05-31-2023, 12:31 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-31-2023, 12:39 PM by DarknessRising. Edited 1 time in total.)
Hello there
In the past and as recent as S38, we publicised rule proposals whilst the rule summit voting was occuring so the community at wide could give their opiions, thoughts and reflections on the proposals and a greater insight to what is happening behind the scenes of the league. Whilst I remembered to do it late, I remembered to do it none-the-less so here it is for the S42 rule summit proposals.
In this thread you will see all the rules proposed and currently being voted on, and have the chance to voice how you feel about them, any concerns you may have or simply you complete support to them, pose questions and querries that maybe the voters haven't considered yet and the creators of such proposals could expand on how they see the rules working and answering such things.
Without further rambling, here are the rule summits for S42.
DSFL
1. Change rule IV.D.2 regarding rookie positions swaps from:
Rookies may choose to switch positions or archetypes one time, free of charge from the point of creation up to the last update of their first season after the DSFL draft. This does not count as their one career position switch. They may reallocate 100% of their TPE in this switch with no penalty.
To:
Rookies may choose to switch positions or archetypes one time, free of charge from the point of creation up to the start of the Ultimus of their first season after the DSFL draft. This does not count as their one career position switch. They may reallocate 100% of their TPE in this switch with no penalty.
Reason:
This adjusted timeline allows for rookies to swap without potentially impacting their teams during a critical part of the DSFL season, but still forces changes to be made prior to the ISFL draft.
ISFL
1. Players may not sign a contract with any team, including their own, until after the Ultimus of the last year of their contract. All players in the final year of their contract will enter free agency.
2. The maximum length of a contract is 3 years. This now applies to all players, eliminating lifetime contracts.
Reason:
Proposal 1 removes the ability for teams to extend contracts and lock players up before they can see how other teams value them on the open market. The vast majority of players would sign an extension with their teams before being given this opportunity.
There is a stigma in this league against users who leave the team that drafted them in Free Agency. This is entirely unfair. We all agree that the goal of the ISFL is for its users to have fun. If they are unhappy with their team, why should they be shamed for leaving for greener pastures. However, the current culture of the league makes Free Agency practically illegal in a de facto sense, even if it is technically allowed. While we still see some Free Agents despite this, they are few and far between.
One of the biggest issues with the current Free Agency system is that a user has to turn down their current team by not signing an extension, thus putting the onus on the user to make it to free agency against their current team's wishes. If all players become free agents at the end of their contracts, the onus to re-sign shifts off of the user and onto the GMs to properly construct their teams, while granting users more agency and freedom in their contract decisions.
Proposal 2 reinforces this concept by ensuring that a player becomes a free agent every one to three seasons. Working with Proposal 1, that means that teams have the opportunity to talk to every player in the league at one point or another in the near future. If a player wants to re-sign with their team they can do so every three seasons if they would like, but at least the opportunity to move would be presented to them. Three seasons take roughly six months of time in the real world, and as we all know much can change in the state of a team or even that of the entire league over the course of half a year. The current norm is for players to sign a lifelong contract extension with the team that drafted them. If something were to cause them to want out, their only options are to ask for a trade, which may or may not be granted, or suffer through an unenjoyable experience. The ISFL's primary goal should be to strive for player enjoyment and interaction; this situation could very well lead to a user becoming IA or retiring early, potentially staining their reputation around the league in a situation that could have been avoided. This proposed change aims to increase positive user interaction league wide, limit early retirements, and disgruntled users going IA.
While some GMs might not wish to renegotiate with players every three seasons, the vast majority will still re-sign rather easily. This also works in the favor of GMs by introducing the added benefit of being able to approach a solid group of free agent prospects each season, allowing them to improve their teams through a method that is not the draft or via trade.
An additional concern that GMs might have is increased difficulty dealing with the salary cap when players have to re-sign for more than the minimum amount they were allowed to pay them when their rookie deal was extended. The negative salary adjustment clause should help them deal with the cap, but we do not believe that this increased difficulty is necessarily a bad thing. We wish to see players receive all the money they deserve for earning well. This will also help the league with parity issues by occasionally forcing GMs to make some tough decisions and let certain players go if they can not afford them.
All in all, we feel that these two proposals work best together in order to both make player movement more common and acceptable by the league at large. These changes will increase overall user enjoyment of the league, possibly boosting the long-term retention rate of users.
There is no Universal Ballot
So there we have it, 3 proposals across 2 ballots for this season, let your opinions on them be known, keep it respectful and have a great week!
In the past and as recent as S38, we publicised rule proposals whilst the rule summit voting was occuring so the community at wide could give their opiions, thoughts and reflections on the proposals and a greater insight to what is happening behind the scenes of the league. Whilst I remembered to do it late, I remembered to do it none-the-less so here it is for the S42 rule summit proposals.
In this thread you will see all the rules proposed and currently being voted on, and have the chance to voice how you feel about them, any concerns you may have or simply you complete support to them, pose questions and querries that maybe the voters haven't considered yet and the creators of such proposals could expand on how they see the rules working and answering such things.
Without further rambling, here are the rule summits for S42.
DSFL
1. Change rule IV.D.2 regarding rookie positions swaps from:
Rookies may choose to switch positions or archetypes one time, free of charge from the point of creation up to the last update of their first season after the DSFL draft. This does not count as their one career position switch. They may reallocate 100% of their TPE in this switch with no penalty.
To:
Rookies may choose to switch positions or archetypes one time, free of charge from the point of creation up to the start of the Ultimus of their first season after the DSFL draft. This does not count as their one career position switch. They may reallocate 100% of their TPE in this switch with no penalty.
Reason:
This adjusted timeline allows for rookies to swap without potentially impacting their teams during a critical part of the DSFL season, but still forces changes to be made prior to the ISFL draft.
ISFL
1. Players may not sign a contract with any team, including their own, until after the Ultimus of the last year of their contract. All players in the final year of their contract will enter free agency.
2. The maximum length of a contract is 3 years. This now applies to all players, eliminating lifetime contracts.
Reason:
Proposal 1 removes the ability for teams to extend contracts and lock players up before they can see how other teams value them on the open market. The vast majority of players would sign an extension with their teams before being given this opportunity.
There is a stigma in this league against users who leave the team that drafted them in Free Agency. This is entirely unfair. We all agree that the goal of the ISFL is for its users to have fun. If they are unhappy with their team, why should they be shamed for leaving for greener pastures. However, the current culture of the league makes Free Agency practically illegal in a de facto sense, even if it is technically allowed. While we still see some Free Agents despite this, they are few and far between.
One of the biggest issues with the current Free Agency system is that a user has to turn down their current team by not signing an extension, thus putting the onus on the user to make it to free agency against their current team's wishes. If all players become free agents at the end of their contracts, the onus to re-sign shifts off of the user and onto the GMs to properly construct their teams, while granting users more agency and freedom in their contract decisions.
Proposal 2 reinforces this concept by ensuring that a player becomes a free agent every one to three seasons. Working with Proposal 1, that means that teams have the opportunity to talk to every player in the league at one point or another in the near future. If a player wants to re-sign with their team they can do so every three seasons if they would like, but at least the opportunity to move would be presented to them. Three seasons take roughly six months of time in the real world, and as we all know much can change in the state of a team or even that of the entire league over the course of half a year. The current norm is for players to sign a lifelong contract extension with the team that drafted them. If something were to cause them to want out, their only options are to ask for a trade, which may or may not be granted, or suffer through an unenjoyable experience. The ISFL's primary goal should be to strive for player enjoyment and interaction; this situation could very well lead to a user becoming IA or retiring early, potentially staining their reputation around the league in a situation that could have been avoided. This proposed change aims to increase positive user interaction league wide, limit early retirements, and disgruntled users going IA.
While some GMs might not wish to renegotiate with players every three seasons, the vast majority will still re-sign rather easily. This also works in the favor of GMs by introducing the added benefit of being able to approach a solid group of free agent prospects each season, allowing them to improve their teams through a method that is not the draft or via trade.
An additional concern that GMs might have is increased difficulty dealing with the salary cap when players have to re-sign for more than the minimum amount they were allowed to pay them when their rookie deal was extended. The negative salary adjustment clause should help them deal with the cap, but we do not believe that this increased difficulty is necessarily a bad thing. We wish to see players receive all the money they deserve for earning well. This will also help the league with parity issues by occasionally forcing GMs to make some tough decisions and let certain players go if they can not afford them.
All in all, we feel that these two proposals work best together in order to both make player movement more common and acceptable by the league at large. These changes will increase overall user enjoyment of the league, possibly boosting the long-term retention rate of users.
There is no Universal Ballot
So there we have it, 3 proposals across 2 ballots for this season, let your opinions on them be known, keep it respectful and have a great week!