How to fix the State Farm™ "Exploit" Topic

robusk
Posts: 15180 (4)
Hall of Famer
26 444 20 90 77
All Star
Posted by ncmusician_7 on 7/18/2021 4:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by robusk on 7/18/2021 2:39:00 PM (view original):
“I see no more proof of a process existing now than I saw before Scott left - I see promises, time passing and no action - same as it ever was”

Getting rid of rookies, upping the open league cap, making the UI mobile friendly and adding turnover% are the biggest changes in a decade, quick wins and way better than adjusting the defense of a single player. All done since Adam took over.
When did the "UI mobile friendly" change occur? I don't see a significant difference -other than having to use an ad blocker- between now and 5 years ago on my phone. Bottom line is that Bill Russell's defensive rating is an easy fix.
It’s literally a completely different UI as of like a year ago. It isn’t the best UI but is mobile responsive at least.
7/18/2021 4:46 PM
copernicus
Posts: 4902 (0)
Hall of Famer
427 22 1 108
Veteran
Posted by robusk on 7/18/2021 2:51:00 PM (view original):
The ease of editing one player: easy
The ease of editing every player with an arguably incorrect defensive rating with any sort of logic that is defensible: really hard
the rationale for having a single player deviate from their era specific logic with no precedent: none

No idea how there is any argument why Russell
should be prioritized or why his defense is even close to the most egregious.

You being big mad online is not a very compelling case.
gosh robusk here I was thinking of you as one of the more intelligent and thoughtful users on the site but this isn't good faith engagement at all. the points I made that you don't tacitly agree with you ignore. when I show you evidence contrary to one of your points you ignore that too* and ultimately your rebuttal is a weak version of 'you mad, bro?'

don't worry robusk, I'm not mad at all, I am just a little bit disappointed

* and here comes ncmusician right on time with the underline on that one
7/18/2021 5:54 PM (edited)
robusk
Posts: 15180 (4)
Hall of Famer
26 444 20 90 77
All Star
I don’t totally understand your last post or where I made any bad faith argument. My position is that there is no reason to single out one specific player and treat them like an anomaly, especially when that player isn’t even the most glaring example of bad defensive logic. Additionally, I think it is a pretty bad stance to take because even if the defense logic is bad, it is at least logic you can point to versus “this player is X because some random users thought it should be so”. Finally, I am exhausted by how frequently we even have this inane discussion on this site while how infrequently we talk about bigger problems. I would think given how often you make the absurd comment that “the sim is too random” that we could talk more about actual substantive problems. Even something adjacent like “what is theoretical good defensive rating logic?”

So far the only approaching a salient defense for
this is “he is a symbol of defense” which I guess maybe, okay. Seems like there should be more of a reason than that. Everything else has just seemed like unchecked, misplaced anger.

The fact that I don’t agree with you that this is important or the right approach shouldn’t be so controversial as to be a referendum on my credentials. I happen to care deeply about good process.
7/18/2021 7:21 PM (edited)
robusk
Posts: 15180 (4)
Hall of Famer
26 444 20 90 77
All Star
Posted by ncmusician_7 on 7/18/2021 4:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by robusk on 7/18/2021 2:39:00 PM (view original):
“I see no more proof of a process existing now than I saw before Scott left - I see promises, time passing and no action - same as it ever was”

Getting rid of rookies, upping the open league cap, making the UI mobile friendly and adding turnover% are the biggest changes in a decade, quick wins and way better than adjusting the defense of a single player. All done since Adam took over.
When did the "UI mobile friendly" change occur? I don't see a significant difference -other than having to use an ad blocker- between now and 5 years ago on my phone. Bottom line is that Bill Russell's defensive rating is an easy fix.
It’d be easy to change Steph Curry’s name to Thor. That’s not a reason to do so. Just cause something is easy doesn’t justify doing it.

Agree or not with the logic of how they make the defensive ratings, making exceptions to it is bad process. Making the exceptions using qualitative inputs is even worse process.
7/18/2021 7:12 PM (edited)
ncmusician_7
Posts: 1734 (0)
Hall of Famer
65 138 12 18
All Star
Posted by robusk on 7/18/2021 7:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by ncmusician_7 on 7/18/2021 4:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by robusk on 7/18/2021 2:39:00 PM (view original):
“I see no more proof of a process existing now than I saw before Scott left - I see promises, time passing and no action - same as it ever was”

Getting rid of rookies, upping the open league cap, making the UI mobile friendly and adding turnover% are the biggest changes in a decade, quick wins and way better than adjusting the defense of a single player. All done since Adam took over.
When did the "UI mobile friendly" change occur? I don't see a significant difference -other than having to use an ad blocker- between now and 5 years ago on my phone. Bottom line is that Bill Russell's defensive rating is an easy fix.
It’d be easy to change Steph Curry’s name to Thor. That’s not a reason to do so. Just cause something is easy doesn’t justify doing it.

Agree or not with the logic of how they make the defensive ratings, making exceptions to it is bad process. Making the exceptions using qualitative inputs is even worse process.
They made up the following stats for players in that era: turnovers, steals, blocks, 3 point shots, offensive vs defensive rebounding, etc. They made up position effectiveness for every player season. I don't agree with the logic of how they made the defensive ratings or the position effectiveness. Qualitative inputs are already in the sim.
7/18/2021 7:55 PM
robusk
Posts: 15180 (4)
Hall of Famer
26 444 20 90 77
All Star
Posted by ncmusician_7 on 7/18/2021 7:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by robusk on 7/18/2021 7:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by ncmusician_7 on 7/18/2021 4:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by robusk on 7/18/2021 2:39:00 PM (view original):
“I see no more proof of a process existing now than I saw before Scott left - I see promises, time passing and no action - same as it ever was”

Getting rid of rookies, upping the open league cap, making the UI mobile friendly and adding turnover% are the biggest changes in a decade, quick wins and way better than adjusting the defense of a single player. All done since Adam took over.
When did the "UI mobile friendly" change occur? I don't see a significant difference -other than having to use an ad blocker- between now and 5 years ago on my phone. Bottom line is that Bill Russell's defensive rating is an easy fix.
It’d be easy to change Steph Curry’s name to Thor. That’s not a reason to do so. Just cause something is easy doesn’t justify doing it.

Agree or not with the logic of how they make the defensive ratings, making exceptions to it is bad process. Making the exceptions using qualitative inputs is even worse process.
They made up the following stats for players in that era: turnovers, steals, blocks, 3 point shots, offensive vs defensive rebounding, etc. They made up position effectiveness for every player season. I don't agree with the logic of how they made the defensive ratings or the position effectiveness. Qualitative inputs are already in the sim.
They didn’t go through each player and make up threes etc. for each one. They clearly developed some logic that was applied to each one for it. Certainly it wasn’t perfect but it’s at least a process and traceable consistency over one off edits.
7/18/2021 8:53 PM (edited)
ncmusician_7
Posts: 1734 (0)
Hall of Famer
65 138 12 18
All Star
robusk, seble manually adjusted player positions (which had an effect on position effectiveness and defensive ratings) in at least one iteration of the sim engine.
7/18/2021 9:25 PM
robusk
Posts: 15180 (4)
Hall of Famer
26 444 20 90 77
All Star
I don’t remember that but that is equally stupid. Two wrongs don’t make a right though.
7/18/2021 9:45 PM
ncmusician_7
Posts: 1734 (0)
Hall of Famer
65 138 12 18
All Star
Posted by robusk on 7/18/2021 9:45:00 PM (view original):
I don’t remember that but that is equally stupid. Two wrongs don’t make a right though.
http://test.whatifsports.net/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=364329
7/18/2021 9:59 PM
robusk
Posts: 15180 (4)
Hall of Famer
26 444 20 90 77
All Star
Posted by ncmusician_7 on 7/18/2021 9:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by robusk on 7/18/2021 9:45:00 PM (view original):
I don’t remember that but that is equally stupid. Two wrongs don’t make a right though.
http://test.whatifsports.net/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=364329
Very cool. This is actually a perfect example of bad process. The bulk of this thread is people talking about who should be effective at a new position but much less people talking about who should not be effective at a position. Completely open form crowd sourcing is terrible. Look at something like attribute based data on Open Street Map without form control. It’s terrible. Even in this forum it is always “so and so should be eligible at PG” or “so and so should be 20 points higher on D.” Sure, sometimes there is a comment about who shouldn’t be eligible or who should have worse D but it is overwhelmingly less frequent.

Thanks for sharing. It reaffirms to me that users should not be making requests for stuff like this (or more realistically they should be distilled to the core problem) but rather we should be re-evaluating the process that produces the results. Test outcomes with users but don’t edit outcomes from user feedback. That’s bad process.
7/18/2021 10:31 PM (edited)
robusk
Posts: 15180 (4)
Hall of Famer
26 444 20 90 77
All Star
In general the process is broken. Users are not contributing to user stories and there is no user acceptance testing or even beta or alpha testing. There are no showcases.

But there is also a whole bunch of users somehow think they should be dictating blocks of code or editing data.

Both sides are failing the process.

I will say though, ******** about Scott is probably not going to generate any motivation for the new regime.
7/19/2021 7:34 AM (edited)
24kpyrite
Posts: 2239 (0)
Hall of Famer
235
Rookie
I am also in the minority where I do not understand the Bill Russell defense increase. I know a lot of people ask for it, but what does it exactly do? It bumps him up a few rounds in a theme league? It makes him draft able in others?

I do not foresee the Bill Russell Defense change bringing in more users to the WISNBA family. Ultimately what ever changes are made should be to attract more users to the NBA sim.
7/19/2021 12:01 PM
ashamael
Posts: 12433 (2)
Hall of Famer
513 19
All Star
Posted by robusk on 7/18/2021 10:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by ncmusician_7 on 7/18/2021 9:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by robusk on 7/18/2021 9:45:00 PM (view original):
I don’t remember that but that is equally stupid. Two wrongs don’t make a right though.
http://test.whatifsports.net/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=364329
Very cool. This is actually a perfect example of bad process. The bulk of this thread is people talking about who should be effective at a new position but much less people talking about who should not be effective at a position. Completely open form crowd sourcing is terrible. Look at something like attribute based data on Open Street Map without form control. It’s terrible. Even in this forum it is always “so and so should be eligible at PG” or “so and so should be 20 points higher on D.” Sure, sometimes there is a comment about who shouldn’t be eligible or who should have worse D but it is overwhelmingly less frequent.

Thanks for sharing. It reaffirms to me that users should not be making requests for stuff like this (or more realistically they should be distilled to the core problem) but rather we should be re-evaluating the process that produces the results. Test outcomes with users but don’t edit outcomes from user feedback. That’s bad process.
Check out this gem in the same thread

Important exert if you don't want to read the whole thing:


" This goes back to the "can he play the position?" vs the "did he play the position?" argument. If you are going to use the can on some players, use it on all players. "


And today that argument becomes even more clouded, as what a power forward is isn't even close to the same thing as it was even then (thirteen years ago holy ****). Also position-less basketball is even more of a thing today than it was then.

I'm finding so much good **** in that old thread that I simply don't have time to share & expound upon. Seble really screwed the pooch here fundamentally.
7/19/2021 4:52 PM
Kona1
Posts: 125 (0)
Hall of Famer
82
Prospect
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I will say this: When I first came to this site years back, and saw that defense was on a 1-100 scale, the FIRST person I looked up, expecting to see straight 100's, was Bill Russell. Seeing straight 70's was comical to me, especially after seeing some of the names with 80's and 90's … not enough for me to stop poking around but definitely enough to give me pause. I can't speak for anyone else having a similar reaction but it certainly was mine.

All of the arguments on either side are completely valid, but this just seems so obvious a glitch that you just fix it and leave the other issues for another time. Google "Best defenders in NBA history" and every list has Bill Russell #1 or #2. I mean every one. Here as a 70 he isn't even in the top 100. This is like being part of a Top actresses site and somehow Meryl Streep is #62. It's obviously wrong so you just fix it. Just my two cents.
7/19/2021 6:26 PM
copernicus
Posts: 4902 (0)
Hall of Famer
427 22 1 108
Veteran
Russell's D rating is wrong (no one is arguing that), it is an easy fix (no one is arguing that either), and fixing it would appease a bunch of longtime long-suffering and vocal owners

and btw appeasing your actual customers is totally in line with "whatever changes are made should be to attract more users to the NBA sim"

it needn't be 'do this instead of all the other things', that's a silly thing that no one is saying
it is not just 2 people who think this is the right thing to do, clearly it is a bunch of us
and
God I wish there were hordes waiting to beat down the gates and argue for each and every player because that would mean we had an engaged and active populace but that just isn't the case (yes we are seeing more activity at long last but that's not the same thing and wouldn't it be nice for the noobs to see admin fixing something so patently wrong due to user requests?)
7/19/2021 7:06 PM (edited)
◂ Prev 12345 Next ▸
How to fix the State Farm™ "Exploit" Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.