Why is this not on the budget team who have routinely failed to execute their job properly?
This is still in the works. We wanted to get this out as soon as possible because we wanted ML to appeal as soon as possible so this issue can get dealt with before the season started.
2
Code:
So retroactive punishments are a thing now? How far back can we go? Just curious becuase this seems to be a new thing that hasn't been done in the league before.
Code:
Appeal the fuck out of this. Retroactive punishment from 4 seasons ago is a slippery slope, that rabbit hole is deep.
For Golden and Simply
There has been retroactive punishments before, some you can discuss about whether it should have happened before or not
it is a slippery slope to get into, because what happens is that you can get stuff brought up a long time ago.I will say this, the contract was signed a year ago, but the issue itself is a S56 issue when the Bonus was paid out, which is around 9/12 at the start of S56 and 11/21 at the end of S56. So about 3 seasons ago. I got this presented to me on Thursday as the wording was a gray area in the budget person's eye. I talked to him about this and I said I would bring it to HO, where we make the decisions.
As for how long retroactively we can punish. It is something that we have to talk about in HO and with the Owners. And with the appeal we will find out as well. This is a thing that I did not want to ignore or sweep under the rug when it was brought to me. Even though it happened 3 seasons ago, it has to be brought up. Not bringing up this situation is worse in my eyes. You can debate on whether the decision is fair, and the owners will decide as well. But this conversation needs to happen, but one day it was going to happen.
If a player meets the requirements for a bonus in their contract, the bonus is paid out and counts towards the following season’s cap (ex. Player achieves a bonus in S50, bonus is paid out in S51 and counts towards the S51 Salary Cap).
For us, since the bonus was for the S56 season, if they complete the bonus, it would go to S57. I do see where ML is coming from, I do understand, but per this rulebook rule, HO decided that the bonus would have to be in S57. Again, with the appeal we will see what the owners say, and decide and we will go from there, and adjust.
@golden_apricot @Gwdjohnson
If you think a HO is being biased or targeting a certain Team please dm me about it. I will not tolerate it.
That being said this decision was approved by all of HO, not just one, but all.
One thing about being a co-commish is that I hate punishment, but it has to be done and we will try our best to make the right decision. Sometimes people don't see eye to eye on it, sometimes we could be looking at it on one angle, and the GM or user can look at it on another and it goes to the owners. They have the final say and we will be fine with whatever way they go. Talking about it important because you should be heard and talked to. I try my best to explain the best I can of the situation. Nobody is perfect and I think the biggest goal of mine is to continue to improve the site and adjust when needed. This is only my 2nd full season as co-commish and I plan on trying my best each season to improve the league and try to make the best decisions I can for the league
Why is this not on the budget team who have routinely failed to execute their job properly?
This is still in the works. We wanted to get this out as soon as possible because we wanted ML to appeal as soon as possible so this issue can get dealt with before the season started.
2
Code:
So retroactive punishments are a thing now? How far back can we go? Just curious becuase this seems to be a new thing that hasn't been done in the league before.
Code:
Appeal the fuck out of this. Retroactive punishment from 4 seasons ago is a slippery slope, that rabbit hole is deep.
For Golden and Simply
There has been retroactive punishments before, some you can discuss about whether it should have happened before or not
it is a slippery slope to get into, because what happens is that you can get stuff brought up a long time ago.I will say this, the contract was signed a year ago, but the issue itself is a S56 issue when the Bonus was paid out, which is around 9/12 at the start of S56 and 11/21 at the end of S56. So about 3 seasons ago. I got this presented to me on Thursday as the wording was a gray area in the budget person's eye. I talked to him about this and I said I would bring it to HO, where we make the decisions.
As for how long retroactively we can punish. It is something that we have to talk about in HO and with the Owners. And with the appeal we will find out as well. This is a thing that I did not want to ignore or sweep under the rug when it was brought to me. Even though it happened 3 seasons ago, it has to be brought up. Not bringing up this situation is worse in my eyes. You can debate on whether the decision is fair, and the owners will decide as well. But this conversation needs to happen, but one day it was going to happen.
If a player meets the requirements for a bonus in their contract, the bonus is paid out and counts towards the following season’s cap (ex. Player achieves a bonus in S50, bonus is paid out in S51 and counts towards the S51 Salary Cap).
For us, since the bonus was for the S56 season, if they complete the bonus, it would go to S57. I do see where ML is coming from, I do understand, but per this rulebook rule, HO decided that the bonus would have to be in S57. Again, with the appeal we will see what the owners say, and decide and we will go from there, and adjust.
@golden_apricot @Gwdjohnson
If you think a HO is being biased or targeting a certain Team please dm me about it. I will not tolerate it.
That being said this decision was approved by all of HO, not just one, but all.
One thing about being a co-commish is that I hate punishment, but it has to be done and we will try our best to make the right decision. Sometimes people don't see eye to eye on it, sometimes we could be looking at it on one angle, and the GM or user can look at it on another and it goes to the owners. They have the final say and we will be fine with whatever way they go. Talking about it important because you should be heard and talked to. I try my best to explain the best I can of the situation. Nobody is perfect and I think the biggest goal of mine is to continue to improve the site and adjust when needed. This is only my 2nd full season as co-commish and I plan on trying my best each season to improve the league and try to make the best decisions I can for the league
Ty for response luke. Still disagree on a cap hit this far in the future. I can't claim tpe from the season where this infraction occured but you can look back and retoractivly look at cap hits? Opens far too many doors for people to good back and let's say, look for regression issues where people might have skirted around cap that way. Not an easy situation from your perspective.
Also how did you weigh that on average across the league the cap hot is far harsher now than it was when this should have been observed as league tpe has been on the rise
Why is this not on the budget team who have routinely failed to execute their job properly?
This is still in the works. We wanted to get this out as soon as possible because we wanted ML to appeal as soon as possible so this issue can get dealt with before the season started.
2
Code:
So retroactive punishments are a thing now? How far back can we go? Just curious becuase this seems to be a new thing that hasn't been done in the league before.
Code:
Appeal the fuck out of this. Retroactive punishment from 4 seasons ago is a slippery slope, that rabbit hole is deep.
For Golden and Simply
There has been retroactive punishments before, some you can discuss about whether it should have happened before or not
it is a slippery slope to get into, because what happens is that you can get stuff brought up a long time ago.I will say this, the contract was signed a year ago, but the issue itself is a S56 issue when the Bonus was paid out, which is around 9/12 at the start of S56 and 11/21 at the end of S56. So about 3 seasons ago. I got this presented to me on Thursday as the wording was a gray area in the budget person's eye. I talked to him about this and I said I would bring it to HO, where we make the decisions.
As for how long retroactively we can punish. It is something that we have to talk about in HO and with the Owners. And with the appeal we will find out as well. This is a thing that I did not want to ignore or sweep under the rug when it was brought to me. Even though it happened 3 seasons ago, it has to be brought up. Not bringing up this situation is worse in my eyes. You can debate on whether the decision is fair, and the owners will decide as well. But this conversation needs to happen, but one day it was going to happen.
If a player meets the requirements for a bonus in their contract, the bonus is paid out and counts towards the following season’s cap (ex. Player achieves a bonus in S50, bonus is paid out in S51 and counts towards the S51 Salary Cap).
For us, since the bonus was for the S56 season, if they complete the bonus, it would go to S57. I do see where ML is coming from, I do understand, but per this rulebook rule, HO decided that the bonus would have to be in S57. Again, with the appeal we will see what the owners say, and decide and we will go from there, and adjust.
@golden_apricot @Gwdjohnson
If you think a HO is being biased or targeting a certain Team please dm me about it. I will not tolerate it.
That being said this decision was approved by all of HO, not just one, but all.
One thing about being a co-commish is that I hate punishment, but it has to be done and we will try our best to make the right decision. Sometimes people don't see eye to eye on it, sometimes we could be looking at it on one angle, and the GM or user can look at it on another and it goes to the owners. They have the final say and we will be fine with whatever way they go. Talking about it important because you should be heard and talked to. I try my best to explain the best I can of the situation. Nobody is perfect and I think the biggest goal of mine is to continue to improve the site and adjust when needed. This is only my 2nd full season as co-commish and I plan on trying my best each season to improve the league and try to make the best decisions I can for the league
04-09-2021, 06:58 PMJAJA SWEG DINGDONG Wrote: Off with their heads, purge the Grand Lakes
On a serious note though, it's interesting to see that someone happens to trip over this old mistake right after a season where Toronto makes the playoffs for the first time in forever.
I agree, I could not imagine who would have found this would be a shame to know that the person who found this just happens to play on a division rival. That would be very suspicious.
If you're going to take a lob shot at ham have the balls to call him out by name. This just so happens to be his job, but cool.
Why is this not on the budget team who have routinely failed to execute their job properly?
This is still in the works. We wanted to get this out as soon as possible because we wanted ML to appeal as soon as possible so this issue can get dealt with before the season started.
2
Code:
So retroactive punishments are a thing now? How far back can we go? Just curious becuase this seems to be a new thing that hasn't been done in the league before.
Code:
Appeal the fuck out of this. Retroactive punishment from 4 seasons ago is a slippery slope, that rabbit hole is deep.
For Golden and Simply
There has been retroactive punishments before, some you can discuss about whether it should have happened before or not
it is a slippery slope to get into, because what happens is that you can get stuff brought up a long time ago.I will say this, the contract was signed a year ago, but the issue itself is a S56 issue when the Bonus was paid out, which is around 9/12 at the start of S56 and 11/21 at the end of S56. So about 3 seasons ago. I got this presented to me on Thursday as the wording was a gray area in the budget person's eye. I talked to him about this and I said I would bring it to HO, where we make the decisions.
As for how long retroactively we can punish. It is something that we have to talk about in HO and with the Owners. And with the appeal we will find out as well. This is a thing that I did not want to ignore or sweep under the rug when it was brought to me. Even though it happened 3 seasons ago, it has to be brought up. Not bringing up this situation is worse in my eyes. You can debate on whether the decision is fair, and the owners will decide as well. But this conversation needs to happen, but one day it was going to happen.
If a player meets the requirements for a bonus in their contract, the bonus is paid out and counts towards the following season’s cap (ex. Player achieves a bonus in S50, bonus is paid out in S51 and counts towards the S51 Salary Cap).
For us, since the bonus was for the S56 season, if they complete the bonus, it would go to S57. I do see where ML is coming from, I do understand, but per this rulebook rule, HO decided that the bonus would have to be in S57. Again, with the appeal we will see what the owners say, and decide and we will go from there, and adjust.
@golden_apricot @Gwdjohnson
If you think a HO is being biased or targeting a certain Team please dm me about it. I will not tolerate it.
That being said this decision was approved by all of HO, not just one, but all.
One thing about being a co-commish is that I hate punishment, but it has to be done and we will try our best to make the right decision. Sometimes people don't see eye to eye on it, sometimes we could be looking at it on one angle, and the GM or user can look at it on another and it goes to the owners. They have the final say and we will be fine with whatever way they go. Talking about it important because you should be heard and talked to. I try my best to explain the best I can of the situation. Nobody is perfect and I think the biggest goal of mine is to continue to improve the site and adjust when needed. This is only my 2nd full season as co-commish and I plan on trying my best each season to improve the league and try to make the best decisions I can for the league
Ty for response luke. Still disagree on a cap hit this far in the future. I can't claim tpe from the season where this infraction occured but you can look back and retoractivly look at cap hits? Opens far too many doors for people to good back and let's say, look for regression issues where people might have skirted around cap that way. Not an easy situation from your perspective.
Also how did you weigh that on average across the league the cap hot is far harsher now than it was when this should have been observed as league tpe has been on the rise
We can totally disagree, it is something that is a tricky subject because it happened before I was in HO or Commish, and I dont like trying to punish retroactively but it had to be done. We can discuss whether its a cap hit or no, whether it should have been a fine and a pick removal sure. It is something I hope never happens again when I am co-commish. I hope that we have systems in place now that will curb it, and I will be implementing ways that there is more checks and balances to hopefully catch it.
As for your 2nd question. It is tough, because the weight of a mil or 2 mil is far heavier now than it was before the cap increase. The crux of the cap increase is to help parity, but we have seen some side effects of it like people going undrafted. It is something that weighs on my mind because I want to find the balance, and maybe the balance is expansion and that allows more draftees to be signed. It is something that takes time to review it over. It is something that we will have to navigate as HO, maybe its less of a cap hit, maybe its something else, I am not sure at this time
As the budget member who found this and other cap issues while processing Toronto this off season, my original hope and intention in bringing this up was to have HO clarify bonus language in contracts going forward.
Honestly if I could choose I don't think this type of punishment after the fact this far in for an error that probably was missed by multiple parties makes sense.
My issue here is that HO actually admits that the language of the rule is “murky at best”, which means you acknowledge it would easy to misinterpret, which HO also says is the reason behind the infraction.
Which means there was no ill-intent on Toronto’s side, and they didn’t intentionally do this to subvert the rules and gain an advantage.
So with all that, it feels rather silly to be going back 3 seasons to retroactively punish them for this. A change of language and a warning going forward would of made more sense.
S2, S5, S18, S22 Challenge Cup Champion
Hall Of Famers: (S7) Alex Reay | (S28) Daniel Merica
My issue here is that HO actually admits that the language of the rule is “murky at best”, which means you acknowledge it would easy to misinterpret, which HO also says is the reason behind the infraction.
Which means there was no ill-intent on Toronto’s side, and they didn’t intentionally do this to subvert the rules and gain an advantage.
So with all that, it feels rather silly to be going back 3 seasons to retroactively punish them for this. A change of language and a warning going forward would of made more sense.
The part that is murky is that a bonus is in relation to a S55 action but for a S56 contract. So the question is whether would it be added to S56, because the action was completed in S55. Or is it added to the S57 cap because the contract was accepted for S56 bonus.
HO agrees that it would apply to the S57 cap, but we also agree that ML did not do it in ill-will, hence why we lowered it to a 2 mil cap hit instead.
04-09-2021, 08:27 PMNhamlet Wrote: As the budget member who found this and other cap issues while processing Toronto this off season, my original hope and intention in bringing this up was to have HO clarify bonus language in contracts going forward.
Honestly if I could choose I don't think this type of punishment after the fact this far in for an error that probably was missed by multiple parties makes sense.
Sad that Chicago can't make the playoffs because Toronto is finally good and you have to resort to this to bring them down.
My issue here is that HO actually admits that the language of the rule is “murky at best”, which means you acknowledge it would easy to misinterpret, which HO also says is the reason behind the infraction.
Which means there was no ill-intent on Toronto’s side, and they didn’t intentionally do this to subvert the rules and gain an advantage.
So with all that, it feels rather silly to be going back 3 seasons to retroactively punish them for this. A change of language and a warning going forward would of made more sense.
The part that is murky is that a bonus is in relation to a S55 action but for a S56 contract. So the question is whether would it be added to S56, because the action was completed in S55. Or is it added to the S57 cap because the contract was accepted for S56 bonus.
HO agrees that it would apply to the S57 cap, but we also agree that ML did not do it in ill-will, hence why we lowered it to a 2 mil cap hit instead.
I hope I answered your question
Whether it’s 4 or 2 mil, doesn’t make a difference here. If HO openly admits the rule is hard to understand and subject to misinterpretation to the point where you have to re-word it, I fail to see how Toronto can be held at fault here.
And it’s not as if they didn’t pay the bonus, they did, so they didn’t scan their way out of having it impact their cap.
S2, S5, S18, S22 Challenge Cup Champion
Hall Of Famers: (S7) Alex Reay | (S28) Daniel Merica
04-09-2021, 07:46 PMluketd Wrote: So the main argument is through
Code:
If a player meets the requirements for a bonus in their contract, the bonus is paid out and counts towards the following season’s cap (ex. Player achieves a bonus in S50, bonus is paid out in S51 and counts towards the S51 Salary Cap).
For us, since the bonus was for the S56 season, if they complete the bonus, it would go to S57. I do see where ML is coming from, I do understand, but per this rulebook rule, HO decided that the bonus would have to be in S57. Again, with the appeal we will see what the owners say, and decide and we will go from there, and adjust.
I think my problem here is that the way I read the rule, it says that as long as the bonus specifies its dependence on the criteria having been met the season before the bonus is paid out, it's compliant. That's it.
The rule doesn't say that it has to be labelled S56 Bonus and apply to S57. The rule also does not say that adding a condition for bonus based on a season that is already under contract is not allowed. The way ml worded the contract posting specified that the bonus would be paid out in S56 for criteria met in S55. The season chosen for these bonuses was not breaking either rule mentioned since it's not modifying anything about the players' S55 contracts the way the contract thread was written. It wasn't modifying a pre-existing contract in S56 since they didn't have signings for S56.
You're telling me that it makes logical sense for a contract to say "Bonus for S56" and mean "Paid out in S57, based on S56" without some extra labelling? Even then, ml's contract thread had extra labelling. This really feels like a few seasons ago when there was a big to-do about how trades of future picks are labelled, and we ultimately decided that you label it with possible seasons and the indication of Reddit Pick or Protected. So clarify the rule to add labelling for which season the performance is based on and which season the payout and cap hit come in, drop the punishment, and be done with this. The interpretations we're arguing are Fucking semantics.
luke![[Image: Gabe-lights.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/853563288988942356/1023840211416928318/Gabe-lights.png)
![[Image: nMz40Vc.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/nMz40Vc.gif)
![[Image: 1rdovVs.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/1rdovVs.gif)
![[Image: X6NDpNM.png]](https://i.imgur.com/X6NDpNM.png)
![[Image: 6eXcLdf.png]](https://i.imgur.com/6eXcLdf.png)
![[Image: mckeiltbb.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/729032691974012989/1034830613875802174/mckeiltbb.png)
![[Image: Merica5.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/Merica5.gif)
![[Image: NCQjJT2.png]](https://i.imgur.com/NCQjJT2.png)
- 
- ![[Image: zS2lCMp.png]](https://i.imgur.com/zS2lCMp.png)
![[Image: carpy48.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/carpy48.gif)
![[Image: p1gG0LD.png]](https://i.imgur.com/p1gG0LD.png)
![[Image: DKMMlC3.png]](http://i.imgur.com/DKMMlC3.png)
![[Image: sXDU6JX.png]](https://i.imgur.com/sXDU6JX.png)
![[Image: ctsxTFg.png]](http://i.imgur.com/ctsxTFg.png)
![[Image: 3GX9nYb.png]](https://i.imgur.com/3GX9nYb.png)
![[Image: AfpXX8l.png]](https://i.imgur.com/AfpXX8l.png)
![[Image: 0XJkcN5.png]](http://i.imgur.com/0XJkcN5.png)
PROFILE
![[Image: luketd.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/luketd.gif)
![[Image: tf-200x191.webp]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/220676773690605568/830228872251310111/tf-200x191.webp)
![[Image: 3.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/220676773690605568/755130651430354995/3.png)
![[Image: sdcore.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/sdcore.gif)
![[Image: sgu3vVP.png]](https://i.imgur.com/sgu3vVP.png)
![[Image: 9vq7IEu.png]](https://i.imgur.com/9vq7IEu.png)
![[Image: Evok.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/Evok.gif)
![[Image: merha.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/merha.gif)
![[Image: vo5yF0X.png]](https://i.imgur.com/vo5yF0X.png)
![[Image: olivercastillon.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/olivercastillon.gif)
