+- 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: *Rule Voting from a GM's Perspective (/showthread.php?tid=6414)
*Rule Voting from a GM's Perspective - AdamS - 12-12-2017
A lot of you have been very vocal about the rules votes and other front office type info and I thought this would be a great time to both provide a small bit of insight into what the changes could be and what my person votes are. I'm not gonna tell you who else might've voted for whatever. It's their right and privilege to keep quiet about all of that. In fact I waited until most had already voted so as not to create a a situation where votes get influenced. I'm also not gonna tell you which ones will or won't pass because that's someone else's job and those two things a quick way for things like this to be more secretive. What I'll give you is my opinion as a player and GM. Without further ado.
1)Team budgets must show entire player contracts and all clauses , failure to do so results in a cap punishment the following season.
I voted yes.
I very strongly believe that this info should be both public and easily accessible. I also believe that intentionally or not, it's been difficult at times for people to figure out who is and is not a free agent or what a team's salary actually looks like. There's no reason for that.
2)The RFA tag stands as it is, but can only be applied to a player that was drafted by your team and at the conclusion of their rookie contract. If the player signs an extension as a rookie, then the RFA tag does not apply.
I voted yes.
Despite all the sturm and drag, this is a GOOD rule. It helps teams keep the players they drafted for longer. Or at least, it helps teams retain value for their picks for more time. Hell, I'd add a compensation pick like the NFL uses for a team that does sign your RFA. I'll most likely be suggesting this next offseason. Yes, sometimes drama comes form this, especially when a player seems to purposely make themselves unpalatable to the team that holds the rights, only to find that plan thwarted. But things like that come from friction between individual team leaders and players. Some won't agree. I get that. But it exists both in real life, and here for a reason. The conditions that apply to it are a great way to curb any abuse that could come up and realistically if a player really wanted to avoid being too entangled they could just only accept 1 season deals as a RFA.
3)Change Maximum Contract Lengths
Tier 1-2 (50-399 TPE) maximum of 3 year contract
Tier 3-4 (400-799 TPE) Maximum of 4 year contract
Tier 5-6 (800+ TPE) Maximum of 6 year contract
I voted yes.
Basically, I saw nothing wrong with this and it allows teams to lock up their best players.
4)If an upcoming free agent becomes inactive during the offseason free agency period, that player's original team has 24 hours to sign him to an inactive contract. If they decide not to sign him, that player goes into waivers.
I voted yes.
If a player goes inactive, the original team should get first crack at him. That makes perfect sense to me. The only counter I can see is that it might be against the player's wishes, but they went inactive so their wishes kinda don't matter anymore. That's the nature of things.
5)An expansion team must retain all picks in their inaugural draft. This is to prevent a Legion type situation where they trade all of their draft picks in an attempt to build fast. This would not prevent them from trading picks after that draft. If a new team joins in season 6, they must retain all picks for s6, but can trade picks for s7 and s8. They can trade any picks acquired via this method, such as if they get a s6 pick from the Outlaws, they can then trade that pick to someone else for a different pick.
I voted no.
I am generally going to be voting against things that restrict teams from having maximum value to improve themselves. People are going to get things wrong sometimes. That happens. Punishing everyone to make sure that one doesn't get it too too too wrong is...unnecessary to me.
6)If a mass retirement of a team happens, the retiring players are kept as bots for 2 seasons after retirement, could also implement a tpe earning rule for it as if they were semi-active if gms agreed. Also any players who participate in a mass retirement are fined 50% of their bank. Mass retirement is 5 or more players, where clear intentions are to hurt the team/league in some way.
I voted yes.
Simply put, in extreme scenarios such as this one, people specifically took their players out of the player pool with the express desire to hurt the team. Retiring instead of just going inactive has that effect and that effect alone for people who initially were intent on leaving completely. Fuck. That. At some point I'm gonna argue that the number to qualify should be 3 instead of 5. Three is a number that can swing a team heavily. And that's the bottom line here. The effect on a team is MASSIVE and takes significant time and resources to fix when and if it happens.
7)GLACIES/SOLIS > NSFC CHAMPIONSHIP/ASFC CHAMPIONSHIP
I voted yes.
Being real, those names mean nothing to me and they mean nothing to most players coming to the league. Making the names more general to the conference is a much better idea for now. One of the things I immediately made clear is that in the future when the right kind of legends had retired, I would be making a push to name the appropriate conference trophies after them. This is the way I think it ought to be. Well that and I need to personally bust my ass to make sure the AFSC Trophy becomes the King Bronko Trophy instead of the Mike Boss Trophy. :ph34r:
8)Dynamic contract scaling: If a player signs a contract for minimum at 399 tpe, when he passes 400 tpe in that season he will then automatically be moved to the 400TPE minimum contract amount for the upcoming season.
I voted no.
Simply put, I'm not in favor of altering contracts during the life of the contract. I'm also not in favor of moves whose sole goal is to hurt teams that have success with building players, which is the entire goal for this rule. I also made clear that my feeling on this and any related matter going forward Is that our focus should be to find ways to incentivize improvement for teams that aren't succeeding. If you focus on things like this potential rule YOU'RE PUNISHING SUCCESS INSTEAD. That's not a way to encourage players and teams to try to be better. And the elague only gets better if we're trying to BE better. This isn't that.
9)Raise HO pay to 10m
I voted yes.
Now that I've been in and around what they do regularly, I fully agree with this. They do a ton of work you never see and it's no coincidence that the turnover rate has been astronomical. In the words of John Malcovich in Rounders "Pay kthat mahn hees moneey!"
10)Job heads self-reported progress/goals at beginning and end of season
I voted yes.
Self starting is a big deal and I like to give the freedom to do your thing when possible.
11)Teams must submit player # list before season start / no duplications.
I voted yes.
The number duplication thing isn't a big deal per se. But it's big part of realism. I frankly think assigned numbers should've happened before now and should be a big deal for teams. I intend to make a thing out of it for my guys.
12)Teams must submit ALL team contracts and lengths (DSFL AND NSFL)
I voted yes.
Same as the rule above, but with more focus on things like inactive contracts, DSFL contracts, etc. Same reasoning. This info should be public and easily accessible.
13)Team DC's and Strategies will be invisible to other teams. Deadline will still apply.
I voted yes.
Teams should operate under fog of war. We're competing. I shouldn't know my oppponent's strategy going into the game. I'm not really sure why this wasn't already a thing. Hell the only thing that I can see changing form this is the deadline coming later to accommodate the GMs who are night owls, or the schedule shift for those who have vastly different time zones than most of the league. Just in case you don't think this is all that important, I'll remind you that this last part applies to the Commissioner right now (Ireland) and a current GM on leave (New Zealand). Realistically, the 3 hours between myself and some of the other GMs is a big enough deal for that kind of change. I expect this might be my other rule change suggestion next offseason.
14)Change TD name to Pit of Misery
I voted yes.
Dilly Dilly.
15)Stepien Rule RFFO Rule/Cant trade successive first round picks. A team cannot trade away their first round picks in successive drafts unless they get a first round pick in return.
I voted no.
As before, I want to give teams freedom. This restricts that freedom based on a fear and the misguided idea that a first round draft pick has some strong meaning in this league. It doesn't. And teams should have the ability to run their affairs to their best benefit. This rule would not allow for that. It would once again punish those who succeed while still not really helping those who don't.
Well, there it is. My thoughts on the potential rule changes and a fair bit of info into what you can expect from me as GM going forward. I'm also going to continue with the "in character" version from time to time because I feel like the GM characters have been sorely lacking in a world full of players and media personalities. I'm still accepting applications for Co GM.
Code:
1723GRADED
*Rule Voting from a GM's Perspective - Squamish - 12-12-2017
Want a cookie?
*Rule Voting from a GM's Perspective - run_CMC - 12-12-2017
Thanks for making this; it’s nice to have some insight into the system.
*Rule Voting from a GM's Perspective - ADwyer87 - 12-12-2017
smh
*Rule Voting from a GM's Perspective - bovovovo - 12-12-2017
(12-12-2017, 05:06 AM)AdamS Wrote:3)Change Maximum Contract Lengths
Tier 1-2 (50-399 TPE) maximum of 3 year contract
Tier 3-4 (400-799 TPE) Maximum of 4 year contract
Tier 5-6 (800+ TPE) Maximum of 6 year contract
I voted yes.
Basically, I saw nothing wrong with this and it allows teams to lock up their best players.
My worry with this is that it may limit FA if people are signing longer contracts, and having an active FA period is what helps with league parity
Thanks for posting your thoughts though :cheers:
*Rule Voting from a GM's Perspective - timeconsumer - 12-12-2017
(12-12-2017, 12:06 PM)bovovovo Wrote:My worry with this is that it may limit FA if people are signing longer contracts, and having an active FA period is what helps with league parity
Thanks for posting your thoughts though :cheers:
I think the kind of player willing to sign a maximum length contract with no option is usually the kind of player who will likely not pursue free agency anyway.
*Rule Voting from a GM's Perspective - Oles - 12-12-2017
(12-12-2017, 11:17 AM)timeconsumer Wrote:I think the kind of player willing to sign a maximum length contract with no option is usually the kind of player who will likely not pursue free agency anyway.
Completely agree, most people who will sign a contract like this have no desire to leave the team, and are typically taking low money deals with it to help the team.
*Rule Voting from a GM's Perspective - RavensFanFromOntario - 12-12-2017
If HO is making 10m, we can hold them to a far higher standard of accountability I'm hoping?
*Rule Voting from a GM's Perspective - White Cornerback - 12-12-2017
(12-13-2017, 01:31 AM)RavensFanFromOntario Wrote:If HO is making 10m, we can hold them to a far higher standard of accountability I'm hoping?
The workload is incredible already for head office and that was the reason for that rule proposal. When you're spending easily >4 hours a day every day on the site organizing or fixing items it builds up.
I'd like to think we're already held to a high standard, as you can see from the recent turnover in HO members. We're actively trying to improve the site, whether its through new ideas or just cleaning up it in general.
We all have lives outside of this league and often that's the reason for delays plus talking into account the transition from new members of head office, I'd say we're doing a pretty good job for a team of mostly sim league rookies.
*Rule Voting from a GM's Perspective - RavensFanFromOntario - 12-12-2017
(12-12-2017, 08:48 PM)Dermot Wrote:The workload is incredible already for head office and that was the reason for that rule proposal. When you're spending easily >4 hours a day every day on the site organizing or fixing items it builds up.
I'd like to think we're already held to a high standard, as you can see from the recent turnover in HO members. We're actively trying to improve the site, whether its through new ideas or just cleaning up it in general.
We all have lives outside of this league and often that's the reason for delays plus talking into account the transition from new members of head office, I'd say we're doing a pretty good job for a team of mostly sim league rookies.
I'm not saying you guys do a bad job, but 10m is more than a season of 1m trainings. That's an absurd amount of money and with it must come expectations.