A fellow owner brought this up and I sort of agree.

There should be a sliding scale of how valuable your trade veto is depending on how much money you invested into advance scouting. I'm not sure how it would be implemented.

What about trades involving only players that are above 27?  Also, , with my 0 adv, I feel that I have as good of a handle of a prospects value as anyone with money allocated to adv scouting, so why should my vote count less?

Posted by shobob on 4/29/2012 1:21:00 PM (view original):
What about trades involving only players that are above 27?  Also, , with my 0 adv, I feel that I have as good of a handle of a prospects value as anyone with money allocated to adv scouting, so why should my vote count less?

Agreed.  This suggestion makes little to no sense.

Trades above 27 I def agree, as for having a grasp like 20m scouting, well that is impossible. You can have a rough estimate but you are not 100% accurate.

$20m advanced scouting is not 100% accurate either.

Yep, I feel that 20 in adv scouting is as good as a rough estimate.

$20m is more accurate than $0,  Nobody disputes that,.  But as been pointed out numerous times in the forums, many owners are becoming more savvy in being able to ignore the projections supplied by advanced scouting and are able to project based on observable and predictable development patterns for players. 

So suggesting that owner A's veto should carry less weight (because he has $0m advanced scouting) than owner B's veto (because he has $20m advanced scouting) is not a very good idea.

And whatever you might think of shobob, personal attacks are never going to be a valid defense in a debate.  It's just childish.

I make the playoffs twice as often as shobob.    I use 0 ADV.   I didn't think this idea even deserved a response. 

Maybe we should suggest that HBD success determines how much your veto is worth.   

Posted by stevehoggett on 4/30/2012 8:05:00 AM (view original):
A wiseman once said when you have the facts pound the facts, when you don't have the facts pound the table. Guess you're pounding the table since facts aren't on your side. I stand by my fact that 20mil is more accurate than 0 and that the guy saying he prefers 0 only makes the playoff a third of the time.

That, of course, has no actual bearing on whether he is correct or not.  You also have no facts to suggest that a person who knows the game well has any less of an ability to judge talent with 0 ADV than someone with 20 ADV.  You also have no context to show that his 30% playoff rate is comparable to another person's 50% playoff rate.

The fact is that many people do quite well judging talent with 0 ADV.  Some are posting in this thread.

I would trust the ability to judge talent of an owner with 0 ADV who has 50 seasons of experience and success over the ability of an owner with 20 ADV who has 2 seasons of experience every time.

As I said it wasn't my idea although Im intrigued by it. Maybe raising the number of vetos from 10 to 15 be received more welcomely.

If 10 owners actually veto a deal, it probably smells all to hell.    Vetoes aren't that common in worlds I play in but, when a deal gets vetoed, it should have gotten 30 vetoes. 

Posted by silentpadna on 4/30/2012 8:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by stevehoggett on 4/30/2012 8:05:00 AM (view original):
A wiseman once said when you have the facts pound the facts, when you don't have the facts pound the table. Guess you're pounding the table since facts aren't on your side. I stand by my fact that 20mil is more accurate than 0 and that the guy saying he prefers 0 only makes the playoff a third of the time.

That, of course, has no actual bearing on whether he is correct or not.  You also have no facts to suggest that a person who knows the game well has any less of an ability to judge talent with 0 ADV than someone with 20 ADV.  You also have no context to show that his 30% playoff rate is comparable to another person's 50% playoff rate.

The fact is that many people do quite well judging talent with 0 ADV.  Some are posting in this thread.

Thanks for posting that padna, so I can have a chance to defend myself.  My record is marred by one and done replacement jobs.  As soon as they stop paying 4 bucks to fourth place finishers, I'll probably stop doing them.  Maybe that's why they offer that 4 bucks?  Take out the replacement jobs and I probably make the playoffs half of the time.

... And I must say that bringing up someone's record is a strange way to make a point in a debate.  This isn't politics.