![[DEV] ISFL Forums](http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/images/emerald/logo.png "[DEV] ISFL Forums"){kind=logo}
+- [DEV] ISFL Forums (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Community (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Discussion (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=33)
+--- Thread: Rules That Need Fixing (/showthread.php?tid=21196)
Rules That Need Fixing - AdamS - 04-15-2020
(04-15-2020, 06:28 PM)bovovovo Wrote:http://nsfl.jcink.net/index.php?showtopic=...indpost&p=69341
It's a balancing thing. It's been so long I don't remember the details and that post doesn't really go into details about it. If I remember correctly without that check mobile QBs either become much less effective at running or will try to run much less often which kinda defeats the purpose of being a mobile QB arch
So going form that, it was brought up specifically to limit the effectiveness of QBs playing at WR. Which we don't do anymore. Looks like this rule is obsolete.
Rules That Need Fixing - AdamS - 04-15-2020
(04-15-2020, 06:04 PM)Exilizer Wrote:Can we properly document the Awards rules?
Breakoutplayer of the year got missed off in DSFL, rip Frost.
Also I propose we split the DB award in safety and cornerback separate awards.
Properly documenting rules for awards is a great idea.
DSFL Breakout Player shouldn't exist at all. Or should be about recognizing people who started way down and came up. It should sure as fuck not go to a damn DSFL GM. But....it does exist, those aren't the rules (yet) and he apparently should've won it so I'm gonna ask around about that.
I dont completely remember why we combined Safety and CB. I think it was because of both positions playing across all 5 spots pretty openly. I believe also there was the difficulty of judging where people play and what counts for which award. I'll look into this.
Rules That Need Fixing - AdamS - 04-15-2020
(04-15-2020, 06:06 PM)Isidore94 Wrote:Ban Nickel
This feels very highly unlikely. There's just no reason. I can't tel if you were serious or not but it would be...exceedingly unlikely. More likely would be finding a way to bump up the effectiveness of the other 4. If you can find that in a way that works, we could have something.
Rules That Need Fixing - ADwyer87 - 04-15-2020
(04-15-2020, 09:32 PM)Billybolo53 Wrote:Not sure on what specfic rules this would apply towe do have a legal tampering period in our FA system already
A week prior to free agency opening, open a legal tampering period for pending FA. No deals can become official until the start of FA, but they can be negotiated and announced.
Any team losing FA signed with over 500 TPE will be awarded a compensatory pick in the following year's draft. (maybe have this tiered based on TPE) If you sign a player it will cancel out the loss.
Also i think compensatory picks are a big mistake
Rules That Need Fixing - AdamS - 04-15-2020
(04-15-2020, 06:46 PM)White Cornerback Wrote:like cb and s from dboty
split dl into de and DT
shut up dermot
Rules That Need Fixing - ADwyer87 - 04-15-2020
(04-15-2020, 10:18 PM)Rising Equinox Wrote:The Bullying/Harassment "Don't Be A Dick" RuleThe dont be a dick rule is not an actual rule dammit i have to say this to so many people.
This one needs some serious work. First, this rule needs to actually be in the rulebook, or I don't see any reason for it to be considered a legitimate rule.
Rules That Need Fixing - AdamS - 04-15-2020
(04-15-2020, 07:32 PM)Billybolo53 Wrote:Not sure on what specfic rules this would apply to
A week prior to free agency opening, open a legal tampering period for pending FA. No deals can become official until the start of FA, but they can be negotiated and announced.
Any team losing FA signed with over 500 TPE will be awarded a compensatory pick in the following year's draft. (maybe have this tiered based on TPE) If you sign a player it will cancel out the loss.
I see this as two separate ideas. The first I've actually suggested myself before so obviously I'm completely unbiased in saying I love this idea of yours.
Compensatory picks for FA loss have been kicked aorund now and again. Oddly I have an existing plan to put that in my contract and this is how my GMs will find out if they see this before I mention it.
Like someone said..this has so much potential upside but also so much potential pain in the ass work attached. Gonna be worth looking into though I think.
Rules That Need Fixing - White Cornerback - 04-15-2020
(04-16-2020, 04:43 AM)AdamS Wrote:shut up dermot
reported for harassment
Rules That Need Fixing - AdamS - 04-15-2020
(04-15-2020, 08:10 PM)caltroit_red_flames Wrote:Make OL pro bowl appearances proportional to the number of OL in the division/conference. There are supposed to be 2 offensive tackles per team, why is it capped at 1 right now when we have a ton of OL entering the league next season?
Dermot's sarcasm aside, there have been 3 OL players competing for 1 spot because they're all in one conference. We need a decent amount more than that to move to 2 per cofnerence. Like..OL in one of the conferences for starters. And as soon as its viable to move to 2 per conference, I expect that will happen.
Rules That Need Fixing - AdamS - 04-16-2020
(04-15-2020, 08:18 PM)Rising Equinox Wrote:IV. Tampering
A - 3. "Tampering accusations may only be reported by the player who had been tampered with or his current GM or Co-GM with the exception of a flagrant public occurrence, in which case accusations may be levied by the HO."
This section from the tampering rules needs to be expanded upon or removed and rewritten entirely. Either that, or HO needs to start equally applying this rule to every single tampering accusation, not just those in which they see fit. I don't know who was the accuser in the Jeffie case, but it was clearly not the alleged tampered player, and he had no contact with HO or the appeals committee in regards to the "investigation" of tampering of his own player. This specific instance also clearly was not a "public occurrence", so that rules out literally anyone except for the IA player's GM or Co-GM, in which he/she may have not even known who they were at the time, since he was in fact IA.
The Bullying/Harassment "Don't Be A Dick" Rule
This one needs some serious work. First, this rule needs to actually be in the rulebook, or I don't see any reason for it to be considered a legitimate rule. Also, it should be clearly established in which situations this rule applies, because as we've seen in the past, this apparently varies depending on the person, the position of the accused, and the place in which the bullying/harassing messages were sent. Why are private messages considered in some cases, but not others, and going back to "Tampering A - 3", why is just anyone allowed to report users in these cases, not just the user being bullied/harassed? At the very least, this needs to be made into an actual official rule or not be taken into account at all.
Also, why is there nothing about appealing punishment decisions, the process and system of the established appeals committee, and the limit to the powers of HO and the appeals committee anywhere in the rulebook? There is nothing about this branch of positions in the league, and there is no rules in place for them or HO. There should be some type of "checks and balances" system in place to ensure that these groups are not abusing their powers. Without this, you get into the situation that we see every single time a punishment gets announced, where the league members feel helpless at the hands of HO, because they know there is nothing they can do. If there was a system like this in place to balance out their powers and actions they can take, we as a league could focus more on not disrupting these powers, because we could actually trust they will be taken care of to an equal standard, and focus more on the fun aspects of the league, not trying to constantly avoid upsetting people and breaking rules we don't know exist.
For starters.....the MB War Room and Jeff certainly didn't give a fresh hot shit about that "only gm can accuse" nonsense last month when they accused someone of tampering me and HO had to quietly investigate the utter garbage. It being brought up now it nothing more than dishonest cowardly attempt to throw out FUD. Oh...they also did it based on a maliciously chosen screenshot too. So you know....everything you think you're defending them from happening.
HO already applies that clause equally. It doesn't apply it at all. So any argument bringing it up is dishonest from word one because it implies it's somehow enforced at other times. With no evidence. Because it doesn't happen. And yes, it's useless and it should be removed. And maybe when its gone it'll stay that way, unlike some things.
The entire section about the dont be a dick rule is so devoid of real content that all I'm gonna say is it's a guideline, not a rule.
Put existing rules on punishment and appeals in the proper rulebook so people can find them easily. Got it. An actual useful suggestion. Which actually could benefit the league members. Of which you are not one because you quit on the league already and are only here to stir shit.
So 6 paragraphs of wheezing, lying, self absorbed dishonest propaganda, and one decent suggestion.
This is the best post you've ever made on the site.