04-29-2023, 12:29 PMRAmenAmen Wrote: Without diving into the full process, this is the part that's most frustrating for us. The statement in the initial post hinges on the idea that Edmonton spoke to the player to convince them to apply and without GM approval, when the actual tampering penalty seems to revolve around a difference between Head GM and co GM permission, as well as what constitutes an application. In this case, the applicant expressed interest, was told to get GM permission first, came back with permission from the co-GM (whether or not the statement given constitutes permission seems to be in doubt, but all I can say is that Edmonton was under the impression we had permission), at which point more discussion was had over VC, and Toronto's GM was contacted because trade talks seemed like a foregone conclusion at that point. 

If explicit permission is required from the team's Head GM, then the rulebook needs to say so. If a co-GM can give permission, but the words "good luck but we still love you and hope you stay" do not constitute permission, then the rulebook needs to be amended to clarify what permission actually is.

A player doesn't need permission to talk to a GM or say "hey I want to apply", a GM needs permission to talk to the player about it. Otherwise I expect a subset of users would be out here tamper-baiting GMs.