Was an overhaul needed for the awards system? Yes. The proposal wasn't written definitive enough for me to want to pass. It had "optional" proposals that made it seem even the one proposing wasn't sure what they were asking to be changed. This passed because it was a long read and misleading and probably 90% of the voters didn't get beyond the first sentence... Or didn't even open the document.
(06-25-2022, 01:24 PM)Kotasa Wrote:(06-25-2022, 01:19 PM)SwankyPants31 Wrote: Not a fan of the current iteration of this overhaul. I already voted no, but I have to point out that it appears bullet point 3 and bullet point 7b contradict each other.Hope I'm not crossing any lines by throwing what I believe this is stating, could be wrong if someone wants to correct me. man literally crossed a line ‼️ (06-25-2022, 01:55 PM)MMFLEX Wrote: Was an overhaul needed for the awards system? Yes. The proposal wasn't written definitive enough for me to want to pass. It had "optional" proposals that made it seem even the one proposing wasn't sure what they were asking to be changed. This passed because it was a long read and misleading and probably 90% of the voters didn't get beyond the first sentence... Or didn't even open the document.This would have been a fantastic point to bring up in the awards reform discussion ticket that was open for several weeks in management chat (06-25-2022, 01:55 PM)MMFLEX Wrote: Was an overhaul needed for the awards system? Yes. The proposal wasn't written definitive enough for me to want to pass. It had "optional" proposals that made it seem even the one proposing wasn't sure what they were asking to be changed. This passed because it was a long read and misleading and probably 90% of the voters didn't get beyond the first sentence... Or didn't even open the document. There has been over four months of discussion on this topic, and that document is the culmination of those four months of discussion. The reason the document is so long is due to the fact that I tried to address as many of the questions and concerns people had about the new system in one place. Not all of the details are final, nor was the document meant to address everything. The department heads in consultation with HO and league leadership will iron out the details as we go along. I strongly urge you to contribute to those discussions going forward as all GMs have access to that channel. Users that have strong opinions on this topic, please talk to your GMs as they have been a part of this discussion for a minimum of two months. They are your voice in leadership discussion. Additionally, apply to the committee once those hiring posts go up. Thank you to @enigmatic, @Kyamprac, @mithrandir, @Mooty99, and @Number 82 for some of the sigs in this rotator.
06-25-2022, 04:03 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-25-2022, 04:05 PM by slate. Edited 2 times in total.)
To be honest I think it was very gracious of ISFL HO and the Awards Heads to allow GMs to vote on this at all. The awards system is administered by a department and aside from general league rules about eligibility, there's nothing explicitly defining what awards must be given out each season or who gets to create the ballot in the League Rulebook.
IMO since the system isn't in the rulebook it wouldnt need a rules summit to change, and it would have been perfectly within Awards heads' rights to work directly with HO on revamping the system. Given the amount that GMs appear to have participated in the voting process, the end result would likely have been the same.
06-25-2022, 06:50 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-25-2022, 06:50 PM by negs. Edited 1 time in total.)
(06-25-2022, 01:55 PM)MMFLEX Wrote: Was an overhaul needed for the awards system? Yes. The proposal wasn't written definitive enough for me to want to pass. It had "optional" proposals that made it seem even the one proposing wasn't sure what they were asking to be changed. This passed because it was a long read and misleading and probably 90% of the voters didn't get beyond the first sentence... Or didn't even open the document.Tad bit insulting to GMs. We voted yes to the proposal because we believe the All-Pro team is a much better way of honoring users and value more than positional awards. also, we thought the awards team has needed to be a permanent job for a while for more informed discussion and nomination rather than 3 people carrying the discussion from the prior system while the other 11 get the payday and vote with the group from my experience as an awards participant. (06-25-2022, 12:31 PM)Frostbite Wrote: Oh and also only LB or a skill position has any shot of appearing on the award stream so that’s pretty cool too I know the conversation has moved way past this at this point, but LB and non-LB has been a 50/50 split in the last 6 seasons for DPOY. Didn't look at DROY but I imagine that could have even more deviation. The DPOY is always LB narrative is lazy
just have a first team all-pro and a second team all-pro. first team is in effect the "positional player of the year", and it can get even more recognition with the Unanimous tag as well. im not sure what the hubbub about losing, in effect, the title of the award, it's the same thing basically. the PotY awards are just a higher level of distinction now, anyone thats upset about this is losing that MVP in its current (previous) state was just the same as the PotY awards now, just with less diversity. overall this allows for more showcasing of players...
Yeah not a fan of these award changes at all as someone who cares a lot about awards in these leagues. And the committee is just not a great idea. I said it at the beginning and I was ignored and I will say it again now. It just isn't working well and these changes are not a good fix I am afraid. But I guess we'll see...
|
|