saying "finals won and finals made must be included in a player's point total if that point total is to accurately represent his accomplishments" as if you just made a brilliant discovery! Eureka indeed! Did you even read this thread or did you just join us in the middle?

The second significant error in your reasoning is you claim that any constructed representation (or symbol) of an accomplishment or value--such as finals made and finals won--is entirely arbitrary solely because it is constructed...this is wrong.

You are not aware of this yet, but you are wrong! I'll be happy to show you. And my, please be more juridicious in choosing your words, as your frangible arguments are belied by your magniloquent flowery.

Again, with the counterfactual to SOMETHING I NEVER SAID..."you claim that any constructed representation (or symbol) of an accomplishment or value--such as finals made and finals won--is entirely arbitrary solely because it is constructed."

Do you really propose to define the word "arbitrary" for me or are you trying to define "constructed representation" for me? Since your interpretation of the word appears doubtable, let me define arbitrary for you as "contingent solely upon one's discretion." That is, assigning a point value to playoffs made as "just add five points" is arbitrary, can we agree? "Just add five points for making the finals" is arbitrary, can we agree? "Just add five more points for winning a ring" is arbitrary, can we agree?

The preposterous claim that I think "any constructed representation (or symbol) of an accomplishment or value--such as finals made and finals won--is entirely arbitrary solely because it is constructed" is misleading and leaves me both stolid and confused. You've managed to transpose "constructed arbitrarily" into the breathtaking mendacity you call "arbitrary solely because it is constructed." Indeed!

Almost all representations of value--be they salaries, home prices, or commodity prices--are constructed by the people who value them; they are not "natural". However, they are not equally arbitrary. When substantial thought is put in determining those representations of value, putting in consideration other factors relevant to them, then those representation of value become more accurate and less arbitrary than others. So using my example, all salaries (or home prices or commodity prices) are not natural, but some (as you well know) are still more sensible, accurate, and less arbitrary than others.

Well. I can't argue with that, can I?

This applies to your erroneous belief...

Again with the supercilious polemics!!!

This applies to your erroneous belief that any representation of finals made or finals won in measuring a player's accomplishments would be arbitrary.

No, a representation of finals made or finals won based purely on "playoff games won = additional points earned" is an objective measure vis-a-vis the currently assigned 5-5-5 point scheme, which was arrived at arbitrarily.

As, I mentioned in the first paragraph, an accurate representation of a player's accomplishments must include representation of his finals made and finals won.

Professor!!!!!!!!!!! Your inability to grasp this can only lead me to conclude you're just funning with me for fun's sake. Your self-contradictory assertions are without foundation and lead me to believe you do not fully understand the basic definitions of "objective", "subjective", and "arbitrary" as used in this forum, as opposed to how they must be being understood in the faculty lounge!

So a constructed representation of those finals made and won through points--done with substantial consideration of other factors in a player's accomplishments--would be sensible and necessary rather than arbitrary. Considering GBrookes' proposal of 2-3 points per playoff accomplishment would not skew regular season and playoff win totals, then that proposal is a sensible means of completely representing a player's accomplishments, not an arbitrary addition--such as your ridiculous examples above-that would skew them.

My examples are not ridiculous. Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly reasonable response to your straw man logical fallacies. Just ask the philosophy professor, he'll back me up on this.

QED

I hope that was cogent (it is a great word) enough for you; I really have enjoyed this discussion...

Me too!

FWIW, I started to add up the playoff wins to factor them into my post with the regular season wins. For the Top 10 managers, the current method overstates my method by two to one. In my method, the Top 10 managers notched just above 20 extra points from "playoff wins". The current scoring method assigned them just under 40 extra points.

Stated in the simplest possible terms, in a world where 81 wins is a coin flipper and 87 wins is genius, those arbitrarily assigned extra points artificially turn coin flippers into geniuses and vice versa.

gbrooke's new conclusion is absolutely right, but for the wrong reason. Cutting the current bonus points in half is spot on correct if one is trying to APPROXIMATE one playoff win equals one point. But why approximate when you can be absolutely precise: I win, I get one point. I lose, I get no points. Simplicity defined. Here's the administrative fix: click on post-season and read the total in the post-season wins column. Add this to the regular season wins.

Trust me, it's not that hard! I promise!!

Way too many big words being thrown around here. My dictionary is on fire, trying to look everything up....

Look, the thread was to make suggestions for the 2014 tournament, and that is exactly what J-Pav did. Nobody is required to agree with it.

I'll go down the middle - I like the suggestion of counting playoff wins as points, but I also like some kind of reward for making the playoffs (especially winning the division). My first goal at the beginning of every season is to win my division, and I manage my team to do that (sometimes at the cost of total wins). It's nice to at least get some extra reward for that.

(Yes, I do actually have a dictionary)

Why not 24 points for making the playoffs, 24 more for winning the semis and 48 for winning the ring?

Why not 23 points for making the playoffs, 23 more for winning the semis and 46 for winning the ring?

Why not 22 points for making the playoffs, 22 more for winning the semis and 44 for winning the ring?

Why not 21 points for making the playoffs, 21 more for winning the semis and 42 for winning the ring?

My point is simple. Any number, even agreed upon in advance by me, you, gbrookes or HAL almighty is an arbitrary distortion (okay, if it's agreed upon then it's an agreed upon distortion). My point is that the only number that is not an artificial distortion is wins on the field. Is that rational/cogent enough now?

If you agree to 5-5-10 or 3-3-5 (replacing the numbers above) then please cogently explain how you rationally came to that conclusion so that I might plainly understand it.

Your point may be simple, but it is actually specious, and there are two significant problems with it. First of all, your insistence that there be no points rewarded for finals made or finals won because you want a purer representation of accomplishments is bogus. Simply adding up all the wins (including playoff wins) for every player, as you propose, is itself a distortion of the player's accomplishments, since it neglects to recognize two of his most significant achievements--finals won and finals made. Those finals won and finals made must be included in a player's point total if that point total is to accurately represent his accomplishments; they are a natural requirement of that representation.

The second significant error in your reasoning is you claim that any constructed representation (or symbol) of an accomplishment or value--such as finals made and finals won--is entirely arbitrary solely because it is constructed...this is wrong. Almost all representations of value--be they salaries, home prices, or commodity prices--are constructed by the people who value them; they are not "natural". However, they are not equally arbitrary. When substantial thought is put in determining those representations of value, putting in consideration other factors relevant to them, then those representation of value become more accurate and less arbitrary than others. So using my example, all salaries (or home prices or commodity prices) are not natural, but some (as you well know) are still more sensible, accurate, and less arbitrary than others.

This applies to your erroneous belief that any representation of finals made or finals won in measuring a player's accomplishments would be arbitrary. As, I mentioned in the first paragraph, an accurate representation of a player's accomplishments must include representation of his finals made and finals won. So a constructed representation of those finals made and won through points--done with substantial consideration of other factors in a player's accomplishments--would be sensible and necessary rather than arbitrary. Considering GBrookes' proposal of 2-3 points per playoff accomplishment would not skew regular season and playoff win totals, then that proposal is a sensible means of completely representing a player's accomplishments, not an arbitrary addition--such as your ridiculous examples above-that would skew them.

I hope that was cogent (it is a great word) enough for you; I really have enjoyed this discussion...

J-Pav..........here is my last post again. If you ever want to actually counter (or actually address) my arguments with your own arguments supported by logical reasoning I would welcome it....you still have not done so. Your last "response" was almost kind of funny, but humor has to be somewhat accurate, and your attempt wasn't...and its frenetic attempts at ridicule (instead of engagement) kept you from actually making relevant arguments. Also, please scan the post again for the "flowery" words or phrasing you claim it has, you will see it has none...unless you think "specious" is flowery. Just because I'm a professor--which I identified myself as only to explain my late hours--doesn't mean my writing is "professorial," and my post wasn't...It was logical and clear. And, by the way, why all your immature scorn towards my being a professor? Teaching young adults in college to help prepare them for their careers is hardly anything worthy of it.

So, I'll take that "last word" you claim to give me and repeat again that my post above effectively points out the flaws in the significant elements of your arguments in this forum....I'm sure others will read it and see that as well. Your invitation to rationally (and calmly) attempt to dispute it Is a standing one.

Good luck on the rest of the season, and I look forward to further discussions--and even debates--with you in the future.

P.s....your use of "reductio ad absurdum" in one of your "arguments" was so off it was quaint...

OK guys, let's leave it at that. I think I'm regarding my own suggestion as being the ultimate compromise, not pleasing everyone completely, but kinda splitting it right down the middle, as near as I can.

By the way, I'm going to copy this post into a new thread, just to start at a page 1 again. Fresh start.

Any other suggestions - seriously...

Like:

A. Event parameters

How many non-DH events (let's assume there are 5 events)?

Is everyone kinda happy with about 3 $80 million cap events, 1 $60 mill, and 1 $100 million cap event?

I like the $60 million being a non-DH event - how does everyone feel about that?

I like the $100 million event to be unleashed. How do people feel about unleashed? Should we do 0, 1, 2 ,3 or 4 unleashed events?

B. Event timing and structure

What about the structure of events? For myself, with the way my life works, I like the way I've done it in the past, with an opening date and a closing date, with possibly as many as 6 weeks in between (sometimes 4 weeks). I know this causes wide gaps in the games played, which makes the standings page a little tricky or misleading from time to time, but I've mitigated this issue, I think, by publishing my own standings with games in hand accounted for at .5 points per game. I think this works OK, but I know some people would like it to be different. For me, trying to get event leagues started within even 2 weeks of each other is a bit daunting. Also, I feel that this tourney is kind of like the ultimate "open" tourney. I know strat-o-matic is pleased if we get as many participants as possible. With some events occurring over the summer holidays, I also would prefer to keep the events open for 4-6 weeks to try to accommodate summer vacation schedules. The fall events can be a little more compressed in the open and close dates.

The main alternative to this timing structure is what visick did with the mystery tournament, with very tightly scheduled events. But I'm just not sure that I can be the commissioner if that's what a lot of people want. I just don't know if I (personally) can deliver on a promise to get events done on that tight a timeline.My strat time is at odd hours, grabbing little bits of time. So the way the PC events have been structured in the past works well for my strat availability.

Your thoughts on this?

C. Communication

Similar to my comments on timing of events, I wish to strongly resist using real world emails. It just won't work for me, the way my life is structured. I would prefer to communicate on these boards, and by PMs on these boards.

For those of you who are in keeper leagues with me, you'll know that I will communicate with real life emails. However, that is the exception for my strat experiences - not the norm, for me. I really can't manage personal emails with 100 PC tournament participants - even 36 for the playoffs is too much for me. By contrast, communicating on these boards and by PM is easy for me to manage.

One very important suggestion that I've received is about the use of "banners" on strat, when people log in. I will attempt to make much more use of those banners. I think that is a very good idea. However, that is up to strat, and there are limits on what I can with that, I'm sure. But I will definitely explore making much more use of banners. Nevertheless, if I'm the commissioner, I need everyone to read the postings on these boards and threads, and read any PMs that I send their way. That's how I need to do it.

D. Playoff structure - i.e. the semi-finals and finals. How did everyone like that this year? Any suggestions? If so, please post them now, so that I can run them by strat to get their approval.

E. Anything else you want to suggest. Constructive criticism is welcomed by me. Just know that I am just doing my best, sincerely. But I welcome any constructive criticism or suggestions you might have. Wild brainstorming is OK. This is the time to do it, and it's why I've posted this request for comments! I've already made one change.....

Thanks everyone! Looking forward to the 2014 tournament!!!!