Login

nour · 05-02-2020, 05:58 PM

Good Evening SHL Community,

This post is gonna be a bit longer than usual so bear with me.

We firstly want to thank everyone for their patience with SHL Head Office during this time. The last few days have been busy for everyone in SHL HO as we worked on providing a solution for the illegal roster infraction during the Day 2 playoff sim. We understand this was a bit of a tumultuous time and we appreciate the understanding of everyone who has been looking for an update.

It came to the SHL Head Office's attention following our punishment dealt to New Orleans yesterday that the Specter's coaching group had attempted the double shifting exploit in both the Day 1 AND the Day 2 sim. Both instances saw their 3rd line centre position blank, resulting in the double shifting of all available centres at that position. We'll be updating the original New Orleans punishment to reflect this news, which came to light after we had already made our punishment call when @Mook messaged me the evening of the punishment.

The new punishment will be reflected in the original post and is as follows:

- New Orleans will be fined $4,000,000 to their S54 Salary Cap.
- General Managers @JKortesi81 and @TheDangaZone forfeit their GM Pay for the S53 season.
- New Orleans forfeit their S54 2nd round pick.
- Both General Managers will be placed on a 1 season probationary period. Any further roster-related infractions from their management group will result in a dismissal of both GMs.

Now a few other things we want to clear up and answer just as a Head Office group. The initial decision that the SHL Head Office reached was made without the knowledge that this exploit was attempted for both Day 1 and Day 2's playoff sims. Secondly, while we discussed the call quite a bit, we did our best to put it up quickly to send a message right away that the exploit was not okay and against the rule. With some time to think following the call, it was apparent to all of us involved in the punishment decision that the call we made was not the right one. Transparency is important, it's something I've always valued as a member on this site and I know a lot of people here do too, so it's important that we as a group acknowledge we made a call that was rushed and missing details, though we tried to account for them as best as we could. There was no precedent -in the rulebook or in the past- for us to follow, so we followed other management guidelines and translated them to this situation poorly. We own up that this was an error we made, and we're actively looking to ensure our future decisions are A. more preventative than reactive and B. handled with more attention to detail and critical thinking.

Also in the name of transparency, we don't want questions left in the punishment thread to go unanswered so I'd like to answer a few of them in this post as well if they weren't answered above.

Code:
Well that's a cheap price to pay for an illegitimate playoff win (and for trying it in another game too where it didn't quite work). Not even a player suspension or forcing them into auto-lines for a game or two, instead just a small fine for someone with an 80M bank account? And even if they were caught doing this again, the punishment would just be a 2nd? Wow. Especially since this wasn't a misclick or something but a very deliberate tactical choice as they admitted themselves, that they only excuse through ignorance of the rules.

@RomanesEuntDomus

This one's got a few things that we hope the revision addresses, but there are some points I do wanna answer. Firstly, we opted against a player punishment because in the case of management infractions, the precedent per the rulebook and per past cases has always been that the management group faces some combination of pick punishments, salary cap fines, pay forfeiture and probationary periods. We've always reserved player suspensions for individual member/player sim and conduct infractions, and handling punishments in this manner has always been understood in the past. Secondly, we did discuss some way of altering New Orleans from an in-sim perspective, but we all, Head Office Members and Owners alike, expressed a serious worry about the precedent it sets to deal punishments that take control away from GMs in relation to future punishments. We discussed it for a really long time but really felt it was a dangerous precedent to set going forward.

Code:
This is honestly an absolute fucking joke. Blatantly cheating in the playoffs gets you a softer punishment than using inappropriate language? NOLA straight up tried to exploit the lines in game 1, it didn't work, so they TRIED AGAIN in game 2? And GM's lose pay and a slight fine to cap next season?

@JT3

I hope some of the more harsher changes above addressed the concerns you've mentioned here. I addressed a lot of the points you made here in this post already but I do wanna focus on the "inappropriate language" punishment argument I've seen being made. These are two different circumstances with punishments that are dealt to an individual vs to an SHL team's management. It's really hard to compare these as a 1:1 scenario, and as I mentioned to RED in terms of why we didn't opt a player suspension, individual user and management group infractions have always had separate consequences. I hope some of the above changes helps communicate that SHL Head Office doesn't intend for this punishment to be treated via a slap on the wrist.

Code:
This reminds me an awful lot of when Calgary broke some rules that have been around forever, like their GMs have, and got away with a slap on the hand for saying “We didn’t know we couldn’t do that”

Code:
Also Nola definitely fucking knew it was against the rules, and even if they didn't it shouldn't affect the punishment. If the GMs don't know the rules, that makes it WORSE, not better, and the punishment should be worse because now they're admitting to being negligent as well as breaking rules.

@39alaska39 @Fordyford

I just wanna stress that from the get go, since we began discussing this ruling following the sim, we were all in FULL agreement that ignorance to the rule or innocent intent while testing, true or not, would not be a factor in the discussion and we carried that sentiment throughout the entire discussion process even until now. I tried to detail what lead to the initial punishment up above and I hope that clarifies these concerns.

Code:
PS @SDCore I'm not suggesting impropriety but the discussion was raised so I'd just like to ask why there is no rule against participating in HO discussions about punishments for your own team (or at least there wasn't when i was there)

So while there is no rule regarding this, HO has always sort of just done this on an honour system regardless. The decision in both cases were made by me, SDCore, Baelor and Krash, with sloth and badwolf sitting out of discussion due to how close they are to this situation, and we've all done the same for our own teams in the past.

Shl

If I didn't address ANY of your concerns above, either through my replies to people or through our reevaluation of the original punishment, please feel free to continue voicing them. We'll do our best to continue to be transparent in our process and answer any thoughts and concerns as best as we can as they come up.

Thanks once again, and on behalf of the SHL Head Office,
nour

**First GM in SMJHL history to win 3 Four Star Cups back-to-back-to-back**

Gooney · 05-02-2020, 06:01 PM

yapoo yipee

Samsung virtual assistant · 05-02-2020, 06:18 PM

Well i mean, this cheat didn't only affect the outcome of G2, but G3 as well, with the FHM Momentum being a thing, so it pretty much gave them an advantage in 3 games and not just the first 2, even though their cheat didn't work in G1.

It's done now, but still feels like a slap on the wrist.

***39alaska39*** · 05-02-2020, 06:21 PM

I do appreciate your addressing of my concern, but no offense, every GM in this league would eat a late second forfeiture, a small cap penalty, and a loss of pay to get a win in Challenge Cup Game 7

Alex Winters (retired)
Matej Winters (retired)
Dominik Winters
S45 Jesster Trophy Winner
Challenge Cup Winning Goal Club: S52

Wasty · 05-02-2020, 06:28 PM

05-02-2020, 06:21 PM39alaska39 Wrote: I do appreciate your addressing of my concern, but no offense, every GM in this league would eat a late second forfeiture, a small cap penalty, and a loss of pay to get a win in Challenge Cup Game 7

This ^

05-02-2020, 06:18 PMスウェグキング Wrote: Well i mean, this cheat didn't only affect the outcome of G2, but G3 as well, with the FHM Momentum being a thing, so it pretty much gave them an advantage in 3 games and not just the first 2, even though their cheat didn't work in G1.

It's done now, but still feels like a slap on the wrist.

Nah it's not a slap on the wrist, the first one was a slap on the wrist. This one is just a second slightly lighter slap on the wrist tbh.

#40 Niclas Wastlund - W - VANCOUVER WHALERS Whalers

/ MINNESOTA MONARCHS

*CptSquall* · 05-02-2020, 06:33 PM

05-02-2020, 06:21 PM39alaska39 Wrote: I do appreciate your addressing of my concern, but no offense, every GM in this league would eat a late second forfeiture, a small cap penalty, and a loss of pay to get a win in Challenge Cup Game 7

Whilst I agree with the potential of this microcosm, I think we are forgetting the probational period, though I feel it should have been for ANY rule infraction personally.

It feels like many on the site are looking for a lynching of the management of New Orleans which sets a dangerous precedent in my opinion. I think this updated version of the punishment walks the very thin line rather well.

***39alaska39*** · 05-02-2020, 06:36 PM

05-02-2020, 06:33 PMCptSquall Wrote:
05-02-2020, 06:21 PM39alaska39 Wrote: I do appreciate your addressing of my concern, but no offense, every GM in this league would eat a late second forfeiture, a small cap penalty, and a loss of pay to get a win in Challenge Cup Game 7

Whilst I agree with the potential of this microcosm, I think we are forgetting the probational period, though I feel it should have been for ANY rule infraction personally.

It feels like many on the site are looking for a lynching of the management of New Orleans which sets a dangerous precedent in my opinion. I think this updated version of the punishment walks the very thin line rather well.

While I hear what you’re saying, I am a coach now and was a GM in the past. I would absolutely trade a Cup win for this exact punishment 10/10. If this is the precedent HO wants to set, then I wouldn’t be surprised to see more teams do this in the future

Alex Winters (retired)
Matej Winters (retired)
Dominik Winters
S45 Jesster Trophy Winner
Challenge Cup Winning Goal Club: S52

*CptSquall* · 05-02-2020, 06:43 PM

05-02-2020, 06:36 PM39alaska39 Wrote: While I hear what you’re saying, I am a coach now and was a GM in the past. I would absolutely trade a Cup win for this exact punishment 10/10. If this is the precedent HO wants to set, then I wouldn’t be surprised to see more teams do this in the future

So you would take 1 cup for one more mistake by you, your co, or your front office leading to your firing?

Samsung virtual assistant · 05-02-2020, 06:46 PM

05-02-2020, 06:43 PMCptSquall Wrote:
05-02-2020, 06:36 PM39alaska39 Wrote: While I hear what you’re saying, I am a coach now and was a GM in the past. I would absolutely trade a Cup win for this exact punishment 10/10. If this is the precedent HO wants to set, then I wouldn’t be surprised to see more teams do this in the future

So you would take 1 cup for one more mistake by you, your co, or your front office leading to your firing?

It's only for 1 season, if you cant stay away from making mistakes for 1 season you really shouldn't be in that position, LOL

*CptSquall* · 05-02-2020, 06:49 PM

05-02-2020, 06:46 PMスウェグキング Wrote: It's only for 1 season, if you cant stay away from making mistakes for 1 season you really shouldn't be in that position, LOL

Oh wow, how did I miss that? Yikes, I could see it being perfect if it was permeant. It would be prohibitive enough without feeling overboard, or causing everything to need to be at the same level.

***39alaska39*** · 05-02-2020, 06:54 PM

05-02-2020, 06:49 PMCptSquall Wrote:
05-02-2020, 06:46 PMスウェグキング Wrote: It's only for 1 season, if you cant stay away from making mistakes for 1 season you really shouldn't be in that position, LOL

Oh wow, how did I miss that? Yikes, I could see it being perfect if it was permeant. It would be prohibitive enough without feeling overboard, or causing everything to need to be at the same level.

Yeah that’s a big part of what I was saying lol

Alex Winters (retired)
Matej Winters (retired)
Dominik Winters
S45 Jesster Trophy Winner
Challenge Cup Winning Goal Club: S52

*CptSquall* · 05-02-2020, 06:58 PM

05-02-2020, 06:54 PM39alaska39 Wrote: Yeah that’s a big part of what I was saying lol

Yeah, I see that now lol. Almost hit that sweet spot.

Samsung virtual assistant · 05-02-2020, 07:00 PM

05-02-2020, 05:58 PMnour Wrote: I hope some of the more harsher changes above addressed the concerns you've mentioned here. I addressed a lot of the points you made here in this post already but I do wanna focus on the "inappropriate language" punishment argument I've seen being made. These are two different circumstances with punishments that are dealt to an individual vs to an SHL team's management. It's really hard to compare these as a 1:1 scenario, and as I mentioned to RED in terms of why we didn't opt a player suspension, individual user and management group infractions have always had separate consequences. I hope some of the above changes helps communicate that SHL Head Office doesn't intend for this punishment to be treated via a slap on the wrist.

What if the same person breaks both those rules at the same time? Interview

SlashACM · 05-02-2020, 07:07 PM

Delete nola

*CptSquall* · 05-02-2020, 07:09 PM

05-02-2020, 07:07 PMSlashACM Wrote: Delete nola

You dropped this: /s

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us