Login

***luke*** · 04-29-2023, 07:26 AM

04-28-2023, 10:42 PMFuzzSHL Wrote: Hell’s frozen over, I agree with Luke on something

[Image: angel-demon-deal-satan-saint-260nw-408511864.jpg]

***sve7en*** · 04-29-2023, 07:55 AM

04-29-2023, 07:25 AMluke Wrote: Then why didn’t they say it haha. I don’t care if it’s tampering or not but if it’s not tampering let the trade through. If it is don’t because it’s tampering. Appeals committee says it’s tampering but also lets the trade through?

Spitballing because I'm not privy to anything.

If it's tampering, you can't exactly "untamper" a person. Not to say it's always the case, but if the tamper has someone less likely to remain with a team the team that was wronged might want to take the trade still, if it's better than what they'd get negotiating from a further disadvantaged position where the person might be leaving in free agency after the fact.

Would it be nice to get a bit more clarification on why? Absolutely. But there's definitely reasons where facilitating the trade would be a reasonable line in a situation where there's no clean undo button.

***sköldpaddor*** · 04-29-2023, 08:23 AM

04-29-2023, 03:08 AMSamsung virtual assistant Wrote: Tampering is a joke rule tbh

I’ve seen a couple people voice this opinion so I’m going to go ahead and address it.

I’m really sorry you feel this way, but no, it serves an important purpose. GMs should be able to do their jobs without worrying whether rival GMs are going to approach their players and attempt to disrupt the team they’re building with questionable tactics. I would have no desire to GM in a league where anybody could just go to my players and tell them blatant lies about me in order to put me into a disadvantageous trade position. (To be clear, that’s not what happened here, I’m just speaking from the perspective of someone who has had those lies spread about me in other contexts.) GMing shouldn’t be a giant game of “how can I manipulate all my friends to go to FA” - we have these checks and balances for a reason. We have a salary cap, we have contract tiers, and we have rules defining the legal ways to acquire a player for your team, and they’re all important.

I say all of this as somebody whose GM has made them fully tamperable - GMs should be able to protect their assets. Ace and Rashford know I’m not going anywhere, so it doesn’t really matter what anybody says to me. But you can’t have that kind of confidence about every player - it’s incredibly easy to have a promising first-gen get yoinked away from you for less than the value they’re worth because somebody interfered during the early stages of building that trust.

Legalizing tampering would also mostly hurt new GMs who don’t have friends and connections across four different leagues, and that’s something we really don’t want. We’ve taken steps to make things easier on newer GMs, GMs who are only in this league, GMs who haven’t been around long enough to have all those friends to lure onto their team. We lengthened the FA discussion window for that same reason.

It’s no secret that we don’t have the quantity of GM interest that we did in the height of the pandemic, and if we want people to keep wanting to do the job, we think it’s important to make it more accessible for people who don’t have 5+ years of pre-established connections, and preventing tampering is part of that.

***sve7en*** · 04-29-2023, 08:28 AM

04-28-2023, 11:49 PMCount Chocula Wrote: Cause deep down they know it wasn’t really tampering

They kinda already established it was.

Quote:Although Toronto was made aware of the player’s intent to apply, HO’s investigation made it clear that there had been numerous conversations held between HFFO and the player before that moment in which the former was selling the team and LR to the player in hopes to convince them to apply for the position. Furthermore, prior to the TOR GM being able to acknowledge the player's intent to apply, an application for the position was submitted and the hiring process was considered concluded.

Like, just don't talk to contracted players about leaving their team without clearing it with their GM.

Waters · 04-29-2023, 10:01 AM

04-27-2023, 02:39 PM.bojo Wrote:

I was there people forget that

***RAmenAmen*** · 04-29-2023, 12:29 PM

04-29-2023, 08:28 AMsve7en Wrote: They kinda already established it was.

Like, just don't talk to contracted players about leaving their team without clearing it with their GM.

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.

Bfine · 04-29-2023, 12:34 PM

Hello me again,

We on the appeals committee would like to apologize for not being clear on the trade aspect of our decision. Our main goal was to leave the pieces of the trade in play and not necessarily force a tampered trade through. The trade is nullified and if Toronto and Edmonton want to go through with the agreed upon trade, or any other trade they negotiate, it will need to be submit through HO. We have updated the main post to clarify our ruling and thank you all for calling out the language of our post.

***luke*** · 04-29-2023, 12:36 PM

04-29-2023, 12:34 PMBfine Wrote: Hello me again,

We on the appeals committee would like to apologize for not being clear on the trade aspect of our decision. Our main goal was to leave the pieces of the trade in play and not necessarily force a tampered trade through. The trade is nullified and if Toronto and Edmonton want to go through with the agreed upon trade, or any other trade they negotiate, it will need to be submit through HO. We have updated the main post to clarify our ruling and thank you all for calling out the language of our post.

Thanks for the clarification!

***sve7en*** · 04-29-2023, 12:39 PM

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.

***Frenchie*** · 04-29-2023, 12:40 PM

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.

The application was sent after HFFO reached out to settle a trade. While I get your point on the GM vs. co-GM thing, which we are working on as we speak, the fact of the matter remains, the player had made up their mind before the application was even sent, and that stands without consideration of if a co-GM permission constitutes valid permission or not. Furthermore, the tenuous permission aspect of the decision is only one factor among many factors, and the decision doesn't hinge solely on that. Either way, due process calls for talks to be held once the application is sent in, which in this case wasn't handled that way. If you have any further questions on the matter, please feel free to reach out in DM's, I belive that to be a better route to understanding.

PremierBromanov · 04-29-2023, 03:06 PM

04-29-2023, 08:23 AMsköldpaddor Wrote: I’ve seen a couple people voice this opinion so I’m going to go ahead and address it.

I’m really sorry you feel this way, but no, it serves an important purpose. GMs should be able to do their jobs without worrying whether rival GMs are going to approach their players and attempt to disrupt the team they’re building with questionable tactics. I would have no desire to GM in a league where anybody could just go to my players and tell them blatant lies about me in order to put me into a disadvantageous trade position. (To be clear, that’s not what happened here, I’m just speaking from the perspective of someone who has had those lies spread about me in other contexts.) GMing shouldn’t be a giant game of “how can I manipulate all my friends to go to FA” - we have these checks and balances for a reason. We have a salary cap, we have contract tiers, and we have rules defining the legal ways to acquire a player for your team, and they’re all important.

I say all of this as somebody whose GM has made them fully tamperable - GMs should be able to protect their assets. Ace and Rashford know I’m not going anywhere, so it doesn’t really matter what anybody says to me. But you can’t have that kind of confidence about every player - it’s incredibly easy to have a promising first-gen get yoinked away from you for less than the value they’re worth because somebody interfered during the early stages of building that trust.

Legalizing tampering would also mostly hurt new GMs who don’t have friends and connections across four different leagues, and that’s something we really don’t want. We’ve taken steps to make things easier on newer GMs, GMs who are only in this league, GMs who haven’t been around long enough to have all those friends to lure onto their team. We lengthened the FA discussion window for that same reason.

It’s no secret that we don’t have the quantity of GM interest that we did in the height of the pandemic, and if we want people to keep wanting to do the job, we think it’s important to make it more accessible for people who don’t have 5+ years of pre-established connections, and preventing tampering is part of that.

this is also why its difficult to fill fed head positions. Its pretty much tamper city until they play their first IIHF game

*Zerg* · 05-02-2023, 11:48 AM

04-28-2023, 09:56 PMluke Wrote: Question here: if the committee agrees that it is tampering, why is the trade still be letting go? Onto that fact, what power shows the appeals committee is allowed to overturn a rejection of a trade due to tampering?

Wouldn’t this lead to future tampering charges that have a trade before the punishment still lead to the trade being let go through which directly contradicts the whole tampering case?

Piggybacking off this - tampering has such tough punishments specifically because it's so hard to undo. Once the player wants to go to the tampering team it's not good for the tampered team to force that user to stay.

What if we did something like, instead of forfeiting draft picks flat out, the offending team forfeits their picks to the tampered team in addition to whatever was agreed upon in the trade as direct compensation?

***WannabeFinn*** · 05-02-2023, 11:55 AM

05-02-2023, 11:48 AMZerg Wrote: Piggybacking off this - tampering has such tough punishments specifically because it's so hard to undo. Once the player wants to go to the tampering team it's not good for the tampered team to force that user to stay.

What if we did something like, instead of forfeiting draft picks flat out, the offending team forfeits their picks to the tampered team in addition to whatever was agreed upon in the trade as direct compensation?

That idea was certainly floated.

However, it assumes that there was already some sort of trade agreed upon, which isn’t necessarily the case in instances of tampering. Additionally, trades made under the conditions of tampering wouldn’t have been negotiated in good faith. So adding a 1st and a 2nd onto whatever sounds good, because it objectively is valuable, but it’s being added onto some highly variable base that doesn’t even necessarily exist.

Additionally, you can bet that the 18 teams that aren’t involved would be upset that their draft picks don’t move up a spot or two in the draft Biggrin

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us