Login

Mazatt · 11-25-2020, 12:30 PM

11-25-2020, 09:58 AMFaelax Wrote: Turnover for the sake of turnover is bad, but I'm all for removing people who are apathetic/lazy/outright bad at their jobs.

Ion like this idea

*Katth* · 11-25-2020, 02:11 PM

11-25-2020, 10:58 AMluketd Wrote:
11-25-2020, 10:07 AMKatth Wrote: I completely missed that we now have an events department, so good stuff.

I think the argument that it's going to be used to circumvent cap is used more often than anything else on this site to stop reform. With newly introduced tiers it's much harder to do so. I think it's not actually that hard to set a requirement for a GM to deliver proof that someone actually does set lines or is an active scout. I also didn't meant for it to be unlimited positions, but let's start with 1 a piece at let's say 1M or possibly 2M.

For us, at the end of the day, we don’t want to see unfair advantages to teams. I know one of the older members can say more than I can about it. But there used to be management payments for scouts or coaches, and yes people used them correctly, but it also leads to paying people who just need the money. We can talk about proof, but for example a scout. What if a gm just gives the scout all the messages they have to send. And the scout just sends the pms. They do no work, provide proof and get paid. Or for coaches, how do we know that they actually helped. We are trying to cover every angle that people could cheat and use cap circumvention, I wish we could trust gms to pay people who actually put in the time and effort to scout and to the ones to coach. And if there is a better system or a way we can actually verify that would be amazing.

Guess I'm still that naive... I forgot that there's just too many people out there trying to bend everything as much as they can to get ahead in a fake hockey league.

S50 Challenge Cup Finals Game 7
[Image: gNFVjT6.png]

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us