NRLFF community managed fantasy team

Chewie wrote:It looks like our team is shaping up like a cookie cutter team as expected, we might need to get some consensus on the HLF, CTR and WFB.

McCullough
Fifita, Tolman
Arrow, Murray, Stimson
Morgan, Munster/Watson/Brown
Capewell, Holland/Bird
Edwards, Drinkwater/Morris/CNK/Watson


INT/EMG:
Mahoney
Egan
Burr
Lomax
Nikora
Keighran
Haas
Allan

Keen to use some of these rookies in the starting lineup to improve cashflow for fullback. Would be keen to have Cleary there too. Think Panthers will go great guns this year.

Chewie wrote:It looks like our team is shaping up like a cookie cutter team as expected, we might need to get some consensus on the HLF, CTR and WFB.

McCullough
Fifita, Tolman
Arrow, Murray, Stimson
Morgan, Munster/Watson/Brown
Capewell, Holland/Bird
Edwards, Drinkwater/Morris/CNK/Watson


INT/EMG:
Mahoney
Egan
Burr
Lomax
Nikora
Keighran
Haas
Allan

Brown is a must have and Holland should be there too, they both get 5 votes from me, as do Morris and Drinkwater.

Reed Mahoney 1
Briton Nikora 2
Wayde Egan 1
Ryan Matterson 1
Payne Haas 1
Apisai Koroisau 1
Kerrod Holland 5
Dylan Brown 5
Scott Drinkwater 5
Brett Morris 5
Sione Katoa 5
Dylan Edwards 5
Adam Keighran 1
Albert Hopoate 1
Kurt Capewell 1
Zac Lomax 1
David Fifita 5
Andrew Fifita 1
Leeson Ah Mau 1
Cameron Murray 1
Jai Arrow 1

mattnz wrote:

Agree, gamesmanship of people trying to influence the outcome would see people having lots of 1s and a few 5s. Those that people expect to be guaranteed their spot as high % ownership cows like Brown no-one would give high preferences to in the halves, while the halves they really want to play would get all the 5 votes.

mattnz wrote:Reed Mahoney 1
Briton Nikora 2
Wayde Egan 1
Ryan Matterson 1
Payne Haas 1
Apisai Koroisau 1
Kerrod Holland 5
Dylan Brown 5
Scott Drinkwater 5
Brett Morris 5
Sione Katoa 5
Dylan Edwards 5
Adam Keighran 1
Albert Hopoate 1
Kurt Capewell 1
Zac Lomax 1
David Fifita 5
Andrew Fifita 1
Leeson Ah Mau 1
Cameron Murray 1
Jai Arrow 1

You brought up the gamesmanship of other people voting only using 1 and 5 points and then vote doing the exact same thing?

Krump wrote:


You brought up the gamesmanship of other people voting only using 1 and 5 points and then vote doing the exact same thing?

If that is the game, then that is what I am playing.

Its also interesting to note that Brown was struggling to get in the team due to low voting as predicted.

This is fantastic.

mattnz wrote:

If that is the game, then that is what I am playing.

But is it the game if you're the only one playing it ?

2 - Andrew McCullough
5 - Reed Mahoney
1 - Andrew Fifita
2 - Aiden Tolman
3 - Joe Ofahengaue
1 - Payne Haas
5 - Cameron Murray
3 - Joe Stimson
5 - Jai Arrow
3 - Matt Gillett
1 - Lachlan Burr
4 - Michael Morgan
3 - Dylan Brown
3 - Brodie Croft
3 - Kerrod Holland
2 - Kurt Capewell
1 - Briton Nikora
1 - Dylan Edwards
1 - Brett Morris
1 - Corey Allan
1 - Zac Lomax

Chewie wrote:It looks like our team is shaping up like a cookie cutter team as expected, we might need to get some consensus on the HLF, CTR and WFB.

McCullough
Fifita, Tolman
Arrow, Murray, Stimson
Morgan, Munster/Watson/Brown
Capewell, Holland/Bird
Edwards, Drinkwater/Morris/CNK/Watson


INT/EMG:
Mahoney
Egan
Burr
Lomax
Nikora
Keighran
Haas
Allan

Lol. It looks embarassingly similar to my team at the moment:

McCullough
TPJ, Surgess
Arrow, Murray, Stimson
Morgan, A Reynolds
Capewell, Holland
T.Turbo, Watson, Edwards

Egan
Burr
Nikora
Lomax
Brown
Xerri
Haas
Keighran

mattnz wrote:

If that is the game, then that is what I am playing.

Dude, when you game something, you are taking advantage of the way the system is being set up. That can make sense when you are looking after #1 but for the life of me I can t understand why you would do it when this is a group thing and where everything is set up transparently and for a reason (it's even been explicitly talked through in this case). Seems like you are being a shit just for the sake of proving a point....

The point I tried to make way back when this things was first being discussed is that if an exec team is set up which clearly lays out how the team will work, then if people don't like it, they don't have to be a part of it.

Being a part of it therefore, implicitly implies you are ok with how it's being run and will go with the flow.

Rippin and Tearin wrote:The point I tried to make way back when this things was first being discussed is that if an exec team is set up which clearly lays out how the team will work, then if people don't like it, they don't have to be a part of it.

Being a part of it therefore, implicitly implies you are ok with how it's being run and will go with the flow.

As soon as there was consensus with what the rules were going to be, I have run with it within the rules set out in the game.

It is just like the game as a whole, find what is allowable within the rules and maximise it, as pointed out initially. If there are rules on the number of 5s allowed then that is fine, but there aren't any such rules.

mattnz wrote:

As soon as there was consensus with what the rules were going to be, I have run with it within the rules set out in the game.

It is just like the game as a whole, find what is allowable within the rules and maximise it, as pointed out initially. If there are rules on the number of 5s allowed then that is fine, but there aren't any such rules.

You are missing the point mate. The point of ranking players was to fairly reflect opinions of the group. As soon as you game the system, you undermine the whole thing.

Rippin and Tearin wrote:The point I tried to make way back when this things was first being discussed is that if an exec team is set up which clearly lays out how the team will work, then if people don't like it, they don't have to be a part of it.

Being a part of it therefore, implicitly implies you are ok with how it's being run and will go with the flow.

I don't think he's being a shit, he's just using the system to get the desired outcome.
I did the same in terms of rating a number of players at 5 because I thought they were far more beneficial/important to the team than players rated as one. Most players I rated as one were in a catergory where there were numerous other good options/I wasn't as confident in their ability to score highly.

I rated those at 5 that I am confident that they are good picks (also Aubbuson).

Flith, he stated that people would game the system and then he did exactly that. Im not sure how you can rationalise that given its a group thing.

Moylan minus 187

I'll do mine properly when I get 5 mins at work. Looking good so far!

Rippin and Tearin wrote:Flith, he stated that people would game the system and then he did exactly that. Im not sure how you can rationalise that given its a group thing.

Have a look at my voting again. The key thing I did was redress imbalances, using the rules as stipulated to correct them.

Guys like Brown and Holland that were in danger of missing the team but are massively popular here were voted for as 5s. If I had voted earlier, I probably would have assumed like others that they were sure to make the team regardless of my vote.

My other 5s were a few like Katoa that may still not stand a chance, but I have been pretty dead set on them from the start.

mattnz wrote:

If that is the game, then that is what I am playing.

Have a look at the other votes. You're the only one playing it which seems to be against the spirit of the thread but go right ahead.

Andrew McCullough 3
Andrew Fifita 3
Tevita Pangai Junior 2
Angus Crichton 4
Michael Morgan 2
Kurt Capewell 2
Kerrod Holland 2
Isaiah Papali'i 3
Jack Bird 1
Corey Allan 1
Dylan Edwards 2
Connor Watson 3
Zac Lomax 1
Reed Mahoney 3
Dylan Brown 1
Joe Ofahengaue 2
Aiden Tolman 2
James Tedesco 3
Charnze Nicoll-Klokstad 1
Ben Hampton 4
Cameron Murray 5


This was way harder than I thought it would be, mainly due to the fact that 1/3 of my team are place holders pending TLT.