|
|
Post by Ankly on Feb 8, 2021 12:50:34 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. I've seen no indication that Sap (or whoever is #1 on the waiting list) can't take a team as soon as there is a vacancy. In eric's eyes, boom is still a GM at the moment. There are no vacancies. |
|
bankz
New Member
GM of the Year: 3001
Posts: 2,347
Likes: 490
Joined: January 2021
|
Post by bankz on Feb 8, 2021 12:52:16 GMT -5
Oh bless the souls who think Eric is open to change. You still believe in Santa Clause?
|
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Feb 8, 2021 12:57:43 GMT -5
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. I've seen no indication that Sap (or whoever is #1 on the waiting list) can't take a team as soon as there is a vacancy. In eric's eyes, boom is still a GM at the moment. There are no vacancies. I tend to agree with this. The issue is that currently eric doesnt trust the words of a GM. This can be understood as we had plenty of GM's state they "quit" but then in actuallity did not. Happened in 5.0 and with Soup in 6.0. If we set a clear rule on when/how a GM quits it sets a firm point that a new GM could freely take over. My other proposal talks specifically to a GM thats about to get fired and how that can be handled better. |
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Feb 8, 2021 13:17:04 GMT -5
^ this post shows eric is open to this. to me it just seems he's trying to poke holes all over the proposal. With Sap / boom in particular, no because of the established rules when boom became a GM.
Going forward? Absolutely. Poking holes in a change request is part of the process, drives discussion and avoids unforeseen pitfalls.
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Feb 8, 2021 13:53:42 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 i'm talking about the no replacement scenario though, when we don't have a waiting list anymore. in that scenario, under these rules, what happens to a GM who wants to come back after their grace period has expired? ank says we should just give them their team back - which is why i ask what's the difference between that and the present rule that does the same thing people are very focused on the boom/sap situation, what i'm saying is that the overwhelming majority of quits/joins in this league are going to be in a staggered situation, where there aren't replacements ready to go immediately. if we don't have that situation in mind when we make a quit/join rule it's going to be a big problem, and not that far down the road and as we see from literally right now GMs generally don't care about a problem until after it's happened, then everybody gets mad and we get big arguments in shout and threads. i know i don't enjoy this, i can't imagine it's fun for any of you |
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Feb 8, 2021 13:56:40 GMT -5
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 i'm talking about the no replacement scenario though, when we don't have a waiting list anymore. in that scenario, under these rules, what happens to a GM who wants to come back after their grace period has expired? ank says we should just give them their team back - which is why i ask what's the difference between that and the present rule that does the same thing people are very focused on the boom/sap situation, what i'm saying is that the overwhelming majority of quits/joins in this league are going to be in a staggered situation, where there aren't replacements ready to go immediately. if we don't have that situation in mind when we make a quit/join rule it's going to be a big problem, and not that far down the road and as we see from literally right now GMs generally don't care about a problem until after it's happened, then everybody gets mad and we get big arguments in shout and threads. i know i don't enjoy this, i can't imagine it's fun for any of you this is simple. GM quits and is removed. If the old GM comes back prior to their team being contracted they can reclaim them. Same as if any new GM signed up in that timeframe. If previous GM comes back to reclaim a team, they are given their previous team unless its been contracted. New GM has a choice of taking current team or doing expansion. |
|
|
|
Post by Druce on Feb 8, 2021 14:03:40 GMT -5
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 i'm talking about the no replacement scenario though, when we don't have a waiting list anymore. in that scenario, under these rules, what happens to a GM who wants to come back after their grace period has expired? ank says we should just give them their team back - which is why i ask what's the difference between that and the present rule that does the same thingpeople are very focused on the boom/sap situation, what i'm saying is that the overwhelming majority of quits/joins in this league are going to be in a staggered situation, where there aren't replacements ready to go immediately. if we don't have that situation in mind when we make a quit/join rule it's going to be a big problem, and not that far down the road and as we see from literally right now GMs generally don't care about a problem until after it's happened, then everybody gets mad and we get big arguments in shout and threads. i know i don't enjoy this, i can't imagine it's fun for any of you this gets into a larger issue of what to do with vacant teams. under the current system the team is affected negatively when their gm is absent. if a gm quits or is absent for any offseason activity, they should be put on auto. the picks shouldn't be skipped and fa go by with no offers from said team. to directly address the bolded, this isn't a situation anyone is trying to fix. if someone leaves, and no one takes that team, then they just come back and get said team back, easy peasy with auto'd picks/offers whatever. what we have at hand is a team that has an absentee gm who has seemingly quit, and is now being negatively impacted for the next gm taking said team over, who just so happens to be here. this shouldn't be the case: see above. to say "oh it's only the 12th pick" is disingenuous as thats to say no impact player has been selected at 1.12 or lower, which we all know is false. the situation could be easily avoided and yet here we are on day 5(?) of it on going and no progress. |
|
|
|
Post by Druce on Feb 8, 2021 14:04:54 GMT -5
i'm talking about the no replacement scenario though, when we don't have a waiting list anymore. in that scenario, under these rules, what happens to a GM who wants to come back after their grace period has expired? ank says we should just give them their team back - which is why i ask what's the difference between that and the present rule that does the same thing people are very focused on the boom/sap situation, what i'm saying is that the overwhelming majority of quits/joins in this league are going to be in a staggered situation, where there aren't replacements ready to go immediately. if we don't have that situation in mind when we make a quit/join rule it's going to be a big problem, and not that far down the road and as we see from literally right now GMs generally don't care about a problem until after it's happened, then everybody gets mad and we get big arguments in shout and threads. i know i don't enjoy this, i can't imagine it's fun for any of you this is simple. GM quits and is removed. If the old GM comes back prior to their team being contracted they can reclaim them. Same as if any new GM signed up in that timeframe. If previous GM comes back to reclaim a team, they are given their previous team unless its been contracted. New GM has a choice of taking current team or doing expansion. imo this shouldn't even be a thing thats considered until we're dealing with a situation where there is a mass exodous. expansion and contraction was needed in a 15 person league, it is not needed in a 29 person league with a few people waiting/interested, and it shouldn't even be considered |
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Feb 8, 2021 14:12:49 GMT -5
this is simple. GM quits and is removed. If the old GM comes back prior to their team being contracted they can reclaim them. Same as if any new GM signed up in that timeframe. If previous GM comes back to reclaim a team, they are given their previous team unless its been contracted. New GM has a choice of taking current team or doing expansion. imo this shouldn't even be a thing thats considered until we're dealing with a situation where there is a mass exodous. expansion and contraction was needed in a 15 person league, it is not needed in a 29 person league with a few people waiting/interested, and it shouldn't even be considered I dont disagree with you. But eric wants to create a rule that covers both scenarios. |
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Feb 8, 2021 14:16:04 GMT -5
this is simple. GM quits and is removed. If the old GM comes back prior to their team being contracted they can reclaim them. Same as if any new GM signed up in that timeframe. If previous GM comes back to reclaim a team, they are given their previous team unless its been contracted. New GM has a choice of taking current team or doing expansion. imo this shouldn't even be a thing thats considered until we're dealing with a situation where there is a mass exodous. expansion and contraction was needed in a 15 person league, it is not needed in a 29 person league with a few people waiting/interested, and it shouldn't even be considered contraction covers the issue when a GM quits/gets fired and no GM is there to take over. That team, if not claimed, is eventually contracted. If at any point after that a new GM, or a previous GM, comes back we have an expansion to add them. That is all pretty cut and dry and our current rules work well for it. As you mentioned, we are trying to create a better system/rule for a scenario in which we have a GM that has quit. We have a new GM in place but per the current rules he cannot take over, even though the old GM isnt doing anything. |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Feb 8, 2021 14:54:06 GMT -5
if people are satisfied with this only changing what happens while we have a wait list, and i say that because that's what i'm reading from the last few posts, i'm also satisfied with that being implemented in the near future
|
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Feb 8, 2021 15:06:22 GMT -5
if people are satisfied with this only changing what happens while we have a wait list, and i say that because that's what i'm reading from the last few posts, i'm also satisfied with that being implemented in the near future I think this is really the only time it is an issue. The current rule worked fine in 5.0 when we never had a wait list. I do think this would be a huge benefit to the league for when we have a waitlist. The sooner we can move the team to a new GM, the better it is overall. Now, eric, as for my other rule proposal. Can we discuss some type of option over there? |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Feb 8, 2021 15:35:41 GMT -5
if people are satisfied with this only changing what happens while we have a wait list, and i say that because that's what i'm reading from the last few posts, i'm also satisfied with that being implemented in the near future I think this is really the only time it is an issue. The current rule worked fine in 5.0 when we never had a wait list. I do think this would be a huge benefit to the league for when we have a waitlist. The sooner we can move the team to a new GM, the better it is overall. Now, eric, as for my other rule proposal. Can we discuss some type of option over there? alright then i think like you said in the other thread adjusting the firing criteria is a more straightforward way of doing that, i'm not sure if people will be more interested in talking about that now or less though. it feels antagonistic in both directions to let somebody else run a team that isn't theirs and then kick them out if the first person comes back, if we tighten the kicking out the first person rules it's only antagonistic in one direction |
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Feb 8, 2021 15:53:42 GMT -5
I think this is really the only time it is an issue. The current rule worked fine in 5.0 when we never had a wait list. I do think this would be a huge benefit to the league for when we have a waitlist. The sooner we can move the team to a new GM, the better it is overall. Now, eric, as for my other rule proposal. Can we discuss some type of option over there? alright then i think like you said in the other thread adjusting the firing criteria is a more straightforward way of doing that, i'm not sure if people will be more interested in talking about that now or less though. it feels antagonistic in both directions to let somebody else run a team that isn't theirs and then kick them out if the first person comes back, if we tighten the kicking out the first person rules it's only antagonistic in one direction Ok, let me start with this question. Would you be willing to change the current rule from "1 full sim year of inactivity" and make it something shorter? |
|
|
|
Post by Druce on Feb 8, 2021 16:32:50 GMT -5
Oh bless the souls who think Eric is open to change. You still believe in Santa Clause? if people are satisfied with this only changing what happens while we have a wait list, and i say that because that's what i'm reading from the last few posts, i'm also satisfied with that being implemented in the near future these two posts within mere hours of each other |
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Feb 8, 2021 16:39:24 GMT -5
Again, ground for firing are only important when we have a waitlist and/or a GM ready to take over a team.
My initial suggestion on lowering the stipulations would start with creating a required list of actions a GM must complete every season:
- Participating in the draft - not missing a pick or providing a list
- taking part in FA - this could include submitting bids, accepting resigning or simply just filling out your team
- Posting a DC - on time and complete
**this list can be negotiated based on the rest of the leagues opinion**
If all 3 of these are not met then the GM is on "probation" where the following would take place:
1) New GM is contact and asked if they would like to take a team. If yes then it would go to step 2-4
2) Current GM is contacted let them know they are on probation
3) GM would have to acknowledge they plan to keep the team - or they can quit
4) If GM plans to keep team they must become active on the board.
a. setting DC after the fact
b. Online at least 1 time per 5 sims
c. participate in article voting
d. upgrading viable players
The list of ways a GM could show activity would be the most important part to this.
If a GM goes through the above steps and still does not meet the criteria it would result in the GM being fired.
The new GM would then have the choice of taking the current team, as is, and would start GM's immediately. If new GM decides to go expansion route then the team is contracted at the conclusion of the current season.
Thooughts?
|
|
bankz
New Member
GM of the Year: 3001
Posts: 2,347
Likes: 490
Joined: January 2021
|
Post by bankz on Feb 8, 2021 19:13:29 GMT -5
Oh bless the souls who think Eric is open to change. You still believe in Santa Clause? if people are satisfied with this only changing what happens while we have a wait list, and i say that because that's what i'm reading from the last few posts, i'm also satisfied with that being implemented in the near future these two posts within mere hours of each other Broken clock is right twice a day. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2021 19:42:34 GMT -5
these two posts within mere hours of each other Broken clock is right twice a day.
But you weren't right
|
|
bankz
New Member
GM of the Year: 3001
Posts: 2,347
Likes: 490
Joined: January 2021
|
Post by bankz on Feb 8, 2021 20:18:12 GMT -5
Imagine taking a victory lap on something he still hasn't committed to changing. Smart fellas you two are.
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Feb 8, 2021 20:40:00 GMT -5
alright then i think like you said in the other thread adjusting the firing criteria is a more straightforward way of doing that, i'm not sure if people will be more interested in talking about that now or less though. it feels antagonistic in both directions to let somebody else run a team that isn't theirs and then kick them out if the first person comes back, if we tighten the kicking out the first person rules it's only antagonistic in one direction Ok, let me start with this question. Would you be willing to change the current rule from "1 full sim year of inactivity" and make it something shorter? i don't think we need to change re: actual inactivity duration, since the activity we really care about is so concentrated in a short span: picks, fa bids, sim 1 dc are ~99% of what we care about and ~33% of a season. by comparison i don't think it really matters if someone goes e.g. from sim 2 to sim 10 doing nothing and that's a longer time if we are going stricter i think as you later laid out task based requirements make a lot more sense. i don't know what other people are looking for or why the discussions get quiet once we get to this point though |
|
|
|
Post by Odin on Feb 8, 2021 20:42:33 GMT -5
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? this is what he does. someone posts a poll, he plays devil's advocate, it seems like nothing is happening, then suddenly there's a rule change in the sim 2 or 8 posts |
|
|
|
Post by Ankly on Feb 8, 2021 22:09:07 GMT -5
Ok, let me start with this question. Would you be willing to change the current rule from "1 full sim year of inactivity" and make it something shorter? i don't think we need to change re: actual inactivity duration, since the activity we really care about is so concentrated in a short span: picks, fa bids, sim 1 dc are ~99% of what we care about and ~33% of a season. by comparison i don't think it really matters if someone goes e.g. from sim 2 to sim 10 doing nothing and that's a longer time if we are going stricter i think as you later laid out task based requirements make a lot more sense. i don't know what other people are looking for or why the discussions get quiet once we get to this point though I think 1 year of inactivity is fine as a rule to jettison somebody. Don't see the need to shorten that at all. But they should be able to quit voluntarily. |
|
