I'm sure that me answering this won't be unexpected. Here we go.
I mean, in general it's a solid idea for new players, don't get me wrong. I just feel like with the history of rulemaking here over the past 5-6 seasons that this rule will end up being altered sooner than later as soon as someone decides that it gives the dreaded advantage to recreates. For example, new players lost the right to buy equipment during partial seasons some time ago for those reasons. So really what I'm saying is to take this one back to the drawing board and write it up in a way where it won't get gutted. I would vote no as is and then vote yes if something was added to forestall any future "recreate advantage" changes. Perhaps just adding the word NEW so that it applies only when a NEW user creates. If this only eve applied to brand new users, said language will also clear that up. I'd be surprised if I was the only one who read this and assumed it applied to recreates as well since it doesn't specifically say it doesn't.
A move born of desperation of getting people who agreed to vote to actually vote. Not a one time scenario either. Totally on board. I'd have made it like 5% million or higher though. Make the number big enough that you never actually have to enforce the rule.
Proposed a waiting period a number times. While the argument Nunc already responded with is one good reason (no overhyping a recent great season), I had other reasons. A number of people were essentially jackknifed out of Hall consideration based on the assumption that their totals would quickly be surpassed. A waiting period mitigates that argument a fair amount when other players have several seasons to try and do that. It's an overall great way to get a good look at someone's career. As opposed to "he doesn't FEEL like a Hall of Famer" as a response to the list of said player's accomplishments. Yes, please do this. Effective immediately.
Proposed this in a slightly more inclusive form. I added "top 25 all time in a relevant stat" to mine. Basically it was so that it would remove the bottom end type candidates immediately and the person writing up the career highlights would be able to avoid the absolute worst players and save themselves literally hours of work every single season. The one solitary person who does the Hall of Fame work (or did at the time) had been doing absolute shit tons of tedious work to prepare the individual player profiles and hunt down stats and all that just so ho/gms could vote.
There was outright disagreement at the time on the idea that the one person should be able to save time by effectively removing the bottom rung. There was disagreement on the idea that we should have minimum standards to our Hall of fame. Fun fact: There was also debate concurrent to that one about whether someone who ranked in the top 5 all time in both receptions and touchdowns and had an Ultimus ring and numerous Pro Bowls qualified as a Hall of Famer.
Yes. Do this. Lighten the fucking ONE person's load a little bit. Nobody needs to fucking vote on Omar Wrong's candidacy.
If you want GM players to be picked in the first round, make that rule. It's a fine rule. It works in sim leagues all over the place. If you want to keep our current rule, that works too. It gives teams great flexibility. The combo here just doesn't work for me. If I'm GM'ing, I'm loathe to make any kind of trades or moves that entire season that I'm in the DSFL because I can't be sure what draft picks I need to hold onto. Or I'm tempted to tank late season so I don't have to trade back into the 1st round if I've happened to trade them away at some point. It's a somewhat rough answer to a problem that I'm not sure anyone really complained about.
If we're gonna change this system, I'd just go with 1st rounders for GMs. If both GM and CoGM are in the same draft, 1s and 2nd (which is already the rule I beleive).
No switches to QB after 500 TPE would be simpler and cleaner. And it wouldn't require secondary rules like the one later in the list that really hurt everyone else (I'll get there).
It's something, I guess. It's a step in the right direction on an issue that isn't as widespread as it was 5-6 season ago. You'd have to be in absolute dire need to utilize this, which I figure some people like better than just not allowing the switch. Needs to be filled out though so again..people aren't writing off entire separate rules just to make this one work. Just write this rule to account for things related to this rule. So its a no for me.
This is actually two rules. The first being the o-linemen being standardized. I don't know how I fdeel about this rule on it's own. Linemen are a team expense and customization tool that a lot of players have taken less money to help pay for. Plus, as someone noted, if you make o-linemen free, the humans who do decide to play the position are essentially priced out automatically. The bots being set takes away individual GMs tailoring their bots to need or being able to take the risk on lower bots and spending more cap money to skill position contracts. Or to mitigate their lack of high price free agents by buying more expensive bots that can help their offense.
The second rule is lowering the cap by $15 million which I have to think is the real intention of this proposal. Various people have been trying to make that happen for a long while and sweeting it with "you don't have to pay for bots" feels like the cheese in a mouse trap. I would vote no on the frankensteining of two rules together here and no on them if they were submitted with honesty separately.
Has this ever actually happened? But yeah, I get it. GMs gonna do what they can when 20% of their cap is being threatened. This is a solid proposal to nip this in the butt. Though I wonder what happens if the player takes a 2nd 1 year contract. Are they still limited to two more?
"QBs post position switch cannot redistribute TPE" would've been a better proposal that doesn't attack everyone else.
It's removing a rule that affects everyone to stop a few people from taking advantage in specific situations when you could easily write the rules for THOSE situations instead. Unless of course the real aim is just the dislike of redistribution of TPE. There's an argument to be made there of course, but this isn't that. This really smells like hiding behind the QB rules people want to sneak in something else.
This is like one of those Congressional bills that get passed into law like the Safe Port Act that purports to be about securing the safety of this and then somehow in the margins, internet poker got illegalized. That's a real thing that happened by the way, not a random example.
I would vote against this and suggest that any position or archetype rules would carry their own caveats to deal with their own situations.
Contracts used to be max 3 years. Then the ability to extend contracts on larger TPE players were voted in. The reference to "memes" makes me think it's talking about JIggly's contract. Which I believe was said at the time to have not been within the rules. The rules that this proposal is trying to change, using that as an example.
I was fine with 3 max the whole time. I even proposed a new pay minimum scale a long while ago which made max contracts 2 years until you hit a certain level of TPE and pay bumps every 100 tpe instead of the current 200. That obviously did not go over. We changed max to what it is now because it's what GMs wanted. The ability to lock up their high caliber players for longer terms (the very reason I didn't support it to begin with). That was the direction we decided to go in and I just don't see this as compelling enough to change back this soon. Even if Jiggly's memey contract actually was a byproduct.
I dont support longer contracts for higher end players but once we pass the rule we need to give it a fair amount of time to prove itself out one way or the other.
I'm all aboard here. It's harsh to take away the position switch, yes. And presumably that wouldn't apply during their DSFL career, when they could simply be handed their earned TPE and the basic starting stats of their new position with minimal fuss. I mean,w e could jsut make that a general policy too but if we get started here, that's something that i think will work itself out eventually. It's a great compromise to avoid any further potential ridiculousness and still give people the option to pursue this position. One thing is that it should obviously be effective retroactively so as to benefit our current O-Line player who just got drafted.
Well, thems me thoughts. I hope other players in the league feel encouraged to also share their thoughts here and even among your teams. This is YOUR league.
(01-26-2019, 10:58 AM)bovovovo Wrote:Below is a list of all the rules that have been proposed by GMs and is now being voted on by GMs/HO. Rules need at least 10/15 votes to pass and HO reserves the right to slightly tweak rules should they pass to prevent unforseen issues (like that one silly time when gloves gave more tpe than any other equipment)
1. Late Joiner TPE to help bring users who join at an inefficient time up to speed. For every week after the previous draft deadline the user creates, they will receive:
2nd week: 6 tpe (AC + trivia)
3rd weeek: 6 tpe (AC + trivia)
4th week: 7 tpe (AC + 1/2 of Ultimus Week)
5th week: 6 tpe (AC + Trivia)
Every week after: 6 tpe
I mean, in general it's a solid idea for new players, don't get me wrong. I just feel like with the history of rulemaking here over the past 5-6 seasons that this rule will end up being altered sooner than later as soon as someone decides that it gives the dreaded advantage to recreates. For example, new players lost the right to buy equipment during partial seasons some time ago for those reasons. So really what I'm saying is to take this one back to the drawing board and write it up in a way where it won't get gutted. I would vote no as is and then vote yes if something was added to forestall any future "recreate advantage" changes. Perhaps just adding the word NEW so that it applies only when a NEW user creates. If this only eve applied to brand new users, said language will also clear that up. I'd be surprised if I was the only one who read this and assumed it applied to recreates as well since it doesn't specifically say it doesn't.
Quote:2. Each team that does not have their award/probowl votes in by the deadline will be fined 2.5m in cap space. Every HO will be fined to their bank account.
A move born of desperation of getting people who agreed to vote to actually vote. Not a one time scenario either. Totally on board. I'd have made it like 5% million or higher though. Make the number big enough that you never actually have to enforce the rule.
Quote:3. Players must be retired for a minimum of 3 seasons before they are eligible for a HOF vote.
Proposed a waiting period a number times. While the argument Nunc already responded with is one good reason (no overhyping a recent great season), I had other reasons. A number of people were essentially jackknifed out of Hall consideration based on the assumption that their totals would quickly be surpassed. A waiting period mitigates that argument a fair amount when other players have several seasons to try and do that. It's an overall great way to get a good look at someone's career. As opposed to "he doesn't FEEL like a Hall of Famer" as a response to the list of said player's accomplishments. Yes, please do this. Effective immediately.
Quote:4. Players must win at least 1 award (pro bowl, positional award, MPV, etc.) to be considered for the HOF.
Proposed this in a slightly more inclusive form. I added "top 25 all time in a relevant stat" to mine. Basically it was so that it would remove the bottom end type candidates immediately and the person writing up the career highlights would be able to avoid the absolute worst players and save themselves literally hours of work every single season. The one solitary person who does the Hall of Fame work (or did at the time) had been doing absolute shit tons of tedious work to prepare the individual player profiles and hunt down stats and all that just so ho/gms could vote.
There was outright disagreement at the time on the idea that the one person should be able to save time by effectively removing the bottom rung. There was disagreement on the idea that we should have minimum standards to our Hall of fame. Fun fact: There was also debate concurrent to that one about whether someone who ranked in the top 5 all time in both receptions and touchdowns and had an Ultimus ring and numerous Pro Bowls qualified as a Hall of Famer.
Yes. Do this. Lighten the fucking ONE person's load a little bit. Nobody needs to fucking vote on Omar Wrong's candidacy.
Quote:5. If a team's GM is in the NSFL Draft and that team did not make the playoffs, they must select that player with their earliest second round pick (as normal). If they did make the playoffs they must select that player with their earliest first round pick.
If you want GM players to be picked in the first round, make that rule. It's a fine rule. It works in sim leagues all over the place. If you want to keep our current rule, that works too. It gives teams great flexibility. The combo here just doesn't work for me. If I'm GM'ing, I'm loathe to make any kind of trades or moves that entire season that I'm in the DSFL because I can't be sure what draft picks I need to hold onto. Or I'm tempted to tank late season so I don't have to trade back into the 1st round if I've happened to trade them away at some point. It's a somewhat rough answer to a problem that I'm not sure anyone really complained about.
If we're gonna change this system, I'd just go with 1st rounders for GMs. If both GM and CoGM are in the same draft, 1s and 2nd (which is already the rule I beleive).
Quote:6. Switches to QB are allowed, but for QB you can only move 25% of your TPE and you must also forfeit your archetype switch, it will still cost 4m. If you don't have an archetype switch you cannot switch to QB. This hinders a team who is trying to switch a high TPE player by limiting them even more, and it doesn't allow them to circumvent the rule with archetype switching.
DSFL Rookies would still be able to switch normally, this is only for NSFL players.
No switches to QB after 500 TPE would be simpler and cleaner. And it wouldn't require secondary rules like the one later in the list that really hurt everyone else (I'll get there).
It's something, I guess. It's a step in the right direction on an issue that isn't as widespread as it was 5-6 season ago. You'd have to be in absolute dire need to utilize this, which I figure some people like better than just not allowing the switch. Needs to be filled out though so again..people aren't writing off entire separate rules just to make this one work. Just write this rule to account for things related to this rule. So its a no for me.
Quote:7. Every single team has the same TPE for each offensive lineman. The number I come to is 550 TPE given that almost every team buys bots of some quantity at that level. Since we are adding set bots (and you do not have to pay for them) I propose we decrease the cap by 15M. Every single team is spending at least 16.5 on their line and some teams even more than that. The increased cap room (ranging from 1.5M to 17M) will make Free Agency much more exciting in this league.
((If this rule passes it will not be implemented until the S14 season to give GMs time to adjust))
This is actually two rules. The first being the o-linemen being standardized. I don't know how I fdeel about this rule on it's own. Linemen are a team expense and customization tool that a lot of players have taken less money to help pay for. Plus, as someone noted, if you make o-linemen free, the humans who do decide to play the position are essentially priced out automatically. The bots being set takes away individual GMs tailoring their bots to need or being able to take the risk on lower bots and spending more cap money to skill position contracts. Or to mitigate their lack of high price free agents by buying more expensive bots that can help their offense.
The second rule is lowering the cap by $15 million which I have to think is the real intention of this proposal. Various people have been trying to make that happen for a long while and sweeting it with "you don't have to pay for bots" feels like the cheese in a mouse trap. I would vote no on the frankensteining of two rules together here and no on them if they were submitted with honesty separately.
Quote:8. If a rookie signs a 1 year contract, they can only sign at most a 2 year extension.
(There is currently no rule in place that can stop a team from offering a rookie a one year deal, then immediately offering them a 3 year extension, effectively bending the rules to offer a player a 4 year rookie contract. This is not good for the league, and should not be allowed, this rule will take care of that.)
Has this ever actually happened? But yeah, I get it. GMs gonna do what they can when 20% of their cap is being threatened. This is a solid proposal to nip this in the butt. Though I wonder what happens if the player takes a 2nd 1 year contract. Are they still limited to two more?
Quote:9. Remove the following rule from the rulebook:
(This rule undermines and essentially ruins proposals like the QB proposal above, or any future ruling about editing position or archetype switches. It should be removed immediately)
"QBs post position switch cannot redistribute TPE" would've been a better proposal that doesn't attack everyone else.
It's removing a rule that affects everyone to stop a few people from taking advantage in specific situations when you could easily write the rules for THOSE situations instead. Unless of course the real aim is just the dislike of redistribution of TPE. There's an argument to be made there of course, but this isn't that. This really smells like hiding behind the QB rules people want to sneak in something else.
This is like one of those Congressional bills that get passed into law like the Safe Port Act that purports to be about securing the safety of this and then somehow in the margins, internet poker got illegalized. That's a real thing that happened by the way, not a random example.
I would vote against this and suggest that any position or archetype rules would carry their own caveats to deal with their own situations.
Quote:10. Just keep all contract maximums at 3 years in length, just because theres really no need for extra long contracts, just makes using the sheet worse, theyre only ever used for memes, and theyre never carried to their full length
Contracts used to be max 3 years. Then the ability to extend contracts on larger TPE players were voted in. The reference to "memes" makes me think it's talking about JIggly's contract. Which I believe was said at the time to have not been within the rules. The rules that this proposal is trying to change, using that as an example.
I was fine with 3 max the whole time. I even proposed a new pay minimum scale a long while ago which made max contracts 2 years until you hit a certain level of TPE and pay bumps every 100 tpe instead of the current 200. That obviously did not go over. We changed max to what it is now because it's what GMs wanted. The ability to lock up their high caliber players for longer terms (the very reason I didn't support it to begin with). That was the direction we decided to go in and I just don't see this as compelling enough to change back this soon. Even if Jiggly's memey contract actually was a byproduct.
I dont support longer contracts for higher end players but once we pass the rule we need to give it a fair amount of time to prove itself out one way or the other.
Quote:11. Provide users who create OLs a "TPE boost" so that being an OL is a viable career path for users who wish to pursue it. This TPE boost would be forfeit should the user position switch.
The positional TPE boost would scale appropriately to provide the real OL player a comparable fit for the team. A small committee would need to flesh out the details here, but a scaled system for OL would probably apply around 250 - 300 positional TPE. TPE boost would be applied at the beginning of the season.
I'm all aboard here. It's harsh to take away the position switch, yes. And presumably that wouldn't apply during their DSFL career, when they could simply be handed their earned TPE and the basic starting stats of their new position with minimal fuss. I mean,w e could jsut make that a general policy too but if we get started here, that's something that i think will work itself out eventually. It's a great compromise to avoid any further potential ridiculousness and still give people the option to pursue this position. One thing is that it should obviously be effective retroactively so as to benefit our current O-Line player who just got drafted.
Well, thems me thoughts. I hope other players in the league feel encouraged to also share their thoughts here and even among your teams. This is YOUR league.
![[Image: 68.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/722696337912496132/759304283312881684/68.png)
![[Image: h5Ta7H1.png]](https://i.imgur.com/h5Ta7H1.png)
![[Image: Screen_Shot_2022-02-09_at_12.15.25_PM.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/617753862723469541/940793707450482708/Screen_Shot_2022-02-09_at_12.15.25_PM.png)
