Login

***Patty*** · 08-21-2021, 12:37 AM

08-21-2021, 12:23 AMSymmetrik Wrote:
08-21-2021, 12:13 AMPatty Wrote: not my best copy paste work.

most of the punishments you can get for certain infractions are laid out in the rulebook.

but like even look at the thread before this one, is people not paying their players, which posting contracts for payment is a GM task, no? Missing regression (like the manhattan punishment on the first page) would be late for regression right? but they were fined, didn't follow the pick rule.

i might be misremembering on MAN but if I recall Monty wasn't in the regression list which is why the punishment was lightened

*Toast* · 08-21-2021, 12:38 AM

08-21-2021, 12:21 AMLeafs4ever Wrote: 1. We just felt time was of the essence in this situation.
2. Punishment was based off a prior punishment related to missed GM tasks, but added on the probation and went from 1 day late to 3 days late because there were 3 prospects.
3. There was discussion about their 2nd being so late, yes. I'm not sure how to respond to the second part. What if the current GMs are still GMs by that time?
4. They signed their prospects before the deadline, that was more important. The reason for the rule in the first place was to stop GMs from hording players. It's very clear that wasn't the case here.
5. Again, not really sure how to answer this one either. However, Nour and Luke are the leaders of this league. If they don't like how this played out they are free to change it to something else.

1. How do the Owners decide when to step in? I understand this was a time sensitive matter but with Teddy saying there was a clear difference of opinions here between HO/Owners makes me and others believe this was to protect a team. Why?

2/3. I can understand this reasoning but disagree that it should've been dealt over a calendar year from now. Hamilton has always benefited from the culture it has built and I'm fairly confident in this timeframe we'll see new management that have to deal with this instead.

4. Going forward are Discord DM screenshots evidence of meeting specific rules? If that's the case how does HO/the Owners intend to ensure these screenshots have not been edited?

5. After this situation I feel this isn't the case.

ToeDragon84 · 08-21-2021, 12:40 AM

08-21-2021, 12:18 AMSlashACM Wrote:
08-21-2021, 12:16 AMToeDragon84 Wrote: what'd you do

3rd line wit no C baybeee

You can't play three wingers or a D at C?

JayWhy · 08-21-2021, 12:43 AM

08-20-2021, 11:57 PMLeafs4ever Wrote: I'm genuinely not sure what you all want me to say. Teddy told you we ran, basically, an expedited appeals process and changed the decision. Did you all think I would come in and say I don't agree with Teddy? Teddy offered to post the decision and explained our reasoning. I'm being genuine, what do you need to hear from me?

First, I thought the actual rule in play here was unneeded. Second, what Hamilton did was so very clearly not against what the spirit of the rule was about. Teams needed to agree to terms on a contract 24 hours before GM tasks were due. They had agreements in place, that to me is the biggest factor. They weren't leaving them unsigned to horde them, they got lazy and forgot to post the signing thread, they were an hour late. I said this to HO, I'm baffled that people, GMs especially, seem to not care about DM contract agreements. That has always been the precedent in this league. How is it fair to send those 3 players to a bidding process when they had already agreed to terms with the team that drafted them?

This is not the first time a punishment has been reduced. The only difference was we sped up the process because time called for it. We've had appeals before that changed HO's decision, why didn't anyone come out then and scream at us for undermining them?

We've had an appeals committee before, several different iterations of them. Each time the committee has been disbanded because of the league trashing them for every decision and crying bias on every ruling. We kept trying and it was the same thing every time.

I've said this to every commissioner we've ever had. You hold the ultimate power in this league. If you don't like something, change it. Nour and Luke have the option to change whatever they want if they don't like how this process played out. As an "owner" of this league, I've always just been there for support and to offer advice whenever I can.

The commissioner hold ultimate power, yet you undermined their decision on this. It may have only been Luke overseeing it in the commissioner role, but then shouldn't his voice be the one that holds power based on what you said here?

Like I said, I understand letting them keep the players. I do think this was an extremely reduced sentencing from effectively losing 3 1st round picks to losing a 2nd over a year later and a million on the cap, and I think that's where we're all incredulous here. At no point do I expect you to say you disagree, it's that I want to understand your views and based on the views you laid out here you worked opposite of them by diminishing the power of the commissioner and their appointed head office members. Ultimately, what is the point of you being involved in the head office decisions in that matter if you think the commissioners hold all the power instead?

I'll make a proposal here that commissioners should outreach to you for advice if needed, and otherwise you should not offer up your beliefs as you then undermine them because the power structure is apparently poorly defined here and they believe they answer to you.

I'll also propose that rather than you withdrawing from the head office role and rather than starting an appeals committee, we should have the head office rule without the commissioners involved and the commissioners join the owners to effectively be the appeals committee and make final decisions. I think what ultimately is a two person committee with the owners needs to grow, as fewer voices means one can drown out the other, and so even growing it in this situation to four people instead would be helpful to ensure better coverage.

I would also like to suggest trying to find new owners to replace the ones who have left so we are able to continually have new voices in the discussion and to be sure this is more than just a couple of voices in the room. Of course, I don't know the workings of the head office as is, but I do think clearly defining it would be logical in light of this uproar over what to the outside view is the owners stepping in and shutting down the head office and commissioner on their chosen decision.

An old man's dream ended. A young man's vision of the future opened wide. Young men have visions, old men have dreams. But the place for old men to dream is beside the fire.

Thanks to Jackson, Copenhagen, and Harry Hans!

GOING DOWN IN STYLE. TOAST4LYFE

spooked · 08-21-2021, 12:44 AM

08-21-2021, 12:38 AMToast Wrote:
08-21-2021, 12:21 AMLeafs4ever Wrote: 1. We just felt time was of the essence in this situation.
2. Punishment was based off a prior punishment related to missed GM tasks, but added on the probation and went from 1 day late to 3 days late because there were 3 prospects.
3. There was discussion about their 2nd being so late, yes. I'm not sure how to respond to the second part. What if the current GMs are still GMs by that time?
4. They signed their prospects before the deadline, that was more important. The reason for the rule in the first place was to stop GMs from hording players. It's very clear that wasn't the case here.
5. Again, not really sure how to answer this one either. However, Nour and Luke are the leaders of this league. If they don't like how this played out they are free to change it to something else.

1. How do the Owners decide when to step in? I understand this was a time sensitive matter but with Teddy saying there was a clear difference of opinions here between HO/Owners makes me and others believe this was to protect a team. Why?

2/3. I can understand this reasoning but disagree that it should've been dealt over a calendar year from now. Hamilton has always benefited from the culture it has built and I'm fairly confident in this timeframe we'll see new management that have to deal with this instead.

4. Going forward are Discord DM screenshots evidence of meeting specific rules? If that's the case how does HO/the Owners intend to ensure these screenshots have not been edited?

5. After this situation I feel this isn't the case.

The owners were asked to review by HO. They didn't come looking for it to save anyone so please don't make assumptions like that. And as far as screenshots go we have no choice but to accept them as there is no way for us to prove/disprove anything barring someone themselves coming forward to say it is or isn't real. We can ask them if we have concerns as well, but I would hope people wouldn't stoop to that level for a sim league. If we do not allow this a lot of GMs would have had roster problems the last handful of seasons since we wouldn't have been able to verify much since most people use discord screenshots already if they have any issues with the site post.

***Leafs4ever*** · 08-21-2021, 12:44 AM

08-21-2021, 12:38 AMToast Wrote:
08-21-2021, 12:21 AMLeafs4ever Wrote: 1. We just felt time was of the essence in this situation.
2. Punishment was based off a prior punishment related to missed GM tasks, but added on the probation and went from 1 day late to 3 days late because there were 3 prospects.
3. There was discussion about their 2nd being so late, yes. I'm not sure how to respond to the second part. What if the current GMs are still GMs by that time?
4. They signed their prospects before the deadline, that was more important. The reason for the rule in the first place was to stop GMs from hording players. It's very clear that wasn't the case here.
5. Again, not really sure how to answer this one either. However, Nour and Luke are the leaders of this league. If they don't like how this played out they are free to change it to something else.

1. How do the Owners decide when to step in? I understand this was a time sensitive matter but with Teddy saying there was a clear difference of opinions here between HO/Owners makes me and others believe this was to protect a team. Why?

2/3. I can understand this reasoning but disagree that it should've been dealt over a calendar year from now. Hamilton has always benefited from the culture it has built and I'm fairly confident in this timeframe we'll see new management that have to deal with this instead.

4. Going forward are Discord DM screenshots evidence of meeting specific rules? If that's the case how does HO/the Owners intend to ensure these screenshots have not been edited?

5. After this situation I feel this isn't the case.

1. I was alerted by the group to join the discussion and it went from there.
2/3. I don't think you can make decisions based on if a GM will be there or not. You can use that reasoning for every punishment because no one knows if a GM will in place by any specific time.
4. On site PMs, Discord DMs are the same thing. PM contract agreements have always been the standard. Listen, you can forge anything if you're good enough. If any of the prospects want to come forward and claim the GMs doctored the screenshots, we would welcome them with open arms. If that were ever the case, every book would be through at the culprits.
5. I mean, we've overturned HO decisions before during appeal processes. Outside of this one taking place before a ruling was announced, I don't see why anything would make you feel like that's not the case.

Guy Incognito - D - #24
Texas Renegades
Season 76
0-0-0
Regular Season - [G 0] [A 0] [Pts 0] [+/- 0] [PIM 0] [Hits 0] [SB 0]
[Image: ERs3IrD.png]

***Leafs4ever*** · 08-21-2021, 12:52 AM

08-21-2021, 12:43 AMJayWhy Wrote:
08-20-2021, 11:57 PMLeafs4ever Wrote: I'm genuinely not sure what you all want me to say. Teddy told you we ran, basically, an expedited appeals process and changed the decision. Did you all think I would come in and say I don't agree with Teddy? Teddy offered to post the decision and explained our reasoning. I'm being genuine, what do you need to hear from me?

First, I thought the actual rule in play here was unneeded. Second, what Hamilton did was so very clearly not against what the spirit of the rule was about. Teams needed to agree to terms on a contract 24 hours before GM tasks were due. They had agreements in place, that to me is the biggest factor. They weren't leaving them unsigned to horde them, they got lazy and forgot to post the signing thread, they were an hour late. I said this to HO, I'm baffled that people, GMs especially, seem to not care about DM contract agreements. That has always been the precedent in this league. How is it fair to send those 3 players to a bidding process when they had already agreed to terms with the team that drafted them?

This is not the first time a punishment has been reduced. The only difference was we sped up the process because time called for it. We've had appeals before that changed HO's decision, why didn't anyone come out then and scream at us for undermining them?

We've had an appeals committee before, several different iterations of them. Each time the committee has been disbanded because of the league trashing them for every decision and crying bias on every ruling. We kept trying and it was the same thing every time.

I've said this to every commissioner we've ever had. You hold the ultimate power in this league. If you don't like something, change it. Nour and Luke have the option to change whatever they want if they don't like how this process played out. As an "owner" of this league, I've always just been there for support and to offer advice whenever I can.
The commissioner hold ultimate power, yet you undermined their decision on this. It may have only been Luke overseeing it in the commissioner role, but then shouldn't his voice be the one that holds power based on what you said here?

Like I said, I understand letting them keep the players. I do think this was an extremely reduced sentencing from effectively losing 3 1st round picks to losing a 2nd over a year later and a million on the cap, and I think that's where we're all incredulous here. At no point do I expect you to say you disagree, it's that I want to understand your views and based on the views you laid out here you worked opposite of them by diminishing the power of the commissioner and their appointed head office members. Ultimately, what is the point of you being involved in the head office decisions in that matter if you think the commissioners hold all the power instead?

I'll make a proposal here that commissioners should outreach to you for advice if needed, and otherwise you should not offer up your beliefs as you then undermine them because the power structure is apparently poorly defined here and they believe they answer to you.

I'll also propose that rather than you withdrawing from the head office role and rather than starting an appeals committee, we should have the head office rule without the commissioners involved and the commissioners join the owners to effectively be the appeals committee and make final decisions. I think what ultimately is a two person committee with the owners needs to grow, as fewer voices means one can drown out the other, and so even growing it in this situation to four people instead would be helpful to ensure better coverage.

I would also like to suggest trying to find new owners to replace the ones who have left so we are able to continually have new voices in the discussion and to be sure this is more than just a couple of voices in the room. Of course, I don't know the workings of the head office as is, but I do think clearly defining it would be logical in light of this uproar over what to the outside view is the owners stepping in and shutting down the head office and commissioner on their chosen decision.

I do not understand this undermine narrative being thrown around. I was called in to join the conversation by the group. I did not enter it on my own and shut down anything. I was told to give my opinion on the matter, so I did.

Like I said before, if Nour and Luke want to change things, they can. I am not the supreme being of this league, far from it. I'm hear to help, give advice when they ask, and just be a support for them. I don't make rules, I don't adjust rules, I don't tell them how to do things, nothing. The biggest power I have is helping to hire a new commissioner when one steps down.

You can ask any member commissioner or any member of HO, past or present, and they'll tell you I only ever speak when I'm asked about something or they want to know about something that happened in the league way back.

JayWhy, you've been around long enough, you can't honestly believe I'm throwing a so-called "power trip".

Guy Incognito - D - #24
Texas Renegades
Season 76
0-0-0
Regular Season - [G 0] [A 0] [Pts 0] [+/- 0] [PIM 0] [Hits 0] [SB 0]
[Image: ERs3IrD.png]

*Toast* · 08-21-2021, 12:54 AM

08-21-2021, 12:44 AMLeafs4ever Wrote:
08-21-2021, 12:38 AMToast Wrote: 1. How do the Owners decide when to step in? I understand this was a time sensitive matter but with Teddy saying there was a clear difference of opinions here between HO/Owners makes me and others believe this was to protect a team. Why?

2/3. I can understand this reasoning but disagree that it should've been dealt over a calendar year from now. Hamilton has always benefited from the culture it has built and I'm fairly confident in this timeframe we'll see new management that have to deal with this instead.

4. Going forward are Discord DM screenshots evidence of meeting specific rules? If that's the case how does HO/the Owners intend to ensure these screenshots have not been edited?

5. After this situation I feel this isn't the case.

1. I was alerted by the group to join the discussion and it went from there.
2/3. I don't think you can make decisions based on if a GM will be there or not. You can use that reasoning for every punishment because no one knows if a GM will in place by any specific time.
4. On site PMs, Discord DMs are the same thing. PM contract agreements have always been the standard. Listen, you can forge anything if you're good enough. If any of the prospects want to come forward and claim the GMs doctored the screenshots, we would welcome them with open arms. If that were ever the case, every book would be through at the culprits.
5. I mean, we've overturned HO decisions before during appeal processes. Outside of this one taking place before a ruling was announced, I don't see why anything would make you feel like that's not the case.

1. This doesn't answer the question. Who is "the group"? Why do they decide when to call in reinforcements and hand over punishments?

2. This is garbage. You all should've considered how far out this punishment was and if you were all comfortable with this shame on you.

4. Good to know!

5. The difference is no process took place here. You skipped the punishment and appeal phase and felt so strongly about this that we skipped to owner ruling. Sure, it may have ended up there regardless but to skip right there shows desperation. Then on top of that most of owner group checks this site once in a blue moon so no way they commented.

Zombiewolf · 08-21-2021, 12:57 AM

Honestly at this point I think this is eggy’s fault

Thank you Brandon, Fish, GeckoeyGecko, Karey, Kit, takethehorizon, and Ragnar for the sigs!
[Image: Pw202QP.jpeg]

Player Page || Update page

Symmetrik · 08-21-2021, 12:58 AM

08-21-2021, 12:32 AMspooked Wrote:
08-21-2021, 12:23 AMSymmetrik Wrote: but like even look at the thread before this one, is people not paying their players, which posting contracts for payment is a GM task, no? Missing regression (like the manhattan punishment on the first page) would be late for regression right? but they were fined, didn't follow the pick rule.

Late Task rules are awkward to apply because they usually imply something was missed in whole (no portion was completed, which is why after 5 days they get fired), which is almost never the case. So the punishments are usually discussed based on what is in the rules as well as what has been most similar in the past as a precedent. We usually review past punishments to make sure we are in line with what has been done in the past.

I feel like this Stampede punishment is good reference then, since they didn't sign a player but played them in sims - an "understood" agreement. https://simulationhockey.com/showthread.php?tid=114060

That feels like by far the closest comparison. It was a GM pay fine.

Evok · 08-21-2021, 01:00 AM

08-21-2021, 12:58 AMSymmetrik Wrote:
08-21-2021, 12:32 AMspooked Wrote: Late Task rules are awkward to apply because they usually imply something was missed in whole (no portion was completed, which is why after 5 days they get fired), which is almost never the case. So the punishments are usually discussed based on what is in the rules as well as what has been most similar in the past as a precedent. We usually review past punishments to make sure we are in line with what has been done in the past.

I feel like this Stampede punishment is good reference then, since they didn't sign a player but played them in sims - an "understood" agreement. https://simulationhockey.com/showthread.php?tid=114060

That feels like by far the closest comparison. It was a GM pay fine.

especially since the guy is the gm lol, but clearly there isnt any consistency here

Symmetrik · 08-21-2021, 01:01 AM

08-21-2021, 12:52 AMLeafs4ever Wrote: Like I said before, if Nour and Luke want to change things, they can. I am not the supreme being of this league, far from it. I'm hear to help, give advice when they ask, and just be a support for them. I don't make rules, I don't adjust rules, I don't tell them how to do things, nothing. The biggest power I have is helping to hire a new commissioner when one steps down.

08-20-2021, 06:07 PMDrunkenTeddy Wrote: ...the owners stepped in and performed an expedited appeals process, therefore the decision outlined here will be considered final.

This seems like they don't have the power to change things. In fact it seems like the opposite, wherein you guys have the power to change things they do.

***Reno*** · 08-21-2021, 01:02 AM

08-20-2021, 06:14 PM39alaska39 Wrote: Shocker that HAM gets a favorable ruling yet again

I've seen enough Formula 1 to know HAM always gets favorable rulings

Exilate · 08-21-2021, 01:03 AM

08-21-2021, 01:02 AMRenoJacksonHS Wrote:
08-20-2021, 06:14 PM39alaska39 Wrote: Shocker that HAM gets a favorable ruling yet again

I've seen enough Formula 1 to know HAM always gets favorable rulings

***FuzzSHL*** · 08-21-2021, 01:03 AM

08-20-2021, 06:22 PMACapitalChicago Wrote:
08-20-2021, 06:19 PMleviadan Wrote: it's already page 2 but i still feel like that counts as getting in early for this doozy

Won't hit 20+, but oof will it feel harsher than the other one

You were saying

Aleksi Kettu

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us