(03-22-2021, 11:10 AM)Maglubiyet Wrote:(03-22-2021, 10:19 AM)infinitempg Wrote:(03-22-2021, 10:12 AM)Maglubiyet Wrote:Quote:6. SD must remain in ISFL HO. Forever.We should question whether the users that proposed and voted for this rule should continue to be eligible for voting in the future. An overwhelming majority of the userbase does not have a direct vote in league matters, and seeing a proposal like this along with 9 joke votes to add it to the rulebook does not inspire much confidence that a large minority of the voting base takes their role seriously. Fortunately we have been given an offseason task that addresses this exact topic, so thank you to HO for giving us this type of platform for feedback. If you proposed or voted for this rule and simultaneously believe that a players' union type body is a farce, your position is untenable. Please reconsider using your exclusive ability to propose rules on a joke and instead solicit feedback for a proposal from other users as has been done previously.
Ok this was added as a joke on a whim because GM chat was having some fun. Didn’t expect it to make it to the official post but it gave me a chuckle. Half the GMs didn’t even know it was a joke by GM chat because they weren’t online.
So to be particularly clear - no one proposed this to be in the rule book and the people voting yes were part of the joke, there wasn’t even a no option for a while anyways, and we should all relax a bit
(03-22-2021, 10:41 AM)iStegosauruz Wrote:First, I want to say thanks to both of you for the clarification around this issue. I can appreciate that this was an inside joke, but as others have said it would probably have been best if that was explained instead of listing it aside other legitimate rule proposals. To clarify my previous post, I do not think we should be full to the brim every offseason with rule proposals. (When I was a DSFL GM, I believe I submitted two rule proposals my first season and submitted zero my second season, so it would be hypocritical of me to suggest that a user is required to submit the maximum number of proposals at every single opportunity.) Rather, I was suggesting that if someone felt the need to make a rule proposal and wanted to waste it on a joke, it would be much more productive to solicit feedback for a legitimate proposal. If the user isn't willing to do this, they shouldn't be submitting official proposals at all. Now, I don't even know if this was an official proposal that used someone's 'rule proposal slot', so it might be a moot point.(03-22-2021, 10:12 AM)Maglubiyet Wrote:Quote:6. SD must remain in ISFL HO. Forever.We should question whether the users that proposed and voted for this rule should continue to be eligible for voting in the future. An overwhelming majority of the userbase does not have a direct vote in league matters, and seeing a proposal like this along with 9 joke votes to add it to the rulebook does not inspire much confidence that a large minority of the voting base takes their role seriously. Fortunately we have been given an offseason task that addresses this exact topic, so thank you to HO for giving us this type of platform for feedback. If you proposed or voted for this rule and simultaneously believe that a players' union type body is a farce, your position is untenable. Please reconsider using your exclusive ability to propose rules on a joke and instead solicit feedback for a proposal from other users as has been done previously.
Couple of things:
First, excluding that proposal we had 15 rule proposals.
In Season 27 we had 10.
In Season 26 we had 17.
In Season 25 we had 21.
In Season 24 we had 19.
In Season 23 we had we had 11.
In any of these seasons we are not using our full slate of rule proposals. If the community at large has changes they'd like to see in the rulebook approach your GM, any relevant department head, or any member of Head Office. We have MORE than enough space.
That is not a vindication or opinion on the union or providing some level of vote to the general member base. Its an acknowledgement that the union/member base voting ideas came on the heels of a six (and maybe more) season low in rule proposals. I respect and understand that the general member base of the league does not possess direct votes but there are still ways to influence proceedings in rules summits, and one major indicator (not the only, but one we can look at) of that is rule quantity.
Second, we passed an incredible number of rules this offseason that have huge impact on the league at large. If anyone here would like to zero-in on one proposal for the fun of GMs and HO and completely ignore the substantive changes that the league just passed, thats their choice. I urge league members to look at the fact we just codified sets of punishments almost unanimously, refocused one of the more controversial and confusing awards, clarified regression, codified some expansion procedures, passed multiple rules to address issues with ISFL/DSFL position switching, and voted to give the league more money for quality graphics. These are changes in multiple different areas of the league that are good for the league.
Allowing General Managers and Head Office to have fun with a fellow member of that group during the busiest time of the season for us - two drafts, regression, the Ultimus, the Ultimini, Rules Summits, Off-Season Prep, etc. - should not be used as a blackmark against anyone and isn't an indication that individuals don't take their jobs seriously. Head Office is constantly told we're too formal and don't look like relatable humans to the rest of the league. When we make decisions that showcase that fact we're criticized for doing it. The league doesn't get it both ways.
Next, yes, the remainder of the rule changes are great by and large. I also think HO has done a commendable job since I have been in the league, and I am quite often an advocate for HO decisions. But man, it is really hard to continue such a defense when I bring up what I feel is a legitimate grievance (and based on what others have posted, I am not alone in feeling this way) and the responses I am met with are A) to relax, B) that I am trying to have my cake and eat it too, and C) that I am a salty bitch. I have seen you post on multiple occasions that "HO is always told X, so the league can't have it both ways by getting Y." "The league" is not a homogeneous bloc of people, and you are never going to make every user happy with any decision that you make. If you go through my post history, I think you will find that this is the most vocal or critical I have been at any point during my time in the league, and it was entirely predicated on a point of view that was ignorant of the fact that the rule proposal was an inside joke. I'm certainly willing to walk back what I said now that I have the full picture of how this got onto the ballot, but this reaction by current and former HO members is incredibly off-putting to me. I understand that your job is difficult and that you are doing what you believe is in the best interest of the league, but to instantly dismiss and insult someone who responds negatively to a rule proposal is a very counterproductive reaction. To be completely honest, the most likely outcome of this exchange today is that I will be less likely to comment on rule proposals in the future because I don't want to be embroiled in these types of long, drawn out arguments. If your goal is to win by attrition you will certainly succeed, but I hope you will consider other points of view in the future before instantly discrediting them.
I do want to say first and foremost that I truly hope you do not stop engaging with rule proposal conversations. Diverse league voices are necessary. People disagreeing or calling on us to view things differently are hugely valuable to the league overall.
To my knowledge it wasn't an official proposal, and did not eat a slot. It was slid in amidst a joking conversation.
I do think that the reaction is a bit overblown, but I am willing to recognize my bias in being someone within HO that does find it humorous. It's a long standing joke about being trapped in HO forever cropping up in a slightly more visible way than usual. I think the strong reaction from people in that "relax" camp is because the frequent demand to be 100% professional in 100% of league matters isn't sustainable in a league we are all apart of for fun. When that demand is surfaced, sometimes it gets a reaction from those who either currently have that demand placed upon them or who have previously had it placed on them.
I do think that your point about the league not being a homogenous block is important to keep in mind. I will use this opportunity to remind others that HO is also not a homogenous block. Nor are our GMs. Some people don't find the joke funny, even within those groups. I am understanding of that point. I will echo Steg and others in that it should not have been included in the post. I don't think either side deserve to be insulted here, and I regret that you feel insulted for levyng genuine critique. I'm sorry that was the reaction, and I'm glad we could provide the explanation as to how we got here. I would encourage you to reach out if you want to discuss further, or if you have future concenrs that you want to air with me.