Community - Get into the Card Discussions!

Random decision to just turn over the process to an individual player simply because they express interest?
Not caring at all if this is what anyone else would like to do?

I don't know what John's reasoning was in asking me to run point, maybe I was just the most recent guy interested? or maybe someone without the scar tissue of a longer established SOM user? All I know is he did and I am very interested in trying to help establish an acceptable and repeatable process.

HELLLLL-- WE HAVE A HUGE LIST OF CARDS CREATED BY BILL ALREADY-- WHY NOT JUST CONTACT HIM - HE SPENT COUNTLESS HOURS COMPILING EVERYONE'S REQUESTS?

Bill was one of the first folks to jump on this thread relaunch and provided the links to those lists. They're probably everything we need or at least would be a great start, and I would love to leverage them...but after a quick review I can tell you why they can't be used very easily. You can't sort based on color coding (at least I don't know how) so the list, while vast, can't be narrowed down in its current form. I'd like to add what's needed but Bill has declined to participate or allow his spreadsheet to be used for this endeavor. Unfortunate but his prerogative.

Okay Bob you sound like a reasonable, well-intentioned guy who walked into something he may not have bargained for. You need to understand that many people are very unhappy, and have been for many years, with SOM management and how they treat customers. Dozens of ATG stalwarts no longer play the game at all -including Nev - and quite a few of us are, to say the least, quite jaded re SOM's maneuvers and intentions. But you should know that SOM earned that perception by repeatedly ignoring what the community asks for and wantonly breaking promises over and over and then when they do make changes they are often tangential, superficial and unwanted. Garcia is currently the poster boy for these issues and I have no respect for how he conducts business or treats the community. He has shown repeatedly that his word means absolutely nothing.

Adding new players shouldn't be a big deal. But if you started out with asking for volunteer (ambassadors) then you shouldn't change the rules midstream and penalize the very few accomplished veterans who did sign up in a timely manner. Maybe you could have 5 instead of 3 ambassadors per era and that might go along way to generating some good will, at least from me.

Hi Druid - It's definitely unfortunate that SOM hasn't been willing or able to embrace the community more effectively, but for whatever reason they're trying now, for adding these cards at least. So I'd like us to embrace this opportunity and show them it can work and have the SOM powers that be stop and ponder 'geez, we have an untapped resource and ally in this SOM community and we need to be better partners going forward'.

One thing this process has to be is fluid, an idea is better than no idea and the guidelines for this process are just that, they aren't rules. Your suggestion of going to 5 ambassadors is a good one, let's do it...but maybe just for the ERA's? I would like to try and keep this as lightweight as possible so that once its set up we can move quickly to nominations. I do feel that the Franchises just need a few passionate folks to make those work.

Rosie

Bubbling up a few older posts related to process suggestions.

Supertyphoon
My two cents = priority should be given to players 1) who are not represented already, 2) currently have a single card not representative of their career, or 3) needed franchise filler for COL, ARI. FLA and TB, in a wide range of salaries.

Toronto50
I play ATG occasionally. Some play exclusively. Maybe there should be a weighted vote favouring those users that play a ton of ATG?

My preferences:
1. Best seasons of any missing hall of famers
2. Improve franchises that lack full rosters
3. Improve franchises that have one era and lack useable players at many positions ( bias pick- Blue Jays)!
4. Put a cap on players that already have 3 or more cards if all the cards are for one franchise

Ok I lied, there's one rule.

I recognize there are large amounts of scar tissue with many of you in your dealings with the SOM management and their handling of SOM. If as part of your post you need to bitch a bit that's fine, but please also come with some suggestions or other positivity to this process. If you can't find any goodness to add then that's ok too, but I'll ask that you please go start another topic string and post those comments there. Tks

As the Jefferson's once put it...Moving on up!
Rosie

Rosie its great that you have tackled this endevor. However. I get a feeling at least 6 to 8 weeks will be the wait...these should be added monthly as promised

Bill was one of the first folks to jump on this thread relaunch and provided the links to those lists. They're probably everything we need or at least would be a great start, and I would love to leverage them...but after a quick review I can tell you why they can't be used very easily. You can't sort based on color coding (at least I don't know how) so the list, while vast, can't be narrowed down in its current form. I'd like to add what's needed but Bill has declined to participate or allow his spreadsheet to be used for this endeavor. Unfortunate but his prerogative.

I am going to take issue with that. Yes, I decline to be a part of the process: being fervently against the whole proces, that seems to be the less hypocritical path on my part. I will not even be voting. And yes, I am not allowing Rosie editing access to the spreadsheet because googledocs is not easily rectifiable in case of changes. EVERYONE has access to the lists. Have fun. I'm going to be winding down soon. When SOM becomes as horrible as departmental meetings, why bother?

Bill

When SOM becomes as horrible as departmental meetings, why bother?

Worth repeating LOL

And yes, I am not allowing Rosie editing access to the spreadsheet because googledocs is not easily rectifiable in case of changes. EVERYONE has access to the lists.l

Like Bill says, we all have access to the lists -- and if you can view them, then you can make copies and/or download them.

On the other hand, they are almost too much of a good thing. I signed up to review cards for the Tigers, so I sorted and extracted the Tigers entries, which included 75 pitchers and 143 hitters. A good starting point, yes, but overkill.

Rosie is correct that spreadsheets can not be sorted by color, however it would only take an hour or two to code each entry with a tag that represented the colored categories and then sort at will.

And speaking of the Tigers, I would suggest...

NOT CARDED AT ALL
Fothergill, Bob 1927
Granderson, Curtis 2007
Martinez, Victor 2014
Rogell, Billy 1933

Scherzer, Max 2013

NOT REPRESENTED PROPERLY
Bassler, Johnny 1924
Boone, Ray 1956
Cabrera, Miguel 2013
Fox, Pete 1935
Guillen, Carlos 2006
Kuenn, Harvey 1959
Maxwell, Charlie 1956
Walker, Gee 1936
Wertz, Vic 1951

Aguirre, Hank 1962
Lolich, Mickey 1972

Added a few more slots on the ERA's. Still need some franchise coverage, we are moving into the next phase end of the day tomorrow, Wednesday, July 6. Thanks for the work done so far.

ERA’s
Dead Ball
1. rburgh
2. The Last Druid
3.
4.
5.

Pre War
1. andycummings65
2.The Last Druid
3. bontomn
4.
5.

Post War
1. andycummings65
2. BDWard
3. The Last Druid
4.
5.

Expansion
1. andycummings65
2. BDWard
3. The Last Druid
4.
5.

Franchises
Angels
1. andycummings65
2. visick
3. FrankM
Astros
1.
2.
3.
Athletics
1.
2.
3.
Blue Jays
1. toronto50
2. visick
3. FrankM
Braves
1. andycummings65
2.
3.
Brewers
1. The Last Druid
2.
3.
Cardinals
1.
2.
3.
Cubs
1. andycummings65
2. BDWard
3.
Diamondbacks
1. FrankMansueto
2. visick
3.
Dodgers
1.
2.
3.
Expos/Nationals
1. andycummings65
2.
3.
Giants
1. Rosie2167
2. The Last Druid
3.
Indians
1. rburgh
2.
3.
Mariners
1. Palerydr2.0
2.
3.
Marlins
1. andycummings65
2.
3.
Mets
1. The Last Druid
2.
3.
Negro Leagues
1. Rosie2167
2. tcochran
3.
Orioles
1.
2.
3.
Padres
1. bontomn
2. andycummings65
3. FrankM
Phillies
1.
2.
3.
Pirates
1. rburgh
2.The Last Druid
3. tonybest
Rays
1. andycummings65
2. FrankM
3.
Red Sox
1. andycummings65
2.
3.
Reds
1. Rosie2167
2.
3.
Rockies
1. FrankMansueto
2. visick
3.
Royals
1.
2.
3.
Senators 61-71/Rangers
1. andycummings65
2.
3.
Senators 01-60/Twins
1. bontomn
2.
3.
Tigers
1. andycummings65
2. tcochran
3.
White Sox
1. andycummings65
2. BDWard
3.
Yankees
1. FrankMansueto
2.
3.