|
|
Post by Druce on Feb 8, 2021 9:11:45 GMT -5
Ank brought it up, I'm here making a poll so we can get this implemented. Seems pretty cut and dry. If you're quitting and not just playing possum, post in the thread. Simple enough. Vote or die.
|
|
|
|
Post by Druce on Feb 8, 2021 9:49:26 GMT -5
bump
|
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Feb 8, 2021 9:53:26 GMT -5
what I posted in my thread before I saw this:
Over the weekend there stirred a new controversy as the league entered into unknown territory under eics direction as commissioner.
For of those GM's that are unaware, Boomslick was set to be fired after 1 full year of inactivity when he notified another GM that he quit. This happened late last week and well before any offseason activities had started.
At this point another GM had been identified and had agreed to take over the team as soon as he was allowed.
This issue came about due to eric's current rules, or his interpretation of the rules, as a GM simply stating that they "quit" is not enough and thus the Pelicans franchise had to remain in a holding pattern. Per the rule, the new GM would not be given control of the pelicans until 1 full sim year had passed since Booms last activity.
In eric's word "the rule does apply because what GM's state is irrelevant"
In fairness, we did have another GM state that they had quit and even made a ticker post about it, so one can never be certain of a GM's true intentions.
So the question for the group is whether we should create a "Quitting" thread that a GM would post in when quitting. Ank was the one that suggested this credit goes to him.
My suggestion is that we create a thread for a GM to post that they are quitting, or some form of proof that the GM stated they quit. We can then offer a period of time for the right to rescind the action, for instance the quitting GM would have 24 hours to rescind their decision to quit and take back ownership.
Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?
I think creating a more clear plan for how a GM can quit will be helpful for as long as we have a waitlist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ankly on Feb 8, 2021 10:10:47 GMT -5
Proposed Methodology for a quit thread:
1. GM posts they quit in the thread. Only posts that plainly indicate they quit without qualifiers will be recognized. This is called a "quit post".
2. When the Commish sees that post or 24 hours later (whichever is later), the commish will quote that "quit post" and indicate that a 24 hour timer has begun.
3. The GM will then have 24 hours from the time of the commish's post to respond. One of three scenarios will occur in that 24 hours:
a. GM confirms they have quit. They will officially be removed as a GM.
b. GM withdraws their quit. They will remain a GM.
c. GM does not respond within 24 hours. They will officially be removed as a GM
I think that is the best solution we'll have. That gives ample protection to safeguard against people who quit out of emotion and then regret it.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2021 10:25:51 GMT -5
This would have the bonus effect of stopping people from whining about quitting like little bitches
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Feb 8, 2021 10:26:34 GMT -5
do people anticipate this rule only applying while we have a waiting list?
if so, do we need to implement a rule when our waiting list is effectively 1 person long (pete)?
if not, what happens to a GM who wants to come back after their grace period has expired, when their team will probably still exist?
-if they can claim it, what's the difference between a quit thread and what we're doing now?
|
|
|
|
Post by Druce on Feb 8, 2021 10:28:12 GMT -5
do people anticipate this rule only applying while we have a waiting list? if so, do we need to implement a rule when our waiting list is effectively 1 person long (pete)? if not, what happens to a GM who wants to come back after their grace period has expired, when their team will probably still exist? -if they can claim it, what's the difference between a quit thread and what we're doing now? pretty clearly that the team shouldn't lose out on draft picks/fa bids due to an inactive gm for whom there is a replacement |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Feb 8, 2021 10:28:13 GMT -5
This would have the bonus effect of stopping people from whining about quitting like little bitches  |
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Feb 8, 2021 10:32:33 GMT -5
do people anticipate this rule only applying while we have a waiting list? if so, do we need to implement a rule when our waiting list is effectively 1 person long (pete)? if not, what happens to a GM who wants to come back after their grace period has expired, when their team will probably still exist? -if they can claim it, what's the difference between a quit thread and what we're doing now? It shouldnt matter if we have a waitlist or not, this also expedites a potential contraction draft. The Boom situation is exact proof, under current rules his team wouldnt be contracted until after year 3001. However with the new rule he could have posted he quit before the end of the 3000 season and his team could be contract that next offseason. Just overall speeds up the process to move on to a new team or clear out an inactive team. |
|
|
|
Post by Ankly on Feb 8, 2021 10:40:37 GMT -5
do people anticipate this rule only applying while we have a waiting list? if so, do we need to implement a rule when our waiting list is effectively 1 person long (pete)? if not, what happens to a GM who wants to come back after their grace period has expired, when their team will probably still exist? -if they can claim it, what's the difference between a quit thread and what we're doing now? I think the quitting applies at all times. I think the question you're referring to is "how soon can a GM who quit be added to a waiting list"? Can they do it immediately if there is someone ahead of them on the list? I would say yes, they go to the back of the waiting list. Can they do it immediately if the list is empty? If so, can they choose to contract/expand instead of taking back their team? I would say yes to the first question, but they cannot choose to contract/expand if their previous team is still around. I think a GM who quits should have a 5 season cooling off period before being allowed to rejoin via expansion. |
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Feb 8, 2021 10:48:56 GMT -5
1. GM posts they quit in the thread. Only posts that plainly indicate they quit without qualifiers will be recognized. This is called a "quit post". 2. When the Commish sees that post or 24 hours later (whichever is later), the commish will quote that "quit post" and indicate that a 24 hour timer has begun. 3. The GM will then have 24 hours from the time of the commish's post to respond. One of three scenarios will occur in that 24 hours: a. GM confirms they have quit. They will officially be removed as a GM. b. GM withdraws their quit. They will remain a GM. c. GM does not respond within 24 hours. They will officially be removed as a GM
I think this is a good plan. Do we think the 24 hour period is good or would it be better to have some type of deadline tied to when a GM Action is required?
Such as an eligible draft pick (on the official clock), Resignings, FA Bids, etc. Just a thought
|
|
|
|
Post by Ankly on Feb 8, 2021 10:49:48 GMT -5
1. GM posts they quit in the thread. Only posts that plainly indicate they quit without qualifiers will be recognized. This is called a "quit post". 2. When the Commish sees that post or 24 hours later (whichever is later), the commish will quote that "quit post" and indicate that a 24 hour timer has begun. 3. The GM will then have 24 hours from the time of the commish's post to respond. One of three scenarios will occur in that 24 hours: a. GM confirms they have quit. They will officially be removed as a GM. b. GM withdraws their quit. They will remain a GM. c. GM does not respond within 24 hours. They will officially be removed as a GM
I think this is a good plan. Do we think the 24 hour period is good or would it be better to have some type of deadline tied to when a GM Action is required?
Such as an eligible draft pick (on the official clock), Resignings, FA Bids, etc. Just a thought
What if the next deadline action is due in 1 hour? |
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Feb 8, 2021 11:05:50 GMT -5
I think this is a good plan. Do we think the 24 hour period is good or would it be better to have some type of deadline tied to when a GM Action is required?
Such as an eligible draft pick (on the official clock), Resignings, FA Bids, etc. Just a thought
What if the next deadline action is due in 1 hour? Good question, I was thinking mid season a 24 hour period is fairly insignificant so allowing for more time (where a GM action is required) would be beneficial.
But if we find ourselves in a position like we have now with actions due and a GM waiting in the wings, eric could post an "Are you sure? X action are due in 1 hour." Which I guess would accelerate the process.
But I guess none of it would matter because boomslick is just MIA, he never officially quit on proboards, only via an Odin chat
|
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Feb 8, 2021 11:34:22 GMT -5
What if the next deadline action is due in 1 hour? Good question, I was thinking mid season a 24 hour period is fairly insignificant so allowing for more time (where a GM action is required) would be beneficial.
But if we find ourselves in a position like we have now with actions due and a GM waiting in the wings, eric could post an "Are you sure? X action are due in 1 hour." Which I guess would accelerate the process.
But I guess none of it would matter because boomslick is just MIA, he never officially quit on proboards, only via an Odin chat
This is why I proposed a temporary GM to fill in until the 1 year timer ended, only can be done when a new GM has been identified and accepted the position. |
|
Soup
New Member
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 401
Joined: January 2021
|
Post by Soup on Feb 8, 2021 11:38:59 GMT -5
No point in having a quit thread if we don’t change what happens after.
|
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Feb 8, 2021 12:02:08 GMT -5
Good question, I was thinking mid season a 24 hour period is fairly insignificant so allowing for more time (where a GM action is required) would be beneficial.
But if we find ourselves in a position like we have now with actions due and a GM waiting in the wings, eric could post an "Are you sure? X action are due in 1 hour." Which I guess would accelerate the process.
But I guess none of it would matter because boomslick is just MIA, he never officially quit on proboards, only via an Odin chat
This is why I proposed a temporary GM to fill in until the 1 year timer ended, only can be done when a new GM has been identified and accepted the position. Eric won't let a temp gm making moves fly, I just can't see how he would |
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Feb 8, 2021 12:06:14 GMT -5
No point in having a quit thread if we don’t change what happens after. I could be wrong but wouldnt the entire goal of this be to change the quitting rule? Once a GM has officially quit the new GM could then take immediate ownership. At least thats what I was assuming would happen. Considering erics previous comments, in his mind the only way to ensure a GM quit was inactivity. This would eliminate the need for a long waiting period and team could then be given to a new GM. OR Contraction could happen that next offseason rather than waiting the extra year. |
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Feb 8, 2021 12:09:15 GMT -5
This is why I proposed a temporary GM to fill in until the 1 year timer ended, only can be done when a new GM has been identified and accepted the position. Eric won't let a temp gm making moves fly, I just can't see how he would Then we need a rule for picks to be autoed. The fact that team/new GM loses assets/players ONLY because of an artificial timer is insane to me. Again, I dont care who potentially makes the picks or whatever, something is better than nothing. This is a sim basketball league, we can find a way to use some discretion and allow for flexibility. |
|
|
|
Post by Ankly on Feb 8, 2021 12:11:11 GMT -5
No point in having a quit thread if we don’t change what happens after. I have no idea what this means. |
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Feb 8, 2021 12:12:32 GMT -5
No point in having a quit thread if we don’t change what happens after. I have no idea what this means. I think he is referring to the mandatory waiting period that eric is currently going by; 1 full sim year of inactivity. |
|
bankz
New Member
GM of the Year: 3001
Posts: 2,347
Likes: 490
Joined: January 2021
|
Post by bankz on Feb 8, 2021 12:15:28 GMT -5
This league does so much bullshit discussing of topics that never go anywhere. All you guys do is talk in circles. Nothing gets improved and the end results is more anger with GMs towards the league. And I believe that ultimately will lead to people being less active in the league and bailing. Lowering the retention rate.
But hey we got a thread and a poll!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ankly on Feb 8, 2021 12:23:42 GMT -5
I have no idea what this means. I think he is referring to the mandatory waiting period that eric is currently going by; 1 full sim year of inactivity. Currently per eric, we don't have a vacancy until 1 full sim year of inactivity. The point of the quit thread is to give another way for a vacancy to arise. |
|
Soup
New Member
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 401
Joined: January 2021
|
Post by Soup on Feb 8, 2021 12:25:42 GMT -5
I think he is referring to the mandatory waiting period that eric is currently going by; 1 full sim year of inactivity. Currently per eric, we don't have a vacancy until 1 full sim year of inactivity. The point of the quit thread is to give another way for a vacancy to arise. and what's the point unless eric agrees to budge on his 1 year inactivity stance? |
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Feb 8, 2021 12:27:12 GMT -5
Currently per eric, we don't have a vacancy until 1 full sim year of inactivity. The point of the quit thread is to give another way for a vacancy to arise. and what's the point unless eric agrees to budge on his 1 year inactivity stance? Eric has agreed to manageable rules with overwhelming GM support in the past, but he makes it clear we have to live with the potential fallout. |
|
|
|
Post by Ankly on Feb 8, 2021 12:28:20 GMT -5
Currently per eric, we don't have a vacancy until 1 full sim year of inactivity. The point of the quit thread is to give another way for a vacancy to arise. and what's the point unless eric agrees to budge on his 1 year inactivity stance? eric typically agrees to "budge" if the league discusses and proposes a rule. As we're doing in this thread. |
|
Soup
New Member
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 401
Joined: January 2021
|
Post by Soup on Feb 8, 2021 12:28:37 GMT -5
and what's the point unless eric agrees to budge on his 1 year inactivity stance? Eric has agreed to manageable rules with overwhelming GM support in the past, but he makes it clear we have to live with the potential fallout. Sure, I'm not talking about past though. I'm talking about this one particular rule. Has anything he's said given you any reason to think he would budge on it? |
|
|
|
Post by Ankly on Feb 8, 2021 12:30:23 GMT -5
do people anticipate this rule only applying while we have a waiting list? if so, do we need to implement a rule when our waiting list is effectively 1 person long (pete)? if not, what happens to a GM who wants to come back after their grace period has expired, when their team will probably still exist? -if they can claim it, what's the difference between a quit thread and what we're doing now? ^ this post shows eric is open to this. |
|
Soup
New Member
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 401
Joined: January 2021
|
Post by Soup on Feb 8, 2021 12:32:30 GMT -5
do people anticipate this rule only applying while we have a waiting list? if so, do we need to implement a rule when our waiting list is effectively 1 person long (pete)? if not, what happens to a GM who wants to come back after their grace period has expired, when their team will probably still exist? -if they can claim it, what's the difference between a quit thread and what we're doing now? ^ this post shows eric is open to this. to me it just seems he's trying to poke holes all over the proposal. |
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Feb 8, 2021 12:37:32 GMT -5
I think this entire situation is a 2 step process.
First we need to set a clear standard for a GM to quit.
Then we can discuss what happens at that point.
Its pretty clear to me how we should set this up, but eric might have a different view/interpretation. So I think it best to clearly set the new rules.
|
|
Soup
New Member
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 401
Joined: January 2021
|
Post by Soup on Feb 8, 2021 12:39:15 GMT -5
I think this entire situation is a 2 step process. First we need to set a clear standard for a GM to quit. Then we can discuss what happens at that point. Its pretty clear to me how we should set this up, but eric might have a different view/interpretation. So I think it best to clearly set the new rules. I see it the opposite way, because who the h#ck cares what happens at first if the end solution isn't what we desire. |
|
