Login

Bfine · 10-07-2024, 01:13 PM

10-07-2024, 12:47 PMbrickwall35 Wrote: It very much hasn't, and makes me wonder if the appeals committee as a whole had this incorrect thought.

For us, the main thing we saw in the rulebook was 2.e.vii.1 "For 5v5 lines/pair, lines/pairs with ALL active players must play at least as many minutes as lines/pair with any inactive players. Lines/pairs with mixed active and inactive players must play at least as many minutes as any lines/pair with ALL inactive players." We interpreted that as being minutes based vs lines based, but also glad to see the language is already being worked on!

***sköldpaddor*** · 10-07-2024, 01:16 PM

10-07-2024, 01:13 PMBfine Wrote: For us, the main thing we saw in the rulebook was 2.e.vii.1 "For 5v5 lines/pair, lines/pairs with ALL active players must play at least as many minutes as lines/pair with any inactive players. Lines/pairs with mixed active and inactive players must play at least as many minutes as any lines/pair with ALL inactive players." We interpreted that as being minutes based vs lines based, but also glad to see the language is already being worked on!

I don't think that's what you saw considering that was changed like five minutes ago :kek:

Bfine · 10-07-2024, 01:17 PM

10-07-2024, 01:16 PMsköldpaddor Wrote: I don't think that's what you saw considering that was changed like five minutes ago :kek:

LOL
Well uh good job on the quick fix there!

***aleks*** · 10-07-2024, 01:20 PM

I think that this decision makes sense

***KaleSalad*** · 10-07-2024, 01:25 PM

Guess we need to take away line matching as the next step to ensure actives are played more then IA's! Dam people trying to use one of the few areas they can to get an upper hand with strategies!

***sköldpaddor*** · 10-07-2024, 01:34 PM

10-07-2024, 01:25 PMKaleSalad Wrote: Guess we need to take away line matching as the next step to ensure actives are played more then IA's! Dam people trying to use one of the few areas they can to get an upper hand with strategies!

I’m confused, we’re literally changing the rule to HELP with things like enabling line matching.

***KaleSalad*** · 10-10-2024, 10:59 AM

10-07-2024, 01:34 PMsköldpaddor Wrote: I’m confused, we’re literally changing the rule to HELP with things like enabling line matching.

So the way the rule is written now Am I allowed to put an IA line as my 2nd or 1st line as long as the minutes are less then the other 2? or are IA's banished to the 3rd line only? as the wording is vague and I can read it both ways. The fact that a team was punished for trying to swap lines around for line matching is horrible and I am glad the appeals committee overturned this.

***RAmenAmen*** · 10-10-2024, 11:30 AM

10-10-2024, 10:59 AMKaleSalad Wrote: So the way the rule is written now Am I allowed to put an IA line as my 2nd or 1st line as long as the minutes are less then the other 2? or are IA's banished to the 3rd line only? as the wording is vague and I can read it both ways. The fact that a team was punished for trying to swap lines around for line matching is horrible and I am glad the appeals committee overturned this.

Under the old rule that TBW was punished for, only the line number mattered, which effectively killed line matching but did nothing to limit IA minutes.
After the punishment and appeal, the rule has been changed to only require lines with IAs to get equal or fewer minutes than lines who are active.

***micool132*** · 10-10-2024, 12:00 PM

a win for beeg yoshi and thus the world

***sköldpaddor*** · 10-10-2024, 02:16 PM

10-10-2024, 10:59 AMKaleSalad Wrote: So the way the rule is written now Am I allowed to put an IA line as my 2nd or 1st line as long as the minutes are less then the other 2? or are IA's banished to the 3rd line only? as the wording is vague and I can read it both ways. The fact that a team was punished for trying to swap lines around for line matching is horrible and I am glad the appeals committee overturned this.

I mean I agree that it should have been changed, that’s why we’ve been discussing changing it for a whole (like, literally since I was a GM and not HO been kicked around). But that’s what the rule was. I don’t get to vote to not uphold the rulebook because I personally don’t like it, that’s not how it works, and the fact was, multiple other teams had asked about this and had been told that was the rule, and multiple announcements were given to all GMs also making it clear that was the rule. I don’t think it’s fair to say it’s “horrible” to enforce a rule, nor do I think it is appeals’ place to overturn any ruling that’s based on a rule because they personally don’t like that rule.

Again, I agree that the rule was bad and needed to be changed, but that doesn’t mean it was stupid to enforce it at the time. When you don’t agree with a rule, you take steps to change it, you won’t just say “hah no I think that rule is stupid so I’m going to ignore it and not enforce it!”

Also, I’m not sure why you’re saying “as it’s written now” when the rule was already changed.

***KaleSalad*** · 10-10-2024, 04:36 PM

10-10-2024, 02:16 PMsköldpaddor Wrote: I mean I agree that it should have been changed, that’s why we’ve been discussing changing it for a whole (like, literally since I was a GM and not HO been kicked around). But that’s what the rule was. I don’t get to vote to not uphold the rulebook because I personally don’t like it, that’s not how it works, and the fact was, multiple other teams had asked about this and had been told that was the rule, and multiple announcements were given to all GMs also making it clear that was the rule. I don’t think it’s fair to say it’s “horrible” to enforce a rule, nor do I think it is appeals’ place to overturn any ruling that’s based on a rule because they personally don’t like that rule.

Again, I agree that the rule was bad and needed to be changed, but that doesn’t mean it was stupid to enforce it at the time. When you don’t agree with a rule, you take steps to change it, you won’t just say “hah no I think that rule is stupid so I’m going to ignore it and not enforce it!”

Also, I’m not sure why you’re saying “as it’s written now” when the rule was already changed.

So you had a poorly worded rule, that you have been trying to change so clarification as it was not clear at all and decided to level the full punishment for it when in other cases you used discretion. This is an absolute win for appeals. Glad the new rule is in place to clear it up. I always find it funny it takes something to happen to actually get something done on the site it seems.

***sköldpaddor*** · 10-10-2024, 05:17 PM

10-10-2024, 04:36 PMKaleSalad Wrote: So you had a poorly worded rule, that you have been trying to change so clarification as it was not clear at all and decided to level the full punishment for it when in other cases you used discretion. This is an absolute win for appeals. Glad the new rule is in place to clear it up. I always find it funny it takes something to happen to actually get something done on the site it seems.

It wasn’t changed because it was poorly worded, it was changed because we believed it wasn’t the rule we should have. It was previously based on line order, which we clarified and reiterated multiple times. We came to the conclusion that it should not be based on that, and using ice time was more in line with the intention of having the rule in the first place, so we changed it. We were in the process of changing it long before this happened, but it seemed unfair, since other GMs had asked about the rule and abided by it, that there would be no consequences for not following it.

Is there a reason you’re being kinda hostile about this? I’m trying to be as transparent as possible here and it’s weird to be met with this level of sarcasm and hostility from someone who wasn’t even involved with the situation.

***KaleSalad*** · 10-10-2024, 05:38 PM

10-10-2024, 05:17 PMsköldpaddor Wrote: It wasn’t changed because it was poorly worded, it was changed because we believed it wasn’t the rule we should have. It was previously based on line order, which we clarified and reiterated multiple times. We came to the conclusion that it should not be based on that, and using ice time was more in line with the intention of having the rule in the first place, so we changed it. We were in the process of changing it long before this happened, but it seemed unfair, since other GMs had asked about the rule and abided by it, that there would be no consequences for not following it.

Is there a reason you’re being kinda hostile about this? I’m trying to be as transparent as possible here and it’s weird to be met with this level of sarcasm and hostility from someone who wasn’t even involved with the situation.

I simply put it was a bad rule and didn't make sense. You replied to me and asked questions and I have answered each one to which lead to more questions. I don't believe having a conversation from a different view point is hostile at all. Typically when someone messages me and questions my thinking I tend to reply to them and not leave them on read as that is the adult thing to do. I personally find it funny every time a rule needs to be changed it is always after an incident has occurred and suddenly it is changed and we are met with we have been working on this for months! It was my personal point of view that I shared on the post I didn't think I needed to be involved in this specific incident in order to have an opinion on it.

***sköldpaddor*** · 10-10-2024, 05:49 PM

10-10-2024, 05:38 PMKaleSalad Wrote: I simply put it was a bad rule and didn't make sense. You replied to me and asked questions and I have answered each one to which lead to more questions. I don't believe having a conversation from a different view point is hostile at all. Typically when someone messages me and questions my thinking I tend to reply to them and not leave them on read as that is the adult thing to do. I personally find it funny every time a rule needs to be changed it is always after an incident has occurred and suddenly it is changed and we are met with we have been working on this for months! It was my personal point of view that I shared on the post I didn't think I needed to be involved in this specific incident in order to have an opinion on it.

If you’re implying that we weren’t actually working on it (which I think is why you’re saying it’s “funny” but I could be wrong) and I’m just claiming that to save face after the fact, I will happily provide screenshots to support that. In addition to which, I was specifically told by Teddy that their awareness that we were already working on changing the rule was a factor in their decision to grant the appeal.

***KaleSalad*** · 10-10-2024, 05:50 PM

10-10-2024, 05:49 PMsköldpaddor Wrote: If you’re implying that we weren’t actually working on it (which I think is why you’re saying it’s “funny” but I could be wrong) and I’m just claiming that to save face after the fact, I will happily provide screenshots to support that. In addition to which, I was specifically told by Teddy that their awareness that we were already working on changing the rule was a factor in their decision to grant the appeal.

I am glad the rule changed for the better its good for the health of the league. I hope we can avoid issues like this in the future.

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us