+- International Simulation Football League (https://forums.sim-football.com)
+-- Forum: Announcements (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=495)
+--- Forum: Announcements (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=32)
+---- Forum: Head Office Announcements (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=230)
+----- Forum: Rules Summit (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=518)
+----- Thread: S40 Rule Summit Results (/showthread.php?tid=43839)
S40 Rule Summit Results - DarknessRising - 02-18-2023
Good morning, afternoon, evening and night! End of off-season means rule summit time .
In another joyous year, we all three ballots, DSFL, ISFL and Universal Ballot, this season to cover so lets get into that.
DSFL
The DSFL Ballot consisted of 2 proposals. The voting party consisted of 13 members (8 DSFL teams, 4 DSFL HO members, 1 owner) With 13 voting members, 10 votes were required for a rule to pass (>70%).
Proposal 1 - Players created and approved after the pre-draft starts, but before it ends are to be be held and posted to GMs all together upon the conclusion of the pre-draft with the standard waiver clearing period. GMs are not to be asked to make any waiver claims while the draft is ongoing.
11 For - 2 Against
Rule Passes
Proposal 2 - Change rule VII C.2.c from:
"If a team has 2 or more 200+ TPE call ups, they will be eligible to add extra GM bots to their team."
to
"If a team has 2 or more 100+ TPE call ups, they will be eligible to add extra GM bots to their team."
12 For - 1 Against
Rule Passes
ISFL
The ISFL Ballot consisted of 3 proposals. The voting party consisted of 24 members (14 ISFL teams, 9 ISFL HO members, 1 owner). As a result, 17 votes were required for a rule to pass (>70%).
Proposal 1 - Create two new variations on the Salary Adjustment (SA) clause - their names can be decided when implemented by HO & Budget team but I will propose "Upwards Adjustment" and "Downwards Adjustment":
- Upwards Adjustment: Clause that automatically adjusts a player’s salary to whatever TPE bracket they sit in, with the exception that the salary cannot decrease below the amount specified in the contract. This adjustment takes place after regression has been completed in the offseason.
- Downwards Adjustment: Clause that automatically adjusts a player’s salary to whatever TPE bracket they sit in, with the exception that the salary cannot increase above the amount specified in the contract. This adjustment takes place after regression has been completed in the offseason.
15 For - 9 Against
Rule Does Not Pass
Proposal 2 - Modify III.F.3 to codify that IA contracts cannot contain any options or clauses, from:
"Contract offers to inactive players must be marked as 'IA' when posting and must be only 1 season in length. When 48 hours has passed since posting the IA offer, the contract is considered accepted and will be processed."
to
"Contract offers to inactive players must be marked as 'IA' when posting and must be only 1 season in length. These contracts may not include any options or clauses (including Salary Adjustment). When 48 hours has passed since posting the IA offer, the contract is considered accepted and will be processed."
24 For - 0 Against
Rule Passes
Proposal 3 - Update III.F.8.c to explicitly handle IA bids identically to IA contracts, from:
" If 24 hours pass with no additional bids, then the player is awarded to the team with the highest bid."
to
"If 24 hours pass with no additional bids, then the player is signed to an inactive contract by the team that placed the highest bid. Contracts offered in this way must otherwise conform to the rules for inactive contracts established in III.F, with the exception that the waiting period for IA bids is 24 hours instead of 48 hours."
23 For - 1 Against
Rule Passes
UNIVERSAL
The Universal Ballot consisted of 4 proposals. The voting party consisted of 36members (14 ISFL teams, 8 DSFL teams, 9 ISFL HO members, 4 DSFL HO members, 1 owner). As a result, 26 votes were required for a rule to pass (>70%).
Proposal 1 - Modify IX.C.1.a to:
"a. Takes place in an official league owned or league affiliated space, including but not limited to:
- General chat
- Rookie chat
- Management chat
- Forums
- Affiliate league chats and forums
34 For - 2 Against
Rule Passes
Proposal 2 - Add as an additional clause to the Emergency Rule Summit the following:
"A super-majority (2/3) of teams as well as the league owner and appeals head must also vote to suspend or ban the user."
16 For - 20 Against
Rule Does Not Pass
Proposal 3 - Teams may not vote for their own GMs for General Manager of the Year in user award voting
22 For - 14 Against
Rule Does Not Pass
Proposal 4 -Simplify the process around MVP/OPotY/DPotY and make the MVP ballot be a combination of OP and DPotY.
25 For - 11 Against
Rule Does Not Pass
Alright that is all the proposals across the ballots and in summary
- DSFL Proposals 1 and 2 passes and will be implemented in the following season (S41)
- ISFL Proposals 2 and 3 passes and will be implemented in the following season (S41)
- Universal Proposal 1 passes and due to its concerning the governing nature of this league, and HO's ability to protect our league spaces from unwanted individuals, will be implemented immediately.
As always, any suggested rule changes or proposals can be brought up to any GM or HO member, as well as posted in the forum or discord suggestion boxes, or even as media/discussion posts as we will always montior these areas and be made aware of their existence.
That is all from me, enjoy the weekend!
RE: S40 Rule Summit Results - domffl - 02-18-2023
neat
RE: S40 Rule Summit Results - g2019 - 02-18-2023
Seems like some pretty common sense proposals didn't pass...I'd be curious to hear some rationale on those, as maybe I'm missing something.
RE: S40 Rule Summit Results - DarknessRising - 02-18-2023
(02-18-2023, 10:26 AM)g2019 Wrote: Seems like some pretty common sense proposals didn't pass...I'd be curious to hear some rationale on those, as maybe I'm missing something.
Which Proposals would you like to hear on?
RE: S40 Rule Summit Results - Troen - 02-18-2023
(02-18-2023, 10:15 AM)DarknessRising Wrote: GMs are not to be asked to make any waiver claims while the draft is ongoing.
Is that sentence correct? I'd think from context that it should read "GMs are asked to not make any waiver claims while the draft is ongoing". Or is the not fine there because the intention is that you can't place a claim on the created players who are being held? Though I'm not a GM so maybe it's sufficiently clear to them.
RE: S40 Rule Summit Results - Thor - 02-18-2023
(02-18-2023, 02:53 PM)Troen Wrote:(02-18-2023, 10:15 AM)DarknessRising Wrote: GMs are not to be asked to make any waiver claims while the draft is ongoing.
Is that sentence correct? I'd think from context that it should read "GMs are asked to not make any waiver claims while the draft is ongoing". Or is the not fine there because the intention is that you can't place a claim on the created players who are being held? Though I'm not a GM so maybe it's sufficiently clear to them.
I can speak to this as the person who proposed it, it essentially just doubles down on the first element of the rule, with waivers being held until after the pre-draft finishes GMs won't be able to make claims on the players until they're posted anyway.
The aim was to ensure that while DSFL GMs are busy with the draft, any waivers will be postponed until afterwards, and since the waiver creates that fall into this category are announced at the conclusion of the draft stream anyway, it won't affect the timing of when they're announced.
To give context, during this 116 user draft class we were also having to process and claim players through waivers, which has only begun happening more recently. For those players GMs then had 24 hours mid-draft to decide on claiming them. This rule rolls that back and ensures that it's not posted at the whim of whoever is processing the waivers, but at a designated time after the busiest part of a DSFL GMs pre-season.