|
|
Post by TinyTimPig on Oct 6, 2022 16:12:41 GMT -5
i will implement something that has data to show it's good for the league so long as it isn't unpopular What is the data that indicates only being allowed to accept one re-sign per offseason is objectively good for the league? |
|
|
|
Post by Fason on Oct 6, 2022 16:16:48 GMT -5
This thread is a sad read
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Oct 6, 2022 16:29:30 GMT -5
what's the difference between a response that dismisses and a response that disagrees? put another way, can i ever disagree with you without you feeling like you haven't been heard? and what does that mean for the extremely common scenario where two GMs disagree and i have to pick a side? yes it happens every day at my home with my wife. We disagree constantly. However, through civil discourse, I may not get my way but my wife acknowledges my side of things, recognizes how I feel and chose to go a different way and provides her reasons. NONE of this is about 2 GM's disagreeing. This is 100% about a majority of people wanting one thing but your data point says something else so you do what a data point says not what a majority of the people want and yes 8 is slightly over a third but of the people that did vote, it was an overwhelming majority. People don't vote because what we want and votes mean nothing. You have said that and proven it by saying that you will not do something even if that is what the league wants because you have a data point that says it is bad for the league. That is proof you are not listening to people. You simply do what data tells you to. There are times when we don't care about a data point proves or shows. This is you not listening to the group. Listening and feeling heard would go along the lines of " I see what you are saying and understand why you, the league want this, but here is why I dont think it is a good idea. We could do X,Y,Z which will have a similar impact or effect and these ways ARE better for the league." Simply pointing out data and saying "No" is not listening at all. so let's go point by point... disagree constantly - check civil - check chose to go a different way - check provide my reasons - check i feel like i'm off to a good start, so let's talk about the 8 vote specifically. tim's position was that currency creates a gap between bad and good teams, so we should give bad teams more via the non playoff reward. i didn't point out data, i spent my time and effort to go find it, and when i did i found that currency doesn't create that gap in the first place. in that case i'm not going to propose a different way to give them more currency, how could i? if i have to provide an alternate solution you're requiring me to agree with what you call a problem in the first place, and as we see in this thread that inevitably falls apart in a league with multiple GMs so in the scenario where i don't agree the problem you observe exists, and i've showed my reasons for doing so, and haven't called you names, what else do i have to do to make you feel heard? |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Oct 6, 2022 16:41:09 GMT -5
my claim is that the player will look like their stats and growth in the pros as much as i can control them to do so. Ok, so players are modeled after their real-life counterparts as much as you can control them to do so. In order to have players modeled in such a way, you must do some research into their real-life stats prior to building them and... giving a rotating cast of draft masters carte blanche to indulge their own personal biases, when no one knows how long a draft master will serve (or how petty they'll be), would necessarily be a less reliable source of information ...personal biases of the Draft Master - a role that is generally undesirable as made evident by the high turnover - will not be acknowledged, despite it being one of the few things that can add entertainment to the role... Leads me to the question... Why is there a draft master and why are there profiles? Why don't we back the compensation back down to 25,000 and I'll just list out the 10 profile players whose stats you should research, and then do the strengths for non-profile guys (or we can just randomize them because that's pretty much what I do anyway). It's clear they're very rarely read and my spending 3-4 hours every two weeks to write them all seems like an enormous waste of time. the same reason we have every board duty, to make the commissioner's job easier. right now it's much easier for me to make edits to profiles than write them from scratch, because you specifically aren't far or frequently off, mostly it's just things like backing "great" down to "good" or adjusting for how certain irl attributes are reflected in the software in 5.0 and into 6.0 i operated under the assumption that people were making fair profiles, because it never came up as a question. bk's approach made it clear that assumption was not valid, and maybe it never was, i'd have to go back and look to evaluate exact degrees i certainly don't blame you if you feel undercompensated for your time, like all board duties it's mostly ignored and when it's not it's criticism. if there were a way to automate it the way i did improvements history i would, but i don't know of such a way |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Oct 6, 2022 16:45:21 GMT -5
i will implement something that has data to show it's good for the league so long as it isn't unpopular What is the data that indicates only being allowed to accept one re-sign per offseason is objectively good for the league? potential player redistribution primarily from teams with more good players and little/no soft cap space to those with less and more respectively and since the data shows we're only dipping the tip of a pinky toe into restricting resignings, if it turns out with more data to have been wrong we won't have gone drastically wrong, a gradualist approach i think is valuable |
|
|
|
Post by TinyTimPig on Oct 6, 2022 16:45:32 GMT -5
the same reason we have every board duty, to make the commissioner's job easier. right now it's much easier for me to make edits to profiles than write them from scratch But why do we need profiles in the first place? If they aren't read, and you have to evaluate them against real-life counterparts and do that research regardless, why are they necessary? If it's for height/weight/age/position - that's understandable and can easily be included without the 3-4 paragraphs. |
|
killiam bing
New Orleans Jazz
Posts: 777
Likes: 232
Joined: March 2022
|
Post by killiam bing on Oct 6, 2022 16:49:30 GMT -5
yes it happens every day at my home with my wife. We disagree constantly. However, through civil discourse, I may not get my way but my wife acknowledges my side of things, recognizes how I feel and chose to go a different way and provides her reasons. NONE of this is about 2 GM's disagreeing. This is 100% about a majority of people wanting one thing but your data point says something else so you do what a data point says not what a majority of the people want and yes 8 is slightly over a third but of the people that did vote, it was an overwhelming majority. People don't vote because what we want and votes mean nothing. You have said that and proven it by saying that you will not do something even if that is what the league wants because you have a data point that says it is bad for the league. That is proof you are not listening to people. You simply do what data tells you to. There are times when we don't care about a data point proves or shows. This is you not listening to the group. Listening and feeling heard would go along the lines of " I see what you are saying and understand why you, the league want this, but here is why I dont think it is a good idea. We could do X,Y,Z which will have a similar impact or effect and these ways ARE better for the league." Simply pointing out data and saying "No" is not listening at all. so let's go point by point... disagree constantly - check civil - check chose to go a different way - check provide my reasons - check i feel like i'm off to a good start, so let's talk about the 8 vote specifically. tim's position was that currency creates a gap between bad and good teams, so we should give bad teams more via the non playoff reward. i didn't point out data, i spent my time and effort to go find it, and when i did i found that currency doesn't create that gap in the first place. in that case i'm not going to propose a different way to give them more currency, how could i? if i have to provide an alternate solution you're requiring me to agree with what you call a problem in the first place, and as we see in this thread that inevitably falls apart in a league with multiple GMs so in the scenario where i don't agree the problem you observe exists, and i've showed my reasons for doing so, and haven't called you names, what else do i have to do to make you feel heard?
Why does there need to be 'currency creating a gap between bad and good teams' to implement tims idea?
|
|
|
|
Post by Druce on Oct 6, 2022 16:50:15 GMT -5
This is so pointless.
|
|
|
|
Post by 20s on Oct 6, 2022 17:01:10 GMT -5
Ok, so players are modeled after their real-life counterparts as much as you can control them to do so. In order to have players modeled in such a way, you must do some research into their real-life stats prior to building them and... ...personal biases of the Draft Master - a role that is generally undesirable as made evident by the high turnover - will not be acknowledged, despite it being one of the few things that can add entertainment to the role... Leads me to the question... Why is there a draft master and why are there profiles? Why don't we back the compensation back down to 25,000 and I'll just list out the 10 profile players whose stats you should research, and then do the strengths for non-profile guys (or we can just randomize them because that's pretty much what I do anyway). It's clear they're very rarely read and my spending 3-4 hours every two weeks to write them all seems like an enormous waste of time. the same reason we have every board duty, to make the commissioner's job easier. right now it's much easier for me to make edits to profiles than write them from scratch, because you specifically aren't far or frequently off, mostly it's just things like backing "great" down to "good" or adjusting for how certain irl attributes are reflected in the software in 5.0 and into 6.0 i operated under the assumption that people were making fair profiles, because it never came up as a question. bk's approach made it clear that assumption was not valid, and maybe it never was, i'd have to go back and look to evaluate exact degrees i certainly don't blame you if you feel undercompensated for your time, like all board duties it's mostly ignored and when it's not it's criticism. if there were a way to automate it the way i did improvements history i would, but i don't know of such a way I think another question is what is the need for the written profile (that Tim writes and you have to edit) when they are not final until the day before College Stats go out. Does the profile serve any purpose once we start to see college stats? I don’t think any GMs rely on it once stats go up (and it isn’t in its final version before that). I understand you are saying Tim writing a rough draft for a profile saves you time because you just have to edit words, but is there still a need for the written profiles themselves? Are they adding value? It would save both of you even more time if they weren’t written at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Sapular on Oct 6, 2022 17:09:35 GMT -5
You are right and I'm the real idiot here. Thinking that there was any way possible to have a reasonable conclusion. |
|
|
|
Post by Druce on Oct 6, 2022 17:23:45 GMT -5
The most disheartening reveal from this thread is the idea that profile guys are made to be what they ended up being irl. The best part of sim is when irl draft busts turn into star players and vice versa. There is no doubt Kobe will suck again which is also annoying.
|
|
|
|
Post by TinyTimPig on Oct 6, 2022 17:25:24 GMT -5
The most disheartening reveal from this thread is the idea that profile guys are made to be what they ended up being irl. The best part of sim is when irl draft busts turn into star players and vice versa. There is no doubt Kobe will suck again which is also annoying. Right - there's not really a way for a guy that wasn't good IRL according to Eric's definitions - Iverson, Kobe, etc. - to be good, but there's a way for no-names - Malcolm Huckaby, Terrance Ferguson, etc. - to turn into all-time greats. The latter is awesome, the former much less so. It legitimately seems like the best way for Kobe Bryant or Allen Iverson to become good sim players is to make them non-profile potential guys. |
|
|
|
Post by 20s on Oct 6, 2022 17:27:54 GMT -5
The most disheartening reveal from this thread is the idea that profile guys are made to be what they ended up being irl. The best part of sim is when irl draft busts turn into star players and vice versa. There is no doubt Kobe will suck again which is also annoying. So I agree with you that I do not enjoy players being built like this and it was what trofie was trying to allude to in an earlier post. I like when Michael Olowokandi is one of the most tantalizing draft prospects in sim league as well so there is a desire to potentially take him #1 and maybe he turns out to be a success in sim league. That is a fun part of sim for me as well. But to address the first part, you must have missed the other threads where Eric has already said that his goal/he builds players based on how their IRL professional careers were. That wasn’t a new revelation for me, but it does sadden me all the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Oct 6, 2022 18:24:34 GMT -5
The most disheartening reveal from this thread is the idea that profile guys are made to be what they ended up being irl. The best part of sim is when irl draft busts turn into star players and vice versa. There is no doubt Kobe will suck again which is also annoying. Right - there's not really a way for a guy that wasn't good IRL according to Eric's definitions - Iverson, Kobe, etc. - to be good, but there's a way for no-names - Malcolm Huckaby, Terrance Ferguson, etc. - to turn into all-time greats. The latter is awesome, the former much less so. It legitimately seems like the best way for Kobe Bryant or Allen Iverson to become good sim players is to make them non-profile potential guys. AI helped win me a title in 5.0 so you watch your mouth! In seriousness, I wish Eric would understand and account for the different eras that guys played in. Kobe, MJ, AI and a bunch of other guys were some of the best players of their generation and thus should be good in sim. I honestly couldn’t care less how Kobe’s true shooting percentage, pts/tsa, fg%, ft% etc etc matched exactly how they were in real life as long as they are really good player in sim. Its simple fact in any sport that the newer age players would destroy any historically great player/team in todays game. Hockey, football, basketball it doesn’t matter. If Eric could just understand that simple fact it would allow for historically great players to be good in sim. We have it happen all the time in the opposite sense with random players, why can’t it happen with the greats? |
|
killiam bing
New Orleans Jazz
Posts: 777
Likes: 232
Joined: March 2022
|
Post by killiam bing on Oct 6, 2022 18:30:38 GMT -5
I honestly couldn’t care less how Kobe’s true shooting percentage, pts/tsa, fg%, ft% etc etc matched exactly how they were in real life as long as they are really good player in sim. Its simple fact in any sport that the newer age players would destroy any historically great player/team in todays game. Hockey, football, basketball it doesn’t matter. If Eric could just understand that simple fact it would allow for historically great players to be good in sim. We have it happen all the time in the opposite sense with random players, why can’t it happen with the greats?  |
|
|
|
Post by TinyTimPig on Oct 6, 2022 18:36:57 GMT -5
Right - there's not really a way for a guy that wasn't good IRL according to Eric's definitions - Iverson, Kobe, etc. - to be good, but there's a way for no-names - Malcolm Huckaby, Terrance Ferguson, etc. - to turn into all-time greats. The latter is awesome, the former much less so. It legitimately seems like the best way for Kobe Bryant or Allen Iverson to become good sim players is to make them non-profile potential guys. AI helped win me a title in 5.0 so you watch your mouth! In seriousness, I wish Eric would understand and account for the different eras that guys played in. Kobe, MJ, AI and a bunch of other guys were some of the best players of their generation and thus should be good in sim. I honestly couldn’t care less how Kobe’s true shooting percentage, pts/tsa, fg%, ft% etc etc matched exactly how they were in real life as long as they are really good player in sim. Its simple fact in any sport that the newer age players would destroy any historically great player/team in todays game. Hockey, football, basketball it doesn’t matter. If Eric could just understand that simple fact it would allow for historically great players to be good in sim. We have it happen all the time in the opposite sense with random players, why can’t it happen with the greats? I don't think this is the problem at all. Eric makes plenty of players from previous generations good - Dominique Wilkins, Nick Van Exel, Larry Bird, Derrick Coleman, Dale Ellis, Clyde Drexler, Chris Webber, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Druce on Oct 6, 2022 18:42:24 GMT -5
AI helped win me a title in 5.0 so you watch your mouth! In seriousness, I wish Eric would understand and account for the different eras that guys played in. Kobe, MJ, AI and a bunch of other guys were some of the best players of their generation and thus should be good in sim. I honestly couldn’t care less how Kobe’s true shooting percentage, pts/tsa, fg%, ft% etc etc matched exactly how they were in real life as long as they are really good player in sim. Its simple fact in any sport that the newer age players would destroy any historically great player/team in todays game. Hockey, football, basketball it doesn’t matter. If Eric could just understand that simple fact it would allow for historically great players to be good in sim. We have it happen all the time in the opposite sense with random players, why can’t it happen with the greats? I don't think this is the problem at all. Eric makes plenty of players from previous generations good - Dominique Wilkins, Nick Van Exel, Larry Bird, Derrick Coleman, Dale Ellis, Clyde Drexler, Chris Webber, etc. Leave it to majic to totally misrepresent a point in a conversation. Kobe retired in 2016 he didn’t even play in a different era lmfao. |
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Oct 6, 2022 20:03:25 GMT -5
Fair enough… still pissed MJ wasn’t great
But take Kobe out of it then, I don’t think players should necessarily be built based on specific data points from when they played when it’s not necessarily transplantable.
Maybe I misunderstood but I thought that was part of the argument about Francis.
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Oct 6, 2022 21:12:50 GMT -5
the same reason we have every board duty, to make the commissioner's job easier. right now it's much easier for me to make edits to profiles than write them from scratch But why do we need profiles in the first place? If they aren't read, and you have to evaluate them against real-life counterparts and do that research regardless, why are they necessary? If it's for height/weight/age/position - that's understandable and can easily be included without the 3-4 paragraphs. most players fit archetypes and are pretty interchangeable, but some players have unique skillsets either in breadth or depth or combination or whatever. usually this makes them valuable, which is why profile players do better overall, but not always |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Oct 6, 2022 21:13:34 GMT -5
so let's go point by point... disagree constantly - check civil - check chose to go a different way - check provide my reasons - check i feel like i'm off to a good start, so let's talk about the 8 vote specifically. tim's position was that currency creates a gap between bad and good teams, so we should give bad teams more via the non playoff reward. i didn't point out data, i spent my time and effort to go find it, and when i did i found that currency doesn't create that gap in the first place. in that case i'm not going to propose a different way to give them more currency, how could i? if i have to provide an alternate solution you're requiring me to agree with what you call a problem in the first place, and as we see in this thread that inevitably falls apart in a league with multiple GMs so in the scenario where i don't agree the problem you observe exists, and i've showed my reasons for doing so, and haven't called you names, what else do i have to do to make you feel heard? Why does there need to be 'currency creating a gap between bad and good teams' to implement tims idea?
because otherwise it's just currency for currency's sake, which is inflationary for no reason |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Oct 6, 2022 21:18:31 GMT -5
the same reason we have every board duty, to make the commissioner's job easier. right now it's much easier for me to make edits to profiles than write them from scratch, because you specifically aren't far or frequently off, mostly it's just things like backing "great" down to "good" or adjusting for how certain irl attributes are reflected in the software in 5.0 and into 6.0 i operated under the assumption that people were making fair profiles, because it never came up as a question. bk's approach made it clear that assumption was not valid, and maybe it never was, i'd have to go back and look to evaluate exact degrees i certainly don't blame you if you feel undercompensated for your time, like all board duties it's mostly ignored and when it's not it's criticism. if there were a way to automate it the way i did improvements history i would, but i don't know of such a way I think another question is what is the need for the written profile (that Tim writes and you have to edit) when they are not final until the day before College Stats go out. Does the profile serve any purpose once we start to see college stats? I don’t think any GMs rely on it once stats go up (and it isn’t in its final version before that). I understand you are saying Tim writing a rough draft for a profile saves you time because you just have to edit words, but is there still a need for the written profiles themselves? Are they adding value? It would save both of you even more time if they weren’t written at all. absolutely they are. if i had to rely on one i would definitely rely on college stats, but having more information, especially for stats that result from a combination of attributes, is absolutely a valuable resource for GMs |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Oct 6, 2022 21:23:40 GMT -5
You are right and I'm the real idiot here. Thinking that there was any way possible to have a reasonable conclusion. if you can't even bother trying to answer the question, why should i bother asking any going forward? |
|
|
|
Post by TinyTimPig on Oct 6, 2022 21:29:20 GMT -5
But why do we need profiles in the first place? If they aren't read, and you have to evaluate them against real-life counterparts and do that research regardless, why are they necessary? If it's for height/weight/age/position - that's understandable and can easily be included without the 3-4 paragraphs. most players fit archetypes and are pretty interchangeable, but some players have unique skillsets either in breadth or depth or combination or whatever. usually this makes them valuable, which is why profile players do better overall, but not always But you’re aware of these unique skill sets, arguably more than most of us. And even if you aren’t, you clearly do the research to determine if the skill set applies and to what degree. |
|
|
|
Post by TinyTimPig on Oct 6, 2022 21:43:20 GMT -5
Why does there need to be 'currency creating a gap between bad and good teams' to implement tims idea?
because otherwise it's just currency for currency's sake, which is inflationary for no reason You compared wins vs bank account and improvements vs bank account. The comparison didn’t consider numerous other uses for currency that can make a team better, and it didn’t account for teams who spend heavily every year, thereby keeping their bank account lower than it might otherwise be. It seems like you did an overly simple analysis for this one. People demonstrate entirely different habits for upgrading, trading, and scouting depending on where their bank account stands and where it may stand as a result of their spending, and as far as I can tell, your analysis took none of this (or the countless other variables) into account. As I believe there are countless other variables that would take entirely too long to research, I have no expectation that you would take this into account. I had an excess of cash this year so I paid 50k in the span of 30 minutes for 20 upgrade points. I don’t do that most years because I typically don’t have that much cash to throw around. People trade away early second round picks - i.e. good mentee candidates - for cash just about every year. Not having players to mentor, or only having lesser players to mentor, comes as a result of having less cash. They need cash to upgrade their other players, or scout, or make trades, or whatever, so they sacrifice valuable picks to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by Sapular on Oct 6, 2022 21:59:17 GMT -5
You are right and I'm the real idiot here. Thinking that there was any way possible to have a reasonable conclusion. if you can't even bother trying to answer the question, why should i bother asking any going forward? I did try and answer but you did not address half of what I said only points you wanted to. There is no discussing things with you. You asked can you disagree and me not be upset, I said yes. I even went as far as answering the original question. "How can I feel heard?" I told you how to feel heard And you completely dismissed it. |
|
killiam bing
New Orleans Jazz
Posts: 777
Likes: 232
Joined: March 2022
|
Post by killiam bing on Oct 7, 2022 7:16:06 GMT -5
Why does there need to be 'currency creating a gap between bad and good teams' to implement tims idea?
because otherwise it's just currency for currency's sake, which is inflationary for no reason
Again, you bring up something unrelated that, and you need to admit this to yourself, is not inherently 'good' or 'bad'.
Sometimes an idea can be 'good' just because GMs want it to happen. It's like you're operating this entire league with a 'build it and they will come' attitude, which is admirable, but fundamentally flawed since we all know we have a limited pool of GMs and just because you think you've built the perfect set of rules doesn't mean they are a set that the limited pool of GMs we can get to join this game like.
This all has to make sense right?
|
|
killiam bing
New Orleans Jazz
Posts: 777
Likes: 232
Joined: March 2022
|
Post by killiam bing on Oct 7, 2022 7:21:04 GMT -5
Why does there need to be 'currency creating a gap between bad and good teams' to implement tims idea?
because otherwise it's just currency for currency's sake, which is inflationary for no reason Previous post notwithstanding, I can also just address the factual matter of what you said here, which is honestly a ridiculous neocon argument that I thought you were aware was complete bullshit.
You're literally making arguments right now against welfare for poor people. Saying that it would be inflationary. Or saying that raising the minimum wage of the workers of McDonalds will increase the price of Big Macs. Yes, these things are technically true, but will the cost of Big Macs/Upgrades go up as much as the additional currency you're giving to non-playoff teams? No. Because now the McDonalds worker makes 15 an hour instead of 10, and the Big Mac goes up in price by 1 dollar. The burden of the inflation goes to everyone purchasing a Big Mac, not just the poor teams. Of course these nuances are not discussed in your dismissal, is it because you're disingenous or that your mental model of the situation is too simple and doesn't take into account enough variables? Maybe you're not a golden oracle and linear graphs with 2 or 3 variables accounted for are not models that are useful in any analysis of the real world outside of toy problems.
tl;dr the realistic consequence of giving additional currency to bad teams may raise the price of uppies etc, but not as much as the help going to those teams, and because costs are spread over everyone purchasing the goods, the 'balance of economic power' will shift slightly towards the non-playoff teams. THIS IS WHAT WE WANT. And, by extension, THIS IS GOOD.
That's the key to all this shit dude, that if the GMs want it, it is good. I don't know how to get such a simple fact through your robot brain.
|
|
killiam bing
New Orleans Jazz
Posts: 777
Likes: 232
Joined: March 2022
|
Post by killiam bing on Oct 7, 2022 7:26:18 GMT -5
Why does there need to be 'currency creating a gap between bad and good teams' to implement tims idea?
because otherwise it's just currency for currency's sake, which is inflationary for no reason
Just to be extra fucking clear since I'm sure you'll disregard any actual merit in my previous posts (as sap refered to above), I will state it again in big bold letters.
GMS OF THE LEAGUE WANTING IT IS A REASON
IT IS A BETTER REASON THAN IMPROVING/DETERIORATING METRICS
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Oct 7, 2022 9:22:03 GMT -5
if you can't even bother trying to answer the question, why should i bother asking any going forward? I did try and answer but you did not address half of what I said only points you wanted to. There is no discussing things with you. You asked can you disagree and me not be upset, I said yes. I even went as far as answering the original question. "How can I feel heard?" I told you how to feel heard And you completely dismissed it. you told me to say "I see what you are saying and understand why you, the league want this, but here is why I dont think it is a good idea. We could do X,Y,Z which will have a similar impact or effect and these ways ARE better for the league." and i pointed out that doing so requires me to agree with you on the need for a similar impact or effect my question from the beginning has never been about superficial disagreements on the ways and means of making a change, but fundamental disagreements on the need of making a change at all and for future reference, when i completely dismiss you i won't take hours out of my day to do it |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Oct 7, 2022 9:25:29 GMT -5
most players fit archetypes and are pretty interchangeable, but some players have unique skillsets either in breadth or depth or combination or whatever. usually this makes them valuable, which is why profile players do better overall, but not always But you’re aware of these unique skill sets, arguably more than most of us. And even if you aren’t, you clearly do the research to determine if the skill set applies and to what degree. right, it's only because i put the time in to look at pages of stats, which anyone can do but clearly most people don't want to, and having a centralized resource of words and not numbers is a valuable resource for those people. i can't make them use it, but i also don't see why we would take a valuable resource away. if the question is return on investment for the draft master's time, it makes more sense to me to increase draft master compensation |
|
