(05-06-2020, 05:24 AM)Jo3fish5 Wrote:But but butGonna say goodbye to my 2 ints...
My 62yd TD rush
F
(05-05-2020, 09:50 PM)bex Wrote:As some of you may be aware, there were some deeply unfortunate and game breaking errors in the DSFL sim for weeks 3 and 4. For those of us like me who aren't aware, can you explain what they were? Is there any information about how they happened so that those involved or with oversight can prevent them from happening again? Draft Steal (retired S35 CB) - Profile/Update | Wiki Troen Egghands (retired S22 DE) - Profile | Update | Wiki
Hi All!
There are a lot of good questions here. Let me just address some of the big things. Error-wise, Minnesota obviously has the most immediately visible error, with a player having his speed basically erased entirely. Another team had 7/11 of their defense incorrect. This on top of some more standard errors. I'd like to say that most of these errors occur on accident and not as a result of any malicious intent. We generally have an error checker that runs on updates, however a late update meant that the checker did not catch the attribute error in this instance. We are in the middle of the transition to a new DC and Strats collection system that is still having the bugs worked out, but should be better moving forward. The No Resim Policy is just that, a policy. It isn't a rule; you won't find it in our rulebook. It was something put into practice to make things clear cut in 99% of situations. Errors happen, and usually while unfortunate, do not greatly impact results as much as you might believe, as it's the difference of having 70 in an attribute instead of 72. However, since this is a dynamic league, there's room for us to step in when we are in that 1% grey area. Head Office knew that given the extent of the initial error brought to our attention, we believed it might be necessary to do a resim for the Minnesota games. This was an opinion that was loudly echoed by other DSFL GMs, not just the Minnesota GMs. As the conversation continued and other problems were discovered, it was put to a vote so that HO could make a decision that was informed by people more directly impacted by the decision. We expected teams to vote in line with the values of the DSFL, which is prioritizing development and experience over wins and losses. As such, the decision was reached to completely reboot weeks 3 and 4 on the fairest footing we can. So as to when is a resim actually allowed? When something game breaking is found that is clearly outside of the usual margin of error, HO may consider a resim. It has to be something exceptionally bad for us to consider it. What do we consider exceptionally bad? That's something we're still defining in the aftermath of this situation. But I do believe it is in our best interest as a league to continue to practice the no resim policy that makes things clear that 99% of the time we usually live in. Thank you for expressing your feedback on this. Go ahead and tag me if there are further questions I can help answer.
Perfectly reasonable, thanks for providing clarity. Much appreciated.
[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, 09:26 AM)Feeler Wrote:I appreciate you taking the time to explain Bex, the wording in the OP was a bit vague and confusing but this has cleared things up nicely. Thanks for the response and more detailed explanation! I apologize for any vagueness. I will admit that I wrote the original after an exceptionally long day and after a very long and intense discussion with DSFL GMs, when I was mostly at a point of exhaustion. So I'm happy that I could clarify now that I've gotten some rest and have recharged lol (05-06-2020, 03:42 PM)ADwyer87 Wrote: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.I didn't meant to attack you in any way. English isn't my native language so I sometimes write thing I meant a bit differently, sorry for that. I appreciate your detailed answer, thanks for that and I see your point. And Thanks Bex for the clarification. It sounds way more reasonable now.
I don't have a horse in this race at all but it sounds like the policy was originally written immediately after a situation almost exactly the same as this. One was super messed up and then when looking into it further other team mistakes were found. So if the policy was written directly because of that instance, why would there be a re-sim on nearly the same thing happening again?
Stating this is a new HO and shouldn't be held responsible for prior rules/policies is just odd. In what way does that ever make sense? It seems most are content with the solution but the fact remains the policy should be looked at. Again, the policy was originally written IN RESPONSE to a game breaking error, so why ever write the policy in the first place. |
|