Create Account

Toronto Punishment Appeal Results
#16

04-17-2021, 09:59 AMreid Wrote:
04-17-2021, 09:16 AMCapt_Blitzkrieg Wrote: I'm sorry, what? Please clarify?

Further, it was my understanding that extensions and renewals are different contracts. That's why things like bonuses, HTDs, and different TPE tiers can be applied to extensions and renewals in the first place.

If they were truly the same contract regardless of renewals and extensions, then any such modifications would arguably be illegal. The only way to increase contracts or have bonuses would be at signing with a new team in free agency.

The rule clarification is fine. The justification given for punishment is on a Tacoma Narrows Bridge level of structural integrity. There seems to be some inconsistency in definition of what a contract extension is, versus the original, versus a renewal. Further, there have been some liberties taken with what constitutes modifying a contract.

The punishment as stated in the original post was levied for modifying an existing contract. There's nothing in the rulebook that indicates that contracting and paying out a bonus through extension, based on performance during a season under contract before the extension, is modifying the original contract in any way. If I'm wrong, please kindly point me to the piece that I'm missing here.
Blitz you are taking the first part of what DT said completely out of context, seeing that phrase and ignoring the rest of the sentence. What he said was:

Quote:... and the argument that an extension is the same contract and so something could be applied based on the previous season's activities before the extension started is actually not valid. 

so you are making the exact same argument HO is making. Extensions and renewals are not the same contract as their current. In this example, Dex and honkers S56-57 extensions were not the same contract as their S55. That is all teddy is saying. 

That is the crux of the misunderstanding which caused this punishment. The contract bonuses cannot legally be paid out on S56 cap, as the clause is tied to the S56 season (on a new and different contract) and by the rule book, has to be paid out and accounted for in S57. 

you can’t activate a clause that is not in your current contract. That’s about as simple as I can boil it down

Hey Reid, thank you for taking the time to help boil it down. It makes it easier to understand for people like me Smile

[Image: CptSquall.gif]



Reply
#17

@DrunkenTeddy fwiw I think talking about the decision making of all appeals, even rejected ones, makes sense and is good. I appreciate it.

[Image: sve7en.gif]


[Image: 1tWWEzv.png][Image: 8zFnf2t.png][Image: 6Lj3x8E.png][Image: xkAdpbO.png][Image: xnZrhKU.png][Image: 9YigPG2.png][Image: bpYxJ69.png]
Reply
#18

I'm glad Teddy was being very transparent in posting this denial, even though I don't think HO was hiding anything, I just am here to remind everyone to not let this distract you from the fact that in 1998 The Undertaker threw Mankind off of Hell in a Cell and he plummeted 16 feet through an announcer's table.

PatriotesUsaWhalers



[Image: CampinKiller.gif]





Reply
#19

04-17-2021, 09:59 AMreid Wrote: Blitz you are taking the first part of what DT said completely out of context, seeing that phrase and ignoring the rest of the sentence. What he said was:

Quote:... and the argument that an extension is the same contract and so something could be applied based on the previous season's activities before the extension started is actually not valid.

so you are making the exact same argument HO is making. Extensions and renewals are not the same contract as their current. In this example, Dex and honkers S56-57 extensions were not the same contract as their S55. That is all teddy is saying. 

That is the crux of the misunderstanding which caused this punishment. The contract bonuses cannot legally be paid out on S56 cap, as the clause is tied to the S56 season (on a new and different contract) and by the rule book, has to be paid out and accounted for in S57. 

you can’t activate a clause that is not in your current contract. That’s about as simple as I can boil it down

That's not how I read it, so I apologize for misunderstanding Teddy. I'm already out-salting Lot's wife, contradictory statements for example are waving a red flag. That's on me. I don't mean this argument maliciously, and I want to emphasize that. I'm not trying to hurt or discredit any of you. My teammates and I feel hurt and discredited, and I'm trying to understand why. So far, nothing has been explained in terms that make sense to me. It seems like the words are being used wrong somewhere in this and instead of clearing that difference, I'm being told I'm the one that's wrong with what feels like a "so just shut up about it" subtext. It's extremely frustrating and demoralizing.

I'm going to take issue with your last bit, and it's because I think you're going to end up re-writing the rule again. This is why:

The way the rule is being interpreted, from where I'm sitting, it has three parts. The basis for the bonus, the season in which the bonus is indicated, and the season in which it is paid out and applied to cap. In this example, the bonus is based on S55, indicated for S56, and was meant to be paid in S57.

The way the rule is written, both previously and currently, there are two parts: the season in which the bonus is indicated, and the season in which it is paid out and applied to cap. In this case, it was indicated for S56 and meant to be paid for S57.

The issue I have with the rule as it is written is that it doesn't address what the bonus is meant to be paid for or what, other than declaration of payout, the season of indication is for. To me, the way I am understanding this, I could sign a contract with a bonus indicated for S60 that would apply in S61 that could be based on anything. It could, theoretically, be based on the number of hairs I had on my head as a toddler. It could be paid out based on a death save roll by my favorite D&D character (odds are slim on making it there).

If that is correct, it means, to me, that the error made was based on a misunderstanding of indication versus basis, and occurred due to the lack of definition between the two in the rule. Clarification on that difference would fix this in my mind.

Further, based on this differentiation between basis and indication, I still fail to see how the contracts were modified, which was the basis for the punishment. If "modification" as it was written in the initial punishment thread is the catch-all word for "you misinterpreted the rule because of the way it was written", I mean as good-naturedly as I can that there are better words for that. If it's not the catch-all word, then I don't understand why we were punished when there was no modification that I can tell to any contract; it was misinterpreted and followed according to the incorrect understanding of the rule. Either way, the precedent for misunderstanding and incorrectly following rules, as far as I know, is explanation and correction for parties involved. Why wasn't that followed?

[Image: olivercastillon.gif]



Thanks @enigmatic, @Carpy48, @Bayley, @Ragnar, @sulovilen, & @dasboot for the signatures!



Reply
#20

04-17-2021, 10:52 AMsve7en Wrote: @DrunkenTeddy fwiw I think talking about the decision making of all appeals, even rejected ones, makes sense and is good. I appreciate it.

[Image: honkerrs.gif]
[Image: OPTIMIZED.png]
Reply
#21

just came in here to say poop

[Image: pppoopoo.gif]
[Image: 7925.png]
Thanks to @karey and @JSS for the sigs!


Former USA Fed Head, Carolina Kraken Co-GM, Tampa Bay Barracuda GM
Reply
#22

04-17-2021, 02:02 PMtrella Wrote: just came in here to say poop

Arrest this man

[Image: unknown.png]



UsaScarecrowsBlizzardSpecters | [Image: specterspp.png][Image: spectersupdate.png] | TimberArmadaSpectersFinland

[Image: cainbanner_35.jpg]
Reply
#23

04-17-2021, 02:12 PMSlashACM Wrote:
04-17-2021, 02:02 PMtrella Wrote: just came in here to say poop

Arrest this man
crime: too much swag

[Image: pppoopoo.gif]
[Image: 7925.png]
Thanks to @karey and @JSS for the sigs!


Former USA Fed Head, Carolina Kraken Co-GM, Tampa Bay Barracuda GM
Reply
#24

04-17-2021, 11:19 AMCapt_Blitzkrieg Wrote:
04-17-2021, 09:59 AMreid Wrote: Blitz you are taking the first part of what DT said completely out of context, seeing that phrase and ignoring the rest of the sentence. What he said was:


so you are making the exact same argument HO is making. Extensions and renewals are not the same contract as their current. In this example, Dex and honkers S56-57 extensions were not the same contract as their S55. That is all teddy is saying. 

That is the crux of the misunderstanding which caused this punishment. The contract bonuses cannot legally be paid out on S56 cap, as the clause is tied to the S56 season (on a new and different contract) and by the rule book, has to be paid out and accounted for in S57. 

you can’t activate a clause that is not in your current contract. That’s about as simple as I can boil it down

That's not how I read it, so I apologize for misunderstanding Teddy. I'm already out-salting Lot's wife, contradictory statements for example are waving a red flag. That's on me. I don't mean this argument maliciously, and I want to emphasize that. I'm not trying to hurt or discredit any of you. My teammates and I feel hurt and discredited, and I'm trying to understand why. So far, nothing has been explained in terms that make sense to me. It seems like the words are being used wrong somewhere in this and instead of clearing that difference, I'm being told I'm the one that's wrong with what feels like a "so just shut up about it" subtext. It's extremely frustrating and demoralizing.

I'm going to take issue with your last bit, and it's because I think you're going to end up re-writing the rule again. This is why:

The way the rule is being interpreted, from where I'm sitting, it has three parts. The basis for the bonus, the season in which the bonus is indicated, and the season in which it is paid out and applied to cap. In this example, the bonus is based on S55, indicated for S56, and was meant to be paid in S57.

The way the rule is written, both previously and currently, there are two parts: the season in which the bonus is indicated, and the season in which it is paid out and applied to cap. In this case, it was indicated for S56 and meant to be paid for S57.

The issue I have with the rule as it is written is that it doesn't address what the bonus is meant to be paid for or what, other than declaration of payout, the season of indication is for. To me, the way I am understanding this, I could sign a contract with a bonus indicated for S60 that would apply in S61 that could be based on anything. It could, theoretically, be based on the number of hairs I had on my head as a toddler. It could be paid out based on a death save roll by my favorite D&D character (odds are slim on making it there).

If that is correct, it means, to me, that the error made was based on a misunderstanding of indication versus basis, and occurred due to the lack of definition between the two in the rule. Clarification on that difference would fix this in my mind.

Further, based on this differentiation between basis and indication, I still fail to see how the contracts were modified, which was the basis for the punishment. If "modification" as it was written in the initial punishment thread is the catch-all word for "you misinterpreted the rule because of the way it was written", I mean as good-naturedly as I can that there are better words for that. If it's not the catch-all word, then I don't understand why we were punished when there was no modification that I can tell to any contract; it was misinterpreted and followed according to the incorrect understanding of the rule. Either way, the precedent for misunderstanding and incorrectly following rules, as far as I know, is explanation and correction for parties involved. Why wasn't that followed?

The basis for the punishment was ONLY Rule C-6, that Toronto ended up playing 2M over the cap in season 57 due to the bonus correction. The mention of modification was only because the intent of what occurred would have required Toronto to enable a bonus to occur in the final season of a previous contract and payout in the first season of the new one, which is not allowed in the rulebook due to modifications of previously agreed to contracts being illegal. It is essentially impossible for a new contract to have a bonus on the cap in its first season. The modification rule is what prevents the intent of what Toronto did, but it is not what the punishment is being given for.

The rulebook currently breaks bonuses down into three components, as you said:

1 - bonus condition - as you said can literally be anything at anytime, there are no limitations on this aspect right now
2 - assigned season(s) - this is specified in the contract thread, usually a (*) or text, but THIS is what determines in what season(s) the bonus(es) is/are active and eligible to be met
3 - cap hit - will always be in the season following the assigned season(s) where a bonus is achieved

I agree the mistake was caused by a misunderstanding between the basis and indication, but there is nothing in the rulebook to support that if you indicate a season in a contract, the bonus can payout in any other season than the one following the one you indicated/agreed to with the player. Which is why there isn't really any way for us to do anything other than put the 2M on the S57 cap, as it was clearly marked for S56 in the contract.

What ML was doing with his contracts, if they were counted on the cap properly, would actually have been a really smart way to structure a bonus as you would know the outcome of the bonus a season earlier and be able to plan your other contracts with more visibility (bonus condition occurs in n-1 season, assigned to a contract in season n, cap hit in season n+1 vs. condition and assigned to season n, cap hit in season n+1). This is a structure which makes bonuses more viable for a lot of teams that probably could make greater use of bonuses to survive in the tight cap league that we have become.
Reply
#25

04-17-2021, 05:10 PMspooked Wrote: The basis for the punishment was ONLY Rule C-6, that Toronto ended up playing 2M over the cap in season 57 due to the bonus correction. The mention of modification was only because the intent of what occurred would have required Toronto to enable a bonus to occur in the final season of a previous contract and payout in the first season of the new one, which is not allowed in the rulebook due to modifications of previously agreed to contracts being illegal. It is essentially impossible for a new contract to have a bonus on the cap in its first season. The modification rule is what prevents the intent of what Toronto did, but it is not what the punishment is being given for.

The rulebook currently breaks bonuses down into three components, as you said:

1 - bonus condition - as you said can literally be anything at anytime, there are no limitations on this aspect right now
2 - assigned season(s) - this is specified in the contract thread, usually a (*) or text, but THIS is what determines in what season(s) the bonus(es) is/are active and eligible to be met
3 - cap hit - will always be in the season following the assigned season(s) where a bonus is achieved

I agree the mistake was caused by a misunderstanding between the basis and indication, but there is nothing in the rulebook to support that if you indicate a season in a contract, the bonus can payout in any other season than the one following the one you indicated/agreed to with the player. Which is why there isn't really any way for us to do anything other than put the 2M on the S57 cap, as it was clearly marked for S56 in the contract.

What ML was doing with his contracts, if they were counted on the cap properly, would actually have been a really smart way to structure a bonus as you would know the outcome of the bonus a season earlier and be able to plan your other contracts with more visibility (bonus condition occurs in n-1 season, assigned to a contract in season n, cap hit in season n+1 vs. condition and assigned to season n, cap hit in season n+1). This is a structure which makes bonuses more viable for a lot of teams that probably could make greater use of bonuses to survive in the tight cap league that we have become.

Okay, my understanding of the issue was broken due to using the word modification instead of misuse. Thank you for clarifying. Thank you for also agreeing that it's a three piece rule. I disagree, however, that the rulebook adequately breaks it down into three actual pieces, and feel very strongly that it should be revised to add the third piece directly or there will be a team that makes this mistake moving forward by getting the three pieces mixed up.

On the subject of the rulebook supporting indication of a season in a contract and paying out any other season, I don't think that the misunderstanding in question is exactly that. The indicated season was wrong. Got it now, that's how bonuses are intended to work. The misunderstanding here was in taking season of indication to also be the season of pay out and cap hit at n+1, and season of basis to be the part of the bonus that needs to come at n. I base this on 1) having been in Toronto and partial to some parts of the talks at the time, and 2) being in Toronto and watching all of the things that have come out in the last week that support this line of thought. I'm not intending to be snarky, but did you ask anyone involved with any of this-- ml, Ursin, Dex, Honks-- what they intended to do or what they thought they were doing with those contracts before considering punishment? I think that would have clearly put this from the realm of conspiracy and loopholes into the realm of misunderstanding without a shade of doubt.

You say we stumbled on a loophole. I admit, I'm heckin' dumb at loopholes and much rather find and argue what the text is saying we can do rather than what it isn't, so I'm just going to take your word that it works like that. We found this loophole on accident through what we thought was doing the right thing three seasons ago. It was paid out according to misunderstanding of the rule that cleared four people directly involved, plus the rest of us in the room that pay attention to contracts, plus anybody else that's supposed to check over contracts.

We honestly thought in reading the rule and contracts as they were written that we had proper understanding and application. Turns out, we didn't and it's caused a rightful inquiry and re-visiting of bonus rules. The last time I saw somebody have a misunderstanding that led to a rule change, the punishment was reversed because it was an easily-fixed misunderstanding. It changed how draft picks are labelled in trades in order to correctly designate reddit picks versus protections and which seasons are applicable. This is similarly an easy fix for a misunderstanding and the case for punishment is further weakened by the length of time since the error was made.

I'll agree that we messed up. I disagree that we did so knowingly or in bad faith. Punishing our team to the point that we've lost two players does not fit the incident as it happened. If we were actually intending to abuse a loophole, I'd lay down and accept this as just desserts. I know in my heart and mind that the intent you've punished us for isn't there.

[Image: olivercastillon.gif]



Thanks @enigmatic, @Carpy48, @Bayley, @Ragnar, @sulovilen, & @dasboot for the signatures!



Reply
#26

04-17-2021, 10:46 PMCapt_Blitzkrieg Wrote: I'll agree that we messed up. I disagree that we did so knowingly or in bad faith. Punishing our team to the point that we've lost two players does not fit the incident as it happened. If we were actually intending to abuse a loophole, I'd lay down and accept this as just desserts. I know in my heart and mind that the intent you've punished us for isn't there.
This is the fundamental issue for me. Toronto gained no competitive advantage from paying out the bonus a season earlier. The bonus was offered and paid because the team had spare cap that wouldn't have been used otherwise. If they had been told that by writing the contract in the way they had that the bonus would have been paid in S56 rather than S57, then they could've just paid the proposed bonuses as S56 salary - because that's where the spare cap was - or not paid them. There's no "gotcha" moment here. A poorly written and explained rule was interpreted in an understandable way, as has already been recognised.

HO should be working to make the league more enjoyable for its users. Forcing a team to trade away its players (and yes, "forcing" is appropriate because multiple alternatives were presented to HO and all were denied) because of a harmless misunderstanding is not enjoyable. Rules are important because they give structure that makes the league better, not because they are rules. If the rules conflict with basic common sense, the solution isn't to say 'rules are rules' and levy punishment.

[Image: sink.png]
[Image: Screenshot_2021-04-12_000020.png]
Reply
#27

Makes sense to me

[Image: premierbromanov.gif]




Fuck the penaltys
ARGARGARHARG
[Image: EePsAwN.png][Image: sXDU6JX.png][Image: eaex9S1.png]
Reply
#28

04-18-2021, 07:21 AMMemento Mori Wrote: Rules are important because they give structure that makes the league better, not because they are rules. If the rules conflict with basic common sense, the solution isn't to say 'rules are rules' and levy punishment.
This is the best take I have ever seen in a sim league punishment thread

[Image: kBkNrmu.png]
Armada Aurora
Reply
#29

04-18-2021, 07:21 AMMemento Mori Wrote:
04-17-2021, 10:46 PMCapt_Blitzkrieg Wrote: I'll agree that we messed up. I disagree that we did so knowingly or in bad faith. Punishing our team to the point that we've lost two players does not fit the incident as it happened. If we were actually intending to abuse a loophole, I'd lay down and accept this as just desserts. I know in my heart and mind that the intent you've punished us for isn't there.
This is the fundamental issue for me. Toronto gained no competitive advantage from paying out the bonus a season earlier. The bonus was offered and paid because the team had spare cap that wouldn't have been used otherwise. If they had been told that by writing the contract in the way they had that the bonus would have been paid in S56 rather than S57, then they could've just paid the proposed bonuses as S56 salary - because that's where the spare cap was - or not paid them. There's no "gotcha" moment here. A poorly written and explained rule was interpreted in an understandable way, as has already been recognised.

HO should be working to make the league more enjoyable for its users. Forcing a team to trade away its players (and yes, "forcing" is appropriate because multiple alternatives were presented to HO and all were denied) because of a harmless misunderstanding is not enjoyable. Rules are important because they give structure that makes the league better, not because they are rules. If the rules conflict with basic common sense, the solution isn't to say 'rules are rules' and levy punishment.

I think being more subjective about rules is a step in the wrong direction. Rules, laws are written and enforced to give us that structure, but deciding when and where to enforce them sort of defeats the purpose. Intent is irrelevant. Whether or not it helped them is irrelevant. What's important is establishing precedent for the enforcement of rules. And, to do away with playing favorites and other exploitable endeavors. I mean, would this be fair to so many other "small mistakes" that are punished and enforced? The budget team gets punished for not catching it, so why not TOR?

[Image: premierbromanov.gif]




Fuck the penaltys
ARGARGARHARG
[Image: EePsAwN.png][Image: sXDU6JX.png][Image: eaex9S1.png]
Reply
#30

04-18-2021, 07:21 AMMemento Mori Wrote:
04-17-2021, 10:46 PMCapt_Blitzkrieg Wrote: I'll agree that we messed up. I disagree that we did so knowingly or in bad faith. Punishing our team to the point that we've lost two players does not fit the incident as it happened. If we were actually intending to abuse a loophole, I'd lay down and accept this as just desserts. I know in my heart and mind that the intent you've punished us for isn't there.
This is the fundamental issue for me. Toronto gained no competitive advantage from paying out the bonus a season earlier. The bonus was offered and paid because the team had spare cap that wouldn't have been used otherwise. If they had been told that by writing the contract in the way they had that the bonus would have been paid in S56 rather than S57, then they could've just paid the proposed bonuses as S56 salary - because that's where the spare cap was - or not paid them. There's no "gotcha" moment here. A poorly written and explained rule was interpreted in an understandable way, as has already been recognised.

HO should be working to make the league more enjoyable for its users. Forcing a team to trade away its players (and yes, "forcing" is appropriate because multiple alternatives were presented to HO and all were denied) because of a harmless misunderstanding is not enjoyable. Rules are important because they give structure that makes the league better, not because they are rules. If the rules conflict with basic common sense, the solution isn't to say 'rules are rules' and levy punishment.

HO has gone through the motions of these posts multiple times, I am not sure what more is possible to say.

We don't ever want to punish teams, if there was never a reason to punish a team that would be awesome, but we reduced the penalty already by HALF (down to roughly 2% of the cap) when we did not need to if we just wanted to blindly follow the rulebook. One of the primary people responsible for missing the cap issue this long is also directly involved. HO had no control over the timing we learned of the problem, that falls on the budget director, who is on the team and their contract is part of the problem. We reduced the cap penalty in order to not overly punish the team, and especially so as to not damage the active SHL roster, which is not within the rules at all for cap penalties. And it is even more unfortunate that Toronto already had self-created a cap problem that forced a trade with Seattle, which HO held up until the penalty was figured out so that the trade or other roster moves could be made in the full context of the cap situation.

At no point in this whole process was HO happy or following the rulebook without question, it was a mess for us to figure out how to handle this, but we cannot just outright ignore the cap rules entirely for Toronto just because they are tight to the cap or because it was probably a mistake.

Let me ask you a question, if the budget director misses a problem with his own contract and his own teams budget, is it common sense to ignore the team going over the cap just cause we did not get told by that user when it happened? To me that is a very tricky question, but I am interested to know your take on it from that perspective.
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)




Navigation

 

Extra Menu

 

About us

The Simulation Hockey League is a free online forums based sim league where you create your own fantasy hockey player. Join today and create your player, become a GM, get drafted, sign contracts, make trades and compete against hundreds of players from around the world.