Create Account

HO elections
#46

09-16-2018, 09:49 PMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote:
09-16-2018, 09:42 PMKing Wrote:
09-16-2018, 09:19 PMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote: Right, but that's the slippery slope fallacy all over again.

Right, but if we let you start posting logical fallacy's as replys, you may eventually only post logical fallacy's as replies.

Are you saying we should allow people to use flawed logic to support their arguments? If someone presents decent logic I'll listen, but right now all I see is a group of people stopping racism and sexism with the power they've been given and a small select group of people resenting it with their arguments being one logical fallacy after another.

wow thats some hateful speech right there, only people who can logically construct arguments are allowed opinions????

/s

[Image: wMFFUe4.gif]


Barracuda S56 1st Overall Barracuda

Gary Grease Career Stats: Click Here
Graphics Shop: Click Here

[Image: CsnVET2.png]  Barracuda Russia Barracuda  [Image: c8B2LE3.png]

Reply
#47
(This post was last modified: 09-16-2018, 09:56 PM by caltroit_red_flames.)

09-16-2018, 09:53 PMFlappyGiraffe Wrote:
09-16-2018, 09:49 PMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote:
09-16-2018, 09:42 PMKing Wrote:
09-16-2018, 09:19 PMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote: Right, but that's the slippery slope fallacy all over again.

Right, but if we let you start posting logical fallacy's as replys, you may eventually only post logical fallacy's as replies.

Are you saying we should allow people to use flawed logic to support their arguments? If someone presents decent logic I'll listen, but right now all I see is a group of people stopping racism and sexism with the power they've been given and a small select group of people resenting it with their arguments being one logical fallacy after another.

wow thats some hateful speech right there, only people who can logically construct arguments are allowed opinions????

/s

The way this site takes decent people causes them to rude like this infuriating. I'm done arguing over this, it doesn't do any good.

[Image: doubtfulalpha.gif]
[Image: 0XJkcN5.png]
[Image: sN8N4xa.png][Image: 639861613880541184.png] Cal Juice [Image: 639861613880541184.png][Image: RyzkmSj.png]
[Image: Eo2nBCt.png] Tomas Zadina
[Image: snacnei.png] Brady McIntyre
[Image: ice-level.svg]
Reply
#48

09-16-2018, 09:49 PMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote:
09-16-2018, 09:42 PMKing Wrote:
09-16-2018, 09:19 PMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote: Right, but that's the slippery slope fallacy all over again.

Right, but if we let you start posting logical fallacy's as replys, you may eventually only post logical fallacy's as replies.

Are you saying we should allow people to use flawed logic to support their arguments? If someone presents decent logic I'll listen, but right now all I see is a group of people stopping racism and sexism with the power they've been given and a small select group of people resenting it with their arguments being one logical fallacy after another.

Dude it was a joke.

I used the slipper slope fallacy, as a reply to your comment on slippery slopes.

[Image: 7eETdF8.png]
Falcons
Reply
#49

09-16-2018, 05:47 PMSmegKingma Wrote:
09-16-2018, 05:06 PMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: Elections did not make this league a better place, I was in favor of the election system back when it was implemented but it simply didn't work very well. Bad candidates still got in, way more than through applications I'd argue, HO still got shit on constantly and wasn't any more "legitimate" in the eyes of the members, there were good decisions and bad decisions just like there are now and ultimately the members, the very people who got to vote, started to hate the system and pushed for the HO to abolish it. It wasn't some tyrannical HO who got rid of elections, it was an overwhelming majority of vocal members who wanted it and after some resistance, the HO finally complied. Accountability and transparency are important, but HO elections didn't really help us achieve those goals.


I'm guessing this happened behind closed doors, Cause i never saw any public comments about it being a bad thing. I'm fine with how it is now except from the part of having 3 people from the same team being on HO. i disagree that it wasnt any more legitimate than it is now, but we can agree to disagree ä.

We must have had different experiences with the system then because I remember people shitting on the election system a lot, especially towards its end. But maybe I was a bit more sensitive to this as an elected HO-member myself and the hatred wasn't as widespread as I thought, that's entirely possible. If I remember correctly there were public polls on that matter though were a significant portion of the league spoke out against the voting system.

I for one don't have a strong opinion here, returning an election system or at least some elective elements or a hybrid, like Hallsy suggested, could definitely work. My point just is that in the past, elections didn't automatically make things better and that we also didn't get rid of them because HO decided to go authoritarian, but because the members demanded it. And it's generally easier to ensure that someone isn't a troll and that he is willing to do the work through an application system than through an elective one. As someone else said earlier in this thread, when you get voted into the office through not much work of your own, then it's quite likely that that person won't be the most hard-working either once they are in HO. And that's what it felt like at times when I was in HO, people were voted in due to their popularity but then didn't do a whole lot. If someone has to submit a well thought-out application however and if the current HO can "vet" him in a sense, then chances are much higher that we will actually get a committed, hard-working person for the job. That doesn't mean that there won't be questionable picks of course, but there were plenty of those in both systems.

Evan Winter
Edmonton Blizzard
Player Page - Update Page


[Image: winter-500.png]
Reply
#50

09-16-2018, 04:09 PMEggy216 Wrote: This was actually the exact reason why I got rid of elections. I've also tried to go out of my way to ensure we don't have 4 people with the same opinions making up those seats, and so far I think that's gone pretty well, the discussions have been far more involved since making the change than before.


I think a fine job has been done for the most part. The biggest, easily correctable flaw is in the fait accompli aspect of HO decisions. A problem is perceived, often as the result of a thunder dome shitshow or something similar. HO rushes to establish a new ruling in reaction. Perhaps in their haste, they don’t take the care to craft their words finely and fully think through all the ramifications. The new ruling is posted as a done deal in the announcements. Thirty pages of ranting then follows.

Would it not be better for everyone if the HO would have a period of public review and debate before handing down new law? Of course some people would treat it as a joke or an excuse to troll. Some would argue in bad faith. But in those pages many good thoughts would also be found. Improvements to the law, as written, would be suggested. Even the trolls would be beneficial in finding the flaws and loopholes inherent in most new legislation. We would get better reasoned, more fully fleshed out policies in place that the users could feel more invested in and protective towards.

Let’s face it. It couldn’t be more of a mess then the current system of handing down established law. When some of our users read about controversial new rules that they had no prior knowledge of or involvement in, they have a tendency to feel attacked or threatened, resulting in thirty pages of bare knuckles brawling.

I have nothing but respect for yourself and the HO. I know your intentions are good. Allow the many smart and creative users here to help build a better system for all.

[Image: nQDbTbM.png]

[Image: hA5o4UG.png]
Reply
#51

09-16-2018, 05:15 PMThatDamnMcJesus Wrote: tbh how about a hybrid system? Apps for Eggy/current HO to look at and they pick the best 4 candidates or wtv. Then a league wide poll happens to select the 2 HO members.

I think this is a really great idea. I can't see any immediate downside to it aside from the face that somebody from head office is going to have to put some time into polling and what now.

09-17-2018, 09:17 AMSlappydoodle Wrote:
09-16-2018, 04:09 PMEggy216 Wrote: This was actually the exact reason why I got rid of elections. I've also tried to go out of my way to ensure we don't have 4 people with the same opinions making up those seats, and so far I think that's gone pretty well, the discussions have been far more involved since making the change than before.


I think a fine job has been done for the most part. The biggest, easily correctable flaw is in the fait accompli aspect of HO decisions. A problem is perceived, often as the result of a thunder dome shitshow or something similar. HO rushes to establish a new ruling in reaction. Perhaps in their haste, they don’t take the care to craft their words finely and fully think through all the ramifications. The new ruling is posted as a done deal in the announcements. Thirty pages of ranting then follows.

Would it not be better for everyone if the HO would have a period of public review and debate before handing down new law? Of course some people would treat it as a joke or an excuse to troll. Some would argue in bad faith. But in those pages many good thoughts would also be found. Improvements to the law, as written, would be suggested. Even the trolls would be beneficial in finding the flaws and loopholes inherent in most new legislation. We would get better reasoned, more fully fleshed out policies in place that the users could feel more invested in and protective towards.

Let’s face it. It couldn’t be more of a mess then the current system of handing down established law. When some of our users read about controversial new rules that they had no prior knowledge of or involvement in, they have a tendency to feel attacked or threatened, resulting in thirty pages of bare knuckles brawling.

I have nothing but respect for yourself and the HO. I know your intentions are good. Allow the many smart and creative users here to help build a better system for all.

I think I disagree with most of this. I am of the opinion that these things seem to get worse the longer head office waits to make a ruling. In the most recent case, they made a rule relatively quickly. People then voiced their opinion of that rule in various levels of productiveness and the head office was able to tweak that rule after the fact to make improvements based on community feedback. I think that is a good way to approach these issues.

[Image: TorTuck.gif]
[Image: sAx3Llh.jpg]
Reply
#52

09-16-2018, 09:19 PMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote:
09-16-2018, 06:35 PMFlappyGiraffe Wrote: thats not what he's saying, he's saying that the framework is there now for HO to ban any word they want in the future.

Right, but that's the slippery slope fallacy all over again.

Nope. Toe didn't imply that anything would happen, he just said it would be possibie. I'm on your side, but that's not a fallacy. It's a valid argument that HO took into consideration with the amendment.

[Image: ili5NZ2.png]

Player Page
Update Page
Reply
#53

09-17-2018, 02:55 PMErM Wrote:
09-16-2018, 05:15 PMThatDamnMcJesus Wrote: tbh how about a hybrid system? Apps for Eggy/current HO to look at and they pick the best 4 candidates or wtv. Then a league wide poll happens to select the 2 HO members.

I think this is a really great idea. I can't see any immediate downside to it aside from the face that somebody from head office is going to have to put some time into polling and what now.

09-17-2018, 09:17 AMSlappydoodle Wrote: I think a fine job has been done for the most part. The biggest, easily correctable flaw is in the fait accompli aspect of HO decisions. A problem is perceived, often as the result of a thunder dome shitshow or something similar. HO rushes to establish a new ruling in reaction. Perhaps in their haste, they don’t take the care to craft their words finely and fully think through all the ramifications. The new ruling is posted as a done deal in the announcements. Thirty pages of ranting then follows.

Would it not be better for everyone if the HO would have a period of public review and debate before handing down new law? Of course some people would treat it as a joke or an excuse to troll. Some would argue in bad faith. But in those pages many good thoughts would also be found. Improvements to the law, as written, would be suggested. Even the trolls would be beneficial in finding the flaws and loopholes inherent in most new legislation. We would get better reasoned, more fully fleshed out policies in place that the users could feel more invested in and protective towards.

Let’s face it. It couldn’t be more of a mess then the current system of handing down established law. When some of our users read about controversial new rules that they had no prior knowledge of or involvement in, they have a tendency to feel attacked or threatened, resulting in thirty pages of bare knuckles brawling.

I have nothing but respect for yourself and the HO. I know your intentions are good. Allow the many smart and creative users here to help build a better system for all.

I think I disagree with most of this. I am of the opinion that these things seem to get worse the longer head office waits to make a ruling. In the most recent case, they made a rule relatively quickly. People then voiced their opinion of that rule in various levels of productiveness and the head office was able to tweak that rule after the fact to make improvements based on community feedback. I think that is a good way to approach these issues.


Enacting a law with the idea of , “Well, no matter how rushed this is or how badly written, we can always just amend it later” makes no sense to me. Treat people with respect. Deal with them in good faith. This is a community and as such community involvement is important. The other way is guaranteed to create bad blood and drama, as it did in this case.

[Image: nQDbTbM.png]

[Image: hA5o4UG.png]
Reply
#54

09-17-2018, 06:09 PMSlappydoodle Wrote:
09-17-2018, 02:55 PMErM Wrote: I think this is a really great idea. I can't see any immediate downside to it aside from the face that somebody from head office is going to have to put some time into polling and what now.


I think I disagree with most of this. I am of the opinion that these things seem to get worse the longer head office waits to make a ruling. In the most recent case, they made a rule relatively quickly. People then voiced their opinion of that rule in various levels of productiveness and the head office was able to tweak that rule after the fact to make improvements based on community feedback. I think that is a good way to approach these issues.


Enacting a law with the idea of , “Well, no matter how rushed this is or how badly written, we can always just amend it later” makes no sense to me. Treat people with respect. Deal with them in good faith. This is a community and as such community involvement is important.  The other way is guaranteed to create bad blood and drama, as it did in this case.

I think the bad blood created while we would be waiting around for a long public comment period would be worse than the bad blood of a rule that is a bit overzealous for a few days and then gets dialed back.

[Image: TorTuck.gif]
[Image: sAx3Llh.jpg]
Reply
#55

09-16-2018, 03:00 PMClint Eastwood Wrote: Formx became HO because of that. That's a no from me dawg.

[Image: clintgay2.PNG]
Reply
#56
(This post was last modified: 09-17-2018, 08:09 PM by Tomen.)

just my 0,02 here and I didn't read everything so that may have been said already.
But the apps could be just sent to the Commish and the Commish posts each app under his own name, so we don't know whose app it is. Now we vote. Or we get to choose from the best 3 apps and vote for 1.

[Image: KSelich.gif]
Thank you all for the amazing sigs & player cards
Germany Citadelles  Stampede [Image: vhY18i8.png][Image: Raptors.png][Image: gs89eGV.png] [Image: eE2UQZC.png] Stampede Citadelles Germany



3. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 5 (Maximilian Wachter, Alexis Metzler) at 16:25
5. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 6 (Steven Stamkos Jr., Brynjar Tusk) at 19:48
8. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 7 (Brynjar Tusk, Alexis Metzler) at 13:55
9. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 8 (Anton Fedorov, Mikelis Grundmanis) at 15:12
10. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 9 (Dickie Pecker) at 19:43 (Empty Net)
Reply
#57

09-17-2018, 08:09 PMTomen Wrote: just my 0,02 here and I didn't read everything so that may have been said already.
But the apps could be just sent to the Commish and the Commish posts each app under his own name, so we don't know whose app it is. Now we vote. Or we get to choose from the best 3 apps and vote for 1.

This still wouldn't be that "blind" I think. From what we've seen of "blind" graphic contest voting, people can either identify based on style who made a certain submission, or someone particularly invested in winning the vote can just tell their LR "Hey, I'm submission X" and get some good old internet vote brigading. It sounds like a fun little solution, but I guarantee it would be very ineffective.

Zach Evans[/b] | Player Page | Update Page
Nikolai Evans
| Player Page | Update Page


Reply
#58

Why would we want blind voting anyway? I want to know who I am voting for as I'd rather judge the person and their resumee on this site as a whole than just their ability to write a good application.

Evan Winter
Edmonton Blizzard
Player Page - Update Page


[Image: winter-500.png]
Reply
#59

Things didn't go like this when I was in the HO.

Alonzo Garbanzo Final Tallies (Among Defensemen):
2nd in Goals (208), All-Time Assists Leader (765)*, All-Time Points Leader (973), 3rd in Hits (2587), All-Time Blocked Shots Leader (1882)*
*All-Time Leader Among All Skaters
Player Profile | Update Thread
[Image: IeEV7Iv.png]

Reply
#60

09-18-2018, 07:49 AMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: Why would we want blind voting anyway? I want to know who I am voting for as I'd rather judge the person and their resumee on this site as a whole than just their ability to write a good application.

and that's great for the ~10 people who are willing to do that, but the voting in the past was skewed heavily towards a popularity contest. No offense to @formx cause I like him, but there's no fuckin way he got into HO based on merit the first time.

Voting is a nice idea, cause it gives us that sense of democracy, but the truth is the vast majority of people don't take democracy seriously (just look at NA politics in general). The other truth that people here don't seem to be able to process is that this is a PRIVATE website that governs itself. You don't have free speech, you don't have rights, you don't have jack shit. This site runs how it wants, and if the owners make a decision, we the users don't really have a say in it. I've seen a TON of people here acting like they are entitled to some say in how this place is run, but that simply is not the case, and trying to accommodate the opinions of every user here is impossible. That's why we need the owners at the top, then commissioners, then HO... we need a chain of command to make tough decisions for the site to run smoothly, and some people will always be upset about every decision.





Argonauts Stars Battleborn Czechia
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)




Navigation

 

Extra Menu

 

About us

The Simulation Hockey League is a free online forums based sim league where you create your own fantasy hockey player. Join today and create your player, become a GM, get drafted, sign contracts, make trades and compete against hundreds of players from around the world.