(12-20-2020, 06:58 PM)zaynzk Wrote:

(12-20-2020, 06:56 PM)Memento Mori Wrote:

(12-20-2020, 06:44 PM)gucci Wrote: Only one issue I see with this here: The DSFL is not an inactive league, it's a development league. If the player didn't want to play in this league then he should've retired. Considering that everyone (not just BBB) seems to treat the rule we put in place to make sure inactives wouldn't cause drama in the DSFL anymore (because they are supposed to be auto-retired) like an obstacle, the only thing this has shown me is that DSFL GMs still don't understand their jobs. You keep people active and engaged while developing them for their ISFL teams. If you aren't doing that, you aren't doing your job correctly. Any winning that should result is icing on the cake and you can brag in the dick-swinging contest that DSFL twitter seems to be.

Thor has no right to position change a player that doesn't belong to his team anymore. A player that should've been auto-retired for being inactive in the DSFL in my personal opinion (not by rule). You are a minor league GM, I understand that you make the decisions that are best for your team, but after their true rookie season, they are essentially on loan from another team and you have no power to decide that player's future without the consent of their ISFL team. You weren't fulfilling the terms of the agreed on development of their player so they called off the loan, shit happens when you aren't doing your job right.

I also don't agree with how Austin handled their part in all of this since I don't necessarily believe Kitchens meant a thing to them or their testing, but I sure as hell do understand how the actions of BBB management would have pissed them off.

Anyway I see fault on both sides for how it got to this point, but it never should've been an issue in the first place and the entitlement of the BBB war room aand management continues to shock me through the many seasons and iterations that it takes.

Since Bondi Beach (and then OCO) traded for WBF and he switched positions he's been active, though. Who knows if he sticks around but Thor (at least for now) successfully brought him back to the league.

He still hasn’t updated since September lol not trying to start anything for once lol, but I would hardly say that’s bringing him back

(12-20-2020, 07:04 PM)WannabeFinn Wrote: wbf is so inactive he will never see this

(12-20-2020, 07:05 PM)Memento Mori Wrote:

(12-20-2020, 06:58 PM)zaynzk Wrote:

(12-20-2020, 06:56 PM)Memento Mori Wrote:

(12-20-2020, 06:44 PM)gucci Wrote: Only one issue I see with this here: The DSFL is not an inactive league, it's a development league. If the player didn't want to play in this league then he should've retired. Considering that everyone (not just BBB) seems to treat the rule we put in place to make sure inactives wouldn't cause drama in the DSFL anymore (because they are supposed to be auto-retired) like an obstacle, the only thing this has shown me is that DSFL GMs still don't understand their jobs. You keep people active and engaged while developing them for their ISFL teams. If you aren't doing that, you aren't doing your job correctly. Any winning that should result is icing on the cake and you can brag in the dick-swinging contest that DSFL twitter seems to be.

Thor has no right to position change a player that doesn't belong to his team anymore. A player that should've been auto-retired for being inactive in the DSFL in my personal opinion (not by rule). You are a minor league GM, I understand that you make the decisions that are best for your team, but after their true rookie season, they are essentially on loan from another team and you have no power to decide that player's future without the consent of their ISFL team. You weren't fulfilling the terms of the agreed on development of their player so they called off the loan, shit happens when you aren't doing your job right.

I also don't agree with how Austin handled their part in all of this since I don't necessarily believe Kitchens meant a thing to them or their testing, but I sure as hell do understand how the actions of BBB management would have pissed them off.

Anyway I see fault on both sides for how it got to this point, but it never should've been an issue in the first place and the entitlement of the BBB war room aand management continues to shock me through the many seasons and iterations that it takes.

Since Bondi Beach (and then OCO) traded for WBF and he switched positions he's been active, though. Who knows if he sticks around but Thor (at least for now) successfully brought him back to the league.

He still hasn’t updated since September lol not trying to start anything for once lol, but I would hardly say that’s bringing him back

Updated 28th November when he switched positions, did last week's AC. Not saying Thor should win MDM but he's active according to the rulebook.

@gucci if you mean with respect to the Austin part, I believe he would've quit if he was forced to play for Austin yeah. Now that OCO's traded for him he's active in our LR and has done TPE opportunities since we traded for him.

(12-20-2020, 06:58 PM)gucci Wrote:

(12-20-2020, 06:50 PM).simo Wrote:

(12-20-2020, 06:49 PM)platanocat Wrote: That’s a long ass article. Someone summarize it in one sentence.

DSFL HO sucks and cares more about ISFL teams and players than the DSFL players they are supposed to care about.

If you really believe it was an inactive player's choice to switch to LB because he saw his future there, I have a bridge in New York City I'd like to sell you.

This was a player who, in Mori's own words, said he didn't give af about his player or this league and BBB thought he'd improve their percentages. This isn't an anti-player ruling, it's anti-rule grey area abuse. Should serve as a reminder to DSFL GMs what their role in player development is as well.

(12-20-2020, 06:58 PM)gucci Wrote: If you really believe it was an inactive player's choice to switch to LB because he saw his future there, I have a bridge in New York City I'd like to sell you.

(12-20-2020, 07:26 PM)Arkz Wrote: Week 11

 







 

(12-20-2020, 07:26 PM)Arkz Wrote: Week 11