04-17-2021, 09:59 AMreid Wrote: Blitz you are taking the first part of what DT said completely out of context, seeing that phrase and ignoring the rest of the sentence. What he said was:

Quote:... and the argument that an extension is the same contract and so something could be applied based on the previous season's activities before the extension started is actually not valid.

so you are making the exact same argument HO is making. Extensions and renewals are not the same contract as their current. In this example, Dex and honkers S56-57 extensions were not the same contract as their S55. That is all teddy is saying. 

That is the crux of the misunderstanding which caused this punishment. The contract bonuses cannot legally be paid out on S56 cap, as the clause is tied to the S56 season (on a new and different contract) and by the rule book, has to be paid out and accounted for in S57. 

you can’t activate a clause that is not in your current contract. That’s about as simple as I can boil it down

That's not how I read it, so I apologize for misunderstanding Teddy. I'm already out-salting Lot's wife, contradictory statements for example are waving a red flag. That's on me. I don't mean this argument maliciously, and I want to emphasize that. I'm not trying to hurt or discredit any of you. My teammates and I feel hurt and discredited, and I'm trying to understand why. So far, nothing has been explained in terms that make sense to me. It seems like the words are being used wrong somewhere in this and instead of clearing that difference, I'm being told I'm the one that's wrong with what feels like a "so just shut up about it" subtext. It's extremely frustrating and demoralizing.

I'm going to take issue with your last bit, and it's because I think you're going to end up re-writing the rule again. This is why:

The way the rule is being interpreted, from where I'm sitting, it has three parts. The basis for the bonus, the season in which the bonus is indicated, and the season in which it is paid out and applied to cap. In this example, the bonus is based on S55, indicated for S56, and was meant to be paid in S57.

The way the rule is written, both previously and currently, there are two parts: the season in which the bonus is indicated, and the season in which it is paid out and applied to cap. In this case, it was indicated for S56 and meant to be paid for S57.

The issue I have with the rule as it is written is that it doesn't address what the bonus is meant to be paid for or what, other than declaration of payout, the season of indication is for. To me, the way I am understanding this, I could sign a contract with a bonus indicated for S60 that would apply in S61 that could be based on anything. It could, theoretically, be based on the number of hairs I had on my head as a toddler. It could be paid out based on a death save roll by my favorite D&D character (odds are slim on making it there).

If that is correct, it means, to me, that the error made was based on a misunderstanding of indication versus basis, and occurred due to the lack of definition between the two in the rule. Clarification on that difference would fix this in my mind.

Further, based on this differentiation between basis and indication, I still fail to see how the contracts were modified, which was the basis for the punishment. If "modification" as it was written in the initial punishment thread is the catch-all word for "you misinterpreted the rule because of the way it was written", I mean as good-naturedly as I can that there are better words for that. If it's not the catch-all word, then I don't understand why we were punished when there was no modification that I can tell to any contract; it was misinterpreted and followed according to the incorrect understanding of the rule. Either way, the precedent for misunderstanding and incorrectly following rules, as far as I know, is explanation and correction for parties involved. Why wasn't that followed?