Would you participate in a crew draft/league?
 

Discuss.

Possibly. It would depend on the specifics of the draft or league.

As an idea I think it depends as Sho said, but overall probably not. I think people should be able to freely choose which crew they’d like to roll with (provided they’re welcome).

Sometimes I'd have said yes, but I think we're stretched too thin for members now.

See member limit thread.

Thread does not exist.

Which specifics would be determining factors in your opinion?

---------- Post added at 04:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:18 PM ----------

I forgot to make this poll public. So, if you could share your thoughts with your vote, that'd be awesome.

This idea works when you have 3 crews full of vets. But who makes up the crews now? Anbu is full of new guys. Apoc is full of new guys. ACs is mostly filled with relatively new guys. It's not like MFD where everyone was consolidated in one place.

A draft takes people who are typically "vets" and drafts members amongst the crews. Right now, you have let's just say for talking save that it's me and Lock running ACs from the "older head" perspective, Row and Punk in Anbu and HVK and X-Cal in Apoc. ACs has Malishus and Aggo as it's only other "old timey vets".

Outside of those crews, you have Rant, Shodan and maybe one or two more. What exactly is stopping you guys from making a proper crew? If you want to lead crews, go and do it. ACs, Anbu, Apoc and Red Ribbon are picking up new members to the site, and trying to build them up. We're not out there exclusively picking up veterans. You, Shodan and whoever else can pick up a brand new 1-0 member, build up a crew, and compete like the rest of us.

There aren't enough "vets" on the site for your argument to be valid. The crew numbers are inhibiting voting. That's what this primarily comes down to. They should be restricted because of it. If the number should already be restricted, why not use that restriction as an opportunity to build something new and fun for the site? This has nothing to do with "vets" or "noobs." It has to do with the sheer volume of members in crews, with the stagnating membership growth of the site.

Also, AC's is riddled with "vet" accounts, if we do go that direction. Not that I believe crew drafts are inherently linked to the number of vets in a crew. But, if it were, half of your crew are "vets."

Lockhart.
Aggo.
Malishus.
Eth.
Dirty Work.
M-Rock.
Dysfunctional.
Rai.
Peaceful.
Freek.
Enfinite.
Letum.

These are all "vet" accounts, in that they've been on the site for a long period of time, and have somewhat of a reputation adhered to their name. Mind you, some of these people are inactive. But, that doesn't change the fact that they're "vets." And subsequently add rationale to a draft from your own perspective.

If there aren't enough vets then who's running the crews? You want quality voting, and if you're sitting in a bullshit crew with Bnas you don't contribute towards that.

Dirty Work - Doesn't vote.
M-Rock - Doesn't vote.
Dysfunctional - Doesn't vote.
Peaceful - Doesn't vote.
Freek - Doesn't vote.
Enfinite - Doesn't vote.
Letum - Doesn't vote.

How exactly is their inclusion in ACs hindering voting?

Let's say we start a draft with 5 crews. You're telling me there aren't 5 people to lead those crews? The point is, crew drafts are totally unrelated to "vets." You don't need to be a "vet" to run a crew. You don't need to be a "vet" to be a good voter. Your argument is a nonsequitur.

There are 16 people in your crew Eth. Most of whom are active voters(Freek included, I see you Freek. Shouts.)

Why would you want those 16 people to miss out on the opportunity for them to contribute to the site more wholly by being able to vote in higher numbers, and have higher numbers of votes on their battles? In a time when battles are struggling to get 5 votes, your forcing your crew members to miss out on 15 potential more votes with the sheer mass of your crew.

ACs, Apoc, Anbu, Red Ribbon Army, the crew Rant works to build instead of having people drafted for him.

5 crews. Sorted. Why draft?

Most of whom are active voters? We have 8 active people in the crew. I'm not sure about FreeK cause dude just appeared there haha. That's HALF of the entire crew.

If you care about site contribution, go and make a crew, pick up those brand new 0-1 battlers and train them into valuable voters. In other words, do what the other 4 active crews are doing.

Why hoard members, to continue to exacerbate a worsening stagnation in voting?

Edit: To answer your question, because a draft would be new. And it would shake things up. And it might incite some competition in the crew ranks. And because crews with fewer members means more voters.

You want 5 crews with fewer members. Where do the other members go? How do new members on the site get an opportunity?

Why can't there be competition now? In the next two months, ACs hopes to have had 3 separate crew battles. Why can't those compete?

It's also not as if I'm positing a FORCED draft. It'd be voluntary. You'd sign up. I do think there should be a forced limit on crew member numbers, though. On all crews.

---------- Post added at 05:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:20 PM ----------

5 TO START. It's not a fixed number, man. More crews can be included as they're made.

Limit to what? If 5, like you propose, where do the additional 20 guys from ACs, Apoc, Red Ribbon and Anbu go? To a crew you run? To somewhere Shodan runs? If you guys wanted to be involved in crews and lead one...you'd go it.

5 on the low end. 9 on the high end. What I want is MORE crews with FEWER members. I'm not trying to adhere the number of crews there are to a fixed number. I'm trying to both give the crews a purpose geared more toward their initially intended reason for conception, while also stimulating the voting on the site as a whole. Win-win style.

9 on the high end? ACs has 9 active members, Apoc, Red Ribbon and Anbu have slightly less. Why draft again? We're all already within your confines.

Cut the fat then. How can AC's be within that confine if you're sitting with nearly 20 members in your crew? Inactive, active. 9 members means that. 9.

How does ACs having inactive guys who don't vote anyways affect the rest of the site?

How does kicking them affect ACs? Anbu has 11 members. All active. APOC has 16 MEMBERS. All active. This is affecting the voting. But, you can't expect them to want to contribute to YOUR crew members' battles voting wise by trimming their numbers, if you won't do it yourself.

You have this "I put my crew first" facade, man. But, reality is, you're hurting their battles because you won't cut the numbers back, in order to facilitate change on the part of others so that there are more votes to be spread around.

Not relevant to the question. If I feel like having Letum in the crew, and it doesn't have a single negative impact on the site, what about that feels that you should be up in arms about it or call for his removal?

Go look at the math I did early. 60 votes. That's 60 votes you're costing your crew collectively. Compare it to 24. Wouldn't YOU want those other 36 votes?

You said that the limit you'd go for is between 5 and 9. ACs has 9 active members, therefore would fully fall into those guidelines.

If Letum is kicked from ACs, the crew members aren't going to suddenly start seeing votes from him...because he's not voting in the first place. It's irrelevant.

What about those 60 votes from APOC, though, who are all active? If they have to kick members to meet a limit, you should to. It's that simple.

What if one of your inactive members has a spurt of activity? That puts you over the limit, right? Because based on your logic, they only fall into the realm of play based on their activity.

What if Dirty Work, as a mod decides he wants to drop a few votes, but all of the currently open battles are ACs battles?

Well it's a good thing they don't have to then eh?

They should have to, though. And a lot of the people in your crew seem to agree. Lol.

But your point is one of function. There are definitely personal reasons for ACs to perhaps attempt to remove some inactive members. But if your point is that Apoc has too many crew members so ACs has to release inactive members, it doesn't really add up.

The point is that activity doesn't determine membership. Being a member in the crew does.

The premise: Crew's should be limited to 6-9 members.

Not: 6-9 active members.

Because activity isn't definite, nor is inactivity. An inactive member has the capacity to become active, this would then supersede the initially defined limit in the supposed hypothetical.

ALL of the crews have too many members. Yours included.

Activity effects voting though, which is the entire foundation of your thread. If the point isn't to improve the overall site and to help voting, then what exactly is the point? Cutting 8 inactive members from ACs does NOTHING to improve LB.

AC's isn't the only crew. Your inactivity is inherently, then, inconsequential to the foundation of the premise.

If AC's were the only crew, then this limit would not affect voting. But, because ACs is one of multiple crews, a universal limit to crews propagates the growth of the voting pool. As, not only as previously expressed, inactivity is not definite, meaning it can change over time. Thus introducing these members to the voting pool. But, also because it introduces the other active members of the other crews into the voting pool as well.

Now you're going to deflect onto other crews. Anbu, Red Ribbon and Apoc each have less than 9 active members contributing to the site. So unless you continue to give massive weight to inactive people who's inclusion in a crew is entirely irrelevant to your foundation, ALL of the current crews are well within the guidelines laid out.

Why must we reshuffle our members if we already fit all the needed criteria?

The only "guideline" laid out was "6-9 members in a crew."

How many members are in ACs?

If your overall arch and entire purpose is that you want more diversity and options in the voting...but the only thing you actually demand is that all 4 crews release their inactive members (as that's all that would happen) how does that have any bearing on improving voting?

Is it really worth creating an entire crew draft just on the off chance that Phenomonon and Letum decide to return to activity at some undetermined point in the future?

But, how many members are in ACs?

It's a simple question, Eth. You said yourself, you fell within the laid out "guideline." You wouldn't be trying to dance around the fact that that's a blatant lie, or anything, right?

It's a rhetorical question as you have previously already posted the number of members in this thread.

So is it safe to say that your overall jist is that you want ACs and other crews to remove their inactive members...and as they would then fit into these "guidelines"...do absolutely nothing else?

Not every crew has inactive members.

But no crew has more than 9 active members.

Apoc has a whole two crews in their ranks. All active. 14 of them. Minus the two who don't exist, by your logic, because they're LESS active. (But still log on frequently. Like a lot of AC's members...)

And why are we including red ribbon, anyway? Since inactive members don't count, again, by your bastardization, as they're comprised almost entirely of inactive members.

Anyway, my two threads are not OVERTLY interconnected. Limiting the crews should happen with or without a draft, because of the stimulus it provides to the voting pool.

But, since we're arguing them as a singular point. Not only does limiting the crews in this way propagate voting growth. But, a draft also allows more active members of almost entirely inactive crews to join more active, competition based crews. And as its primarily rooted in a voluntary basis it gives other members a chance to build their own crews outside of the draft structure, if they so choose. People who might be more interested in running a crew as opposed to competing explicitly themselves, e.g. a RULE type.

Not only that, but it shakes things up battle wise, in regard to match ups. People are inherently less inclined to battle their own crew members outside of tournies/ppvs. A recurring draft allots fresher match ups, and more opportunities not only for varied and growing voting. But, for more things to vote ON as a reader. I, personally, get sick of reading the same battles over and over again.