FFMD

[EaglesPeteC]

I don't think TCMD needs to be mod run. @ny92jefferis does an amazing job running it. I think if just mods pushed it and helped us drum up interest, that would be awesome. Even tacking on the FFMD name to it "FFMD presents Total Control Mock" 

Then do traditional Draft only forum wide mock closer to the draft run by mods.

[ny92mike]

With the holidays rapidly approaching (Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's and Valentines Day), all of which I expect cards from all of you, can we please start actively discussing this in a healthy debate with forum members and moderators?    

@CWood21 

 

Thanks

 

 

[EaglesPeteC]

On 8/17/2017 at 12:03 AM, EaglesPeteC said:

I don't think TCMD needs to be mod run. @ny92jefferis does an amazing job running it. I think if just mods pushed it and helped us drum up interest, that would be awesome. Even tacking on the FFMD name to it "FFMD presents Total Control Mock" 

Then do traditional Draft only forum wide mock closer to the draft run by mods.

I think this is still the best solution. Me, @ny92jefferis and others can run TCMD. If the mods just help promote, and put the FFMD name behind it. It is a good place to start. Then mods can run FFMD II which is easier and more people will jump in to play.

 

It can be up to individual GM's whether they want to include others on the individual forms or not. Completely optional.

[ny92mike]

7 minutes ago, EaglesPeteC said:

I think this is still the best solution. Me, @ny92jefferis and others can run TCMD. If the mods just help promote, and put the FFMD name behind it. It is a good place to start. Then mods can run FFMD II which is easier and more people will jump in to play.

 

It can be up to individual GM's whether they want to include others on the individual forms or not. Completely optional.

I still want to continue Total Controls individual GM mock draft as I know that so many prefer that structure.  Part of the issues that FFMD has struggled with on the GM level is that the time required for the GM to put in is given the same voting power as a member that contributed a total of 2 single word posts.  The General Manager's vote whom is putting in hours of their time, must carry more value than the "special adviser to Kick holders coach".    

[CWood21]

6 hours ago, EaglesPeteC said:

I think this is still the best solution. Me, @ny92jefferis and others can run TCMD. If the mods just help promote, and put the FFMD name behind it. It is a good place to start. Then mods can run FFMD II which is easier and more people will jump in to play.

 

It can be up to individual GM's whether they want to include others on the individual forms or not. Completely optional.

That's not going to change the core issue, which is participation.  Throwing the FFMD "name" on TCMD isn't going to magically make people participate.  IF the original FFMD doesn't get people to sign up and participate, what makes you think that TCMD labeled as FFMD is going to have a different fate?  I'm legitimately curious.  The fact is that there is always going to be people who complain to complain, and you're not going to eliminate that from it.

[CWood21]

6 hours ago, ny92jefferis said:

I still want to continue Total Controls individual GM mock draft as I know that so many prefer that structure.  Part of the issues that FFMD has struggled with on the GM level is that the time required for the GM to put in is given the same voting power as a member that contributed a total of 2 single word posts.  The General Manager's vote whom is putting in hours of their time, must carry more value than the "special adviser to Kick holders coach".    

I definitely disagree with this.  GMs and aGM are really the only ones who are able to make moves, and as far as I've been aware we've never removed a GM for going rogue.  Let's go back to the original point of FFMD, it was to bring new members who were largely lurkers to participate and become active in their forum in an interactive mock draft.  Making a more complicated version doesn't fix that issue, it exacerbates that issue.  As I know I've discussed with you ad nauseam, the casual poster isn't going to read through 20 (or however many pages it is now) about to use your google doc.  It works in TCMD because those involved are willing to be invested in the mock.  That's not the case in TCMD.

[Scoundrel]

11 hours ago, CWood21 said:

That's not going to change the core issue, which is participation.  Throwing the FFMD "name" on TCMD isn't going to magically make people participate.  IF the original FFMD doesn't get people to sign up and participate, what makes you think that TCMD labeled as FFMD is going to have a different fate?  I'm legitimately curious.  The fact is that there is always going to be people who complain to complain, and you're not going to eliminate that from it.

Because TCMD uses a system that is very user friendly and it's not about eliminating complaints but persevering through them. TCMD has the ability to do this. This is a new forum with a lot of new members. If you don't even try you won't know.

Edited October 19, 2017 by Counselor

[EaglesPeteC]

15 hours ago, CWood21 said:

That's not going to change the core issue, which is participation.  Throwing the FFMD "name" on TCMD isn't going to magically make people participate.  IF the original FFMD doesn't get people to sign up and participate, what makes you think that TCMD labeled as FFMD is going to have a different fate?  I'm legitimately curious.  The fact is that there is always going to be people who complain to complain, and you're not going to eliminate that from it.

If you combine the TCMD following with the FFMD following I think that will lead to higher participation in theory. The advantage that TCMD has it is more objective than subjective, so there is less room too complain (although people still will) The big advantage of FFMD is that it is simpler and less "involved".

 

At the end of the day, I enjoy mock drafts and offseasons and there are many people on this site that do. I think it is better if we can find a way to collaborate and find a product that will help drive up interest. If we  continue to be diametrically opposed in 2 camps here then I don't think that is good for anyone. 

[MKnight82]

If you're looking for more participation you need to dumb it down not make it more complicated.  TCMD is great and should remain on its own for the hardcore mockers.  I really enjoy doing the TCMD.  But for the FFMD it should just be a forum wide mock draft with no free agency.

[ny92mike]

19 hours ago, CWood21 said:

That's not going to change the core issue, which is participation.  Throwing the FFMD "name" on TCMD isn't going to magically make people participate.  IF the original FFMD doesn't get people to sign up and participate, what makes you think that TCMD labeled as FFMD is going to have a different fate?  I'm legitimately curious.  The fact is that there is always going to be people who complain to complain, and you're not going to eliminate that from it.

Since I started my first mock draft in this forum, TCMD has grown each year in both repeat owners as well as new members and I continue to look for creative ways to bring in more.  Much of this I attribute to these guys simply knowing I'm willing to put in the hours to make it right.  I'm continuously looking for flaws and loopholes within the guidelines or the workbooks to make improvements where needed.  Personally, I think this is why some of the members are wanting to use the TCMD platform over FFMD as I don't think its just the free agency structure as being the only reason.  

I agree that some people just like to complain, I've been forced to remove some members simply because they refused to follow the rules.  However, the vast majority of the members are more than happy to follow the rules as long as those rules are created equally.  Compared to FFMD, my mock drafts have very little to complain about...please review the forum threads or ask around.  Having the idea of "people are going to complain just to complain" so why bother is why the guidelines haven't changed, its why I certainly started running my own mocks.  This attitude along with the "ad nauseum" comments is most definitely a turn off.  Was hoping we could have a real discussion about this, actually looking at each aspect of how ffmd is created and seeing what we could do to make it better.  Can we not do that?  

[CWood21]

4 hours ago, EaglesPeteC said:

If you combine the TCMD following with the FFMD following I think that will lead to higher participation in theory. The advantage that TCMD has it is more objective than subjective, so there is less room too complain (although people still will) The big advantage of FFMD is that it is simpler and less "involved".

 

At the end of the day, I enjoy mock drafts and offseasons and there are many people on this site that do. I think it is better if we can find a way to collaborate and find a product that will help drive up interest. If we  continue to be diametrically opposed in 2 camps here then I don't think that is good for anyone. 

That doesn't the fix that I mentioned, how do you grab the casual poster and get them involved in FFMD?  I can pretty much assure you reading through 20+ pages of how to use a google doc isn't the solution.

[ny92mike]

20 hours ago, CWood21 said:

I definitely disagree with this.  GMs and aGM are really the only ones who are able to make moves, and as far as I've been aware we've never removed a GM for going rogue.  Let's go back to the original point of FFMD, it was to bring new members who were largely lurkers to participate and become active in their forum in an interactive mock draft.  Making a more complicated version doesn't fix that issue, it exacerbates that issue.  As I know I've discussed with you ad nauseam, the casual poster isn't going to read through 20 (or however many pages it is now) about to use your google doc.  It works in TCMD because those involved are willing to be invested in the mock.  That's not the case in TCMD.

The GM's and/or AGM are typically the only ones allowed to conduct transactions but your system also allows for each member to vote regardless of the amount of time they spend helping out the GM.  It is one of the numerous complaints from GM's but they must be just complaining to be complaining.  

Personally I think TCMD is less complicated than FFMD but honestly you really can't say that it is since you've never participated in one of my mocks.  Are the rules lengthy, absolutely as one of the complaints with ffmd was that the guidelines left too many loopholes.  They could be shortened if someone else was to do it because I know that my technical writing skills aren't that great.  If the casual poster isn't willing to read - 11 - pages of rules to include the schedule, then why would you think they would be willing to make pitches and spend hours chasing the shark tank transactions?

I'd really like to cut through the negativity and actually have an honest discussion.   

 

 

[CWood21]

6 minutes ago, ny92jefferis said:

The GM's and/or AGM are typically the only ones allowed to conduct transactions but your system also allows for each member to vote regardless of the amount of time they spend helping out the GM.  It is one of the numerous complaints from GM's but they must be just complaining to be complaining.  

Personally I think TCMD is less complicated than FFMD but honestly you really can't say that it is since you've never participated in one of my mocks.  Are the rules lengthy, absolutely as one of the complaints with ffmd was that the guidelines left too many loopholes.  They could be shortened if someone else was to do it because I know that my technical writing skills aren't that great.  If the casual poster isn't willing to read - 11 - pages of rules to include the schedule, then why would you think they would be willing to make pitches and spend hours chasing the shark tank transactions?

I'd really like to cut through the negativity and actually have an honest discussion.   

That's the original reason for FFMD.  FFMD was created to get newer members involved in forum discussion.  If you want a mock where decision lies with one or two people, then that's where a "closed" mock makes sense.

And I've been ready to have a real honest discussion.  The only "solution" I've heard is to rename TCMD as FFMD, and I've asked you (and @EaglesPeteC) to explain why you think that solution is going to fix the underlying issue.  Participation.  The fact is if you go through all of the past FFMD feedback threads, there's one underlying issue.  FFMD has gotten unnecessarily complicated, and that's in large part because we as mods have had to patch the complaints that have come over the years.  Whether that be fans of teams whose teams are in salary cap hell (think Cowboys a few years ago) wanting to be able to be active in FA or the Tracy Porter's of the world getting $17M+ in FA.  But again, if you can explain to me why you think relabeling TCMD as FFMD is going to suddenly fix the participation issue I'm all ears.

[ny92mike]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

That's the original reason for FFMD.  FFMD was created to get newer members involved in forum discussion.  If you want a mock where decision lies with one or two people, then that's where a "closed" mock makes sense.

And I've been ready to have a real honest discussion.  The only "solution" I've heard is to rename TCMD as FFMD, and I've asked you (and @EaglesPeteC) to explain why you think that solution is going to fix the underlying issue.  Participation.  The fact is if you go through all of the past FFMD feedback threads, there's one underlying issue.  FFMD has gotten unnecessarily complicated, and that's in large part because we as mods have had to patch the complaints that have come over the years.  Whether that be fans of teams whose teams are in salary cap hell (think Cowboys a few years ago) wanting to be able to be active in FA or the Tracy Porter's of the world getting $17M+ in FA.  But again, if you can explain to me why you think relabeling TCMD as FFMD is going to suddenly fix the participation issue I'm all ears.

Alright, TCMD was designed off the failures of FFMD, not in terms of the level of participation, that came later.  As you stated FFMD is being pieced together with a number of patches to hold it together, I saw this a few years back and completely stripped the entire thing down and completely restructured it.

I spent months studying where ffmd's issues laid, discussed it with several people and came up with a system that works.  It's been tested, the vast majority of the kinks are worked out.  There are at least 32 members that know the system from the GM level.  The system is fair for everyone involved, it takes minutes to determine the free agency transactions that is completely automated and without bias opinion.  The system can be ran with a skeleton crew.  It's growing in popularity, members enjoy and look forward to being involved.  It takes only a few minutes to understand how the google docs work.  This system works, did I say that already?       

FFMD's free agency is built on the idea of using "agents" to determine where players end up.  Thus limiting you to changing its core structure to make improvements, because in order to do so you need more "agents".  The agents needed more to go on, other than a dollar amount so the pitch was injected, because you couldn't handle the workload of allowing more players to get signed in a short period of time, the shark tank was used but that created problems due to a wild open bidding system, so you put limits on the bidding, yet another patch.

I get it.  I've done my fair share of patching but I make every effort I can each year to remove those patches should I use them the previous year.  

In just discussing the free agency aspect of TCMD, the issue with teams in cap hell is resolved as the system allows for each team to be active regardless the funding, simply because they aren't restricted to only bidding on the players locked into a talent agency.   

I'm more than willing to help you guys out with coming up with different ideas, but why?  The TCMD system works and is something that we could spend time over the next couple months to figure out how to make it work at the forum wide level.  Just sounds easier that completely starting from scratch or looking for another bandaid to put on it.  

 

[squire12]

As someone who had limited participation in the FFMD when I first joined....various reasons, 1 being an outsider and having a difficult time getting my input and thoughts to be "respected".  There was a convoluted process of codes for players that made things significantly limiting.

I have participated in the past 2 TCMD.  The workbooks are very user friendly.  The videos/tutorials are easy enough to follow and with enough veteran people that could serve as a support group for any new GM's, getting the process down would not be that challenging.  

Since TCMD was run twice last offseason and FFMD failed to get off the ground, I am not sure why the resistance into at least trying for the 2018 offseason using TCMD as the forum wide Mock process would not be considered.  

One suggestion I would offer and I am not sure if the new site here would support it, but allowing a team to have a discussion topic within their team subforum to discuss that would be restricted from other teams members from snooping.  Some level of privacy discussions needs to happen if you want an easier time for a group of members to be able to discuss things about transactions without needing to PM everyone.