Interactive Mock 2.0 - New England is OTC

[Box_O_Rocks]

So let every draft website set up shop here as well. By the way, this guy has flooded fan sites for every team with the same cut and paste schtick.

Use the bat signal my friend, it may not cut down on your frustration, but at least you know you brought it to the Principals Office instead of arguing with a couple of your fellows who have differing views.

 

[MaineMan]

So let every draft website set up shop here as well. By the way, this guy has flooded fan sites for every team with the same cut and paste schtick.

"...flooded fan sites for every team..." Wow, he really hid that from...

No, wait. I think he did actually say at some point that he was trying to get as many fans of every team as possible to vote in order to get a representative sampling. He's not trolling for membership fees. His site has useful information.

I mean, the guy actually stuck around and discussed polling procedure, so not exactly a post-and-ghost spammer.

 

[DFlo]

borg, regarding your argument:

Yes I did post a lot in one day to get my post count up so that I could create a topic. I only had one day for the Patriots voting so I came here that morning and posted a lot so that I could post a topic that same day. Each team has a 24 hour window in this interactive mock draft and I sign up for their team forums the day that their team is on the clock, post in the morning, and have the results for them the next day.

It's either that or ignore the forum, have a lower sample size, and that's it. What would you rather me have done? I think fans want to be a part of it, and want to have their forum base represented in the voting.

And I DO go to all the team forums I can get into and post for them to vote so that we get a large enough sample size and have as many of the fans of that team voting for their player. How else would expect this to be run?

And you know what the interesting bit is? I would say that about 99% of all people don't have a problem with this. So far about 2300 have voted and not had a problem with it.

I don't get why you feel the need to have to go out of your way to try to take down something that no one but yourself seems to have a problem with.

 

[mcsully]

DFLO, thanks for the info.. Enjoying the draft info..

 

[DFlo]

Yeah, I understand the constraints and the unavoidibility of being arbitrary in one way or another. I was suggesting the "none of the above" (maybe "other" would be better) actually thinking of it as an alternative to adding a slew of other candidates or trying to implement some sort of "instant run-off" type system, especially if you're running a series of these, since it might help fine tune successive polls. (an "instant run-off" poll would be very cool, though, wouldn't it?).

Someone brought up the instant run off poll system to me before in another forum, and I looked into it but my main issues with it were that my polling system does not support multiple option voting (and finding an alternative free polling service that does AND is compatible with my website editor would be challenging to say the least), and the lack of simplicity would chase away voters. Also, the last Interactive Mock we ran was done this way so a change might chase off some returning voters.

During the earlier picks our main issue was that most of the polls were Cam Newton vs. 5 d-line prospects. So many teams didn't want Newton to outvote their diluted vote among the other prospects. Interesting to see this issue pop up again.

Anyway, I believe there's a significant percentage of Pats fans (not necessarily a majority, but possibly close to 50%) who actually might even be willing, with the option of trading down off the board, to take Heyward over Jordan at #17. I can only speak to what I've read on Pats fan boards, but I don't think it's unreasonable to project that the fan base of another team or two (or even several) might face a similar conundrum, especially the later it gets in round one.

This one would be my mistake. I thought I had a pretty good grasp of who the top 8 or so prospects for the Pats would be and I thought Jordan would be a given here, so I didn't even consider Heyward as a potential option. Anyways, live and learn, I'll make sure Heyward's an option at 28 if he's still available. Last time around, Pats fans went Watt + Wilkerson, so I'll make sure not to rule out all DEs this time around.

 

[DFlo]

Thanks mcsully

 

[mcsully]

Someone brought up the instant run off poll system to me before in another forum, and I looked into it but my main issues with it were that my polling system does not support multiple option voting (and finding an alternative free polling service that does AND is compatible wit.

You are fighting an up hill battle, I wouldn't worry to much unless an admin says something but from what I read, your site looks solid and you aren't selling anything..

I like the outcome so far and it looks really interesting

 

[MaineMan]

Someone brought up the instant run off poll system to me before in another forum, and I looked into it but my main issues with it were that my polling system does not support multiple option voting (and finding an alternative free polling service that does AND is compatible with my website editor would be challenging to say the least), and the lack of simplicity would chase away voters. Also, the last Interactive Mock we ran was done this way so a change might chase off some returning voters.

During the earlier picks our main issue was that most of the polls were Cam Newton vs. 5 d-line prospects. So many teams didn't want Newton to outvote their diluted vote among the other prospects. Interesting to see this issue pop up again.




This one would be my mistake. I thought I had a pretty good grasp of who the top 8 or so prospects for the Pats would be and I thought Jordan would be a given here, so I didn't even consider Heyward as a potential option. Anyways, live and learn, I'll make sure Heyward's an option at 28 if he's still available. Last time around, Pats fans went Watt + Wilkerson, so I'll make sure not to rule out all DEs this time around.

First of all, thanks for keeping up the dialog. I've never known a "spammer" as conscientious as you seem to be.

Yeah, I figured the polling system and compatibility issues would be a major constraint. I still think it would be cool though and, if it WAS doable, would certainly make your site unique.

I don't think that missing Heyward was a huge error on your part, all things considered. I mean, it's still a matter of significant controversy here (and on Reiss' ESPN blog), and there's even considerable disagreement as to whether our first pick should be a "Seymour replacement" DE or a "pass-rushing OLB". But, it's really those two positions above pretty much anything else with DE probably in the lead at this point.