this complex procedure for adding cards an AWFUL idea

IM sorry to be a proverbial wet blanket,

but this process is drawing the heck out of an already MONTHS overdue process-- its craaaz and unnecessary.

IF anything the community should be talking about what big features for the game we want, not taking weeks to discuss long overdue card additions ad nauseum.

IMO this is a very very bad idea.

ITs such a simple thing to keep unwanted cards out simply by putting in a minimum innings for SPs, a different one for RPs and ABs for hitters.
Other than that we are making a Mount Everest out of an ant hill.

But building an extravagent bee-hive sounds so much fun! Isn't that what alot of impatient managers with limitless patience towards pretend simulated baseball want to do? We don't have enough features, so let's create a bunch off the grid that will result in a couple dozen fleeting Christmas presents! I love Strat, more than most here I think in large part because I wish em the best best and don't want to talkk ill for their own sake and because I pipe dream want to work for em. Perhaps Rosie too, with his rapid rise to power, with Strat outsourcing an anthill of work to him to make vast geometic puzzles out of.

I love it! Kinda, power to Rosie although I just posted on his forum saying my compaints: Let people join a thang before letting the power elite join 20 Councils.


You bring up excellent points and are more than mild-mannered compared to par-bitching here.


FEATURES. The long forgotten (ignored/underfunded) whole shabang. Advertising sucks too but dang this game is great so strat could do stuff. We all love the engine or at least haven't found anything comparable.


What strat should do if they really have a community/want to engage with it meaningly. Is hold a conference call or IM to discuss FEATURES/GROWTH.

PennantWars
Brushback Baseball
OOTP
CBSSportsline on FB and a million others I can't recall or needn't present users with a WAY more open platform and do it with less. I've 24 and have been playing this game with my dad since '03-'04. Stasis through time. So many games have come and gone and pushed more than strat, with less--maybe thats the crux, strat is safe?

The first game, PennantWars is freaking nuts and frankly had such a conference call that I was regrettably always unable to attend as just like the game as a whole, demanded a TON. Still arbitrary unfairness which is always popping up here, in either firsst-come serve or Mountain manifestation like in this example.

My problem is Strat needs to develop. Truly online game that isn't just an ignored child that maybe gets a pat on the head in the form of some of the work SOM shoulda been doing.

I'd like teams added. Oh, and game modes and advertising to allow those game modes to be viable. Do your best strat.

I'm sorry to kinda sorta highjack your post Salty.

For adding cards, would you just want them to unilaterally release the 50? Or is that adding cards is all the conversation is the problem? I came in late, and suddenly saw a huge bureaucracy about equity that didn't seem that way and nobody mentioning that. Also, they offered "whatever you want" withing this dimension (cards). Its a very low cost offer for them i guess you could say.

Hey Nels--

Im saying we can do this easily-- everyone can choose one player.
50 players-- easy. Don't even need a vote for myself, don't care.

Make minimum abs, and ips so we dont get the fluke cards.

Otherwise we should form a subcommittee to decide on who should be on the committee to decide which cards we are going to vote for as a community.

that should only take what, a few weeks to decide, followed by another few weeks for SoM to actually put the cards in.

I mean why are we rushing this? We get cards and upgrades so frequently already

Distracting is the word. That just sad that 50 is everyone? The conference call i mentioned is bigger, but still, a thing like NBA 2k or whatever thing has millions of users, couldn't open conversation much--and then offer such timeline free options. Just like in a big kindergarten room, you can't always have an open debate. We're so small and therefore entitled though, that I guess everyone gets a vote. Might not even be 50. Got like 50 Dh leagues the nels52 persona would like to join and there are.....0 right now.

Never thought I'd be for corporateness, but Strat probably needs some. Also, good further clear points from you, but i don't know what that I would like the kind of players we'd get if everyone voted. (200 mil players and freak offensively skewed cards that don't help the nuance of 80 mil) I suppose if thats what the voters want though....Like a mini 2016 election, is there any right way to do it?

Agree though:

-quicken it (player add/nomination)
-TALK ABOUT MECHANICS/FEATURES/MODES not morels
-Don't just talk about above
-Add/vote for cards in more equitable way. (nobody on 10 councils if thats the way it ends up goiing)

I say let's take our time and do it right. If I understand this correctly, we'll be adding another 50 much sooner than usual (after the first 50 are added that is). So why not create a "master election list" that will ensure better selections down the road? I mean, we've waited this long.....

I say let's take our time and do it right. If I understand this correctly, we'll be adding another 50 much sooner than usual (after the first 50 are added that is). So why not create a "master election list" that will ensure better selections down the road? I mean, we've waited this long.....

Steve--

WE Have such a list (I really want to shout this). BILL aka George Bernard has been collecting everyone's card nominations for YEARS now...
People already voted on his list MULTIPLE times to see who should be added.


Also, what makes you think the cards are going to be added any quicker? I see the opposite happening.

Also also, Nel, I think giving everyone a voice, lets folks who want a player for a 60 mil league add one, those who want a guy for a franchise add one, those who want a 15 bryce harper should be able to add him. I mean what we are doing is now creating delegates who are choosing who we can vote on, it just sounds so similar to an already way too long election cycle.

And lots of people will volunteer, put hours into doing the work that SOM should be doing, then they will take 6 months to actually add the players and then go another 6 months before they talk about adding more.

Past behavior predicts future behavior, we know what to expect....

The addition of a quango does not seem to me to be the way forward. Elections are messy things. And that's their beauty! I may be in the minority, but I like the elections. Instead of accepting someone's choices willy-nilly, I like the fact that we have to find arguments for them and then weigh those arguments to finally vote. THAT is our filter. Not the decision of a panel (visions of smoke-filled rooms deciding who will be vice-president make me shake with horror). Maybe my choice didn't get in the last batch (what was wrong with the 1999 Jeff Zimmerman? ), but if we had regular elections then we wouldn't have to resort to blue-ribbon committees to validate our choices. As I said before, I have nothing against the guys who would be the ambassadors -- I'm in numerous leagues with them, they are the pillars of the on-line SOM world. But as has been suggested in various threads, if we were to establish guidelines for each election (minimum abs, minimum ips as the ground base, and then say, this election deals with only players without cards here, the next election is only for pitchers and catchers, the following only for whole teams, the following for deadball players, the next for 20xx players, the next only for lefthanders....or free swim, everyone in the pool. There could even be elections for what the parameters would be for the following election), then we would have a number of great card additions. Look at the discussion between Craig and Bruce in the other thread about deadball additions. Now those are passionate arguments, well-reasoned and difficult to choose between. But, man, they got me thinking about deadball players and which ones I would want. And then I think about how it would be great to have Bryce Harper in the set just to see him flail away in Petco against Greg Maddux.

But these elections would only work if the elections were to be held at regular intervals, say every two months. The disappointment of not having one's card chosen might be lessened if you knew that another election would be coming up shortly.

The part of baseball that attracted and attracts us still to the game is that part connected to dreaming and hoping. We play here because we honestly hope that the Senators really might win, that Mays vs. Alexander would be worth the price of admission, that Jackie Hayes might get the GWRBI against Bruce Sutter. But each of us has different dreams, and elections might allow those dreams to get realized.

Bill

What Bill said.