![[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: Media (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+---- Forum: Graded Articles (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=38)
+---- Thread: *How I Voted on S30 Rule Proposals (/showthread.php?tid=33662)
*How I Voted on S30 Rule Proposals - iStegosauruz - 07-13-2021
For the last few seasons I’ve had the privilege of running the ISFL and Universal Rules Summits as part of my regular duties with Head Office. One of the primary reasons I enjoyed this job was because its easy to create the ballot and format the forum post which is a far cry from the experience I had when I was the primary regression coordinator - I still shudder at the initial S22 regression and can’t thank Mooty enough for constantly being a huge help in making sure everyone’s regression was properly audited. As I’ve coordinated more Rule Summits, however, I’ve gotten more into some of the minutia of rule interpretations and what should and shouldn’t be codified or be a rule submission. Its weirdly fascinating.
Every season since I began running the Summits we’ve made an advancement. Last season it was posting the proposals in advance of the vote closing so that league members would have a chance to petition the voters one way or another and potentially influence their vote. I think that was a huge step in giving more power to the people and not just have it entirely vested in Head Office, General Managers, and assorted other league office holders. This season I want to take it a step forward and be completely transparent in how I individually voted on every proposal and why I voted the way I did. To be upfront, however, I did oppose a rule several seasons ago that would have published Rule Summit results with an itemized list of who voted which way on every rule. I think in some ways revealing how one voted is a choice that every individual should make on their own and they shouldn’t be compelled or mandated to do it. I have no issue being open about my stances, however.
What this also means is that these are my views and not representative of Head Office as a whole. I am a free thinking human and these are my free thoughts.
Universal Rules
1. Agent costs will no longer be $10 million a season; instead agent costs will be an initial fee of $10 million for a license, followed by a payment of $3 million per season to renew their license until the agent creates a player in the league.
Vote: For
Conceptually I love the idea of Agents, however I don’t think the league will ever truly have a thriving ecosystem of them. The league just currently isn’t set-up for that to be a possibility. The biggest reason for that is that as long as Agents can’t have players they're being cut off from a huge portion of the league’s opportunities. I understand why they shouldn’t be able to have players though and that shouldn’t change - it just happens to be an inconvenient wrinkle we can do nothing about in my mind. The second biggest reason is that the league salary cap structure prevents it from being lucrative. I generally oppose expanding the salary cap and I haven’t seen a proposal in recent seasons that would do it in a way that wouldn’t cause other issues and would also make Agents viable at the same time. As long as league money is so easy to come by and there’s no true practical application to it like there is with a real contract in real life - supporting ones family, etc - then there will always be a desire for players to take minimums to build super teams. There are always exceptions to that but generally its been fairly consistent. If thats going to be the case its hard to make Agents work properly. With all that in mind, however, I have no issue voting in favor of a rule that might make it at least marginally more enticing to be an Agent - anything we can do to try to promote that as a league option is good in my book.
2. The current pro bowl roster counts shall be amended to the following, with changes indicated
QB 2
RB 3
FB 1
TE 2
WR 4 -> 5
OL *
DE 2 -> 3
DT 2 -> 3
LB 3 -> 4
CB 3 -> 4
S 3
K 1 -> 2
P 1 -> 2
KR 2
Vote: Against
I think there is definitely room for changes to the pro bowl but I’m unsure if this is the proposal we should pursue. As I’m writing this the S29 DSFL Pro Bowl results were just released and there’s a trade deadline create with minimal stats who made the Pro Bowl. I mean no offense to that user or his player, however in a lot of seasons we may struggle to completely fill the DSFL Pro Bowl roster with active players and I’m unsure if significant expansions across the board are needed. I would be more in favor of this proposal at solely the ISFL level but still think it has a ways to go.
3. Users may claim recruitment TPE on players that they have brought to the league. Once a recruited player is updated past 100 TPE, the recruiter may claim 2 TPE. Once a recruited player is updated past 250 TPE, the recruiter may claim an additional 3 TPE. To claim, a user must link the roster page of their recruit to their update thread. However, TPE may not be claimed if one of the following applies:
- the recruited player is a recreate and had a player less than 5 seasons ago
- the recruited player has reached their draft season +2 (ie a S31 recruit may not have TPE claimed from them following the end of S33)
- the recruiting user has retired and recreated between the time of recruitment and the time of claiming that recruitment.
A user may only claim 5 recruits per player career.
Vote: For
I like capping the amount of TPE a user can get from recruitment. In speaking with Laser this seems to be how the update team is already enforcing the rule currently - we’re just codifying their procedures. I would look favorably upon a rule that detaches recruitment incentives from TPE or makes it so past the first five recruits on a player’s career you get a financial bonus instead of a TPE bonus. That would be the best of both worlds - you get a nice boost to your player if you’re a great recruiter but can’t outpace the rest of your class to a ridiculous level.
4. Give GM's PT Passes
Vote: Against
One of HO’s initiatives currently is to redo the pay structure for league jobs. I’d prefer us look to do that before we give our more PT Passes. The moment we give out a new set of PT Passes is the moment another group within the league comes and asks for them with the justification that “X” group got them. Its a slippery slope in my mind and I think we can reward the GMs for their work in a different way.
5. Give Bankers UW Passes
Vote: Against
I am more in favor of this than the proposal to give GM’s PT Passes. I don’t think a UW pass is quite as bad, however I still think we can reward individuals in a more efficient way than PT Passes.
6. DSFL GMs are unable to become RMs and vice versa
Vote: For
I think the more people we bring to the table to help rookies the better. In recent years it takes a new member a few seasons before they become a DSFL GM (there are exceptions, I’m speaking generally), however these new members would be perfect to be Rookie Mentors and hone their craft before becoming GMs. This proposal tasks more people to help rookies which is always a good thing.
7. Users have an option to purchase a single use PT Pass for that week. The more passes the person uses, the more expensive they become. The cost would reset after every season and cannot be used for UW or Season/Game Predictions. The cost of each pass is below. The cost is compounding as you would need 39,000,000 to get a full PT Pass. 1st Pass: 2,000,000 2nd Pass: 4,000,000 3rd Pass: 8,000,000 4th Pass: 10,000,000 5th Pass: 15,000,000
Vote: For
I went back and forth on this proposal. I don’t like PT Passes but on the other hand $39,000,000 is a disgusting amount of money. I think this is so expensive that it actually accomplishes the goal of siphoning money out of the economy in return for letting people miss a week of PTs without having the entire league do it instead. It would cost $52,000,000 for this and Tier 6 equipment and users would still have to do Ultimus Week and predictions. Thats so expensive I think its a deterrent from buying the whole pass but it would be nice to buy a pass if you were going on vacation and didn’t want to do the PT on your phone. Real life happens and I think this proposal serves as a recognition of that.
8. Unless otherwise specified in the schedule, if the schedule sets an event or deadline as the occurrence of another event (such as a sim/game), then the first event or deadline is set as the time the broadcast of the second event (eg. sim/game) is scheduled to start. If the second event is postponed with an official announcement, then the second event or deadline tied to it is also postponed.
Vote: For
This makes sense to me and the user who proposed it explained it well. I think it makes deadlines make a lot more sense and I’m fan of removing ambiguities from our procedures where possible.
9. Unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary which has been confirmed by the Owner, any punishment for a member of Head Office will be double the normal amount set by precedent. If there is no precedent set, those setting the punishment must first determine what the punishment should be for a non-HO member, and then double the punishment for the HO member to be punished.
Vote: For
Head Office in a lot of ways are some of the most front-facing members of the league. We’re the ones who have the power to hand down punishments and we should do our best to be flawless in holding ourselves to the rules that we enforce.
10. Job Heads must obtain HO approval for all new hires, including job head replacements. Approval must be sought before hiring announcements are posted. This holds Job Heads to the same standard as GMs who must by existing rule gain HO approval
Vote: Against
I am in favor of requiring HO to approve Job Heads, however I’m not in favor of giving us the power to reject any hire. There is currently little to no check on who Head Office hires internally and the process to remove one of us has never actually been tested or used (and hopefully it never needs to be as well). It feels bizarre to hold the entire league to a standard that we ourselves are not held to. Job Heads should be able to hire who they think can do the job because they know their team and the job inside and out. It is nice when they give us the courtesy of letting us know in advance which does happen more often than not.
11. Remove the word "active" from the before the word "account" in the definition of "Multi."
Vote: For
Please. Thats all I can say about this proposal. I think its badly needed. I’ve heard all of the arguments about the benefits to allowing second accounts, most of which center around the belief that it would give users a chance to reinvent themselves and potentially develop a different reputation. I understand that perspective and respect it but the costs of allowing users to create those anonymous accounts outweigh the potential benefits in my mind. Throughout the various cases we’ve seen of anonymous second accounts almost all of them have sapped the rookie mentor team, general managers, head office, and other assorted league offices of valuable time and energy that could be spent informing actual rookies. By allowing completely anonymous second accounts we remove some of the burden to be a decent human being because we allow a ripcord that allows people to ditch their problems with minimal repercussions. Suddenly people can be so much meaner to each other than they already sometimes are because there aren’t the same costs of having to exist within the league ecosystem with the reputation of being an asshole. Allowing it is a slap in the face to users who have successfully rebuilt reputations - of which there are numerous examples. Allowing anonymous second accounts allows trolls to sabotage potential teams they don’t like from previous experiences in the league. Allowing it is a deadly precedent and this rule is the first step to stopping that in my mind.
12. Add somewhere in the rulebook: "It is strictly prohibited for one person to have multiple forum accounts. If a person needs help logging in to their account they simply need to contact any member of Head Office who can help them to regain access."
Vote: For
See above for my reasoning for voting yes on this rule. This is the second step needed to close a loophole that I think needs to be closed. I understand an argument that we could make exceptions in particularly grave circumstances but the moment we start parsing the difference in people’s situations to define which is grave enough for an exception and which isn’t we get into the sticky situation of legislating individual’s various conflicts which is a slippery slope.
13. The definition of a multi will only include the utilization of two non-retired players at one specific time. Every user is only allowed to have one non-retired player. If that user makes additional accounts and thus has multiple players that are playing in the ISFL/DSFL, that would be a multi. It would not be a multi if a returning user wants a blank slate and wants to create a new alias in which the old alias does not have an active player.
Vote: Against
Once again please see the above two vote justifications. I think this takes the league in a direction that has a lot of downsides and creates a sticky situation.
14. Head Office members can choose to opt in to voting for awards. If they intend to do so they need to alert the events team prior to the streaming of the first ISFL playoff game.
Vote: For
Hey this is my rule! I voted in favor of removing Head Office’s right to vote on awards and I stand by that decision, however I think this is the proper correction to allow those members who aren’t swamped with their Head Office duties all being in the offseason or who find great value in doing it to once again have that responsibility.
15. Decrease the maximum amount of TPE that one can reallocate per season from 50 back to the old cap of 32. Allow players an additional option to purchase a "Trait TPE Reallocation" once per season for $5M that allows them to sell back one trait from their player build and reallocate all TPE spent on that trait into other attributes and/or traits.
Vote: For
To be honest those who are experts in how we built the league infrastructure in the sim seem to be in favor of this vote and I side with them. That might be naive but hey it works for me on this rule.
16. Move Awards to after the ISFL Draft.
Vote: For
Infinite wants it and I know the offseason events are the bane of his existence so I voted in favor of this because I trust infinite to know what he needs to do to produce the best events. I don’t think the change in the schedule will be otherworldly or inconvenient for the league at large - not nearly as much as the benefit is for the events team is at minimum.
ISFL Ballot
1. ISFL Teams are able to pay, either in full or partial, for their player's re-distribution of TPE against their salary cap. (HO has ruled to allow this, but is seeking to have this codified through the rule proposal process for future)Vote: For
Teams can already basically do this by saving bonus money equivalent to the amount and paying it out at the end of the year. That route requires a bit of strategy if you have a player with a contract allowing them first right to extra cap but you can typically work around it. This just codifies something to make it easier to do something teams already do.
2. Allow regression players to be extended on projected regression totals, if a player exceeds the projected regression total tier the contract is voided.
Vote: Against
I think there’s potential to do something here but I also think there’s some benefit to having players hit free agency even for a few days and even if they intend to immediately resign. Keeping the status quo makes teams have to strategize about whether they want to risk that player for a few days in free agency or pay a bit more for them in the middle of the season for an extension then.
3. If a rule proposal is voted down, it cannot be added to the ballot again the following rules summit.
Vote: Against
I will keep voting this down out of principle.
4. Effective immediately, HO will create a "pre-punishment" Discord room, and will immediately begin posting punishment threads there 12 hours prior to the official punishment thread going live. GMs will be allowed to provide input on the proposed punishment, but HO will have the final say on all punishment decisions. In special circumstances, HO can forgo the 12 hour period if punishment is needed sooner, as long as they notify the GMs prior to the posting of the thread in the "pre-punishment room."
Vote: Against
I think this rule has a lot of potential and we could definitely find a way to work something out similar to this but I worry about diving into it with no test runs or more specific guidelines. If it turns out to be unworkable we end up getting trapped in a rule and I think we can try it without a rule, adapt it, and then codify the procedure we choose rather than locking in a procedure in advance of trying different things.
RE: How I Voted on S30 Rule Proposals - Gragg9 - 07-13-2021
14. Head Office members can choose to opt in to voting for awards. If they intend to do so they need to alert the events team prior to the streaming of the first ISFL playoff game.
IMO it needs to be all or nothing. Allowing an opt-in leaves things far too open for personal bias or accusations of personal bias.
Other than that I think I pretty much agree on everything (with all 0 of my votes)
RE: How I Voted on S30 Rule Proposals - iStegosauruz - 07-13-2021
(07-13-2021, 10:11 PM)Gragg9 Wrote: 14. Head Office members can choose to opt in to voting for awards. If they intend to do so they need to alert the events team prior to the streaming of the first ISFL playoff game.
IMO it needs to be all or nothing. Allowing an opt-in leaves things far too open for personal bias or accusations of personal bias.
Other than that I think I pretty much agree on everything (with all 0 of my votes)
So I'm interested in hearing how bias plays a role because it may be something I'm overlooking. I intentionally wrote the rule with the date being so far in advance of the ballot coming out no one would know whether they needed to opt in to vote for their player. Ballots were distributed on July 2nd this year, the same day as the Ultimus.
RE: How I Voted on S30 Rule Proposals - Big Edd - 07-13-2021
I agree.One too many pro bowl spots in the new proposal.
RE: How I Voted on S30 Rule Proposals - shadyshoelace - 07-13-2021
(07-13-2021, 10:01 PM)iStegosauruz Wrote: 15. Decrease the maximum amount of TPE that one can reallocate per season from 50 back to the old cap of 32. Allow players an additional option to purchase a "Trait TPE Reallocation" once per season for $5M that allows them to sell back one trait from their player build and reallocate all TPE spent on that trait into other attributes and/or traits.
Vote: For
To be honest those who are experts in how we built the league infrastructure in the sim seem to be in favor of this vote and I side with them. That might be naive but hey it works for me on this rule.
This isn't a hill I'm going to die on but one that I would like to hear more information about. It would be great to get some reasoning from the folks alluded to here on why 50 TPE redistribution is an issue, or why 32 is the magic number. As far as I'm aware, the 32 TPE distribution initially existed specifically and only because of the way equipment used to be structured - a total of 32 TPE from 4 different purchases of 8 TPE, each tied to a specific set of attributes. Because players cap out some attributes earlier than others, the 32 TPE redistribution allowed you to functionally buy 32 TPE to put anywhere by, for example, redistributing 8 TPE from Strength to Hands and then buying the 8 Strength TPE equipment. I have no idea why we would want nor need to go back to that system now that equipment is only 30 TPE and no longer tied to specific attributes.
RE: How I Voted on S30 Rule Proposals - 124715 - 07-13-2021
I really like ISFL rule 4 and hope something similar passes, but maybe instead of GMs it could be the audit committee (barring their approval) or a group created just for this purpose?
RE: How I Voted on S30 Rule Proposals - slate - 07-14-2021
(07-13-2021, 10:41 PM)shadyshoelace Wrote:(07-13-2021, 10:01 PM)iStegosauruz Wrote: 15. Decrease the maximum amount of TPE that one can reallocate per season from 50 back to the old cap of 32. Allow players an additional option to purchase a "Trait TPE Reallocation" once per season for $5M that allows them to sell back one trait from their player build and reallocate all TPE spent on that trait into other attributes and/or traits.
Vote: For
To be honest those who are experts in how we built the league infrastructure in the sim seem to be in favor of this vote and I side with them. That might be naive but hey it works for me on this rule.
This isn't a hill I'm going to die on but one that I would like to hear more information about. It would be great to get some reasoning from the folks alluded to here on why 50 TPE redistribution is an issue, or why 32 is the magic number. As far as I'm aware, the 32 TPE distribution initially existed specifically and only because of the way equipment used to be structured - a total of 32 TPE from 4 different purchases of 8 TPE, each tied to a specific set of attributes. Because players cap out some attributes earlier than others, the 32 TPE redistribution allowed you to functionally buy 32 TPE to put anywhere by, for example, redistributing 8 TPE from Strength to Hands and then buying the 8 Strength TPE equipment. I have no idea why we would want nor need to go back to that system now that equipment is only 30 TPE and no longer tied to specific attributes.
I wrote this rule proposal and had a friendly person with a free slot submit it on my behalf. To be honest the less important part is changing back to 32 TPE being the limit, and the more important piece is being able to redistribute TPE from any trait. The rule raising the redistribution limit was only passed last season as an effort to allow people to redistribute trait TPE, as it was previously impossible. However, it neglected to consider that some traits cost more than 50 TPE. Hence I was aiming to create a specific method to sell any trait and get that much TPE to spend.
As part of that, I figured that my proposal was basically replacing the rule passed last season, and so as part of it we would revert the previous change to prevent any unintended consequences of allowing 50 TPE to be reallocated. That comes from a view that that is basically a side effect of allowing trait TPE redistribution, which this proposal solves more effectively.
I don't know if 32 or 50 is closer to the right number, but I figured that discussion can continue to be had even in the event of my proposal passing. Hopefully that explanation makes sense.
RE: How I Voted on S30 Rule Proposals - shadyshoelace - 07-15-2021
(07-14-2021, 12:08 AM)slate Wrote: I wrote this rule proposal and had a friendly person with a free slot submit it on my behalf. To be honest the less important part is changing back to 32 TPE being the limit, and the more important piece is being able to redistribute TPE from any trait. The rule raising the redistribution limit was only passed last season as an effort to allow people to redistribute trait TPE, as it was previously impossible. However, it neglected to consider that some traits cost more than 50 TPE. Hence I was aiming to create a specific method to sell any trait and get that much TPE to spend.
As part of that, I figured that my proposal was basically replacing the rule passed last season, and so as part of it we would revert the previous change to prevent any unintended consequences of allowing 50 TPE to be reallocated. That comes from a view that that is basically a side effect of allowing trait TPE redistribution, which this proposal solves more effectively.
I don't know if 32 or 50 is closer to the right number, but I figured that discussion can continue to be had even in the event of my proposal passing. Hopefully that explanation makes sense.
Thanks for the reply, that makes a lot of sense. For whatever reason, the way it was written made it sound to me like someone thought 32 was a better redistribution amount than 50 and then added the trait component to offset complaints about overturning last season's change, but when you reverse the causality it's a lot clearer. 32 still seems like a weird and arbitrary amount, but I suppose without a tie to traits 50 is also just an arbitrary amount that just feels less weird because it's round. It seems like something like 30, 45, or 50 could be good amounts to maximize the flexibility with our TPE upgrade tiers (1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 25).
RE: How I Voted on S30 Rule Proposals - JKortesi81 - 07-16-2021
"10. Job Heads must obtain HO approval for all new hires, including job head replacements. Approval must be sought before hiring announcements are posted. This holds Job Heads to the same standard as GMs who must by existing rule gain HO approval
Vote: Against
I am in favor of requiring HO to approve Job Heads, however I’m not in favor of giving us the power to reject any hire. There is currently little to no check on who Head Office hires internally and the process to remove one of us has never actually been tested or used (and hopefully it never needs to be as well). It feels bizarre to hold the entire league to a standard that we ourselves are not held to. Job Heads should be able to hire who they think can do the job because they know their team and the job inside and out. It is nice when they give us the courtesy of letting us know in advance which does happen more often than not."
Bless you.