Taboo Draft

[G.I.Joe]

just ftr i came up with a possible problem the game might have relating to when a player gets 'skipped' but i can't remember what the problem was. any ideas?

The problem relating to the guy picking after the skipped guy?

IMO,

A picks
-> B picks
-> C skipped (A, B are taboo, irrespective of when he logs on later)
-> D picks (A, B are taboo irrespective of who C picks after his window expires)
-> E (B,D are taboo irrespective of whether C picks before him or not)
-> F (D, E are taboo)

I think that makes sense? We just make it a rule to ignore a person's pick (for purposes of restriction) if he picks after his window has expired.

 

[MW1304]

Good idea this. Although some people will naturally end up with unbalanced sides, especially when everyone's scrapping for batsmen.

 

[G.I.Joe]

The problem relating to the guy picking after the skipped guy?

IMO,

A picks
-> B picks
-> C skipped (A, B are taboo, irrespective of when he logs on later)
-> D picks (A, B are taboo irrespective of who C picks after his window expires)
-> E (B,D are taboo irrespective of whether C picks before him or not)
-> F (D, E are taboo)

I think that makes sense? We just make it a rule to ignore a person's pick (for purposes of restriction) if he picks after his window has expired.

Basically what I'm saying is that if a person doesn't pick within his window, the couple of guys after him carry on with the assumption that his pick doesn't matter, that he doesn't exist, for that round. They assume the order was A > B > D > E etc.

 

[Spikey]

The problem relating to the guy picking after the skipped guy?

IMO,

A picks
-> B picks
-> C skipped (A, B are taboo, irrespective of when he logs on later)
-> D picks (A, B are taboo irrespective of who C picks after his window expires)
-> E (B,D are taboo irrespective of whether C picks before him or not)
-> F (D, E are taboo)

I think that makes sense? We just make it a rule to ignore a person's pick (for purposes of restriction) if he picks after his window has expired.

Ok yeah this was it. Can you edit that into the OP? Also if I'm reading this correctly, it's possible a player may end up not picking a keeper (eg (A) leaves it to the last round, (B) before him takes a keeper, (A) can't take one). In this case, does he just have to give the gloves to a person already picked in the team? Or like will he be given a sheep or something?

 

[G.I.Joe]

Ok yeah this was it. Can you edit that into the OP? Also if I'm reading this correctly, it's possible a player may end up not picking a keeper (eg (A) leaves it to the last round, (B) before him takes a keeper, (A) can't take one). In this case, does he just have to give the gloves to a person already picked in the team? Or like will he be given a sheep or something?

Yeah, I just hope the explanation makes sense to everybody. I'll ask a mod to edit it in.

I haven't thought about the keeper situation. What do you suggest?

 

[NUFAN]

Joe it makes sense, but it will look a little wrong when you do the updated lists having 2 choices in a row potentially from the same category.

Its tough luck if you don't get a keeper in time. Surely within your 12 picks there will be a couple of opportunities to select one.

 

[Howe_zat]

Surely the point of this draft is to try and make sure you don't get backed into a corner? Not sure why keepers would need exception.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Joe it makes sense, but it will look a little wrong when you do the updated lists having 2 choices in a row potentially from the same category.

Its tough luck if you don't get a keeper in time. Surely within your 12 picks there will be a couple of opportunities to select one.

We'll use a different colour or font for the skipped person for that round. Preferably comic sans, to make him look like the fool he is.

 

[Spikey]

I haven't thought about the keeper situation. What do you suggest?

I don't really mind just making a person pick a batsman to keep, however you have quite clearly written that to be considered a wicket keeper '(the keeper should have) kept wicket for at least half the number matches they have played.', presumably to make sure we don't have the likes of Clyde Walcott given the gloves. So the problem with letting a player pick his keeper from his squad of players is that a player could pick Walcott (for example) early on in the draft, and doesn't rush to pick a keeper in the game knowing that if he gets blocked well he can just give Walcott the gloves, circumventing the classification you put down. So I guess we should make it a sheep-like situation. Which I guess would be you, maybe with the input of the players maybe not, just giving him a crappy keeper, who meets the classification if a player hasn't picked a keeper, and has been blocked off from picking a keeper.

i must admit, i came up with the walcott plan

 

[NUFAN]

We'll use a different colour or font for the skipped person for that round. Preferably comic sans, to make him look like the fool he is.

Sounds like a plan.

 

[Spikey]

Surely the point of this draft is to try and make sure you don't get backed into a corner? Not sure why keepers would need exception.

uh because keepers are different dumbarse.

no no it was that very clear classification in the OP, which of course immediately got me thinking about possible ways to circumvent it.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I don't really mind just making a person pick a batsman to keep, however you have quite clearly written that to be considered a wicket keeper '(the keeper should have) kept wicket for at least half the number matches they have played.', presumably to make sure we don't have the likes of Clyde Walcott given the gloves. So the problem with letting a player pick his keeper from his squad of players is that a player could pick Walcott (for example) early on in the draft, and doesn't rush to pick a keeper in the game knowing that if he gets blocked well he can just give Walcott the gloves, circumventing the classification you put down. So I guess we should make it a sheep-like situation. Which I guess would be you, maybe with the input of the players maybe not, just giving him a crappy keeper, who meets the classification if a player hasn't picked a keeper, and has been blocked off from picking a keeper.

i must admit, i came up with the walcott plan

Good point, and refreshing honesty Yeah, we should chip in to give him a crappy keeper, agreed.

 

[G.I.Joe]

What about bowlers who can bowl both pace as well as spin? Supposing someone picks such a player, and mentions that he's a spinner (but cricinfo states that he bowls both pace and spin). The next guy would then pick a pacer and the game carries on for a while before someone notices what has happened.

 

[Valer]

What about bowlers who can bowl both pace as well as spin? Supposing someone picks such a player, and mentions that he's a spinner (but cricinfo states that he bowls both pace and spin). The next guy would then pick a pacer and the game carries on for a while before someone notices what has happened.

Play on as normal. The person who picked it should have been more precise if he wanted to block more. Possible penalty for misreporting.

 

[uvelocity]

shouldn't all this cheating stuff be tab00?

 

[kingkallis]

surely the point of this draft is to try and make sure you don't get backed into a corner? Not sure why keepers would need exception.

+1

 

[weeman27bob]

marc71178 - Sir Garfield Sobers (All Rounder)
Uvelocity - Shane Warne (Spinner)
Cabinet96 - Adam Gilchrist (Wicket Keeper)
Spikey - Jacques Kallis (Batsman)
Cevno - Imran Khan (All Rounder)
Pothas - Malcolm Marshall (Pacer)
G.I.Joe - Muttiah Muralitharan (Spinner)
kyear2 - Viv Richards (Batsman)
kingkallis - Richard Hadlee (All Rounder)
Himannv
weeman27bob
Jager
8ankitj
morgieb
Eds
Blakus
NUFAN
Valer
Marcuss
Zaremba
weldone

So nobody has to go digging.

 

[Himannv]

Sydney Barnes (pacer)

 

[weeman27bob]

Jack Hobbs - Batsman

 

[G.I.Joe]

Can see teams ending up with multiple spinners here.