Login

Evok · 11-04-2021, 11:50 AM

11-04-2021, 11:37 AMACapitalChicago Wrote: Yeah basically this. I've also been concerned with the slow decline of application quantities, that's something that's really unfortunate to see. However, it doesn't make sense to punish one GM with probation because they're already in the position, then not even a week later (despite sitting on it for so long) to not punish another GM with it because they're new and you're worried about future applications. Finn also brings up a good point that you should probably handle the immediate problem first and then move on to preventative future measures

They are "new" and yet both gm have seasons of experience as GM or co-gm in other teams ...

spooked · 11-04-2021, 11:52 AM

11-04-2021, 11:17 AMCampinKiller Wrote:
11-04-2021, 11:12 AMspooked Wrote: There are some discussions going around in HO about rule changes to the strikes/gm firing, not sure if it will go all the way through to a rule change anytime soon, but I would be shocked if they fired anyone for a rule infraction right now without it being clearly on purpose or being a big enough issue to merit it. Even if the strike on MTL became relevant, I would be surprised if they didn't give lenience if they had to actually make the decision to fire or not

What is even the point in striking infidel then (which I feel is still soft anyway, especially compared to this)? When did the rulebook become a pick and choose thing, exactly, especially after that hardline enforcement.

If we're speaking to the rules literally, strikes are completely irrelevant to handout in both cases as the rules only talk about breaking them twice and the concept of strikes don't even exist in the rulebook. Doing either twice is all that would be required to have grounds to fire, there is no rule around strikes for anyone other than HO Write Ups. They are used as notice to note the mistake and making the GM aware of the risk, but the rulebook itself only requires a second infraction in general. Basically, the MTL punishment had a made up strike, and this one is just straight out of the rulebook for the closest rule that I guess was found, but could still end up in a firing if the GM does it again according to the rules.

ACapitalChicago · 11-04-2021, 11:55 AM

11-04-2021, 11:45 AMSpartan Wrote:
11-04-2021, 11:37 AMACapitalChicago Wrote: Yeah basically this. I've also been concerned with the slow decline of application quantities, that's something that's really unfortunate to see. However, it doesn't make sense to punish one GM with probation because they're already in the position, then not even a week later (despite sitting on it for so long) to not punish another GM with it because they're new and you're worried about future applications. Finn also brings up a good point that you should probably handle the immediate problem first and then move on to preventative future measures

I'm not very active in this league, but I've mentioned a few times in LR's that punishments for GM's with rule infringements seem a bit harsh for seemingly first and second offenses, or for GM's inheriting a new team. I obviously don't know full context, so there are probably many instances where the punishments are fair, but considering how most of these team punishment threads get, it seems like overall, punishments for non-behavioral rule infringements seem overly harsh. Even in WJC, there were instances of harsh punishments, but those got scaled back because everyone thought they were excessive. Maybe if the book wasn't thrown at GM's for seemingly minor rule infractions, more people would be interested in GM'ing knowing that they won't lose millions or be put on probation for something as small as say goalie starts that can be made up the next season, or in playoffs.

I think you're really hitting the nail on the head a bit there. I think especially the attention drawn to how non-behavioral punishments can be overly harsh is right on the money. Speaking from my own personal experience in J HO, it really sucks sometimes to be pigeonholed into a punishment because that's what the rulebook says. Even if we know it's a simple mistake and wasn't done maliciously, we still have to apply the rulebook to be fair and consistent. However, at the risk of being wishy washy, we still do have to punish those so as to ensure the rules aren't free to be broken without care. I guess what I'm saying is I think we really gotta listen to those rumblings and probably take a look at rewriting the rulebook again, at least for the J, and oh boy is that gonna be fun

S66 Damian Littleton

||

||

|

|

ACapitalChicago · 11-04-2021, 11:56 AM

11-04-2021, 11:50 AMEvok Wrote:
11-04-2021, 11:37 AMACapitalChicago Wrote: Yeah basically this. I've also been concerned with the slow decline of application quantities, that's something that's really unfortunate to see. However, it doesn't make sense to punish one GM with probation because they're already in the position, then not even a week later (despite sitting on it for so long) to not punish another GM with it because they're new and you're worried about future applications. Finn also brings up a good point that you should probably handle the immediate problem first and then move on to preventative future measures

They are "new" and yet both gm have seasons of experience as GM or co-gm in other teams ...

Consistently inconsistent

S66 Damian Littleton

||

|

***Pythonic*** · 11-04-2021, 11:58 AM

11-04-2021, 10:03 AMRotticusScott Wrote:
11-04-2021, 09:03 AMJayWhy Wrote: This is blatant favoritism and it is absolutely disgusting to me. There has NEVER been something so cut and dry. The rules say this isn't allowed, any time this has happened before and gotten approved, the teams were forced to renegotiate. Yet now this time because it's a new guy in Toronto that you guys like, oh well let's not make it their fault. Let's reframe it to fuck over the new guy in Winnipeg, but ignore the new guy in Toronto's culpability.

This is the most ridiculous decision that could have been made. This ignores all precedent because you like one person more. What do I have to do to be allowed to make illegal trades? Make you cookies? Be shit at my job and go "i made a fucky wucky?" Horseshit. Absolute fucking horseshit.

I get it, Luke was the backbone of the HO and you'rea fucking coward who doesn't want people mad at you. But you've been in this role long enough to be able to fucking enforce the rules, and if you refuse to do so based on the very clear precedent, then you're failing at your job and spitting in our fucking faces.
lol complaining about favoritism while sucking off your former co-gm and calling the current commissioner a coward.

rotti moment

***WannabeFinn*** · 11-04-2021, 12:03 PM

11-04-2021, 11:42 AMspooked Wrote:
11-04-2021, 11:21 AMWannabeFinn Wrote: I don’t think letting actions go largely unpunished bodes well for future GM applications but hey let’s worry about the potential future problem rather than the one staring us in the face.
I mean, if we're considering changing rules, it is a current problem. But like I said, it wasn't in context of this, more in context of the discussion about applying strikes in general. I am going to be out of SHL HO in a few days and have been holding myself out of decisions/discussions for a week or two now, so I would not be really able to speak on the stance of this punishment but I don't think it is fair to say it is a potential future problem when we have already have GM openings happen with literally 1 or no applications.

I’m gonna pretend you didn’t just admit to quitting on your job before your term was up and say that application numbers have dwindled over the course of many seasons due to the consistent fuck ups and general inattentiveness from the Head Office, regardless of which individual personnel it is comprised of.

It’s been looming large for a while. Hand waving rules and letting things slide doesn’t address the root problem and only adds to a general feeling of apathy towards the league and the jobs it offers.

***bluesfan55*** · 11-04-2021, 12:06 PM

11-04-2021, 12:03 PMWannabeFinn Wrote:
11-04-2021, 11:42 AMspooked Wrote: I mean, if we're considering changing rules, it is a current problem. But like I said, it wasn't in context of this, more in context of the discussion about applying strikes in general. I am going to be out of SHL HO in a few days and have been holding myself out of decisions/discussions for a week or two now, so I would not be really able to speak on the stance of this punishment but I don't think it is fair to say it is a potential future problem when we have already have GM openings happen with literally 1 or no applications.
I’m gonna pretend you didn’t just admit to quitting on your job before your term was up and say that application numbers have dwindled over the course of many seasons due to the consistent fuck ups and general inattentiveness from the Head Office, regardless of which individual personnel it is comprised of.

It’s been looming large for a while. Hand waving rules and letting things slide doesn’t address the root problem and only adds to a general feeling of apathy towards the league and the jobs it offers.

w

ty to @High Stick King @EvilAllBran and @Ragnar for the sigs

***Rotti*** · 11-04-2021, 12:07 PM

11-04-2021, 11:58 AMPythonic Wrote:
11-04-2021, 10:03 AMRotticusScott Wrote: lol complaining about favoritism while sucking off your former co-gm and calling the current commissioner a coward.
rotti moment