Login

Mayuu · 11-04-2021, 01:26 PM

Selective enforcement?

RETIRED

spooked · 11-04-2021, 01:40 PM

11-04-2021, 01:23 PMsve7en Wrote:
11-04-2021, 01:19 PMspooked Wrote: Cause time exists? Like what? Things happen in a sequence of time, not all at once?

Cause when punishments are delayed and come out in the same week they kinda seem like they happen at once.

I can get that, but even if they come out in the same day HO will still get time to see feedback from the site and discuss. The only time you can say they happened at once is if they are in the same thread. If they aren't then they happened separately or were considered separately at the very least.

pauadrian · 11-04-2021, 01:45 PM

11-04-2021, 09:03 AMJayWhy Wrote: This is blatant favoritism and it is absolutely disgusting to me. There has NEVER been something so cut and dry. The rules say this isn't allowed, any time this has happened before and gotten approved, the teams were forced to renegotiate. Yet now this time because it's a new guy in Toronto that you guys like, oh well let's not make it their fault. Let's reframe it to fuck over the new guy in Winnipeg, but ignore the new guy in Toronto's culpability.

This is the most ridiculous decision that could have been made. This ignores all precedent because you like one person more. What do I have to do to be allowed to make illegal trades? Make you cookies? Be shit at my job and go "i made a fucky wucky?" Horseshit. Absolute fucking horseshit.

I get it, Luke was the backbone of the HO and you'rea fucking coward who doesn't want people mad at you. But you've been in this role long enough to be able to fucking enforce the rules, and if you refuse to do so based on the very clear precedent, then you're failing at your job and spitting in our fucking faces.

Damn, I'm glad you were too shit at your job to sign me. Insulting someone personally like this is weak

*CementHands* · 11-04-2021, 01:46 PM

11-04-2021, 10:08 AMCitizen of Adraa Wrote:
11-04-2021, 10:03 AMRotticusScott Wrote: lol complaining about favoritism while sucking off your former co-gm and calling the current commissioner a coward.
fucking ironic comment

A true masterpiece in satire

*Buster* · 11-04-2021, 01:52 PM

11-04-2021, 01:45 PMpauadrian Wrote:
11-04-2021, 09:03 AMJayWhy Wrote: This is blatant favoritism and it is absolutely disgusting to me. There has NEVER been something so cut and dry. The rules say this isn't allowed, any time this has happened before and gotten approved, the teams were forced to renegotiate. Yet now this time because it's a new guy in Toronto that you guys like, oh well let's not make it their fault. Let's reframe it to fuck over the new guy in Winnipeg, but ignore the new guy in Toronto's culpability.

This is the most ridiculous decision that could have been made. This ignores all precedent because you like one person more. What do I have to do to be allowed to make illegal trades? Make you cookies? Be shit at my job and go "i made a fucky wucky?" Horseshit. Absolute fucking horseshit.

I get it, Luke was the backbone of the HO and you'rea fucking coward who doesn't want people mad at you. But you've been in this role long enough to be able to fucking enforce the rules, and if you refuse to do so based on the very clear precedent, then you're failing at your job and spitting in our fucking faces.

Damn, I'm glad you were too shit at your job to sign me. Insulting someone personally like this is weak

Shut it coward

*CementHands* · 11-04-2021, 01:56 PM

11-04-2021, 10:14 AMRotticusScott Wrote:
11-04-2021, 10:09 AMBuster Wrote: https://simulationhockey.com/showthread.php?tid=118539

After this thread, you might want to sit this one out buddy.
The thread where we lost 2 out of the three draft picks because of the punishments HO handed down to us? Good one Buster!!

Do you mean the same draft picks that you traded for a return, and had offersheeted, for another return? Man that sucks to lose them for nothing

Spartan · 11-04-2021, 01:57 PM

11-04-2021, 01:40 PMspooked Wrote:
11-04-2021, 01:23 PMsve7en Wrote: Cause when punishments are delayed and come out in the same week they kinda seem like they happen at once.

I can get that, but even if they come out in the same day HO will still get time to see feedback from the site and discuss. The only time you can say they happened at once is if they are in the same thread. If they aren't then they happened separately or were considered separately at the very least.

Feel like removing GM strikes/probation isn't something that gets changed on a whim between two punishments (seemingly discussed at/around the same time) without any sort of public acknowledgement though. I think that's more of the original point about why a strike was levied in one instance and not in another within the same week.

spooked · 11-04-2021, 01:59 PM

11-04-2021, 01:57 PMSpartan Wrote:
11-04-2021, 01:40 PMspooked Wrote: I can get that, but even if they come out in the same day HO will still get time to see feedback from the site and discuss. The only time you can say they happened at once is if they are in the same thread. If they aren't then they happened separately or were considered separately at the very least.
Feel like removing GM strikes/probation isn't something that gets changed on a whim between two punishments (seemingly discussed at/around the same time) without any sort of public acknowledgement though. I think that's more of the original point about why a strike was levied in one instance and not in another within the same week.

Because the backup goalie stuff is in the rulebook, and a punishment for trading a player with an illegal retention isn't, so we get to make a punishment using a comparable rule. They are different rules.

Spartan · 11-04-2021, 02:03 PM

11-04-2021, 01:59 PMspooked Wrote:
11-04-2021, 01:57 PMSpartan Wrote: Feel like removing GM strikes/probation isn't something that gets changed on a whim between two punishments (seemingly discussed at/around the same time) without any sort of public acknowledgement though. I think that's more of the original point about why a strike was levied in one instance and not in another within the same week.
Because the backup goalie stuff is in the rulebook, and a punishment for trading a player with an illegal retention isn't, so we get to make a punishment using a comparable rule. They are different rules.

Ah ok, I thought you were generally talking about removing GM strikes which confused me over applying strikes in one instance but not the other. Carry on.

Skeleton Party · 11-04-2021, 02:09 PM

can we please just focus on the ass eating

*CementHands* · 11-04-2021, 02:18 PM

11-04-2021, 10:42 AMspooked Wrote:
11-04-2021, 10:37 AMEvok Wrote: Yeah you are right i shouldnt have said "past gm" but im trying to be a bit understanding with a guy that was basically left to dust without a word by his head gm after being recently hired and not having gmed in a few years. While he should have still checked, i still think if he get the letter of thr law, this should apply as well since they want to compare it to an illegal trade.

Not going to go into the HO side of things, I am on my way out and pretty much stayed out of this as much as possible beyond a vote, but personally I would be hesitant to do any strikes or firings of GMs at this point as the pool of people applying for openings is so small that any firing we do off of a rulebook issue could give the league and HO an even bigger issue to try and figure out how to solve. If we fire a GM because of a trade, and no one applies to replace them, what do we do? This wasn't something I brought up in this case or was relevant to what you are talking about, but I have mentioned it recently in HO chat that I would be worried about it.

Sounds like there needs to be some better incentive then if no one is applying for open positions. Increase the benefits / rewards!

PremierBromanov · 11-04-2021, 02:24 PM

11-04-2021, 12:36 PMKalakar Wrote: How is everyone doing on this fine thursday?

i have two deadlines tomorrow, i saw a house I want to buy, and I sharted this morning

***Vandy*** · 11-04-2021, 02:28 PM

11-04-2021, 02:18 PMCementHands Wrote:
11-04-2021, 10:42 AMspooked Wrote: Not going to go into the HO side of things, I am on my way out and pretty much stayed out of this as much as possible beyond a vote, but personally I would be hesitant to do any strikes or firings of GMs at this point as the pool of people applying for openings is so small that any firing we do off of a rulebook issue could give the league and HO an even bigger issue to try and figure out how to solve. If we fire a GM because of a trade, and no one applies to replace them, what do we do? This wasn't something I brought up in this case or was relevant to what you are talking about, but I have mentioned it recently in HO chat that I would be worried about it.

Sounds like there needs to be some better incentive then if no one is applying for open positions. Increase the benefits / rewards!

I applied a few times for the J and the League HO's and either got told no or never heard back so I stopped. Honestly lol I'd just like to try it out. I certainly can't be as bad as some folks.

DELIRIVM · 11-04-2021, 02:35 PM

11-04-2021, 02:09 PMSkeleton Party Wrote: can we please just focus on the ass eating

Only if we can bring up that there are people who are opposed to pineapple pizza that still eat ass.

DELIRIVM · 11-04-2021, 02:44 PM

11-04-2021, 02:28 PMVandy Wrote:
11-04-2021, 02:18 PMCementHands Wrote: Sounds like there needs to be some better incentive then if no one is applying for open positions. Increase the benefits / rewards!

I applied a few times for the J and the League HO's and either got told no or never heard back so I stopped. Honestly lol I'd just like to try it out. I certainly can't be as bad as some folks.

Same goes for Expansion GMs. Head Office's hiring people that have gone inactive after getting expansion teams in both leagues over other candidates.

[Image: 200.gif]

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us