Login

Grapehead · 10-20-2019, 10:32 PM

10-20-2019, 10:25 PMnour Wrote:
10-20-2019, 10:16 PMGrapehead Wrote: Once someone's term is up they can just re-apply for the position. Most people take one tour of duty in the HO and that's enough for them, but they are able to continue on if they want to keep applying. Paying them is a no brainer. The restructure idea is great in theory, but I don't know how the workloads compare and how it would be for them to take on what was two people's job before.

I just think the idea of reapplying at all is sort of strange. Like I said above I don't think head office should be an "everybody gets a chance" sort of role, its probably the most important role on the site and the people who put the effort should remain there (so long as A. They want to be there and B. They put in the effort to be there).

Anyone who wants to be there, and puts in the effort... but re-applying is too much effort? I get where you're coming from with this HO restructure, and I support that goal, but I don't think term limits are causing any issues. I can't think of a single person who was ousted by term limits, who wanted to stay but had their re-application denied.

Sean · 10-20-2019, 11:53 PM

We should really get an ombudsman or a similar style of role. Sorry, it doesn't have much to do with your restructuring, but if we're restructuring we should add it.

EDM All-Time Leader in Goals, Assists and Points

nour · 10-21-2019, 12:19 AM

10-20-2019, 10:32 PMGrapehead Wrote:
10-20-2019, 10:25 PMnour Wrote: I just think the idea of reapplying at all is sort of strange. Like I said above I don't think head office should be an "everybody gets a chance" sort of role, its probably the most important role on the site and the people who put the effort should remain there (so long as A. They want to be there and B. They put in the effort to be there).

Anyone who wants to be there, and puts in the effort... but re-applying is too much effort? I get where you're coming from with this HO restructure, and I support that goal, but I don't think term limits are causing any issues. I can't think of a single person who was ousted by term limits, who wanted to stay but had their re-application denied.

My angle isn't saying its too much effort it's that its a waste of effort (and time). If a dude wants to be there why should HO waste time pouring through applicants for a position thats going to be filled by a guy who wants to be there and has shown that he should be there? It's not too much to do, its just pointless at the end of the day. And to be fair I added it because if HO were to use this Department Head as HO idea, they would basically have to get rid of this term limit thing because all of those roles don't use a term limit system and I think it would be a waste of time to introduce them. We talk about HO having their hands full all the time and how busy they can be, why not take at least a little bit off Eggy/Adam's plate by just letting them keep the guys around who want to be around you know?

**First GM in SMJHL history to win 3 Four Star Cups back-to-back-to-back**

Tomasnz · 10-21-2019, 06:42 AM

So... I like where you are coming from in terms of getting a greater level of specific accountability and ownership within the HO group.

I think probably what Mike was saying is true and that department heads, especially those ones have enough on their plate already. But I do feel you could modify the current structure to create a greater sense of responsibility and accountability outside of just the commissioner, which I feel like is one of your key points.

Things like what thingy(sorry forgot who) suggested around having a member of HO who is a specific conduit for information flows between heads and HO. And possibly similar sub HO roles.

Grapehead · 10-21-2019, 08:35 AM

10-21-2019, 12:19 AMnour Wrote:
10-20-2019, 10:32 PMGrapehead Wrote: Anyone who wants to be there, and puts in the effort... but re-applying is too much effort? I get where you're coming from with this HO restructure, and I support that goal, but I don't think term limits are causing any issues. I can't think of a single person who was ousted by term limits, who wanted to stay but had their re-application denied.

My angle isn't saying its too much effort it's that its a waste of effort (and time). If a dude wants to be there why should HO waste time pouring through applicants for a position thats going to be filled by a guy who wants to be there and has shown that he should be there? It's not too much to do, its just pointless at the end of the day. And to be fair I added it because if HO were to use this Department Head as HO idea, they would basically have to get rid of this term limit thing because all of those roles don't use a term limit system and I think it would be a waste of time to introduce them. We talk about HO having their hands full all the time and how busy they can be, why not take at least a little bit off Eggy/Adam's plate by just letting them keep the guys around who want to be around you know?

I think you're misunderstanding. If a HO member says "I wanna stay" that's enough of a re-application afaik. They don't have to go through a formal interview process again or something, and their "application" is a matter of throwing their name in the ring. Your point about term limits with regard to this new structure makes sense though, but just wanted to point out that there is not really "wasted effort" in re-applying under the current system.

prettyburn · 10-21-2019, 08:39 AM

I think some sort of restructuring could be useful, but have one concern - the reason we do elections currently is so that teams are represented fairly. There's nothing in job head requirements that stops people from being from the same team, so HO could potentially end up representing a handful of the same teams all the time and I feel like that would lead to even bigger shitshows than we have now. How would we avoid that?

Also, just for some fun historical context - way back in the day HO did get paid, and GMs bitched about how we didn't get paid despite putting in even more work on a regular basis than they did. Rather than pay GMs, HO decided to stop paying themselves.

***FuzzSHL*** · 10-21-2019, 09:11 AM

Quote:2. Abolish term limits. These are outdated and stupid anyways, HO shouldn't be an "everybody gets a turn" job on the site, it should be reserved for the members who want to make a difference, and want to see the site grow and succeed. Term limits halt this by putting a time limit on how long people can be a part of HO. SMJHL's HO peaked at a period with no term limits (Zoone, Evok, Storm, Evans I'm lookin at y'all), and the rotating cast just hurts the site's ability to build a respectful relationship with HO when none of them are there long enough to even establish themselves as site leaders. Let people who want to excel in an HO capacity continue to do so.

3. PAY HEAD OFFICE MEMBERS. This discussion is absolutely batshit insane at this point, but anyone who is willingly giving their time to make sure the site is able to run functionally should be compensated for that job. Most other sim leagues are paying their Head Office members, we're not gonna cause inflation this is fake roleplay hockey money, pay these guys who have dedicated so much of their time and effort to this site a fair amount and give them some reason to want to continue to push themselves in one of the site's toughest jobs. The "doing this out of a love for the site" argument is bullshit. GMs got sick of it, and I personally still believe GMs aren't compensated fairly for the amount of work they do here. It's time HO gets paid for the service they put in here.

These two points right here. Term limit is fucking insane. Any sort of work getting done in HO is immediately halted and slowed by HO members having their term limits ended. Sure, they "chose not to re-apply", but its still horseshit in theory and practice. The potential to get stuff done on this site is significantly lowered when the turnover rate in HO is as bad as it is. Someone doesn't want to continue after the season? They step down, easy as that. How it is now just seems so stupid.

And I wholeheartedly agree about paying HO. It was actually (as you know, nour) part of our original idea for a proposal to HO for increasing pay. GMs don't get paid enough for the amount of shit they do, and the fact that HO isn't paid at all is ridiculous as well. "Do it for the love of the site", oh bite me. HO is a position that requires a lot of time and effort and the fact these members don't get compensated is just ridiculous imo.

I'm not sure I agree with the structure, though it does seem interesting in theory. But HO as it is right now just doesn't make sense.

Aleksi Kettu

***FuzzSHL*** · 10-21-2019, 09:13 AM

10-21-2019, 08:39 AMprettyburn Wrote: I think some sort of restructuring could be useful, but have one concern - the reason we do elections currently is so that teams are represented fairly. There's nothing in job head requirements that stops people from being from the same team, so HO could potentially end up representing a handful of the same teams all the time and I feel like that would lead to even bigger shitshows than we have now. How would we avoid that?

Also, just for some fun historical context - way back in the day HO did get paid, and GMs bitched about how we didn't get paid despite putting in even more work on a regular basis than they did. Rather than pay GMs, HO decided to stop paying themselves.

The idea that we can't pay jobs relative to the work they do is insane. It blows my mind that there are still people here with the "do it for the love of the site" mentality. It's literally the same as "do it for the exposure."

Aleksi Kettu

Flareon · 10-21-2019, 10:25 AM

wow WJC commissioner snubbed

Samsung virtual assistant · 10-21-2019, 11:05 AM

Bring back DC

*slothfacekilla* · 10-21-2019, 11:56 AM

10-21-2019, 06:42 AMTomasnz Wrote: Things like what thingy(sorry forgot who) suggested around having a member of HO who is a specific conduit for information flows between heads and HO. And possibly similar sub HO roles.

I don't think I ever mentioned it publicly, but outside of wanting to re-write the rulebook my HO application centered on being a sort of public relations type person tasked with presenting HO rulings/thought processes to the masses. I figured this would include contact with heads, etc.

But I am just rules guy for now Biggrin

*slothfacekilla* · 10-21-2019, 11:58 AM

10-21-2019, 09:13 AMFuzzSHL Wrote: The idea that we can't pay jobs relative to the work they do is insane. It blows my mind that there are still people here with the "do it for the love of the site" mentality. It's literally the same as "do it for the exposure."

Help I'm being attacked

Eggy216 · 10-21-2019, 12:32 PM

There aren't term limits anymore, I got rid of them. What you end up seeing, as others have mentioned, is that people just don't want to do it anymore, and I can't say I blame them. You also mention having issues with the term system in general, but what that really does is A. allow people a way out when they really just don't want to do it anymore (Evans is a recent example of this). It's also a great way for me to see if there's someone out there who might be better than who we already have, to replace someone who isn't pulling their weight without having to outright fire them, or even just to get a finger on the pulse of the SHL and see what people are thinking.

The idea of making the job heads HO is interesting in theory, but terrible in practice. Right now I end up carrying 95% of the load when it comes to the actual work, and that's the biggest issue. Current HO is trying to take some of that weight off me which is great, but making the job heads HO just makes that an even greater issue because they'd have their own jobs to worry about, and wouldn't be able to really help me out at all. It would be a step backwards rather than a step forwards in that regard.

And then the last one, paying HO, I've thought about changing that recently with the league pay restructure. In the past I've paid people for doing things that weren't really part of their HO duties, and I've debated doing something similar and paying people for working the draft, for example (in part because I ran the last one solo, and I feel like tying pay to tasks would help resolve that and the previous issue I mentioned). That also would prevent people from getting paid to do nothing. Of the suggestions you listed, that's probably the most likely to happen.

***artermis*** · 10-21-2019, 12:42 PM

As an IIHF commish who had communication problems with HO, yeah this sounds like a good idea

***WannabeFinn*** · 10-21-2019, 12:50 PM

10-21-2019, 12:32 PMEggy216 Wrote: There aren't term limits anymore, I got rid of them. What you end up seeing, as others have mentioned, is that people just don't want to do it anymore, and I can't say I blame them. You also mention having issues with the term system in general, but what that really does is A. allow people a way out when they really just don't want to do it anymore (Evans is a recent example of this). It's also a great way for me to see if there's someone out there who might be better than who we already have, to replace someone who isn't pulling their weight without having to outright fire them, or even just to get a finger on the pulse of the SHL and see what people are thinking.

The idea of making the job heads HO is interesting in theory, but terrible in practice. Right now I end up carrying 95% of the load when it comes to the actual work, and that's the biggest issue. Current HO is trying to take some of that weight off me which is great, but making the job heads HO just makes that an even greater issue because they'd have their own jobs to worry about, and wouldn't be able to really help me out at all. It would be a step backwards rather than a step forwards in that regard.

And then the last one, paying HO, I've thought about changing that recently with the league pay restructure. In the past I've paid people for doing things that weren't really part of their HO duties, and I've debated doing something similar and paying people for working the draft, for example (in part because I ran the last one solo, and I feel like tying pay to tasks would help resolve that and the previous issue I mentioned). That also would prevent people from getting paid to do nothing. Of the suggestions you listed, that's probably the most likely to happen.

I get that you’re likely exaggerating exactly how much work you do but why the hell has it become necessary for you to do 95% of the work? Why does HO even exist? Are they literally just a glorified discipline committee now?

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us