04-23-2025, 05:59 PMhockeyiscool Wrote: My interpretation of the severity of the punishment is that it is fair in a niche and hopefully never happening scenario.
I believe the intent of the rule is to protects players from the hopefully never happening case of a GM acting with malicious intent, where a player wants to experience free agency but the GM uses the lack of moving the player to the free agency section to deny other teams the ability to make contact with the player who is desiring to experience free agency and create the illusion that there are no interested teams leading to the player to re-sign with their original team
@taterswc I forgot to include this important caveat. I believe the removal of the player from the roster is only a fair penalty if the malicious intent was proven.
04-23-2025, 03:25 PMFrenchie Wrote: While we need to be better about making sure rule changes make it into the rulebook in a timely manner, which we're committed to improving, this shouldn't make changes announced in official communications, namely SOTU's or other public announcements non-binding and constitute a valid and enforceable tool.
Fuck it, I'm gonna show I don't touch grass and share my opinion on this all. I disagree with this particular sentiment. I don't see why SOTU and other public announcements that aren't accompanied by the appropriate changes should be considered binding, at least indefinitely.
Onboarding into roles in the league, and I imagine particularly GM roles, is already a big enough hurdle. The rulebook is a 20-page slog to understand and at times requires a history lesson in precedent. I think it's more than a little bit unfair to expect users coming into these roles to have to seek out where rule changes may have been announced, cross reference against the rulebook to see if it's accurate, and if not try to work through why there's a discrepancy. If SOTU announcements to rulebook changes are considered binding indefinitely, regardless of if the rulebook is changed or not, what's the point of a rulebook? You might as well just tell users to look through all SOTUs and piece the rulebook together on their own.
Realistically, SOTU and other public announcements should be considered temporary orders. When appeal that overrules a rule in the rulebook, or an issue that arises that isn't covered by the rulebook, HO or the Appeals Board should be able to use public announcements to make temporary rules, or state the intention of rules and how they'll be applied pending formal changes - with those temporary orders lasting until the next Offseason Post. They would also have their own section on the Announcements forum. Something like that would allow HO to be flexible in cases where it takes some extra time to figure out exact language around a rule (I don't have a good example, maybe think the type of thing like letting people know AI chirps and PTs will not be accepted while sorting out exact language and mechanisms to ban them), while still preventing the onus from being on GMs and users alike to seek out rulebook changes that may have been announced prior to them joining the game.
I won't get all political science-y and talk at length about the parallels to the confusion caused by the Canadian capital gains tax reforms that were announced but never implemented but were still going to be enforced anyways...but just know that I don't touch grass and I wanted to.
04-23-2025, 02:43 PMsköldpaddor Wrote: You're absolutely right (that I should face consequences, not that GMs should be able to do whatever). I'll consult with the rest of HO and see what fine they feel is appropriate for this. It might not be a rule anywhere, but that doesn't mean I don't have a responsibility to the community to make sure we keep up with this stuff.
To this, shit happens and things fall through the cracks occasionally. Funny enough, the rulebook doesn't really lay out the conditions to fine HO salaries.
However, under the rulebook section 3, article 1(a), "The responsibilities of SHL Head Office Members include, but are not limited to: Discussion and execution of rulebook modifications, removals and additions as they become necessary for the site." I've gotta assume that a failure to update the rulebook for four and a half months after announcing a change (I get that HO says it didn't interpret it as a change, rather a clarification of an existing rule, but if I understand correctly, the S80 SOTU says "The rulebook will now read..." and then lists what I believe is new language), is a failure on the "execution of rulebook modifications" (did you really execute the modification if you never actually, y'know, put it in the rulebook?). I know it doesn't say "timely execution", and that's probably something to define and change, but I digress.
That should then activate section 3, article 13, resulting in, in this case I assume all HO members and the SHL commissioners? receiving a write-up that stays on file for 3 seasons. Then, if three write-ups are on file, it initiates a performance review.
Who's to say anything comes from a review, but theoretically should there not be a punishment thread acknowledging the rule that was broken/responsibilities that were failed and that the punishment (a write-up) has been issued? I guess that would at least help ensure accountability and transparency.
Otherwise, I'm sure there's a good media piece in there about the history of HO self-inflicted punishments lol
04-23-2025, 07:23 PMMrPresident Wrote: Fuck it, I'm gonna show I don't touch grass and share my opinion on this all. I disagree with this particular sentiment. I don't see why SOTU and other public announcements that aren't accompanied by the appropriate changes should be considered binding, at least indefinitely.
Onboarding into roles in the league, and I imagine particularly GM roles, is already a big enough hurdle. The rulebook is a 20-page slog to understand and at times requires a history lesson in precedent. I think it's more than a little bit unfair to expect users coming into these roles to have to seek out where rule changes may have been announced, cross reference against the rulebook to see if it's accurate, and if not try to work through why there's a discrepancy. If SOTU announcements to rulebook changes are considered binding indefinitely, regardless of if the rulebook is changed or not, what's the point of a rulebook? You might as well just tell users to look through all SOTUs and piece the rulebook together on their own.
Realistically, SOTU and other public announcements should be considered temporary orders. When appeal that overrules a rule in the rulebook, or an issue that arises that isn't covered by the rulebook, HO or the Appeals Board should be able to use public announcements to make temporary rules, or state the intention of rules and how they'll be applied pending formal changes - with those temporary orders lasting until the next Offseason Post. They would also have their own section on the Announcements forum. Something like that would allow HO to be flexible in cases where it takes some extra time to figure out exact language around a rule (I don't have a good example, maybe think the type of thing like letting people know AI chirps and PTs will not be accepted while sorting out exact language and mechanisms to ban them), while still preventing the onus from being on GMs and users alike to seek out rulebook changes that may have been announced prior to them joining the game.
I won't get all political science-y and talk at length about the parallels to the confusion caused by the Canadian capital gains tax reforms that were announced but never implemented but were still going to be enforced anyways...but just know that I don't touch grass and I wanted to.
To this, shit happens and things fall through the cracks occasionally. Funny enough, the rulebook doesn't really lay out the conditions to fine HO salaries.
However, under the rulebook section 3, article 1(a), "The responsibilities of SHL Head Office Members include, but are not limited to: Discussion and execution of rulebook modifications, removals and additions as they become necessary for the site." I've gotta assume that a failure to update the rulebook for four and a half months after announcing a change (I get that HO says it didn't interpret it as a change, rather a clarification of an existing rule, but if I understand correctly, the S80 SOTU says "The rulebook will now read..." and then lists what I believe is new language), is a failure on the "execution of rulebook modifications" (did you really execute the modification if you never actually, y'know, put it in the rulebook?). I know it doesn't say "timely execution", and that's probably something to define and change, but I digress.
That should then activate section 3, article 13, resulting in, in this case I assume all HO members and the SHL commissioners? receiving a write-up that stays on file for 3 seasons. Then, if three write-ups are on file, it initiates a performance review.
Who's to say anything comes from a review, but theoretically should there not be a punishment thread acknowledging the rule that was broken/responsibilities that were failed and that the punishment (a write-up) has been issued? I guess that would at least help ensure accountability and transparency.
Otherwise, I'm sure there's a good media piece in there about the history of HO self-inflicted punishments lol
I think you very well encapsulated the thoughts of a lot of people. The end of it is that when I am onboarding a co gm, or training people that want to get into management, I'm sending them to the rule book, not combing through SOTU or discord announcements.
04-23-2025, 07:23 PMMrPresident Wrote: Fuck it, I'm gonna show I don't touch grass and share my opinion on this all. I disagree with this particular sentiment. I don't see why SOTU and other public announcements that aren't accompanied by the appropriate changes should be considered binding, at least indefinitely.
Onboarding into roles in the league, and I imagine particularly GM roles, is already a big enough hurdle. The rulebook is a 20-page slog to understand and at times requires a history lesson in precedent. I think it's more than a little bit unfair to expect users coming into these roles to have to seek out where rule changes may have been announced, cross reference against the rulebook to see if it's accurate, and if not try to work through why there's a discrepancy. If SOTU announcements to rulebook changes are considered binding indefinitely, regardless of if the rulebook is changed or not, what's the point of a rulebook? You might as well just tell users to look through all SOTUs and piece the rulebook together on their own.
Realistically, SOTU and other public announcements should be considered temporary orders. When appeal that overrules a rule in the rulebook, or an issue that arises that isn't covered by the rulebook, HO or the Appeals Board should be able to use public announcements to make temporary rules, or state the intention of rules and how they'll be applied pending formal changes - with those temporary orders lasting until the next Offseason Post. They would also have their own section on the Announcements forum. Something like that would allow HO to be flexible in cases where it takes some extra time to figure out exact language around a rule (I don't have a good example, maybe think the type of thing like letting people know AI chirps and PTs will not be accepted while sorting out exact language and mechanisms to ban them), while still preventing the onus from being on GMs and users alike to seek out rulebook changes that may have been announced prior to them joining the game.
I won't get all political science-y and talk at length about the parallels to the confusion caused by the Canadian capital gains tax reforms that were announced but never implemented but were still going to be enforced anyways...but just know that I don't touch grass and I wanted to.
To this, shit happens and things fall through the cracks occasionally. Funny enough, the rulebook doesn't really lay out the conditions to fine HO salaries.
However, under the rulebook section 3, article 1(a), "The responsibilities of SHL Head Office Members include, but are not limited to: Discussion and execution of rulebook modifications, removals and additions as they become necessary for the site." I've gotta assume that a failure to update the rulebook for four and a half months after announcing a change (I get that HO says it didn't interpret it as a change, rather a clarification of an existing rule, but if I understand correctly, the S80 SOTU says "The rulebook will now read..." and then lists what I believe is new language), is a failure on the "execution of rulebook modifications" (did you really execute the modification if you never actually, y'know, put it in the rulebook?). I know it doesn't say "timely execution", and that's probably something to define and change, but I digress.
That should then activate section 3, article 13, resulting in, in this case I assume all HO members and the SHL commissioners? receiving a write-up that stays on file for 3 seasons. Then, if three write-ups are on file, it initiates a performance review.
Who's to say anything comes from a review, but theoretically should there not be a punishment thread acknowledging the rule that was broken/responsibilities that were failed and that the punishment (a write-up) has been issued? I guess that would at least help ensure accountability and transparency.
Otherwise, I'm sure there's a good media piece in there about the history of HO self-inflicted punishments lol
If this is the case, I guess we could retroactively also revoke the grace period we recently gave GMs for regressing their active players, since that wasn't added to the rulebook yet either before very recently and was only official via a SOTU/discord announcement to GMs, and issue some penalties for late regressions.
Like, just saying, punishments aren't the only changes we made there.
We can also, I guess, issue ourselves a punishment for something that isn't explicitly in the rulebook, and then appeal it because it wasn't explicitly in the rulebook and likely have our punishment of ourselves overturned, but we've been discussing that at length in HO this afternoon and I think we will just make clear rules for ourselves instead.
04-23-2025, 07:49 PMsköldpaddor Wrote: If this is the case, I guess we could retroactively also revoke the grace period we recently gave GMs for regressing their active players, since that wasn't added to the rulebook yet either before very recently and was only official via a SOTU/discord announcement to GMs, and issue some penalties for late regressions.
Like, just saying, punishments aren't the only changes we made there.
We can also, I guess, issue ourselves a punishment for something that isn't explicitly in the rulebook, and then appeal it because it wasn't explicitly in the rulebook and likely have our punishment of ourselves overturned, but we've been discussing that at length in HO this afternoon and I think we will just make clear rules for ourselves instead.
I'm really disappointed that what I thought was thoughtful, constructive feedback that was encouraged by a commissioner of this league was met with a gotcha argument of "here's a time where this process works in GMs' favour" from another commissioner of the league. At the end of the day, whether it works in someone's favour or not, it's still not an effective or appropriate way to handle management of the league's rulebook.
End of the day, as the appeals committee upheld, "the rulebook should be considered the source of truth in cases of conflict." Yeah, it sucks that that ruling may come with some downsides, but that's typically how rulings go. And if HO were to go back and revoke the grace period, affected GMs would have the opportunity to appeal and state their case on why they shouldn't be punished (in this case, I'd suspect the argument would be that in effect, HO actively encouraged them to violate the rulebook in which they are tasked with enforcing by stating they had granted an extension to the rules outlined within). Perhaps "the rulebook should be considered the source of truth in cases of conflict" will upheld and strengthened; perhaps it will be overruled, partially or in full. The great thing about precedent is it's constantly evolving.
I feel like that appeal would (or should) fail because the Appeals Committee just ruled that "the rulebook should be considered the source of truth in cases of conflict" - and if it's not HO's responsibility as outlined in Section 3, Article 1(a), I don't know who's it would be. But by appealing it we'd all be winning by testing it and getting a clear answer that helps HO and the community all do their jobs better afterwards.
04-23-2025, 07:23 PMMrPresident Wrote: Fuck it, I'm gonna show I don't touch grass and share my opinion on this all. I disagree with this particular sentiment. I don't see why SOTU and other public announcements that aren't accompanied by the appropriate changes should be considered binding, at least indefinitely.
Onboarding into roles in the league, and I imagine particularly GM roles, is already a big enough hurdle. The rulebook is a 20-page slog to understand and at times requires a history lesson in precedent. I think it's more than a little bit unfair to expect users coming into these roles to have to seek out where rule changes may have been announced, cross reference against the rulebook to see if it's accurate, and if not try to work through why there's a discrepancy. If SOTU announcements to rulebook changes are considered binding indefinitely, regardless of if the rulebook is changed or not, what's the point of a rulebook? You might as well just tell users to look through all SOTUs and piece the rulebook together on their own.
Realistically, SOTU and other public announcements should be considered temporary orders. When appeal that overrules a rule in the rulebook, or an issue that arises that isn't covered by the rulebook, HO or the Appeals Board should be able to use public announcements to make temporary rules, or state the intention of rules and how they'll be applied pending formal changes - with those temporary orders lasting until the next Offseason Post. They would also have their own section on the Announcements forum.
Okay, so I did omit one part here in that obviously until we clean up forums and make sure things are nice and tidy, this is indeed unrealistic, and we shouldn't expect people to comb through announcements. The intention is always to update the rulebook once these changes are announced, but for a variety of reasons, that can be hard to do in a timely manner, despite that being our intent to begin with. So yes to all this, no we're not monsters burying binding rules deep in the forum, and yes to making sure there's a proper section of the forum in which these can be stored, which was what I'd mentioned. This isn't something I'm judging to be accurate in this instance considering we have work to do until we get there, but its my opinion that once a change is announced, pending rulebook update, that's the new rule!
I appreciate you allowing me to clarify my opinion here
04-23-2025, 09:16 PM(This post was last modified: 04-23-2025, 09:17 PM by sköldpaddor. Edited 1 time in total.)
04-23-2025, 09:05 PMMrPresident Wrote: I'm really disappointed that what I thought was thoughtful, constructive feedback that was encouraged by a commissioner of this league was met with a gotcha argument of "here's a time where this process works in GMs' favour" from another commissioner of the league. At the end of the day, whether it works in someone's favour or not, it's still not an effective or appropriate way to handle management of the league's rulebook.
End of the day, as the appeals committee upheld, "the rulebook should be considered the source of truth in cases of conflict." Yeah, it sucks that that ruling may come with some downsides, but that's typically how rulings go. And if HO were to go back and revoke the grace period, affected GMs would have the opportunity to appeal and state their case on why they shouldn't be punished (in this case, I'd suspect the argument would be that in effect, HO actively encouraged them to violate the rulebook in which they are tasked with enforcing by stating they had granted an extension to the rules outlined within). Perhaps "the rulebook should be considered the source of truth in cases of conflict" will upheld and strengthened; perhaps it will be overruled, partially or in full. The great thing about precedent is it's constantly evolving.
I feel like that appeal would (or should) fail because the Appeals Committee just ruled that "the rulebook should be considered the source of truth in cases of conflict" - and if it's not HO's responsibility as outlined in Section 3, Article 1(a), I don't know who's it would be. But by appealing it we'd all be winning by testing it and getting a clear answer that helps HO and the community all do their jobs better afterwards.
But surely you see how disappointing it is to me to get the “the rulebook is the source of truth, and nothing that is not in the rulebook should be considered accurate but here is how I am going to attempt to warp what is in the rulebook to figure out how to punish you?”
I’m exhausted. I’m tired of the double standards. I’m tired of being followed around to different threads to be trolled. I don’t see the purpose of writing a whole long paragraph about how the rulebook should be the word of god, just to turn around and TRY to find ways to use it to punish people that aren’t even specified in there.
Because the rulebook WAS updated. Not right away, but it was done. So the responsibilities were fulfilled, weren’t they? If there’s no deadline, and the work is done, how can you say that was violated?
04-23-2025, 09:05 PMMrPresident Wrote: I'm really disappointed that what I thought was thoughtful, constructive feedback that was encouraged by a commissioner of this league was met with a gotcha argument of "here's a time where this process works in GMs' favour" from another commissioner of the league. At the end of the day, whether it works in someone's favour or not, it's still not an effective or appropriate way to handle management of the league's rulebook.
End of the day, as the appeals committee upheld, "the rulebook should be considered the source of truth in cases of conflict." Yeah, it sucks that that ruling may come with some downsides, but that's typically how rulings go. And if HO were to go back and revoke the grace period, affected GMs would have the opportunity to appeal and state their case on why they shouldn't be punished (in this case, I'd suspect the argument would be that in effect, HO actively encouraged them to violate the rulebook in which they are tasked with enforcing by stating they had granted an extension to the rules outlined within). Perhaps "the rulebook should be considered the source of truth in cases of conflict" will upheld and strengthened; perhaps it will be overruled, partially or in full. The great thing about precedent is it's constantly evolving.
I feel like that appeal would (or should) fail because the Appeals Committee just ruled that "the rulebook should be considered the source of truth in cases of conflict" - and if it's not HO's responsibility as outlined in Section 3, Article 1(a), I don't know who's it would be. But by appealing it we'd all be winning by testing it and getting a clear answer that helps HO and the community all do their jobs better afterwards.
dawg you and @charlieconway gotta shut da fuck up defending TBB like you want them to beat us in the playoffs again. learn to spot an advantage when one appears!
So since a contract if officially agreed to completely in secret and there is no post required on the forums to document that, then any team reaching out to what seems to be or was a free agent would then be tampering yes?
Since the contract is considered complete at the time of agreement in DMs, then if let's say at 7 pm someone agrees to a contract, if at 7:10 a team reaches out to that person that is tampering as they are considered under contract as of 7 pm.
Surely not requiring an official public post for a contract is not a problem
04-23-2025, 09:40 PMSymmetrik Wrote: So since a contract if officially agreed to completely in secret and there is no post required on the forums to document that, then any team reaching out to what seems to be or was a free agent would then be tampering yes?
Since the contract is considered complete at the time of agreement in DMs, then if let's say at 7 pm someone agrees to a contract, if at 7:10 a team reaches out to that person that is tampering as they are considered under contract as of 7 pm.
Surely not requiring an official public post for a contract is not a problem
Public posts are still required, which is why TBB still has a fine and a loss of pick, and if shown to be malicious to trap teams as above I can imagine the punishment would be more severe. This was simply a mistake, not malicious.
As to the timing piece, I can’t imagine any GM would be punished for reaching out after a player agreed to the deal. The Crasher rule means players can’t agree to multiple, but GMs have always been checking on if players agreed to new deals during FA for example with no issues that I’m aware of. They don’t know what they don’t know, and I can’t imagine HO would’ve punished any team that reached out to Carnage for example after the freeze.
hievements 5: Named Assistant Captain of Kelowna : Drafted 6 OA by Calgary : Named Captain of Kelowna
04-23-2025, 09:27 PMhotdog Wrote: dawg you and @charlieconway gotta shut da fuck up defending TBB like you want them to beat us in the playoffs again. learn to spot an advantage when one appears!
04-23-2025, 09:16 PMsköldpaddor Wrote: But surely you see how disappointing it is to me to get the “the rulebook is the source of truth, and nothing that is not in the rulebook should be considered accurate but here is how I am going to attempt to warp what is in the rulebook to figure out how to punish you?”
I’m exhausted. I’m tired of the double standards. I’m tired of being followed around to different threads to be trolled. I don’t see the purpose of writing a whole long paragraph about how the rulebook should be the word of god, just to turn around and TRY to find ways to use it to punish people that aren’t even specified in there.
Because the rulebook WAS updated. Not right away, but it was done. So the responsibilities were fulfilled, weren’t they? If there’s no deadline, and the work is done, how can you say that was violated?
You're outright accusing me of trying to warp the rulebook to try to find ways to punish users. While that is categorically false (the rulebook reads very clear to me, and the logic equally clear), let me set out some facts. When discussing punishment rules, here's the direct quote which I responded to:
04-23-2025, 02:43 PMsköldpaddor Wrote: You're absolutely right (that I should face consequences, not that GMs should be able to do whatever). I'll consult with the rest of HO and see what fine they feel is appropriate for this. It might not be a rule anywhere, but that doesn't mean I don't have a responsibility to the community to make sure we keep up with this stuff.
By your own admission, you should face consequences. By your own admission, you will consult with HO to see what fine they feel is appropriate for this. I don't know what you would face consequences for, let alone be fined for, if not a violation of the rules. Maybe this was sarcasm and I genuinely misunderstand what you're getting at, I'm unsure, but I'd love clarification on what you mean by those comments.
Again, my comments were constructive feedback, that was encouraged by the commissioner of this league. I'm not impacted by this whole fiasco directly so I don't care how the rules play out, but I am someone who cares about clarity in the rulebook and application of rules, because it's already a lot to wrap your head around, and even mores when you're trying to break into GMing or other roles that directly interact with the application of the rulebook.
I also didn't go out searching for ways to punish you. You referred to having HO determine an appropriate punishment, applied to you, for this. I responded that there need not be a fine, rather, that the rulebook outlines that a write-up on your file is the appropriate punishment. The rulebook is pretty cut and dry on what the hypothetical punishment is supposed to be for members of HO. I'll accept your argument that it's less clear (although I'd still argue it's pretty clear) on what rule was broken - but again, by your own admission you should face consequences. To your point about "the rulebook WAS updated", so the responsibilities were fulfilled - I think that is a question for the appeals committee. They certainly weren't fulfilled in time to ensure all facets of the league ran as smoothly as possible (as it's directly resulted in this situation). But again, coming from the Appeals Committee would provide sufficient clarity on how long HO has to fulfill their duties.
There's also no double standards here. I firmly contend that the rulebook should be upheld. Again, my comments were written from the lens of constructive feedback, after a statement that encouraged constructive feedback from a commissioner of the league. I'm not directly impacted by this whole fiasco directly, I don't care how the rules play out, but I do care about clarity in the rulebook and in the application of rules. As I've mentioned in previous comments in this thread, it's already a lot to wrap your head around, even mores when you're trying to break into GMing or other roles that directly interact with the application of the rulebook. There's a lot of different situations having caused different rules, different precedent from the Appeals Committee, and I firmly believe that we shouldn't be making it more complicated to keep track of rules and their applications. We should be actively seeking ways to make it less complicated.
On that note, I will be very clear - I support the notion that the rulebook should be considered the source of truth in the case of conflict. That means I support that notion with all the pros and cons that come along with it, and with the recognition that any appeals that would stem from that will only clarify the rules further and strengthen the foundations of our league.
I'll leave it on this point. I don't have a great memory, but I do vividly remember when I was on JHO and we amended the rulebook (or issued a punishment, etc.), we would often have a checklist of things that had to be done when doing so. If I recall, the checklist included ensuring there was a recorded vote which resulted in a clear decision, someone had done the write-up, and in the case of rulebook changes, the rulebook was actually updated when the announcement went live. We were often working directly from the rulebook to figure out the language to use when making the change, to explore how one rule change may impact other rules, and more. From that experience, I really don't feel like it is a big request, or ever was a big request, to just update the rulebook when announcing the rule change.
04-23-2025, 09:10 PMFrenchie Wrote: Okay, so I did omit one part here in that obviously until we clean up forums and make sure things are nice and tidy, this is indeed unrealistic, and we shouldn't expect people to comb through announcements. The intention is always to update the rulebook once these changes are announced, but for a variety of reasons, that can be hard to do in a timely manner, despite that being our intent to begin with. So yes to all this, no we're not monsters burying binding rules deep in the forum, and yes to making sure there's a proper section of the forum in which these can be stored, which was what I'd mentioned. This isn't something I'm judging to be accurate in this instance considering we have work to do until we get there, but its my opinion that once a change is announced, pending rulebook update, that's the new rule!
I appreciate you allowing me to clarify my opinion here
Appreciate the clarification. And no, even through my disagreement, particularly with skolpaddor in this thread, I have no ill intentions and I don't think HO has had ill intentions through this or at all. Like you, I agree we're not there yet, but I can see a path to being there eventually.
But even when we get there, I still believe there does need to be a limitation on when a rulebook change needs to be actually implemented. I don't have a firm opinion on how long of a lead HO has to implement it, but I think there needs to be a deadline for some form of accountability on both sides. Personally, I'd probably say the deadline is the natural expiration of the term of any member of HO that voted on the decision to announce the rule. This would, ideally in effect, require the HO group that announced the rule has to be the one that implements it. I specifically use expiration of the term as informal but specific language to avoid the threshold changing when a member of HO resigns early.
But I don't have the rulebook worthy language or responsibilities to make that change, so just adding my two cents and some nuance.
hockeyiscool![[Image: rKRYSW6.png]](https://i.imgur.com/rKRYSW6.png)
![[Image: gunnarsoderberg.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/gunnarsoderberg.gif)
![[Image: DG0jZcS.png]](https://i.imgur.com/DG0jZcS.png)
![[Image: U66t7Jy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/U66t7Jy.png)
: .
![[Image: image.png]](https://i.ibb.co/X4WGR17/image.png)
![[Image: lap-teamsig.png]](https://i.ibb.co/MgFr5BT/lap-teamsig.png)
![[Image: YBIH.png]](https://i.ibb.co/R4pMBYY/YBIH.png)
![[Image: symmetrik.gif]](http://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/symmetrik.gif)
![[Image: symmshl.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/symmshl.gif)
![[Image: OX6Yrrn.png]](https://i.imgur.com/OX6Yrrn.png)
![[Image: glpYKY8.png]](https://i.imgur.com/glpYKY8.png)
![[Image: knight.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/265919569577639946/689559981451903021/knight.png)
![[Image: sigtight.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/265919569577639946/689561548145819763/sigtight.png)
![[Image: ekovanotter.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/ekovanotter.gif)
![[Image: 9ZNnX19.png]](https://i.imgur.com/9ZNnX19.png)
| 
| 