With the latest rules summit over, I know there was one rule in particular that almost got voted in that a lot of people wanted to see happen. I understand the appeal of the rule and I want to talk a little bit about that rule today and why I am a strong believer that this rule would be a mistake. I understand different opinions happen and I am in no position to fight against it at this point. I am no longer GM, I had no vote and if the rule gets passed in the future, I cannot stop it. That being said, I feel like we are only seeing this from one side, so I wanted to present my thoughts, my own opinions, as a counter argument for why I think this rule is not a good idea.
The rule in question, if the title wasn't enough of a give away, is this one:
Players that are determined to be inactive (according to the NSFL rulebook) by the end of the regular season cannot be nominated for awards or voted for the Pro Bowl, regardless of stats, unless there are not enough active players at a position to fill nominations.
First off, let me say this: I fully 100% support this rule in the DSFL. My entire argument down below is based on the NSFL only.
At first glance, this rule might make a lot of sense. Of course we want the active players to be those that get rewarded with awards. We all do this for fun, the people that do the work should get the awards, those are going to be the ones that will be happy that they won an award. Those are the kinds of arguments I have mainly heard for this rule. And I totally get those arguments too. Of course that is the truth.
My argument has a few different points really. Let's start with an obvious one:
1) Awards are not rewards for activity, they are rewards for on field play.
This sort of seems obvious to me but it bears repeating. When we vote for awards, we look at the statistics that people have on the field. We don't look at how many TPE players have or how much work they do on the site. We reward the best players on the field. If the argument is that inactives don't deserve the awards, then that goes against this argument in my mind. Should a 1200 TPE max active win an award over a 300 TPE slow earning rookie, if the rookie had better numbers on the field? I don't think so. So the same should not happen with an inactive either. Activity will undoubtedly help you win awards, that's already the case. But it should not be the main factor, on field statistics should be. The same argument would be about bad users, problem people, "assholes" winning awards. What you think of the user should not make you biased against them when voting for awards. Whenever I voted, I only cared about on field play. Hell, I voted people I absolutely hate to the Hall of Fame before. This is just how I feel, awards are for on field play, not about the user.
2) Awards supposedly rewarding those that do the work, diminishes the work that inactives do.
The argument I have heard from people here is that well, the ones that are active now should get the awards cause they are putting in the work and they should be the ones that get to be happy and excited they won. I get that argument, but it sort of seems short-sighted. I get that some inactives just leave and vanish one day. But there are also other forms of inactives. Especially with how much overlap there is between different sim leagues now, we often see guys who are active in one league but inactive in another. I know for myself when I was on my first player, I stopped updating at some point because I felt like my updates didn't really do anything anymore, but I still checked box scores and results every sim. I get that not every inactive is like that. Some are players that go inactive and never come back to the site, but we also often see inactive players, like myself who are active in other leagues, return one day to recreate. Of course they will also be happy about their awards. Also, if someone gets to 1000 TPE and then goes inactive, does that mean he should no longer win any awards moving forward? Is the work he did to get to 1000 TPE just useless now? I think that work should still be rewarded as well, if they are the best player at their position that season.
3) Awards impact league history.
This may be one that is close to my heart as a league history nerd, but I think awards often have a profound effect on league history and in particular the hall of fame. I think there are wide reaching effects that can come from this that could really impact the Hall of Fame going forward. I suppose some people might argue that people that went inactive shouldn't make the Hall of Fame either, but again, I feel like those that had the best careers should make the hall of fame. Seems simple! That being said, a few examples of how this could impact things going forward: Imagine my above mentioned player again. He gets to 1000 TPE and goes inactive. Let's say this player won 2 awards when he was active. Due to his high TPE, he would be winning 2 more after he goes inactive. 4 positional awards, as well as good career numbers, would basically make him a lock for the hall of fame. With this rule change, suddenly he only has two. His chances are instantly slimmer. Instead, another player won those two awards, one who actually had worse numbers than my fictional inactive player. In the end, this active player's resume looks much better than it actually is. He wasn't the best at his position and yet he came away with awards with lesser numbers.
4) The supposed feelings of users reacting to winning/losing awards to an inactive are potentially misplaced.
I know every person is different and I cannot speak for everyone. This is why I highlighted at the top of the post that all of this is my own opinion. That said, I have sort of heard this argument before that people feel bad for XYZ player because they are active and lost the award to an inactive player. And I totally get that. Of course it has to be frustrating right. But isn't it also motivating? Knowing that next season you are going to be even better while this person won't be? Knowing that there is a chip on your shoulder? Maybe that's just how I motivate myself but I know that it would motivate me. Maybe for others it seems like an unclimbable hill and demotivating, but for me, that would only motivate me. Would I be happier if I won the award over the inactive? If my numbers were really worse? Hell no! That would feel like I was gifted an award that I did not deserve. I would always know that deep down that this award I only got because that guy stopped posting for a few weeks. On the field his numbers were better. It would feel like a fake award. I would not be happy with it and frankly not recognize it in the terms of my career. Again, I realize that these are my own feelings about this, but I can't imagine many people think "oh man I really deserve that award with my 1000 yards and 5 TDs even though this inactive had 1500 yards and 10 TDs". And I get that my examples are often extreme and in reality it could be a much closer situation. If two people are exactly identical, sure, give it to the active if you want. But if someone is better on the field, they deserve the award, no matter what the user is.
I realize that many will disagree with my own opinions on this and that's okay. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. If you read all of this and still think that inactives shouldn't win, then I'd love to hear arguments against it, whether here in the comments or in pms on discord. Happy to have some discussions. I just think that maybe I can try to shift the way people think even a little. I think that would be neat. And if not, well at least I tried.
When it comes to opinions on stuff, I know I often have different or strong ones, so I hope no one is offended at this. Just my own two cents on the thing and I hope to see some interesting discussions come from this.
The rule in question, if the title wasn't enough of a give away, is this one:
Players that are determined to be inactive (according to the NSFL rulebook) by the end of the regular season cannot be nominated for awards or voted for the Pro Bowl, regardless of stats, unless there are not enough active players at a position to fill nominations.
First off, let me say this: I fully 100% support this rule in the DSFL. My entire argument down below is based on the NSFL only.
At first glance, this rule might make a lot of sense. Of course we want the active players to be those that get rewarded with awards. We all do this for fun, the people that do the work should get the awards, those are going to be the ones that will be happy that they won an award. Those are the kinds of arguments I have mainly heard for this rule. And I totally get those arguments too. Of course that is the truth.
My argument has a few different points really. Let's start with an obvious one:
1) Awards are not rewards for activity, they are rewards for on field play.
This sort of seems obvious to me but it bears repeating. When we vote for awards, we look at the statistics that people have on the field. We don't look at how many TPE players have or how much work they do on the site. We reward the best players on the field. If the argument is that inactives don't deserve the awards, then that goes against this argument in my mind. Should a 1200 TPE max active win an award over a 300 TPE slow earning rookie, if the rookie had better numbers on the field? I don't think so. So the same should not happen with an inactive either. Activity will undoubtedly help you win awards, that's already the case. But it should not be the main factor, on field statistics should be. The same argument would be about bad users, problem people, "assholes" winning awards. What you think of the user should not make you biased against them when voting for awards. Whenever I voted, I only cared about on field play. Hell, I voted people I absolutely hate to the Hall of Fame before. This is just how I feel, awards are for on field play, not about the user.
2) Awards supposedly rewarding those that do the work, diminishes the work that inactives do.
The argument I have heard from people here is that well, the ones that are active now should get the awards cause they are putting in the work and they should be the ones that get to be happy and excited they won. I get that argument, but it sort of seems short-sighted. I get that some inactives just leave and vanish one day. But there are also other forms of inactives. Especially with how much overlap there is between different sim leagues now, we often see guys who are active in one league but inactive in another. I know for myself when I was on my first player, I stopped updating at some point because I felt like my updates didn't really do anything anymore, but I still checked box scores and results every sim. I get that not every inactive is like that. Some are players that go inactive and never come back to the site, but we also often see inactive players, like myself who are active in other leagues, return one day to recreate. Of course they will also be happy about their awards. Also, if someone gets to 1000 TPE and then goes inactive, does that mean he should no longer win any awards moving forward? Is the work he did to get to 1000 TPE just useless now? I think that work should still be rewarded as well, if they are the best player at their position that season.
3) Awards impact league history.
This may be one that is close to my heart as a league history nerd, but I think awards often have a profound effect on league history and in particular the hall of fame. I think there are wide reaching effects that can come from this that could really impact the Hall of Fame going forward. I suppose some people might argue that people that went inactive shouldn't make the Hall of Fame either, but again, I feel like those that had the best careers should make the hall of fame. Seems simple! That being said, a few examples of how this could impact things going forward: Imagine my above mentioned player again. He gets to 1000 TPE and goes inactive. Let's say this player won 2 awards when he was active. Due to his high TPE, he would be winning 2 more after he goes inactive. 4 positional awards, as well as good career numbers, would basically make him a lock for the hall of fame. With this rule change, suddenly he only has two. His chances are instantly slimmer. Instead, another player won those two awards, one who actually had worse numbers than my fictional inactive player. In the end, this active player's resume looks much better than it actually is. He wasn't the best at his position and yet he came away with awards with lesser numbers.
4) The supposed feelings of users reacting to winning/losing awards to an inactive are potentially misplaced.
I know every person is different and I cannot speak for everyone. This is why I highlighted at the top of the post that all of this is my own opinion. That said, I have sort of heard this argument before that people feel bad for XYZ player because they are active and lost the award to an inactive player. And I totally get that. Of course it has to be frustrating right. But isn't it also motivating? Knowing that next season you are going to be even better while this person won't be? Knowing that there is a chip on your shoulder? Maybe that's just how I motivate myself but I know that it would motivate me. Maybe for others it seems like an unclimbable hill and demotivating, but for me, that would only motivate me. Would I be happier if I won the award over the inactive? If my numbers were really worse? Hell no! That would feel like I was gifted an award that I did not deserve. I would always know that deep down that this award I only got because that guy stopped posting for a few weeks. On the field his numbers were better. It would feel like a fake award. I would not be happy with it and frankly not recognize it in the terms of my career. Again, I realize that these are my own feelings about this, but I can't imagine many people think "oh man I really deserve that award with my 1000 yards and 5 TDs even though this inactive had 1500 yards and 10 TDs". And I get that my examples are often extreme and in reality it could be a much closer situation. If two people are exactly identical, sure, give it to the active if you want. But if someone is better on the field, they deserve the award, no matter what the user is.
I realize that many will disagree with my own opinions on this and that's okay. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. If you read all of this and still think that inactives shouldn't win, then I'd love to hear arguments against it, whether here in the comments or in pms on discord. Happy to have some discussions. I just think that maybe I can try to shift the way people think even a little. I think that would be neat. And if not, well at least I tried.
When it comes to opinions on stuff, I know I often have different or strong ones, so I hope no one is offended at this. Just my own two cents on the thing and I hope to see some interesting discussions come from this.