Login

***sköldpaddor*** · 04-23-2025, 09:40 AM

04-23-2025, 09:33 AMhockeyiscool Wrote: I aksually found it quite hilarious. It's an honor to have so many historic members of our fine community have a revival of interest about what is going on around the league even if they are not actively participating in it. Rage bait is awesome, It's a luxury. it's a confirmation that there's reasonable free speech. It should also be encouraged by all leadership positions as it's a privilege to deal with. We often forget this is a place of entertainment and escape, this is the most action the forum has had in a long time (still disappointed that there's no thread team...shl has changed). Rage bait isn't my cup of tea, as I think it's got to take a sad person to take joy in other peoples pain but what do I know. I was a little disappointed to see HO bite on the bait, but even I don't have full comprehension of how much time they are putting into this DnD hockey league. I think it's wise to lock threads if nobody is able to moderate them. Everyone ought to have time to themselves to decompress and separate. So people know, the comment on Bap, Nola and Minnesota was a top tier joke. Those GMs have been some of my favorite people on the site when I've interacted with them. I was about to post "2 of our 3 losses this season have come to baltimore and nola...monkas". We just haven't played Minnesota yet #6.5overgang rise up

dwight i understand what you're saying but i am never going to consider it a privilege to be verbally abused.

***hockeyiscool*** · 04-23-2025, 09:42 AM

04-23-2025, 09:40 AMsköldpaddor Wrote: dwight i understand what you're saying but i am never going to consider it a privilege to be verbally abuseI

I empathize with your stance, and our experiences have led us to have a different tolerance for things and that's ok.

Jobin · 04-23-2025, 09:43 AM

04-23-2025, 08:47 AMZombiewolf Wrote: I’m just glad I finally figured out SDCore’s first name

I thought Corey was his nickname

*Tomen* · 04-23-2025, 09:43 AM

04-23-2025, 09:17 AMbluesfan55 Wrote: u know a thread bumping when tomen comes back to say his piece

smh I am lurking and reading stuff here and there, also still very active in the trading card discord

Thank you all for the amazing sigs & player cards
Germany

3. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 5 (Maximilian Wachter, Alexis Metzler) at 16:25
5. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 6 (Steven Stamkos Jr., Brynjar Tusk) at 19:48
8. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 7 (Brynjar Tusk, Alexis Metzler) at 13:55
9. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 8 (Anton Fedorov, Mikelis Grundmanis) at 15:12
10. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 9 (Dickie Pecker) at 19:43 (Empty Net)

sytarah · 04-23-2025, 09:45 AM

looks like someone elses on-call shift just started . keep up the good work

***aleks*** · 04-23-2025, 09:47 AM

To comment on the gm perspective of this issue, I can say that the free agent process HAS become smoother. It is easier to see by a very large margin what free agents are actually available to sign. Free agency was definitely a mess prior to the changes in moving free agents. A couple teams did make errors in ensuring that their budget or contracts or whatever were done. It's hard for me to rag on any of that because honestly GM tasks have me riddled with anxiety every off season for this exact reason of missing even one guy. I can pour over my gm tasks non stop and I STILL missed some stuff, I regressed a guy a little late, I missed a contract for a prospect I was supposed to sign, I missed a send down/release, either way, I was lucky enough to either catch these things or be told by someone else. The point I am trying to get across is that GMs should have compassion to each other for these things because it could very easily be you next season.

The second thing I wanted to touch on is that although the free agent process has been improved, is it really worth it if we allow active users who want to play for certain teams fall to the wayside? Crasherable contracts becoming void, in my opinion, would not have mattered in the case of TBB (I do not know if it's the same for any of the other teams) because even if TBB had effectively removed the ability for sizz to negotiate with other teams, it was very clear that he wanted to only play for TBB. I have been told that sizz is one of the most active users in the TBB locker room and contributes in their war room. Is it worth tearing people from the teams they like, like this?

I think there was lots of productive discussion in this thread outside of the usual suspects and I'd like to see a case made for sizz not being allowed to play for the team he wants outside of what is basically a clerical error.

jackkmart · 04-23-2025, 09:51 AM

04-23-2025, 09:45 AMsytarah Wrote: looks like someone elses on-call shift just started . keep up the good work

[Image: vince-mcmahon.gif?ex=680a41d9&is=6808f05...a5142b98&=]

trella · 04-23-2025, 09:52 AM

@luke we found out SDcore’s name you’re getting doxxed next buddy

Thanks to @karey and @JSS for the sigs!

Former USA Fed Head, Carolina Kraken Co-GM, Tampa Bay Barracuda GM

sytarah · 04-23-2025, 09:53 AM

04-23-2025, 09:43 AMJobin Wrote: I thought Corey was his nickname

how can his actual first name also be a nickname

Symmetrik · 04-23-2025, 09:55 AM

04-23-2025, 02:25 AMAgentSmith630 Wrote: Just catching up with all of this. I think the biggest problem that I have with all of this is that nowhere, other than in the S80 SOTU, is this contract expiration mentioned on the site. Yes, you can ping GMs about it to remind them, but when it comes to the rulebook not containing the documentation, there's a disconnect about how this should be enforced and how punishment should be doled out. Nowhere in the rulebook does it say that an Enforceable Agreement (Rule K.1) is invalidated in any way, shape, or form by a FA signing freeze. However, it states that the contract is considered complete at the time of agreement, not the time of posting on site. So which is it? Is the contract not legal because it wasn't posted on the site before the FA signing freeze? Or is it legal because it was accepted in Discord before the signing freeze, and it was just not posted on the site in time? You can't have it both ways. If it's the first case, then the entire section of Enforceable Agreements needs to be reworked so that it's explicitly clear that Discord contracts are voided once the FA signing freeze happens.

Whatever the case is, I agree with everyone else that it sucks that, at least from TBB's perspective, Sizz is the one who is going to suffer the most from this, since he did nothing wrong and can do nothing about it. He never wanted to be a FA; he intended to always come back to TBB (we have the DMs to prove it), and to see a highly active member of our LR being forced into FA and possibly to another team or retirement for no better reason other than "we don't have a better punishment" feels fucking terrible, and it feels like it goes against the "user-friendly" spirit of the league.

I think the lines are pretty clear - from the GM side, a contract has to be officially posted on the forums so that budget, HO, other teams, etc know it exists. No one can see anyone else's DMs, so for all anyone knows, that contract does not officially exist.

GMs also have deadlines (obviously, that's one of the main problems here), and so having acceptances be enforceable through DMs covers several different angles that are out of GMs control. You can bug a player several times to go accept their contract but if they don't there's nothing you can do about it. And then GM tasks aren't done because you can't post your roster, or roster moves or whatever because this person didn't actually accept their contract on the site. Of course, it also covers the Crasher rule since the only way to actually enforce the Crasher rule is to show evidence of the verbal acceptance.

These lines make sense because a contract has to go on the forum so everyone of import knows it exists. An acceptance can be from Discord because of deadlines and it removes any grey area. If a player accepts a contract in DMs but not on the forums, they've already Crashered themself to the team, but because they didn't accept it on the forum, it's not official? That doesn't make any sense. Accepting Discord agreements is just a smoothing out process of the Crasher rule IMO.

Hallsy · 04-23-2025, 09:56 AM

04-23-2025, 09:38 AMGwdjohnson Wrote: @unconfident69 you've inspired me I'm walking to mcds rn

Can u grab me some too.

Jobin · 04-23-2025, 09:56 AM

04-23-2025, 09:52 AMtrella Wrote: @luke we found out SDcore’s name you’re getting doxxed next buddy

Just hope they don’t figure out mine, @nour’s or @Gwdjohnson’s

***bluesfan55*** · 04-23-2025, 10:02 AM

04-23-2025, 09:27 AMunconfident69 Wrote: Only a sicko could achieve something as unthinkable as that

call me a sicko then

jackkmart · 04-23-2025, 10:03 AM

04-23-2025, 09:52 AMtrella Wrote: @luke we found out SDcore’s name you’re getting doxxed next buddy

you're walking a fine line trella

***sköldpaddor*** · 04-23-2025, 10:04 AM

04-23-2025, 09:47 AMaleks Wrote: To comment on the gm perspective of this issue, I can say that the free agent process HAS become smoother. It is easier to see by a very large margin what free agents are actually available to sign. Free agency was definitely a mess prior to the changes in moving free agents. A couple teams did make errors in ensuring that their budget or contracts or whatever were done. It's hard for me to rag on any of that because honestly GM tasks have me riddled with anxiety every off season for this exact reason of missing even one guy. I can pour over my gm tasks non stop and I STILL missed some stuff, I regressed a guy a little late, I missed a contract for a prospect I was supposed to sign, I missed a send down/release, either way, I was lucky enough to either catch these things or be told by someone else. The point I am trying to get across is that GMs should have compassion to each other for these things because it could very easily be you next season.

The second thing I wanted to touch on is that although the free agent process has been improved, is it really worth it if we allow active users who want to play for certain teams fall to the wayside? Crasherable contracts becoming void, in my opinion, would not have mattered in the case of TBB (I do not know if it's the same for any of the other teams) because even if TBB had effectively removed the ability for sizz to negotiate with other teams, it was very clear that he wanted to only play for TBB. I have been told that sizz is one of the most active users in the TBB locker room and contributes in their war room. Is it worth tearing people from the teams they like, like this?

I think there was lots of productive discussion in this thread outside of the usual suspects and I'd like to see a case made for sizz not being allowed to play for the team he wants outside of what is basically a clerical error.

I do think you're right that it wouldn't have mattered in the end functionally if the player was crashered or not. It's clear he wanted to go back to his team, he could have just signed after the freeze. The big issue here is that the movement requirement wasn't fulfilled, and the player played without a contract.

When we asked the team about this, the response wasn't "oh he's crashered' it was "we forgot to sign him" and then later after we had explained the consequences of both not signing and not moving, the "loophole" of "he was crashered" was brought up after the fact. At no point were we given the impression that the team actually believed the contract was a done deal at the time of crashering, it was fully acknowledged that the signing had been overlooked.

Again, we all feel pretty icky about players not being able to play for the teams they want to play for. But we also feel icky about people getting away with not following the rules while other people are following those rules. We just want this process to be as easy as possible for everybody, and that requires cooperation from everybody. Also, as I've stated earlier in the thread, I am so, so open to suggestions for any other kind of consequence for this rule that will actually work, and doesn't screw over the entire team just as hard as this screws over one singular player. A cap fine would likely mean some other player would have to leave the team against their will (unless the team in question is rolling in extra cap space), we can always remove picks but there are only so many picks you can remove, and that doesn't leave us much wiggle room for the cases where a team neglects to move more than one player. (Like, say a team doesn't move four of their players. Do we fine them four picks for that? Or do we just make a flat price where if you miss one you might as well miss them all?)

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us