(03-31-2021, 10:17 PM)DarknessRising Wrote:

(03-31-2021, 10:09 PM)TeyonSchavari Wrote: From the perspective of former HO - I get what goes on behind closed doors. You start investigating something, you start to see how big it is, and then from there you start to see more than there probably is and develop your own bias. It happens. And I know in my stint I did exactly that and it made me very unforgiving on cases that I would likely not have cared much about if I hadn't been in HO and voted on the harshest outcomes on cases that I probably should have been more forgiving on. So I fully understand *why* HO made this decision. And given the evidence a punishment was justified in my opinion.

However, I do disagree with the severity of this particular punishment. To me, a fine and a probationary period would have sufficed with a warning to run a tighter ship. Being a department head should come with some level of autonomy and the ability to make judgment calls, and when the judgment starts to get out of line hit em with this first before going to the extreme of firing them. 

Thats just my take on it. I'm not gonna get all emotional and yell Heck HO and call all their work bad based a couple decisions. I do still believe they are trying to do whats best for this league and its silly to think they did this just to swing their stick around. Lets hope appeals overturns this and that if they don't, more evidence is provided publicly to justify the decision.

Firstly, GM's just got a viewable version of the raw data we pulled so that's a step in the right direction.

Secondly, this has shown again the importance of needing to define what a head can and cant do at their discression. This and the Graphics rule summit has lead to us working out ways to define this. A first draft has come up in light of this


1) Valid rule proposals encompass anything which would require a change to the ISFL/DSFL rulebook if passed
2) It is at HO's discretion as to what does and what does not merit inclusion in the rulebook
3) "changes regarding money or tpe need ho approval"

Im putting this out there so people know where this is at and that this is another step in the right direction that has been taken

(03-31-2021, 10:29 PM)scorycory Wrote: Taking the power away from the heads and giving it back to HO where it belongs, a true people's warrior

(03-31-2021, 10:29 PM)scorycory Wrote:

(03-31-2021, 10:17 PM)DarknessRising Wrote:

(03-31-2021, 10:09 PM)TeyonSchavari Wrote: From the perspective of former HO - I get what goes on behind closed doors. You start investigating something, you start to see how big it is, and then from there you start to see more than there probably is and develop your own bias. It happens. And I know in my stint I did exactly that and it made me very unforgiving on cases that I would likely not have cared much about if I hadn't been in HO and voted on the harshest outcomes on cases that I probably should have been more forgiving on. So I fully understand *why* HO made this decision. And given the evidence a punishment was justified in my opinion.

However, I do disagree with the severity of this particular punishment. To me, a fine and a probationary period would have sufficed with a warning to run a tighter ship. Being a department head should come with some level of autonomy and the ability to make judgment calls, and when the judgment starts to get out of line hit em with this first before going to the extreme of firing them. 

Thats just my take on it. I'm not gonna get all emotional and yell Heck HO and call all their work bad based a couple decisions. I do still believe they are trying to do whats best for this league and its silly to think they did this just to swing their stick around. Lets hope appeals overturns this and that if they don't, more evidence is provided publicly to justify the decision.

Firstly, GM's just got a viewable version of the raw data we pulled so that's a step in the right direction.

Secondly, this has shown again the importance of needing to define what a head can and cant do at their discression. This and the Graphics rule summit has lead to us working out ways to define this. A first draft has come up in light of this


1) Valid rule proposals encompass anything which would require a change to the ISFL/DSFL rulebook if passed
2) It is at HO's discretion as to what does and what does not merit inclusion in the rulebook
3) "changes regarding money or tpe need ho approval"

Im putting this out there so people know where this is at and that this is another step in the right direction that has been taken

Taking the power away from the heads and giving it back to HO where it belongs, a true people's warrior

(03-31-2021, 10:15 PM)timeconsumer Wrote:

(03-31-2021, 09:36 PM)Bigred1580 Wrote: It was a different time back then, when heads were allowed to be heads.  I made a lot of decisions on my own back then and never thought they would be audited like this.  My decisions were made with the leagues best interests at heart.  And I stand by them.

I also used to have an agreement with @iamslm22 that if I forgot to submit my weekly predictions before we watched the sims together that morning I would just copy whatever he had submitted earlier. And if he forgot he would copy my predictions. I don't remember what our agreement was if we both forgot, I think it was that we would both select all home teams but I'm not sure if that ever happened or not.

Anyways one day @Trautner messaged me all confused "dude you submitted predictions after you already simmed this morning, what gives?" and I tell him "Oh yeah no big deal slm and I have a thing going it's all on the up and up" and traut is like "uhhhhhhh....no. we're just gonna go ahead and stop that shit right now."

And that's why simmers don't do prediction TPE anymore.

(03-31-2021, 10:51 PM)MrStennett Wrote: Why does important information about what actually happened and what was done only ever come out after a near riot. This “data” that was collected should be available to the general user base. If HO really was “doing what is in our best interest” then prove it by showing us how delinquent Kya was at her job. I for one can say I’m not grading the offseason PT because all the questions about transparency will give me a laughing fit.