Login

***Inf1d3l*** · 11-04-2021, 10:25 AM

11-04-2021, 10:23 AMsköldpaddor Wrote: I feel like in the future we should have two threads for every HO decision - one for people who seriously want to discuss the merits and shortcomings of the decision, and one for the people who just want to call each other names. Just preemptively create a "Punishment X Official TD Thread" in the thunderdome as soon as you post the decision

How dare you think of ideas that would be sorta fun. I'm TDing you for this!

***sköldpaddor*** · 11-04-2021, 10:32 AM

11-04-2021, 10:09 AMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: So there is nothing in the rulebook here that the team can't be punished then. I mean I get your point of course and our two approaches here reflect the two different philosophies you can have towards such a ruleset. But as the past has shown, new gaps in our rulebook pop up every time and we have to deal with them as they appear. However it is indeed unfortunate that HO has somewhat set the precedent in recent years that sometimes these situation are resolved with the "there is no rule against it, so no punishment" argument and sometimes with the "there is no specific rule against it but you broke the spirit of the rule and therefore get punished". It's a unfortunate double-standard that has crept in.

Yes, extrapolating from the "no trading picks you don't have" rule sounds tempting but ultimately isn't sufficient imho, because the responsibilities are distributed differently. In cases of double-traded picks, there is only one team who can realistically be expected to have double checked if the pick is legal (the team that has it) and the same team is also the only one that benefits from such an illegal trade because they get to trade away an asset that they don't actually have. So they are both the team where the oversight happened and the one that benefitted from said oversight - hence why they get punished. In a case like this one here however there are both two teams who can realistically be expected to catch the illegality of the action and there are also two teams that benefit from said illegal trade, as outlined in my previous post. This is why in this case they share the responsibility much more than in the case of a double traded pick.

I don't really think that's sound logic. Applying punishments that have no grounds in the rulebook is a suuuuper slippery slope. I think this situation probably indicates that maybe we do need to implement something in the rulebook to establish a punishment for both sides of a trade like this, but as long as it is not in there, I don't think you can just arbitrarily throw out punishments no matter how obvious it might be.

I do have some strong opinions on the rulebook and various places that I think it could be improved and/or updated, but that hasn't been done yet, and I know that's a separate discussion.

Like I said, I think this punishment/resolution on the whole is pretty weak (and I don't think it effectively disincentivizes people from doing the same thing in the future, which should be the intention of any punishment). I agree that the double-trading-a-pick rule was not a sufficient reference for this, but I don't think that would be fixed by just fining/penalizing Toronto in an unprecedented manner. Undo/renegotiate the bad trade (if that is possible) or punish WPG more harshly for trading an asset illegally, those are the options here to me based on the current rulebook.

Evok · 11-04-2021, 10:37 AM

11-04-2021, 10:16 AMAcsolap Wrote:
11-04-2021, 10:10 AMEvok Wrote: Where the part that a second infraction of this rule will result in the GM being fired? If infidel got it for the error of past gm, i don't see why its not included here @nour

Are we already out of the rulebook is law phase? Didnt last a second ...

Infi was the co GM at the time of the infraction but I agree that this should be a strike for consistency.

Yeah you are right i shouldnt have said "past gm" but im trying to be a bit understanding with a guy that was basically left to dust without a word by his head gm after being recently hired and not having gmed in a few years. While he should have still checked, i still think if he get the letter of thr law, this should apply as well since they want to compare it to an illegal trade.

***Wally*** · 11-04-2021, 10:38 AM

As a result... off-season has been extended for another season.

Merica · 11-04-2021, 10:39 AM

11-04-2021, 09:59 AMBuster Wrote:
11-04-2021, 09:53 AMfishy Wrote: Unlike the punishment, this is actually too far. you can be upset with the decision (which is trash) and not resort to personal attacks lol

Bro this is tame. Calm down

Yeah, imagine if this was 5 years ago lol.

Vaxlare · 11-04-2021, 10:40 AM

11-04-2021, 10:37 AMEvok Wrote:
11-04-2021, 10:16 AMAcsolap Wrote: Infi was the co GM at the time of the infraction but I agree that this should be a strike for consistency.

Yeah you are right i shouldnt have said "past gm" but im trying to be a bit understanding with a guy that was basically left to dust without a word by his head gm after being recently hired and not having gmed in a few years. While he should have still checked, i still think if he get the letter of thr law, this should apply as well since they want to compare it to an illegal trade.

If anyone didn't know said GM also reappeared last week to update without as much as a "Hi" to anyone in the MTL LR he ghosted.

***Inf1d3l*** · 11-04-2021, 10:41 AM

11-04-2021, 10:38 AMWally Wrote: As a result... off-season has been extended for another season.

spooked · 11-04-2021, 10:42 AM

11-04-2021, 10:37 AMEvok Wrote:
11-04-2021, 10:16 AMAcsolap Wrote: Infi was the co GM at the time of the infraction but I agree that this should be a strike for consistency.

Yeah you are right i shouldnt have said "past gm" but im trying to be a bit understanding with a guy that was basically left to dust without a word by his head gm after being recently hired and not having gmed in a few years. While he should have still checked, i still think if he get the letter of thr law, this should apply as well since they want to compare it to an illegal trade.

Not going to go into the HO side of things, I am on my way out and pretty much stayed out of this as much as possible beyond a vote, but personally I would be hesitant to do any strikes or firings of GMs at this point as the pool of people applying for openings is so small that any firing we do off of a rulebook issue could give the league and HO an even bigger issue to try and figure out how to solve. If we fire a GM because of a trade, and no one applies to replace them, what do we do? This wasn't something I brought up in this case or was relevant to what you are talking about, but I have mentioned it recently in HO chat that I would be worried about it.

Jobin · 11-04-2021, 10:43 AM

11-04-2021, 10:42 AMspooked Wrote:
11-04-2021, 10:37 AMEvok Wrote: Yeah you are right i shouldnt have said "past gm" but im trying to be a bit understanding with a guy that was basically left to dust without a word by his head gm after being recently hired and not having gmed in a few years. While he should have still checked, i still think if he get the letter of thr law, this should apply as well since they want to compare it to an illegal trade.

Not going to go into the HO side of things, I am on my way out and pretty much stayed out of this as much as possible beyond a vote, but personally I would be hesitant to do any strikes or firings of GMs at this point as the pool of people applying for openings is so small that any firing we do off of a rulebook issue could give the league and HO an even bigger issue to try and figure out how to solve. If we fire a GM because of a trade, and no one applies to replace them, what do we do?

Start a compulsory GM conscription draft

***Wally*** · 11-04-2021, 10:47 AM

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.

Make a point. Then act like a child. Solid job, GM.

Edit: I just don’t understand the need to attack someone.

ImShiny · 11-04-2021, 10:50 AM

11-04-2021, 10:38 AMWally Wrote: As a result... off-season has been extended for another season.

Fuck yeah

*Drokeep* · 11-04-2021, 10:54 AM

11-04-2021, 10:42 AMspooked Wrote:
11-04-2021, 10:37 AMEvok Wrote: Yeah you are right i shouldnt have said "past gm" but im trying to be a bit understanding with a guy that was basically left to dust without a word by his head gm after being recently hired and not having gmed in a few years. While he should have still checked, i still think if he get the letter of thr law, this should apply as well since they want to compare it to an illegal trade.

Not going to go into the HO side of things, I am on my way out and pretty much stayed out of this as much as possible beyond a vote, but personally I would be hesitant to do any strikes or firings of GMs at this point as the pool of people applying for openings is so small that any firing we do off of a rulebook issue could give the league and HO an even bigger issue to try and figure out how to solve. If we fire a GM because of a trade, and no one applies to replace them, what do we do? This wasn't something I brought up in this case or was relevant to what you are talking about, but I have mentioned it recently in HO chat that I would be worried about it.

Sounds like I should apply to the next GM opening and its mine for the taking. Lets go!

Evok · 11-04-2021, 10:58 AM

11-04-2021, 10:42 AMspooked Wrote:
11-04-2021, 10:37 AMEvok Wrote: Yeah you are right i shouldnt have said "past gm" but im trying to be a bit understanding with a guy that was basically left to dust without a word by his head gm after being recently hired and not having gmed in a few years. While he should have still checked, i still think if he get the letter of thr law, this should apply as well since they want to compare it to an illegal trade.

Not going to go into the HO side of things, I am on my way out and pretty much stayed out of this as much as possible beyond a vote, but personally I would be hesitant to do any strikes or firings of GMs at this point as the pool of people applying for openings is so small that any firing we do off of a rulebook issue could give the league and HO an even bigger issue to try and figure out how to solve. If we fire a GM because of a trade, and no one applies to replace them, what do we do? This wasn't something I brought up in this case or was relevant to what you are talking about, but I have mentioned it recently in HO chat that I would be worried about it.

i agree with you, it's the first thing i though about as well, but if HO want to be hard ass in one case, they need to be hard ass everywhere and not pick and choose to their liking like they are doing right now. If not putting strike against gm is one of their concern now, they should revert the mtl punishment, if not, its still blatant favoritism like this whole thread rekt off

***CampinKiller*** · 11-04-2021, 11:03 AM

If the trade was known to be illegal before the draft, this entire fiasco is HO’s fault for letting it grow through the draft with the picks and further trades. Absolutely terrible

Spartan · 11-04-2021, 11:10 AM

11-04-2021, 10:47 AMWally 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.

Make a point. Then act like a child. Solid job, GM.

pot calling the kettle black Popcorn

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us