- png, jpeg
- Recommended minimum size 800px by 800px
- Maximum size: 1MB
Oct 29, 2017
Oct 9, 1995
Posts per Day
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Yojimbo</b></div><div>I said 150, so 100 is less than I though. However, like I said, after a week all of the just ones will stop because people will know that they are not getting posted. Also, the coach ones will stop with a ACC section. After a week you will probably get about 20-25 per day. Is that too much to review to have a "better" over website for you and a better experience for visitors?
Example... this was just posted trading Zucker for a 3rd https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/2174735 A week after imposing review this never gets attempted to be posted and therefore doesn't need to be review. Less mess, less junk, better experience.</div></div>
Or hit the report button, let us know it's a troll roster, and we'll delete it. I wish I understood the mental hurdles you have to go through to pick this roster as an example without even doing the bare minimum I've already requested of you.
I think you're overestimating the amount of lineup rosters we tend to get. Last week or so hasn't been indicative as we've been ramping up for a new season and movement - especially today - has absolutely taken off and everyone wants their 10 cents in on what the final rosters will look like. There's no feasible way for the current moderator team to review every post, and to delay them by as long as a week could make them irrelevant by the time they pass through a review period.
Even if your idea sticks, there's a transitory period between now and then were you still need to work with us under the system we currently have in order to reach that point. Turns out, you're still going to need to use the report button if you want to see some of those AGMs removed.
Within the past week or so I can find quite a few examples in your own replies where you should consider starting with internal improvement before worrying about the posting habits of others. Pretty gutless to call out new users that don't have the same understandings a more tenured user would when you yourself can't even manage to keep your posts within the rules.
I don't necessarily think we need to add to this idea - beyond the implementation of Armchair Coach or Fantasty Hockey Roster sections - until the idea itself is greenlit or kyboshed from Banks.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Yojimbo</b></div><div>If you are going to allow non-constructive AGMs then I am fine with non-constructive replies to them. Instead of giving the replies warnings/points you should just remove the AGM that started it. Treat the cause not the symptom. It is a chicken or the egg kind of thing, but how can you demand constructive only replies when allowing goofy AGMs?
Maybe make it so that a mod reviews the AGM before it is actually posted. Otherwise you will keep getting replies of just "No" or even "This is stupid" Reviewing AGMs before they post would fix a lot, and the mods can decide what goes in a legit AGM section and what is folly and should go into a junk AGM section.
Having AGMs reviewed before they post will also cut back on troll AGMs from the get go as the trolls will know they won't get posted at all. They will not get the satisfaction of the attention. Those will vanish quickly. It will also help the new people as they will figure out that bad PlayStation AGMs are not getting put into the serious AGM section, but in the funZone.
Another bonus of review before post is that it might push people to the messageboard section. A lot of stuff gets created as AGMs that is just messageboard fodder. Many AGMs are not AGMs not even ACCs. Review before posting will push that to where it actually belongs as well.
I don't know how many AGMs you usually get a day, 150 or so? Reviewing that many would be daunting at first, but the troll AGMs, messageboard fodder, etc would fall off quickly and slash that. Also having the ACC section would cut into what needs to be review as well. Within a week it would probably mostly take care of itself. and the number that would need to be reviewed would be very manageable.
Ounce of prevention...</div></div>
You realize there's like 12 of us right? Some days, like in the offseason might see 100 a day, days like free agency or trade deadline and it's in the thousands.
There's a collection of users that already think the moderators are unfair, and now you want us approving all AGMS? I'm not interested in even more flack from users that already think they're above having to provide constructive criticism.
How about we just follow the rules and continue reporting the bad stuff instead?
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Yojimbo</b></div><div>This site needs to make 3 versions of this tool:
1. AGM - "Real" AGMs were people actually try to GM
2. ACC - "Arm Chair Coach" for the annoying lineups with no trades/signings and therefor NOTHING to do with GMs
3. AGM-BH - AGM Bouncy House for when people are doing off the wall, 0% chance type play. Troll AGMs can live here too.</div></div>
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Jamiepo</b></div><div>I am 100% behind this idea.</div></div>
ACC and a Fantasy Hockey section could exist as they're quite self-explanatory, but how do you define or enforce the difference between an AGM and a bouncy house section? Opinions as to what a good deal or a good framework for a deal range wildly and are far too subjective without some mathematical value assigned to players, prospects, and picks. The league itself doesn't even abide by that. How should a new user who's only ever really experimented with AGMs in an NHL-20 setting understand that their trades aren't realistic before posting? Most new users already abstain from previewing the work of other users and a post limit (ex. you need 25 posts to submit an AGM) only really serves to limit site growth. There's a pretty big draw to this site if you can just drop an AGM right after signing up.
What realistically happens is we end up with the same setup we have now, but with the current moderators being asked to move tens to hundreds of more threads than normal. What happens if users don't get the point and continue to post those more wild AGMs in this new "Serious AGM Threads Only" section? Do you expect us to just warn and infract more users? I've noticed a lot of members here aren't apt to report these kinds of threads and are more inclined to just piss and moan about them and how the moderators don't do their jobs.
If anyone wants to see more quality and less of the obnoxious, troll material in the AGM section, realistically the only things that need to happen are as such:
1. Report the bad stuff
2. Improve on the constructive criticism you give to the not-so-bad-stuff
I don't know how many people I've had to tell this to, but the moderators here do not filter through every post made on the site. We only come across trolls and such when they get reported. I have 9 hours of schoolwork per day to manage during my week. Some days, I have enough going on at home or in life that I only have time to check the reports list instead of posting or making an AGM or two. We cannot be a 24-hour surveillance system; the closest we get to that is when users give us a hand by reporting posts and threads so we can address them accordingly.
Conversely, if you want newer users to start abiding by the rules or making an effort to post quality, a lot of "senior" members need to start doing the same. I believe we've been far too lenient on the "[Team] declines" posts that offer no feedback at all or the general discussion threads that end up in the AGM section. If the expectation is for us to start enforcing expectations for a decent AGM, it should work both ways and we should start cracking down more on the poor replies that don't look to improve the situation as a whole or the users that decline to put threads in the correct forum.
Nobody here started out perfect, but had we started in an environment where we would be forced to "sit at the kids table" until a specific level of quality in an AGM post was met, many of us wouldn't have stuck around. Instead, we took the feedback given to us and learned how to make a more realistic trade or signing. Everything was incremental. Other users had patience for you, extend that courtesy for the new users we have today. I would expect there to be some sort of relationship between the growth this site has had, the number of bad AGMs, and the number of quality users that have grown out of some of the more silly stuff. This place kinda needs those unrealistic AGMs and the users willing to listen, learn, and improve on their ideas in order to grow. CapFriendly itself has clearly become more popular, and with that, the userbase has grown and you're seeing more of those posts. Either report them or work with them.
Forum: NHLSun at 10:05 am <div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>mondo</b></div><div>Penguins are falling apart, so them.
I want to say that the Flames and Stars look like they could be on the chopping block for a major rebuild, but both have key players in their prime still and they both could still afford mortgaging futures in order to take a stab at a cup run.</div></div>
I think the Flames and their future are at the mercy of their decisions on Gaudreau and Monahan.
Andersson, Dube, Hanifin, Mangiapane, Tkachuk, and Valimaki are a good starting point for a retooling organization, and the outlook only starts looking up when you consider that Pelletier, Wolf, and Zary help round out a fair chunk of a future roster. It also kinda helps that Markstrom's there forever. Does Lindholm qualify as part of the "younger" Flames? I'd try to hang onto him as long as possible. If the Flames' management continues to choose to go for it with Johnny Hockey and Boring Sean Monahan, then I think the Flames might be looking at a painful rebuild as the majority of the team enters their prime. Without homerun picks in that 17-24 range (I cannot see Calgary keeping pace with Edmonton, Vancouver, and Los Angeles over the coming years), there's too much high-end talent missing from the roster. On the contrary though, if Calgary nets good returns for both Gaudreau and Monahan and takes a year down the toilet, the high-end talent comes immediately and the strong supporting cast already exists via the names I listed above.
I agree with the Stars though. Once Seguin gets to a certain point, there's not a lot to like about that organization beyond Heiskanen, Gurianov, and Hintz.
The Coyotes are again looking at another round of having to bleed assets in order to build for a future. Their owner is another cash-strapped billionaire (if such a thing exists) and given their recent PR record, attracting quality free agents is going to be nigh impossible. They have a ton of expiring assets this season and should be looking to completely tear it down by the deadline. Chychrun, Hayton, Hill, Keller, and Soderstrom are a pretty good starting point.