Simulation Hockey League
Winnipeg Aurora + Rangerjase Punishment - Printable Version

+- Simulation Hockey League (https://simulationhockey.com)
+-- Forum: Community (https://simulationhockey.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+--- Forum: Announcements (https://simulationhockey.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=24)
+---- Forum: Suspensions/Punishments (https://simulationhockey.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=226)
+---- Thread: Winnipeg Aurora + Rangerjase Punishment (/showthread.php?tid=120251)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16


RE: Winnipeg Aurora + Rangerjase Punishment - Rotti - 11-04-2021

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.


RE: Winnipeg Aurora + Rangerjase Punishment - Citizen of Adraa - 11-04-2021

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.
fucking ironic comment


RE: Winnipeg Aurora + Rangerjase Punishment - RomanesEuntDomus - 11-04-2021

11-04-2021, 09:49 AMsköldpaddor Wrote:
11-04-2021, 09:44 AMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: I'm not sure which aspect of the rulebook you are referring to exactly, maybe you can quote it here. But if a trade is deemed "illegal" for breaking the retention rules, isn't it technically irrelevant which team was the one trading away the player and which one took him on. Aren't both to blame here both because the rulebook doesn't specify in which direction a punishment is to be levied, and because both teams did get an advantage out of the illegal trade (Team A gets to pay less salary, Team B got higher trade value for their player because of the lower cap hit)?

Well that's my point - it's not in the rulebook. There's nothing to quote because there is no rule about punishing the receiving party for an asset that was illegally traded. There are some punishments specified for other types of illegal trades, though, and I think that is where you reasonably have to start here (even though like you said, and as I have mentioned in another post, I don't think this is exactly the same thing as trading a pick one does not possess due to the seemingly irrevocable nature of the trade).

Extrapolating from the "no trading picks you don't have" rule and making a judgment here seems like the right call to me (although I think there would have been grounds for a harsher punishment here using that as a starting point). But I don't think you can just say "okay we're going to start issuing punishments to both sides of illegal trades now even though we've never done that for any other illegal trade in the past"

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.


RE: Winnipeg Aurora + Rangerjase Punishment - Buster - 11-04-2021

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.

https://simulationhockey.com/showthread.php?tid=118539

After this thread, you might want to sit this one out buddy.


RE: Winnipeg Aurora + Rangerjase Punishment - Evok - 11-04-2021

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 ...


RE: Winnipeg Aurora + Rangerjase Punishment - Rotti - 11-04-2021

11-04-2021, 10:09 AMBuster 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.

https://simulationhockey.com/showthread.php?tid=118539

After this thread, you might want to sit this one out buddy.
The thread where we lost 2 out of the three draft picks because of the punishments HO handed down to us? Good one Buster!!


RE: Winnipeg Aurora + Rangerjase Punishment - Buster - 11-04-2021

11-04-2021, 10:14 AMRotticusScott Wrote:
11-04-2021, 10:09 AMBuster Wrote: https://simulationhockey.com/showthread.php?tid=118539

After this thread, you might want to sit this one out buddy.
The thread where we lost 2 out of the three draft picks because of the punishments HO handed down to us? Good one Buster!!

You’re not really that good at the whole arguing thing. That energy is better served somewhere else


RE: Winnipeg Aurora + Rangerjase Punishment - Acsolap - 11-04-2021

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.


RE: Winnipeg Aurora + Rangerjase Punishment - Rotti - 11-04-2021

11-04-2021, 10:16 AMBuster Wrote:
11-04-2021, 10:14 AMRotticusScott Wrote: The thread where we lost 2 out of the three draft picks because of the punishments HO handed down to us? Good one Buster!!

You’re not really that good at the whole arguing thing. That energy is better served somewhere else
do u have any suggestions


RE: Winnipeg Aurora + Rangerjase Punishment - Buster - 11-04-2021

11-04-2021, 10:18 AMRotticusScott Wrote:
11-04-2021, 10:16 AMBuster Wrote: You’re not really that good at the whole arguing thing. That energy is better served somewhere else
do u have any suggestions

Yeah eat your own ass


RE: Winnipeg Aurora + Rangerjase Punishment - slothfacekilla - 11-04-2021

I would like to applaud HO for bringing in the real life NHL punishment system where they spin a wheel to decide the punishment and no one knows what to expect. This kind of realism is what makes this a premier sim league.


RE: Winnipeg Aurora + Rangerjase Punishment - Rotti - 11-04-2021

11-04-2021, 10:19 AMBuster Wrote:
11-04-2021, 10:18 AMRotticusScott Wrote: do u have any suggestions

Yeah eat your own ass
buddy,,, you have no idea.


RE: Winnipeg Aurora + Rangerjase Punishment - brickwall35 - 11-04-2021

11-04-2021, 10:20 AMslothfacekilla Wrote: I would like to applaud HO for bringing in the real life NHL punishment system where they spin a wheel to decide the punishment and no one knows what to expect.  This kind of realism is what makes this a premier sim league.
https://wheeldecide.com/index.php?c1=Lose+a+meaningless+pick&c2=No+punishment+because+HO+forgot&c3=Permabanned&c4=GM+is+forced+to+say+%22I%27m+sorry+uwu%22&c5=Hamilton+gets+off+easy&c6=Probation+for+jaywalking&t=HO+Wheel+of+Punishing&time=5


RE: Winnipeg Aurora + Rangerjase Punishment - sköldpaddor - 11-04-2021

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 Tongue


RE: Winnipeg Aurora + Rangerjase Punishment - Skeleton Party - 11-04-2021

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 Tongue
calling people names is proper discourse