+- International Simulation Football League (https://forums.sim-football.com)
+-- Forum: Community (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Media (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+---- Forum: Graded Articles (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=38)
+---- Thread: *DSFL HO Sux Lmap (/showthread.php?tid=28363)
RE: DSFL HO Sux Lmap - Memento Mori - 12-22-2020
(12-22-2020, 03:36 AM)37thchamber Wrote: I don't know about you guys but it sounds to me like a player's union could be of some value in situations like this *sips tea*This is honestly what I was thinking about when appeals said that no, DSFL HO could change WBF’s position if they wanted.
RE: DSFL HO Sux Lmap - infinitempg - 12-22-2020
(12-22-2020, 08:31 PM)Memento Mori Wrote: This is honestly what I was thinking about when appeals said that no, DSFL HO could change WBF’s position if they wanted.
one step closer to my fever dream of total and complete league anarchy
RE: *DSFL HO Sux Lmap - AdamS - 12-23-2020
"One (1) time per career a player may choose to switch positions. If a player chooses to switch to a new position they must have their GM post in the ISFL GM area that the player is officially switching positions."
The GM does not posses power in that writing. The player does. The player is who is listed as choosing. The player is who is listed as being required to have their GM post it. The language of the rule puts power and/or responsibility explicitly in the player's hands. To say the rule states the GM must sign off is just not accurate to me because it does not actually state that. It's not even there for any reason of power. It's there because position switches are in the GM section that players cant see. It's there for functionality.
I have never in 3+ years seen that line in that rule interpreted to mean that GMs have an active control on a player's position switch. I can't even remember seeing it discussed. This is both not a good development and in my opinion, explicitly at odds with how the rule is actually written, what it's intent was, and the good of the league.
On top of that I guess it didn't take long for houses to be turned into cheap condos.
Assuming this is all accurate.
RE: *DSFL HO Sux Lmap - WannabeFinn - 12-23-2020
(12-23-2020, 07:05 AM)AdamS Wrote: "One (1) time per career a player may choose to switch positions. If a player chooses to switch to a new position they must have their GM post in the ISFL GM area that the player is officially switching positions."bröther Adam
The GM does not posses power in that writing. The player does. The player is who is listed as choosing. The player is who is listed as being required to have their GM post it. The language of the rule puts power and/or responsibility explicitly in the player's hands. To say the rule states the GM must sign off is just not accurate to me because it does not actually state that. It's not even there for any reason of power. It's there because position switches are in the GM section that players cant see. It's there for functionality.
I have never in 3+ years seen that line in that rule interpreted to mean that GMs have an active control on a player's position switch. I can't even remember seeing it discussed. This is both not a good development and in my opinion, explicitly at odds with how the rule is actually written, what it's intent was, and the good of the league.
On top of that I guess it didn't take long for houses to be turned into cheap condos.
Assuming this is all accurate.
RE: DSFL HO Sux Lmap - .simo - 12-23-2020
(12-22-2020, 02:50 PM)zaynzk Wrote:(12-22-2020, 03:36 AM)37thchamber Wrote: I don't know about you guys but it sounds to me like a player's union could be of some value in situations like this *sips tea*
can we unionize? Sounds like a good idea to get some power back to the users
This but seriously. The players are the largest group here which includes literally everyone. This game should be run always with the best intentions for the players.
RE: *DSFL HO Sux Lmap - Memento Mori - 12-23-2020
(12-23-2020, 07:05 AM)AdamS Wrote: "One (1) time per career a player may choose to switch positions. If a player chooses to switch to a new position they must have their GM post in the ISFL GM area that the player is officially switching positions."Put it better than I could.
The GM does not posses power in that writing. The player does. The player is who is listed as choosing. The player is who is listed as being required to have their GM post it. The language of the rule puts power and/or responsibility explicitly in the player's hands. To say the rule states the GM must sign off is just not accurate to me because it does not actually state that. It's not even there for any reason of power. It's there because position switches are in the GM section that players cant see. It's there for functionality.
I have never in 3+ years seen that line in that rule interpreted to mean that GMs have an active control on a player's position switch. I can't even remember seeing it discussed. This is both not a good development and in my opinion, explicitly at odds with how the rule is actually written, what it's intent was, and the good of the league.
On top of that I guess it didn't take long for houses to be turned into cheap condos.
Assuming this is all accurate.
Hence my point about players needing to put options in their contract/give themselves other kinds of protection if this is the precedent now, the team would get heat for it but there's nothing stopping (for example) me deciding I want to position switch, the OCO GMs blocking it and then saying "we're not going to trade you and we're going to play you at CB until the end of your contract". The precedent this ruling sets is really anti-player.
RE: *DSFL HO Sux Lmap - Attopax - 12-24-2020
(12-20-2020, 05:06 PM)Memento Mori Wrote: Our appeal was rejected by the appeals team, setting the precedent that your GM can veto your position switch if they want. Again, this hasn’t been made public, and one of the reasons I wanted to write this is so that people are aware just how little control they actually have over their own player’s career.
@AdamS @Memento Mori
Correction on this, and I'll amend the Appeals Team post to reflect this:
There are a few interpretations of the rule that could be reached through logical means. The interpretation that the ISFL team can't "approve" or "deny" the position switch is certainly one of them.
To be clear, Appeals Team didn't uphold the interpretation on whether a GM can "approve" or "deny" a DSFL position switch. The simple fact of the matter is even if the rule interpretation is that ISFL GMs only need to be told so they can post it.... even that didn't happen. So, either way... the rules weren't followed, so the same outcome is reached which is why their decision is upheld.
RE: *DSFL HO Sux Lmap - AdamS - 12-24-2020
So in layman's terms, the appeals team position is "we're staying the fuck out of this, leave us alone".
Perfectly reasonable.
RE: *DSFL HO Sux Lmap - Attopax - 12-24-2020
(12-24-2020, 01:33 AM)AdamS Wrote: So in layman's terms, the appeals team position is "we're staying the fuck out of this, leave us alone".
Perfectly reasonable.
In layman's terms, we deal with particular cases, not generalized grievances. In its history, appeals team tended to stay out of appeals unrelated to a punishment post. Now, we have started to expand to accepting appeals that are unrelated to punishments because of the effect on the league, among other criteria. We have no problem tackling the issue head on, but when the appealing team and player managed to resolve the ongoing issue with a trade, the effect on the league is now minimal.
While I originally drafted a longer response here, I am not the head of the team, and I don't feel comfortable speaking on behalf of the team outside of speaking about the decision that was made. So, I'll leave it at that.
RE: *DSFL HO Sux Lmap - Memento Mori - 12-24-2020
(12-24-2020, 12:42 AM)Attopax Wrote:Appreciate the clarity on this and I’ll amend the original post to include your clarification on the appeals ruling.(12-20-2020, 05:06 PM)Memento Mori Wrote: Our appeal was rejected by the appeals team, setting the precedent that your GM can veto your position switch if they want. Again, this hasn’t been made public, and one of the reasons I wanted to write this is so that people are aware just how little control they actually have over their own player’s career.
@AdamS @Memento Mori
Correction on this, and I'll amend the Appeals Team post to reflect this:
There are a few interpretations of the rule that could be reached through logical means. The interpretation that the ISFL team can't "approve" or "deny" the position switch is certainly one of them.
To be clear, Appeals Team didn't uphold the interpretation on whether a GM can "approve" or "deny" a DSFL position switch. The simple fact of the matter is even if the rule interpretation is that ISFL GMs only need to be told so they can post it.... even that didn't happen. So, either way... the rules weren't followed, so the same outcome is reached which is why their decision is upheld.
However I would like to point out that DSFL HO’s interpretation of the rule was the thing we specifically appealed. I find it quite disappointing that this wasn’t considered as I guess that means the precedent that DSFL HO set has been unchallenged and the points Adam and I made about GMs being able to hold players hostage appear to apply.