The thing is, I bet it is super easy to catch some mistakes on every team. I took a look at the DSFL player spreadsheet yesterday and I've seen about 5 mistakes in just 5 minutes. Easy to proof that every team is affected and call for a resim. Just stand where you stood in S17 and don't re-sim to keep it consistent and stop the outcry. Just imagine what happens if some teams go 0:2 now.
@tMuse @Opera_Phantom @`Feeler` @Memento Mori @IthicaHawk just giving a tagged response so i dont have to respond to each individually since many of the responses are the same
Just a few things. First of all, I'm not on HO anymore, saying "you" in regards to this when I had no decision in this matter is pretty unfair. Second of all, this was a guideline and not a set in stone rule. To me at least, it was something way worse than HO at the time foresaw ever happening just from the Lackson speed issue. things being adjusted because of unforseen circumstances is very common in all walks of life. Another thing, no current HO member was around when this decision was made. It is an entirely new HO. Holding the HO to a ruling they had no part in making is foolish. If we hold them to every old decision, we would never progress as a league. its easy to think of HO as one common entity, but much like governments, that couldnt be any farther from the truth. Lastly, everyone seems to hate rules with ambiguity and HO discretion. Thats how things very often NEED to be. You cant possibly forsee every possible outcome, setting yourself up with limiting guidelines. If you hold everything to a set guideline, you cause so many more problems. I get the sentiment, i used to think this way. Then I became HO and realized how dumb my line of thinking was with that. Shit I can give you an exact example where we DO have set in stone guidelines, we made a punishment based on the set guidelines, and the league FURIOUSLY DEMANDED we lighten that punishment. This is something that is necessary and 100% positive. you HAVE to allow HO to interpret situations like this. Anyways, my days of explaining things are over haha, i dont really wanna make a whole thing in this thread. I just wanted to give stuffs (05-06-2020, 10:21 AM)Feeler Wrote:(I am also assuming the reason for the whole league having to re-sim is due to sim engine limitations and the inability of it to re-sim only the affected games, which is perfectly reasonable though I can understand some will be disappointed in a potential change in their results) You would have to re-sim every game, but you can sim individual games at a time and save after each one (I think), so it it possible to try and keep other, unaffected, games with the same teams winning/losing. Stats wouldn't be the same either way and neither would the score, but it is possible to try until you get the right teams winning games.
I never specified you and understand you are no longer a part of these decisions @ADwyer87, I was just clarifying my line of questions further based on the information you had provided. I apologise if it seemed as though I was going at you, or anyone.
I feel as though in a time where the league has provided feedback requesting more transparency from HO, some further detail may need to be provided to players on this decision (the affected players and teams would be a good start to helping people understand better) and how it affects things going forward, at least more detail than another statement blanket ban on resims, when the decision just made clearly sets the opposite precedent. http://nsfl.jcink.net/index.php?showtopic=22025 Vote transparency: What was the DSFL GM vote count on this decision? What about HO voting on it? Ruling explanations: Why was this ruling made contradictory to the existing rule in place? What set of parameters allowed for this and how does it apply in the future? Proactive communication: Which players and teams were affected and to what extent? How is this case being handled so the same mistakes don't occur in the future?
05-06-2020, 09:50 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-06-2020, 09:53 AM by Opera_Phantom.)
@ADwyer87, nobody (that i think off) is criticizing HO for the re-sim, especially when apparently it was voted by the DSFL GMs. What makes no sense is that we have a rule clearly stating "no re-sims". The fact that this is a completely different HO takes no part in that, or else they could pretty much go against every rule from Season 1 to Season 18 or 19, because they were not there when the rule was created.
There's a rule, it needs to be followed. Period. If going forward they want to allow for some different action by HO, either taking to a vote in HO, either a vote with the GMs affected, whatever they think it's the better action. The point is, a rule is in place about no re-sims and they did it anyway. It makes perfect sense to do it, so just change the rule to allow it. Edit - Besides, what was the "thing" that made HO decide "ok, we need a resim for this". When i was in Portland, my player was with wrong stats for weeks and no resim was done. So what happened this time that made this decision? We need some info about that imo. (05-06-2020, 02:42 PM)ADwyer87 Wrote:@tMuse @Opera_Phantom @`Feeler` @Memento Mori @IthicaHawk just giving a tagged response so i dont have to respond to each individually since many of the responses are the same Just to be clear. I am, in no way, blaming or suggesting this is the fault of any individual or group of people. When I use 'you' in my previous post I am using the 'royal you' in an abstracted sense. (05-06-2020, 02:42 PM)ADwyer87 Wrote:Lastly, everyone seems to hate rules with ambiguity and HO discretion. Thats how things very often NEED to be. You cant possibly forsee every possible outcome, setting yourself up with limiting guidelines. I fully agree here. Rules with ambiguity and HO discretion are required and writing guidelines for every outcome is a non-starter. The issue I was raising is purely that there exists an *unambiguous* rule that has *no HO discretion*. It is being treated as an ambiguous rule *with* HO discretion. There is a disrepancy here. I fully support HO discretion and their decision in this. I just believe that writing a hard rule and then not applying it in any and all circumstances is a recipe for disention.
Hamish MacAndrew #20 - Safety - Austin Copperheads - [Player Profile - Update Thread - Wiki page - Twitter]
05-06-2020, 09:53 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-06-2020, 09:56 AM by Memento Mori.)
@ADwyer87 I know you’re not in HO. What you said while you were in HO is relevant, because as indicated by this thread and others - such as punishment threads where precedent set by previous punishments is always referred to when it exists - HO considers the precedent set by previous HOs.
I don’t think I’m nitpicking when I point out that “We will not have a re-sim for any reason moving forward” and having re-sims is incompatible. It’s more than HO having discretion. If the rule is now ‘Re-sims will occur when certain conditions are met’, then those conditions (GM vote, HO vote, whatever) should be specified and the rule amended. If the rule is “we will not have a re-sim for any reason”, there should be no re-sim. [OPTION]S24 (PHI): 16 GP, 73 tackles, 1 TFL, 2 FF, 3 sacks, 5 INTs, 10 PDs, 2 TDs
[OPTION]S25 (PHI): 16 GP, 67 tackles, 4 INTs, 13 PDs, 1 TD [OPTION]S26 (OCO): 16 GP, 68 tackles, 1 TFL, 1 sack, 2 INTs, 10 PDs [OPTION]S27 (OCO): 16 GP, 116 tackles, 4 INTs, 23 PDs, 1 TD [OPTION]S28 (OCO): 16 GP, 84 tackles, 1 FF, 1 FR, 3 INTs, 20 PDs, 1 TD [OPTION]S29 (OCO): 16 GP, 99 tackles, 3 FF, 1 FR, 5 INTs, 23 PDs, 1 TD [OPTION]============================================================= [OPTION]ISFL Playoff Stats: [OPTION]S23 (PHI): 1 GP, 2 tackles [OPTION]S26 (OCO): 1 GP, 5 tackles, 2 PDs [OPTION]============================================================= [OPTION]Trophies and Achievements: [OPTION]Drafted 35th Overall by Myrtle Beach in the S21 DSFL Draft [OPTION]S21 Ultimini Champion [OPTION]S21 DSFL Pro Bowl Selection [OPTION]S21 DSFL Defensive Back of the Year Nominee [OPTION]Drafted 4th Overall by Philadelphia in the S22 ISFL Draft [OPTION]S23 ISFL Pro Bowl Selection [OPTION]S23 ISFL Cornerback of the Year Nominee [OPTION]S23 ISFL Defensive Performance of the Year Nominee [OPTION]S24 ISFL Pro Bowl Selection [OPTION]S24 ISFL Cornerback of the Year Nominee [OPTION]S26 ISFL Pro Bowl Selection
[OPTION]S26 ISFL Returner of the Year Nominee [OPTION]S29 ISFL Pro Bowl Selection [OPTION]S29 ISFL Cornerback of the Year Nominee [OPTION]============================================================= Player | Update | Wiki | Twitter (05-06-2020, 08:49 AM)Symmetrik Wrote:You would have to re-sim every game, but you can sim individual games at a time and save after each one (I think), so it it possible to try and keep other, unaffected, games with the same teams winning/losing. Stats wouldn't be the same either way and neither would the score, but it is possible to try until you get the right teams winning games.simming each individual game can very easily lead to file corruption, sadly
I just think its important to realize that precedent can change. This decision was made by a completely different HO. They should be allowed to change what they want if they deem necessary. Its an important part of progressing as a league, or progressing just as a society really. If the US had to keep every law that was ever passed without change, it would be pretty shitty haha.
I also think its worth noting that this is just an extreme circumstance. I certainly never thought this would happen, and given the guy almost rushed for like, -100 yards? I think its worth a reevaluation (05-06-2020, 04:01 PM)ADwyer87 Wrote:I just think its important to realize that precedent can change. This decision was made by a completely different HO. They should be allowed to change what they want if they deem necessary. Its an important part of progressing as a league, or progressing just as a society really. If the US had to keep every law that was ever passed without change, it would be pretty shitty haha. Again, no one is contesting that. Rules can and should be changed. And i hope this specific rule is changed to allow different decisions depending on what happened. But the rule says one thing and they literally went against it. And the fact that the rule was created by someone else makes no difference. |
|