Saturday, June 26, 2010

New Decision making process for Washington State Legislative Districts: How to Play Monkey-Pirate-Robot-Ninja-Zombie

BoingBoing.net posted a variation of Rock, Paper, Scissors (what I call the legislative Executive Session), one called Monkey-Pirate-Robot-Ninja-Zombie: Rock Paper Scissors 9.0

You will have to click the link to read what to yell when a given role wins, the diagram below shows who has the advantage.

In Washington State politics we have a top two primary. The major political parties have games the system, and carved up legislative districts to their advantage. The problem now is that political parties are struggling with making endorsements that lead to unified support for one person. Gone are the days where the tax payer was on the hook to fund this decision making through the partisan primary system.

At some point soon the local legislative districts will have to make a more meaningful effort to make decisions early enough to gain some benefit from political party support.

I suggest they try "How to Play Monkey-Pirate-Robot-Ninja-Zombie", and act on the results long before the primary.
My guess is that there would be plenty of infighting to decide who gets to be which character

14 comments:

Peter said...

Regarding you saying that these groups will struggle to get attention from the county, is that something the county will eventually get around to? Dow seems commited, at least in his comments on the arena issue. About the SC post about NBA finals ratings in seattle, they only included 04-06 when they said we have a history of poor ratings. This has to coincide with people getting turned off of the NBA due to the schultz ownership, right?

Mr Baker said...

The county is struggling to get agreement on its budget right now. They are not going to break away from that to entertain arena plans. I do expect they will return to this. In the mean time the people that are putting a plan together need to have as complete of a plan as possible, every answer covered.

The rating cited were from some poor years to sample data from, that is true. As I pointed out to the blog writer, an 8 share in Seattle, and an 8 share in OKC means two different things. The market size, for one. In Seattle that is 120,000 people, in OKC that is 44,000 people.
If you are selling commercials at halftime of the NBA Finals do you want to reach 120,000 or 44,000 people?
That is what Marc Cuban questioned, simple market size.

Let's put this another way, the average household income in Seattle is higher.
The 120,000 people's average household income in Seattle is $69,000, the 44,000 peoples household average income in Oklahoma City is $54,000

So, that 8 share is not the same in any meaningful way, fewer actual people in OKC, and they make less money on average.

That is, also, why somebody would want to move a team here. The 18,000 Ford Center fans make less money on average population, than the 17,000 fans they left behind in Seattle.
It is the building, and being able to sell dinner and shopping to those people, as well as local advertising.

Peter said...

If these investors build an arena with the county, won`t we also need an new practice facility? The old one was demolished, i remember hearing. I would think we would want an state of the art practice facility anyways. If i recall right, w/ the ballmer keyarena plan an new practice facility was included. Do you think an new practice facillity will be part of the arena plans, and would user fees pay for that, or will the investors?

Peter said...

What do you make of people on SC with all the negative talk? is 2018 the earliest a team could come back? if it happens in 2018, it's likely that these group/groups have failed, right? i put it at 2015 at the latest. what do you think the target date should be, given where we are at?

Peter said...

what do you think the fact the people are coming forward with arena ideas now says about what the timeline for an new team is? i said on SC that there alot of variables, like whether the lockout will last 1 or 2 years, whether any of these groups gains traction,or whether the economy crashes again. i get what detlef was saying, we shouldn't expect anything right away. but if people are coming forward right now, they have to figure a solution is in sight, right?

Mr Baker said...

Nobody that knows is saying, or we would all know.

Peter said...

we probably don’t know anything for sure about when a team will come back. things are moving in the right direction imo, but there are too many variables (lockout, economy, arena, etc.) 2018 may not be wrong. who am i to say. it could be sooner, or it could be later. people have to admit that there has been encouraging signs though, but we’ll have to wait and see. i agree with what BR said a few threads back. we may fail 5 times before we succeed. it’s too early to be making any predictions.

Mr Baker said...

My guess, 2013 or 2014.
Owners need to know what kind of business they are buying. The lockout will decide if the NBA returns. If it doesn't then something is still wrong with the business model.

Peter said...

Interesting comments from kieran from dallas on SC. Maybe the NBA allowed the sonics to
move because they knew they would have to move more teams out of the lockout and seattle would be have some more time to work out an arena and get a team out of the lockout. I do recall reading an seattle times article in 2008 where ron sims (wasn`t he KC exec at the time?) said that he knew of three ownership groups besides the ballmer one. I know it`s only speculating, but three people commented in the media about arena efforts being underway. It could be a coincidence, or maybe not. Is it possible the county has knew about these effort/efforts all this time and maybe have been working with them for longer than we know of?

Peter said...

if brock is right and teams have already been contacted, what teams do you think would be easiest to move? i've heard about the memphis buyout clause,and it dosen't look like it would be easy. i heard you said the hawks on SC, but wouldn't moving them out of a big market like atlanta be hard? we're mentioning 5 or 6 obvious teams on SC as potential relocations to seattle, but if 1/3 of the teams could be had, who are the other teams? makes me wonder if some teams that we think are untouchable are indeed available.

Mr Baker said...

The nets sold and are moving
The bobcats sold and are not yet moving (they could move if things don't change)
The Kings are moving, within Sacramento, California, west coast, Las Vegas, Seattle, New Jersey, ??
The Bucks
The Griz
The Hawks (they have struggled for 15 years)
The Hornets would sell for a good offer, but might not move, wait for the BP disaster to show how bad it hurts NO.
Golden state is selling and moving
The Pacers could sell and move
The Pistons could sell but not likely move

I think that is about 1/3, some already selling/sold. Look at the Nets and Kings, they would not be on that list 5 or 6 years ago, and know that as they sell they will be replaced by a team right now that looks like they would never move.
Look at the Pacers, that building is not that old, Indiana has supported basketball longer than the NBA has been alive, yet here they are.

The business has only made money (with few exceptions) on the resale of franchises, so the business model must produce franchises to be sold on a regular basis at a higher price than the were originally purchased for.
Let's prove that point using the Sonics. They had Sam Schulman, Barry Ackerly, Howard Schultz, Clay Bennett.
4 owners in 41 years, threatened to move twice (maybe 3 times) and actually moved once.

The Kansas City Kings
The New Orleans Jazz

Teams are always for sale because that is the business.
The broken operating model hurts resale prices, see the Bobcats sale for that, or the Sonics sale. Bennett purchased at a peak, he owes more than it is worth, and could not sell even if he wanted to because he would lose 75 million in the exchange. But in 15 years the franchise value should inflate enough to turn a profit.

Peter said...

if voters do approve bringing back the 2/3 requirement to raise taxes in the legislature, when would it go into effect? would we have to be worried about the effects on a potential request for user fees? is their any way we could get around the law if it does effect it?

Peter said...

how do you think the arena people could handle the media correctly if there is an proposal for user fees in the legislature? the news media will pick up on any action in the state, and my fear is all their reporting will kill any plan, just like we've seen so much before.

Mr Baker said...

Addressing the reasons people say no reduces the arguments to personal preferences.
The answer becomes: If you don't like basketball or hockey then don't go.

Blog Feeds