Login

Reno · 2022-07-24, 08:17 PM - Word count:

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1' id='QUOTE-WRAP'><tr><td>QUOTE (leatherneckmike @ Jul 25 2022, 03:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1' id='QUOTE-WRAP'><tr><td>QUOTE (fútboliscool @ Jul 24 2022, 09:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I like to stay out of these things normally because if you say anything you usually come out looking like a jack-ass to someone because we all have different perspectives. this punishment sets a precedent for "spirit of the game" to be preserved. From what I know GMs were asked if there were any exploits in the rules for this expansion causing an unfair situation for the expansion teams. For those of you who think this is a punishment due to teams having a good locker room and players not wanting to leave. You're missing the point. The punishment is actively undermining the spirit of the game and teams entering having a fair spot at competing. Also rules were written cleverly to allow for this.</td></tr></table> Where is the spirit of the game in the rulebook? and how about the spirit of GM's acting in the best interest of their own teams like they should?</td></tr></table> wym clearly GM spirit means actively shipping off players who want to play for only you

caltroit_red_flames · 2022-07-24, 08:21 PM - Word count:

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1' id='QUOTE-WRAP'><tr><td>QUOTE (leatherneckmike @ Jul 24 2022, 09:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1' id='QUOTE-WRAP'><tr><td>QUOTE (fútboliscool @ Jul 24 2022, 09:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I like to stay out of these things normally because if you say anything you usually come out looking like a jack-ass to someone because we all have different perspectives. this punishment sets a precedent for "spirit of the game" to be preserved. From what I know GMs were asked if there were any exploits in the rules for this expansion causing an unfair situation for the expansion teams. For those of you who think this is a punishment due to teams having a good locker room and players not wanting to leave. You're missing the point. The punishment is actively undermining the spirit of the game and teams entering having a fair spot at competing. Also rules were written cleverly to allow for this.</td></tr></table> Where is the spirit of the game in the rulebook? and how about the spirit of GM's acting in the best interest of their own teams like they should?</td></tr></table> Another L take

CptSquall · 2022-07-24, 08:49 PM - Word count:

Frankly, i find the Black mark on Omni and Twix's GM career unnecessary. Not a single member of FC Catalunya were asked to retire if taken. On the contrary, we were asked as a group to voice our individual opinions to Omni as to how we felt about being left unprotected. Sure, some would rather retire than leave but many were open to it. The fact that high value was left unprotected and trades were made shows that the opportunity was there for them to still gain value. Not only that, but shows that said GMs were more willing to take the picks as opposed to taking a chance on a group of players who had voiced their chance to leave. Honestly it sounds like, knowing these players would likely choose to retire should they be taken. That the GMs of FC Catalunya took it upon themselves to get out ahead and try to offer tangible value to the new clubs. I understand that the BoD is likely looking at this whole affair from the angle of getting out ahead of teams looking into pick trading as a viable alternative. It sounds like to me though, that the problem is the fact that so many players are willing to throw away early careers over frequent expansion threats. Not GMs looking to circumvent the "Spirit of the Game".

G2019 · 2022-07-24, 09:10 PM - Word count:

"Sydney asked each member of their team if they would be willing to play for an expansion team. - Any player that stated they would retire, or rejoin Sydney in Free Agency were left unprotected - Any player that stated they would be willing to join the expansion team was protected." If this is true and was shared from Sydney GMs to the BoD, I just don't see the argument here. I enjoy Pau and Van as users, but this was a clear lapse in judgement. It would mean they literally didn't leave any players available to expansion teams who would actually be willing to play. And to all of the Sydney players whining about BoD trying to break up a good locker room: our job as managers when expansion hits is to decide which of our players fit our immediate future the best and protect those players. And it is not easy to do, but that is our job. No, Sydney should not be allowed to sabatoge the expansion process because players want to stay there. And what kind of user actually says, "If I can't play for this ONE team, I'm going to retire!" anyway? You can hang with your friends in other servers smh. Lastly, the BoD slander is uncalled for in my opinion. These folks put in a ton of time and effort to make this league run. You don't need to agree with the punishment, but keep the personal attacks out of it and stop playing victim. If a BoD decision made in the best interest of the league as a whole is going to drive you out of the league, then good riddance.

fútboliscool · 2022-07-24, 09:12 PM - Word count:

<a href='index.php?showuser=197' rel='nofollow' alt='profile link' class='user-tagged mgroup-3'>@CptSquall</a> First off, these two offenses were clearly different and the penalties are different to match that--the common thing is that they happened in the same expansion draft and are in the same thread. I really hope and doubt that people look at this as a black mark on Omni and Twix's career. My understanding is they utilized a grey area of expansion that may fly in other league expansions but this being the example of a slap on the wrist of "hey, don't strong arm the expansion gms." I could be wrong, from my limited understanding of the budget system, but if you have a full roster/team the penalty isn't too much of a concern. All I can say, is that the rules for this expansion draft was very existing team friendly and the fact that Sydney abused their position of power to the point where it warranted draft pick loss in the future (not a big deal the team is already full). I could see less existing team friendly expansion draft rules in the future.

pauadrian · 2022-07-24, 09:17 PM - Word count:

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1' id='QUOTE-WRAP'><tr><td>QUOTE (G2019 @ Jul 24 2022, 09:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>"Sydney asked each member of their team if they would be willing to play for an expansion team. - Any player that stated they would retire, or rejoin Sydney in Free Agency were left unprotected - Any player that stated they would be willing to join the expansion team was protected." If this is true and was shared from Sydney GMs to the BoD, I just don't see the argument here. I enjoy Pau and Van as users, but this was a clear lapse in judgement. It would mean they literally didn't leave any players available to expansion teams who would actually be willing to play. And to all of the Sydney players whining about BoD trying to break up a good locker room: our job as managers when expansion hits is to decide which of our players fit our immediate future the best and protect those players. And it is not easy to do, but that is our job. No, Sydney should not be allowed to sabatoge the expansion process because players want to stay there. And what kind of user actually says, "If I can't play for this ONE team, I'm going to retire!" anyway? You can hang with your friends in other servers smh.</td></tr></table> Only half true, we left people like Cleetus and LB unprotected. They were active users and were willing to join as well. They both got taken via expansion draft and a trade with Sao Paolo in order to give them playing time. As for users who only wanna play for 1 team. Why don't you ask them, they're in this thread

leatherneckmike · 2022-07-24, 09:37 PM - Word count:

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1' id='QUOTE-WRAP'><tr><td>QUOTE (G2019 @ Jul 24 2022, 11:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>"Sydney asked each member of their team if they would be willing to play for an expansion team. - Any player that stated they would retire, or rejoin Sydney in Free Agency were left unprotected - Any player that stated they would be willing to join the expansion team was protected." If this is true and was shared from Sydney GMs to the BoD, I just don't see the argument here. I enjoy Pau and Van as users, but this was a clear lapse in judgement. It would mean they literally didn't leave any players available to expansion teams who would actually be willing to play. And to all of the Sydney players whining about BoD trying to break up a good locker room: our job as managers when expansion hits is to decide which of our players fit our immediate future the best and protect those players. And it is not easy to do, but that is our job. No, Sydney should not be allowed to sabatoge the expansion process because players want to stay there. And what kind of user actually says, "If I can't play for this ONE team, I'm going to retire!" anyway? You can hang with your friends in other servers smh. Lastly, the BoD slander is uncalled for in my opinion. These folks put in a ton of time and effort to make this league run. You don't need to agree with the punishment, but keep the personal attacks out of it and stop playing victim. If a BoD decision made in the best interest of the league as a whole is going to drive you out of the league, then good riddance.</td></tr></table> This also didnt happen. The BoD slander is not slander at all its in fact warranted. They literally made up rules at which to punish people. I dont really understand how that isnt an issue. That also isnt how it happen. im on the FREAKING TEAM. I told them to do it. I am totally down to take advantage of SSL's crap rules.

CptSquall · 2022-07-24, 09:41 PM - Word count:

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1' id='QUOTE-WRAP'><tr><td>QUOTE (fútboliscool @ Jul 24 2022, 08:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><a href='index.php?showuser=197' rel='nofollow' alt='profile link' class='user-tagged mgroup-3'>@CptSquall</a> First off, these two offenses were clearly different and the penalties are different to match that--the common thing is that they happened in the same expansion draft and are in the same thread. I really hope and doubt that people look at this as a black mark on Omni and Twix's career. My understanding is they utilized a grey area of expansion that may fly in other league expansions but this being the example of a slap on the wrist of "hey, don't strong arm the expansion gms." I could be wrong, from my limited understanding of the budget system, but if you have a full roster/team the penalty isn't too much of a concern. All I can say, is that the rules for this expansion draft was very existing team friendly and the fact that Sydney abused their position of power to the point where it warranted draft pick loss in the future (not a big deal the team is already full). I could see less existing team friendly expansion draft rules in the future.</td></tr></table> I agree. I find that the possibility of this being seen as a black mark is a much larger punishment than what the BoD has given and it is wonderful to hear that others don't actually view this negatively for Omni and Twix. Whilst i may not agree with it, i speak no ill to the BoD for having had to give any ruling as being in charge is rather thankless.

caltroit_red_flames · 2022-07-24, 09:57 PM - Word count:

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1' id='QUOTE-WRAP'><tr><td>QUOTE (CptSquall @ Jul 24 2022, 10:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1' id='QUOTE-WRAP'><tr><td>QUOTE (fútboliscool @ Jul 24 2022, 08:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><a href='index.php?showuser=197' rel='nofollow' alt='profile link' class='user-tagged mgroup-3'>@CptSquall</a> First off, these two offenses were clearly different and the penalties are different to match that--the common thing is that they happened in the same expansion draft and are in the same thread. I really hope and doubt that people look at this as a black mark on Omni and Twix's career. My understanding is they utilized a grey area of expansion that may fly in other league expansions but this being the example of a slap on the wrist of "hey, don't strong arm the expansion gms." I could be wrong, from my limited understanding of the budget system, but if you have a full roster/team the penalty isn't too much of a concern. All I can say, is that the rules for this expansion draft was very existing team friendly and the fact that Sydney abused their position of power to the point where it warranted draft pick loss in the future (not a big deal the team is already full). I could see less existing team friendly expansion draft rules in the future.</td></tr></table> I agree. I find that the possibility of this being seen as a black mark is a much larger punishment than what the BoD has given and it is wonderful to hear that others don't actually view this negatively for Omni and Twix. Whilst i may not agree with it, i speak no ill to the BoD for having had to give any ruling as being in charge is rather thankless.</td></tr></table>Squally on waking up on his worst morning: <img src='https://c.tenor.com/epNMHGvRyHcAAAAd/gigachad-chad.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

***Canadice*** · 2022-07-24, 11:09 PM - Word count:

This is my personal thoughts and opinions as a member of the Board of Directors since prior to S1 and may not reflect the rest of the BoD In general writing rules is hard. As far as I'm aware, this league is one of the few sim leagues that actively allows managers to have a say in how and which rules are added or changed to allow for more people to have a say, identify loop holes, and participate in the discussions. As a member of the BoD, it is our responsibility to try and act in the good of the league over any individual player or team which is why we sometimes have to make hard decisions that may not be liked by an individual or group of users. In regards to expansion we (the BoD) are trying to balance a couple of things when it comes to announcing it and presenting rules and procedures of an expansion process. There are three that I mainly think of: - First, we want to have a league where active players are given the opportunity to play the absolute majority of minutes. - Second, we want to provide expansion teams with a viable option to choose whether or not they want to be able to compete now or prepare for the future. - Third, we want to provide current teams with an option to protect their current players or protect their future assets. We take opinions from managers into account in these processes, but the balance between these three aspects sometimes makes it so that we can't always follow exactly what a manager wants. After manager suggestion, we changed the protection rules for the S5 Expansion to add one more free protection slot (8 as a base instead of 7) and reduced the cost of a 9th protection slot (any 1st round draft pick) compared to previous protection rules. We deemed that this was a good enough balance between the above aspects allowing for managers to protect their current players at the expense of draft picks which would in turn allow for expansion managers to have a viable selection of current players with league average TPE or future draft picks. As I mentioned at the start, writing rules is hard and it is very difficult to write completely airtight rules that can never be misused. When issues arise that bend the rules or follows them to the letter but not their intent, we have an expectation that users (both players and managers) act with a sense of fairness. That is why the rule mentioned at the top of the punishment was added, to allow for punishments to be issued that break the spirit of the league or give an individual or team an unfair advantage. We know that the rule leaves a lot of room for interpretation but any punishment that the BoD issues needs to be done with a majority opinion. We also have open applications for the BoD every season, so if you want the opportunity to participate more in league discussions I encourage you to apply when these applications opens up. I also want to make it clear that this punishment does not reflect or take away from the impressive work that both management groups in Sydney and Catalunya (current and previous assistant managers included) have done as an expansion team to create an active and successful locker room environment. Both teams have been able to compete with the "older" teams just a couple of seasons after their expansion draft and that is no doubt due to the amount of work and effort put in by the managers. I don't doubt for a second there is a valid reason for players to say that they want to stay on the team. I'm also sure that the same can be said for other teams. I'm going to try and give responses to a couple of the comments in this thread. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1' id='QUOTE-WRAP'><tr><td>QUOTE (twix @ Jul 25 2022, 02:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Anyways, love to get punished because our players don't want to leave our team and we trade back fair market value for them. Not even punished for breaking a specific rule, just for "unethical behaviour". When trading back for your players has been fine literally one season ago. Being told you basically can't sign FAs less than 24 hours in advance is just the cherry on top!</td></tr></table> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1' id='QUOTE-WRAP'><tr><td>QUOTE (CptSquall @ Jul 25 2022, 05:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I understand that the BoD is likely looking at this whole affair from the angle of getting out ahead of teams looking into pick trading as a viable alternative. It sounds like to me though, that the problem is the fact that so many players are willing to throw away early careers over frequent expansion threats. Not GMs looking to circumvent the "Spirit of the Game".</td></tr></table> The punishment is not issued for trading back the players, which is something that we commend teams for doing as a tool to retain players they were not able to protect, but for misusing the rules to unfairly leverage the expansion teams. The 9th expansion slot was used by multiple other teams to protect players with good value and it allowed the expansion teams the choice to select a draft pick in expansion instead. In previous expansion processes, deals were made between current and expansion managers to retain assets but still give the expansion teams the option of choosing what path they want to go. Exposed players that would retire or leave in FA is not a viable asset for an expansion team which in turn forces their hand. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1' id='QUOTE-WRAP'><tr><td>QUOTE (fútboliscool @ Jul 25 2022, 04:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> this punishment sets a precedent for "spirit of the game" to be preserved. From what I know GMs were asked if there were any exploits in the rules for this expansion causing an unfair situation for the expansion teams. For those of you who think this is a punishment due to teams having a good locker room and players not wanting to leave. You're missing the point. The punishment is actively undermining the spirit of the game and teams entering having a fair spot at competing. Also rules were written cleverly to allow for this.</td></tr></table> Yes, my thought of this punishment is to be a precedent of what this league stands for. I know that sim leagues have been around for a long time in many different forms and we have a varied amount of experience in the current BoD, but one thing that I feel is important to have in mind is the spirit of the game. Some leagues have done it differently, some have a precedent of misusing the rules being disregarded by the BoD or comparable entity, but the SSL is not these other leagues. I completely understand that there will be users who don't agree with the punishment, and that is ok. Disagreeing on issues is what sometimes is needed for progress to occur, but disagreements should never result in personal attacks or a lack of civility. As we also mention in the write-up, we are looking at changes to the rules to prevent situations like this from occurring but at the same time I am disappointed that we once again have to change or add rules to prevent similar situations. I tend to think of product manuals that contain a lot of information about what not to do that makes it impossible to read when most of the information could be considered common knowledge or covered by a single instruction detailing what to do. At the end of the day this league is something we do in our free time and the work required to create a set of rules detailing every single loop hole you are not allowed to do would take many months. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1' id='QUOTE-WRAP'><tr><td>QUOTE (leatherneckmike @ Jul 25 2022, 02:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> So you wrote bad rules, instead of correcting those rules for next time you are throwing a fit and punishing the people who saw the best way to navigate said bad rules and protect the team ... If you want your governing body to have any air of legitimacy you'll stick to the rules. Can't wait for someone to do too well in the league you dont want, and the board to find a way to take it from them. Oh and by the way. Im the one who went to pau twice and said ill piss off from the expansion team and or retire. You dont even have the common sense to come interview the players. Good lord. </td></tr></table> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1' id='QUOTE-WRAP'><tr><td>QUOTE (holy.sheesh @ Jul 25 2022, 02:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>looks like a dubious punishment in my books if players dont wanna play for exp team, what can you do anyways</td></tr></table> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1' id='QUOTE-WRAP'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bauer @ Jul 25 2022, 04:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>*forgets to add an expansion rule that every league has besides SSL* *Sydney uses that to their advantage* "Hey wait no you can't do that!" add the rule for future expansions but this is fuckin dumb lmfao, not Sydney's fault y'all didn't add the rule and left the exploit open.</td></tr></table> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1' id='QUOTE-WRAP'><tr><td>QUOTE (leatherneckmike @ Jul 25 2022, 05:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Where is the spirit of the game in the rulebook? and how about the spirit of GM's acting in the best interest of their own teams like they should?</td></tr></table> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1' id='QUOTE-WRAP'><tr><td>QUOTE (sarah @ Jul 25 2022, 04:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>come up with better rules and procedures. you are trying to become a big league it's time to become big serious. be better. skill issue.</td></tr></table> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1' id='QUOTE-WRAP'><tr><td>QUOTE (CptSquall @ Jul 25 2022, 05:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Not a single member of FC Catalunya were asked to retire if taken. On the contrary, we were asked as a group to voice our individual opinions to Omni as to how we felt about being left unprotected. Sure, some would rather retire than leave but many were open to it. The fact that high value was left unprotected and trades were made shows that the opportunity was there for them to still gain value. Not only that, but shows that said GMs were more willing to take the picks as opposed to taking a chance on a group of players who had voiced their chance to leave. Honestly it sounds like, knowing these players would likely choose to retire should they be taken. That the GMs of FC Catalunya took it upon themselves to get out ahead and try to offer tangible value to the new clubs.</td></tr></table> As I mentioned in the initial text and what has been stated in the write-up, Section Subsection 1 Rule 1.c is in the Rulebook just for these situations. That is the "spirit of the game" rule if it needs to be named. I believe that the legitimacy of the league is being upheld when occurrences of misusing the rules for individual gain is acted upon. If there are players that don't want to play for an expansion team and that a team wants to retain, then protect them. That is the easiest response I can think of to these types of comments asking what the team is supposed to do if a player doesn't want to play for the expansion team. There are protection slots available for a reason. Hopefully this has provided some insight into my own thoughts on the matter. Once again I want to reiterate that it is perfectly ok to disagree with the BoD decisions but remember to keep things civil.