Login

**brickwall35** · 07-26-2022, 08:15 AM

07-25-2022, 10:58 PMCementHands Wrote:
07-25-2022, 10:36 PMCampinKiller Wrote: I don’t think firing the GMs here is the right call, rulebook or not. Canning the GMs over a fuck up that may not be entirely their fault won’t encourage more people to want to GM

Oh don't get me wrong, me either. My complaint is with the consistency in the rule book, and the fact that this appears to show no one is double checking gm tasks, so there's no chance to catch these things earlier.
I think the rule needs to be re written, and clearely so does ho because they have a rule in place they could follow, but explicitly decided not to. My impression was head office levies punishment based on the rules, the appeals group is there to handle situations that seem too harsh and the rules get re written as appropriate. Why was this 10 days late without anyone else knowing about it?

If head office isn't double checking GM tasks, what exactly are they being paid for?

I'm confused, do you want HO to check every single team roster to see if every single player has been regressed properly? Because that's crazy.

They should update the rulebook, though. JHO had too harsh of penalties for GM tasks as well, so when we issued less severe punishment, we did so with an update to the rulebook.

Evok · 07-26-2022, 09:08 AM

07-26-2022, 08:15 AMbrickwall35 Wrote:
07-25-2022, 10:58 PMCementHands Wrote: Oh don't get me wrong, me either. My complaint is with the consistency in the rule book, and the fact that this appears to show no one is double checking gm tasks, so there's no chance to catch these things earlier.
I think the rule needs to be re written, and clearely so does ho because they have a rule in place they could follow, but explicitly decided not to. My impression was head office levies punishment based on the rules, the appeals group is there to handle situations that seem too harsh and the rules get re written as appropriate. Why was this 10 days late without anyone else knowing about it?

If head office isn't double checking GM tasks, what exactly are they being paid for?
I'm confused, do you want HO to check every single team roster to see if every single player has been regressed properly? Because that's crazy.

They should update the rulebook, though. JHO had too harsh of penalties for GM tasks as well, so when we issued less severe punishment, we did so with an update to the rulebook.

I fail to see how it's crazy to have someone verify GM's job and make sure no one get an avantage over another team during the start of the season or until it's caught. I dont think it need to be checked if it's done properly, updaters will verify the maths if summited on time, but at least if it's done at all. In this case it would have been very easy to see. Players and GMs even need to provide a direct link to their regression post in the regression thread. Why are we providing it if it's not used? It's a job of 30 mins to go through all updated players to just check if at least their regression is process properly in their update. Divide that by all HO member taking a few teams and it's even less. HO are not above doing their job properly and checking the validity of GM tasks.

***Citizen of Adraa*** · 07-26-2022, 09:15 AM

07-26-2022, 08:12 AMPatty Wrote:
07-25-2022, 10:58 PMCementHands Wrote: Oh don't get me wrong, me either. My complaint is with the consistency in the rule book, and the fact that this appears to show no one is double checking gm tasks, so there's no chance to catch these things earlier.
I think the rule needs to be re written, and clearely so does ho because they have a rule in place they could follow, but explicitly decided not to. My impression was head office levies punishment based on the rules, the appeals group is there to handle situations that seem too harsh and the rules get re written as appropriate. Why was this 10 days late without anyone else knowing about it?

If head office isn't double checking GM tasks, what exactly are they being paid for?
To address this quickly we removed most instances of auto firing from the rulebook a while back. This one just got missed

so what you are saying is I can literally never do anything and you can't fire me?

bad move HO

bad move

Symmetrik · 07-26-2022, 09:17 AM

07-26-2022, 08:15 AMbrickwall35 Wrote:
07-25-2022, 10:58 PMCementHands Wrote: Oh don't get me wrong, me either. My complaint is with the consistency in the rule book, and the fact that this appears to show no one is double checking gm tasks, so there's no chance to catch these things earlier.
I think the rule needs to be re written, and clearely so does ho because they have a rule in place they could follow, but explicitly decided not to. My impression was head office levies punishment based on the rules, the appeals group is there to handle situations that seem too harsh and the rules get re written as appropriate. Why was this 10 days late without anyone else knowing about it?

If head office isn't double checking GM tasks, what exactly are they being paid for?
I'm confused, do you want HO to check every single team roster to see if every single player has been regressed properly? Because that's crazy.

I mean, yes, someone should have a checklist of who's submitted regression. There's already a list because it's posted on the forums, someone just needs to mark it off as they come in.

The PBE runs regression off a python script which outputs a csv file, with one column dedicated to formatting for a forum post. So I could copy the whole table into a google sheet, and copy the one column to make the forum post. Every season as people submitted their links to the thread I would mark them off on the google sheet, and then I could verify if the people who weren't done were FA or if they were on a team.

grok · 07-26-2022, 09:29 AM

The Appeals Committee has received an appeal and come to consensus:

I.

On Saturday, July 23rd, Head Office was notified about a late regression. Sopath submitted their regression for player Bas O’Bigbers on Monday, July 18. This regression was added to the player page on the day of the first regular season sim, 11 days after regressions were due. Edmonton GMs attempted to contact the sim team to push through the update on the day of the first sim, and contacted Head Office about the issue. Edmonton was penalized the team’s next available third-round draft pick and one season of GM pay. Bas O’Bigbers was suspended for the quantity of games the player played with an illegal build (17).

II.

Edmonton’s appeal hinges on their good faith efforts to get Bas O’Bigbers’s build corrected prior to the first regular season sim. GM HabsFanFromOntario contacted both simmers two hours ahead of the sim on July 18th to process the regression. While we believe Edmonton acted in good faith to fix the problem as soon as they became aware, we do not find this to be a mitigating factor for a few reasons.

First, the Appeals Committee believes it’s the responsibility of a GM to complete their GM tasks in a timely and comprehensive manner, even if they take best efforts to fix any mistakes.

Second, we find the penalty issued by Head Office already takes these mitigating factors into account. Failing to complete GM tasks by more than five days can be punished up to dismissal of the current managers. Head Office chose to follow the preceding penalty in the S57 Edmonton punishment for failing to regress Eddy Ask Jr. We find the forfeiture of one draft pick and one season’s GM pay a suitably reduced fine that reflects Edmonton’s attempts to resolve the issue.

Third, although Edmonton attempted to find a resolution before the first sim, it still creates a risk of an invalid player in the sim. The Updaters play a crucial role in validating regressions and using standardized methods to correct invalid regressions before the start of the regular season. The deadlines exist to allow for time to review and revise, and although Edmonton attempted to fix the issue they created new and divergent risks to competitive integrity in the process.

For these reasons, the Appeals Committee has chosen to uphold the GM pay fine and the 3rd round pick penalty

III.

While we find Edmonton at fault and find the team and GM punishment fair, there were multiple considerations for the duration of Bas O’Bigbers’s suspension. Sopath violated the regression rules by failing to regress Bas O’Bigbers by the deadline, but submitted a regression when it was noticed even if it was late. After deliberation, it is the opinion of the Appeals Committee that Sopath acted in good faith and had little control over the situation after their regression update was submitted. As an attempt to balance holding the player accountable, setting good precedents for the player experience, and taking corrective action towards competitive integrity, the Appeals Committee has voted to reduce Bas O’Bigbers’s suspension to 9 games.

PremierBromanov · 07-26-2022, 10:01 AM

07-26-2022, 09:08 AMEvok Wrote:
07-26-2022, 08:15 AMbrickwall35 Wrote: I'm confused, do you want HO to check every single team roster to see if every single player has been regressed properly? Because that's crazy.

They should update the rulebook, though. JHO had too harsh of penalties for GM tasks as well, so when we issued less severe punishment, we did so with an update to the rulebook.

I fail to see how it's crazy to have someone verify GM's job and make sure no one get an avantage over another team during the start of the season or until it's caught. I dont think it need to be checked if it's done properly, updaters will verify the maths if summited on time, but at least if it's done at all. In this case it would have been very easy to see. Players and GMs even need to provide a direct link to their regression post in the regression thread. Why are we providing it if it's not used? It's a job of 30 mins to go through all updated players to just check if at least their regression is process properly in their update. Divide that by all HO member taking a few teams and it's even less. HO are not above doing their job properly and checking the validity of GM tasks.

its always been weird to me that when the guardrails fail, we punish whoever fell through but never fix the guardrail.

*AgentSmith630* · 07-26-2022, 10:22 AM

07-26-2022, 09:29 AMgrok Wrote: For these reasons, the Appeals Committee has chosen to uphold the GM pay fine and the 3rd round pick penalty

III.

the Appeals Committee has voted to reduce Bas O’Bigbers’s suspension to 9 games.

I like these decisions and the reasonings behind them. Thanks to the appeal committee for doing such quick and effective work!

Spartan · 07-26-2022, 10:28 AM

Get out the pitchforks, they didn't increase HFFO's punishment

**brickwall35** · 07-26-2022, 10:58 AM

07-26-2022, 09:08 AMEvok Wrote:
07-26-2022, 08:15 AMbrickwall35 Wrote: I'm confused, do you want HO to check every single team roster to see if every single player has been regressed properly? Because that's crazy.

They should update the rulebook, though. JHO had too harsh of penalties for GM tasks as well, so when we issued less severe punishment, we did so with an update to the rulebook.

I fail to see how it's crazy to have someone verify GM's job and make sure no one get an avantage over another team during the start of the season or until it's caught. I dont think it need to be checked if it's done properly, updaters will verify the maths if summited on time, but at least if it's done at all. In this case it would have been very easy to see. Players and GMs even need to provide a direct link to their regression post in the regression thread. Why are we providing it if it's not used? It's a job of 30 mins to go through all updated players to just check if at least their regression is process properly in their update. Divide that by all HO member taking a few teams and it's even less. HO are not above doing their job properly and checking the validity of GM tasks.

I was more referring to checking if done properly, not if had been done at all. But that's the situation here, so that's my bad.

Patty · 07-26-2022, 11:57 AM

07-26-2022, 09:15 AMCitizen of Adraa Wrote:
07-26-2022, 08:12 AMPatty Wrote: To address this quickly we removed most instances of auto firing from the rulebook a while back. This one just got missed

so what you are saying is I can literally never do anything and you can't fire me?

bad move HO

bad move

I'm saying we decided we didn't need a rule to allow us to. simpat

ACapitalChicago · 07-26-2022, 12:02 PM

07-26-2022, 09:29 AMgrok Wrote: The Appeals Committee has received an appeal and come to consensus:

I.

On Saturday, July 23rd, Head Office was notified about a late regression. Sopath submitted their regression for player Bas O’Bigbers on Monday, July 18. This regression was added to the player page on the day of the first regular season sim, 11 days after regressions were due. Edmonton GMs attempted to contact the sim team to push through the update on the day of the first sim, and contacted Head Office about the issue. Edmonton was penalized the team’s next available third-round draft pick and one season of GM pay. Bas O’Bigbers was suspended for the quantity of games the player played with an illegal build (17).

II.

Edmonton’s appeal hinges on their good faith efforts to get Bas O’Bigbers’s build corrected prior to the first regular season sim. GM HabsFanFromOntario contacted both simmers two hours ahead of the sim on July 18th to process the regression. While we believe Edmonton acted in good faith to fix the problem as soon as they became aware, we do not find this to be a mitigating factor for a few reasons.

First, the Appeals Committee believes it’s the responsibility of a GM to complete their GM tasks in a timely and comprehensive manner, even if they take best efforts to fix any mistakes.

Second, we find the penalty issued by Head Office already takes these mitigating factors into account. Failing to complete GM tasks by more than five days can be punished up to dismissal of the current managers. Head Office chose to follow the preceding penalty in the S57 Edmonton punishment for failing to regress Eddy Ask Jr. We find the forfeiture of one draft pick and one season’s GM pay a suitably reduced fine that reflects Edmonton’s attempts to resolve the issue.

Third, although Edmonton attempted to find a resolution before the first sim, it still creates a risk of an invalid player in the sim. The Updaters play a crucial role in validating regressions and using standardized methods to correct invalid regressions before the start of the regular season. The deadlines exist to allow for time to review and revise, and although Edmonton attempted to fix the issue they created new and divergent risks to competitive integrity in the process.

For these reasons, the Appeals Committee has chosen to uphold the GM pay fine and the 3rd round pick penalty

III.

While we find Edmonton at fault and find the team and GM punishment fair, there were multiple considerations for the duration of Bas O’Bigbers’s suspension. Sopath violated the regression rules by failing to regress Bas O’Bigbers by the deadline, but submitted a regression when it was noticed even if it was late. After deliberation, it is the opinion of the Appeals Committee that Sopath acted in good faith and had little control over the situation after their regression update was submitted. As an attempt to balance holding the player accountable, setting good precedents for the player experience, and taking corrective action towards competitive integrity, the Appeals Committee has voted to reduce Bas O’Bigbers’s suspension to 9 games.

Would the Appeals Committee be able to standardize including their decision not just as a reply, but also as an edit in the original post and updating the post title to include that the appeal has been processed?

S66 Damian Littleton

***HoltzFan10*** · 07-26-2022, 12:09 PM

07-26-2022, 10:01 AMPremierBromanov Wrote:
07-26-2022, 09:08 AMEvok Wrote: I fail to see how it's crazy to have someone verify GM's job and make sure no one get an avantage over another team during the start of the season or until it's caught. I dont think it need to be checked if it's done properly, updaters will verify the maths if summited on time, but at least if it's done at all. In this case it would have been very easy to see. Players and GMs even need to provide a direct link to their regression post in the regression thread. Why are we providing it if it's not used? It's a job of 30 mins to go through all updated players to just check if at least their regression is process properly in their update. Divide that by all HO member taking a few teams and it's even less. HO are not above doing their job properly and checking the validity of GM tasks.

its always been weird to me that when the guardrails fail, we punish whoever fell through but never fix the guardrail.

this tbh

grok · 07-26-2022, 12:22 PM

07-26-2022, 12:02 PMACapitalChicago Wrote: Would the Appeals Committee be able to standardize including their decision not just as a reply, but also as an edit in the original post and updating the post title to include that the appeal has been processed?

I forgot to do the title update this time, but the OP was updated at the time of the appeal publication.

CementHands · 07-26-2022, 01:48 PM

07-26-2022, 08:15 AMbrickwall35 Wrote:
07-25-2022, 10:58 PMCementHands Wrote: Oh don't get me wrong, me either. My complaint is with the consistency in the rule book, and the fact that this appears to show no one is double checking gm tasks, so there's no chance to catch these things earlier.
I think the rule needs to be re written, and clearely so does ho because they have a rule in place they could follow, but explicitly decided not to. My impression was head office levies punishment based on the rules, the appeals group is there to handle situations that seem too harsh and the rules get re written as appropriate. Why was this 10 days late without anyone else knowing about it?

If head office isn't double checking GM tasks, what exactly are they being paid for?
I'm confused, do you want HO to check every single team roster to see if every single player has been regressed properly? Because that's crazy.

They should update the rulebook, though. JHO had too harsh of penalties for GM tasks as well, so when we issued less severe punishment, we did so with an update to the rulebook.

Yes, I do. You can check the regression post to see if the players have been done and direct link to the regression post. Also work with the regression team to communicate. For me, I think it's completely pointless having the range of days, but to not double check it so there's a chance to catch it earlier.
I know it's work, I did it for 3 seasons. Part of the reason I burned out and stepped down from HO in the first place. Head Office is supposed to be work.
This isn't about an incorrect regression, it's straight up a regression was not done for 10 + days past the due date. What then is the point of having a scaling punishment if it won't be used. Again, I'm not advocating for the 5+ day punishment to be applied, I'm saying fix the rule book, because we aren't punishing by it, so it should not be written in that we will.

**brickwall35** · 07-26-2022, 03:13 PM

07-26-2022, 01:48 PMCementHands Wrote:
07-26-2022, 08:15 AMbrickwall35 Wrote: I'm confused, do you want HO to check every single team roster to see if every single player has been regressed properly? Because that's crazy.

They should update the rulebook, though. JHO had too harsh of penalties for GM tasks as well, so when we issued less severe punishment, we did so with an update to the rulebook.

Yes, I do. You can check the regression post to see if the players have been done and direct link to the regression post. Also work with the regression team to communicate. For me, I think it's completely pointless having the range of days, but to not double check it so there's a chance to catch it earlier.
I know it's work, I did it for 3 seasons. Part of the reason I burned out and stepped down from HO in the first place. Head Office is supposed to be work.
This isn't about an incorrect regression, it's straight up a regression was not done for 10 + days past the due date. What then is the point of having a scaling punishment if it won't be used. Again, I'm not advocating for the 5+ day punishment to be applied, I'm saying fix the rule book, because we aren't punishing by it, so it should not be written in that we will.

Yeah, like I mentioned to Evok, I misinterpreted as checking regressions for accuracy, not completion. My bad.

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us