S26 Rules Summit Results

[iStegosauruz]

The S26 ISFL Rules Summit has recently come to a close.  GMs, Head Office members and Department Heads were encouraged to submit proposed changes to the rulebook and league procedure. With 21 voting members (14 teams, 5 HO members, 1 league owner, and 1 simmer), 15 votes were needed for a proposal to pass. 

Only 19 of the 21 voting members cast ballot this year, dropping that number to 14 votes needed for a proposal to pass, however that number is below the # of teams + 1 benchmark - meaning 15 votes are still technically needed. 

Below is the full list of proposed rule changes and the final voting results for each.

1. Add a subsection to Section II.B which will read: "All General or Co-General Managers must have held their positions for two consecutive seasons prior to the draft class their player is in to be automatically drafted to their team. Exceptions may be made at HO discretion."

13 For - 6 Against
Rule Does NOT Pass

2. Archetype changes fee is reduced to 3 Million

17 For - 2 Against
Rule Passes

3. Agent Fees are reduced to 5M

9 For - 10 Against
Rule Does NOT Pass

4. Changes to the ISFL Salary Cap must be announced prior to the trade deadline for the following season

17 For - 2 Against
Rule Passes

5. 1) Before being achieved, incentive-based bonuses will count against the following season's cap. 2) Once achieved, a team may choose to either bring the cap hit forward to the current season and pay it out, or wait until after the Ultimus to pay out against the following season's cap.

11 For - 8 Against
Rule Does NOT Pass

6. Allow re-nomination of players 3 seasons after their last HOF eligibility. A call will be placed to the HOF Committee for any players they wish to re-nominate. When all nominees are collected, a vote will be held amongst the committee - should a player designated for re-nomination receive OVER HALF OF THE COMMITTEE'S votes, they will be inserted into the next ballot with a legacy tag, subject to all the same rules as other nominees in that class.

17 For - 2 Against
Rule Passes

7. Contracts will now be allowed to contain a Joint Option on any given year. A contract with a JO will require both the GM and the player to agree to activate the JO and terminate the contract. Section II.D.4 will be amended to read "Contracts can contain an NMC, NTC, PO, TO, or JO."

7 For - 12 Against
Rule Does NOT Pass

We also conducted a special rules summit addressing some issues impacting both the DSFL and ISFL. With 33 voting members (14 ISFL teams, 8 DSFL teams, 5 ISFL HO members, 3 DSFL HO members, 1 league owner, and 2 simmers), 24 votes were needed for a proposal to pass.

Once again, only 31 voting members cast a ballot this year. That brings the number of votes needed for the 70% threshold to 22. That doesn't meet the # of teams + 1 threshold, however. The number needed to pass a proposal as such was 23. 

Below is the full list of proposed rule changes and the final voting results for each.

1.  All offensive line bots receive an in sim designation (B). This makes it easier for awards and for the simmer.

31 For - 0 Against
Rule Passes 

2. With the increasing number of OL creates, Reduce the weight of bot OL to 325 across the board no matter of position played.

6 For - 25 Against
Rule Does NOT Pass

3. Non-QBs may no longer apply newly-earned TPE to arm or throwing accuracy, and non-K/Ps may no longer apply newly earned TPE to kick power or kick accuracy.

13 For - 18 Against
Rule Does NOT Pass

4. Trade Deadline Waiver timeline: A. Trade Deadline creations cannot be made until the week before the trade deadline. Posts created earlier will be moved to Declined Players. B. Trade Deadline Waivers and approval for the coming season will begin at the conclusion of the DSFL Trade Deadline. C. Waivers will end 24 hours prior to the final end of season update

26 For - 5 Against
Rule Passes

5. Standard Position Change Requirements: When processing a position switch, the player must provide both builds on their update post.

29 For - 2 Against
Rule Passes

6. Awards voting changing to instant runoff system

27 For - 4 Against 
Rule Passes

7. Change on the submission rules for graphics: A. Change the weekly card limit to either 8 or unlimited. B. Change weekly uniform submissions to 4. C. Change logo submissions to 8 or unlimited. D. Cap sig submissions to 10 per week.

14 For - 17 Against
Rule Does NOT Pass

8. HO does not vote on player awards or pro bowl. Head Office continues to vote on user recognition awards such as MDM and GMotY.

22 For - 9 Against
Rule Does NOT Pass

9. HO hires all GMs

5 For - 26 Against
Rule Does NOT Pass

We also conducted a special rules summit runoff addressing a multi-part proposal that impacted both the DSFL and ISFL. With 33 voting members (14 ISFL teams, 8 DSFL teams, 5 ISFL HO members, 3 DSFL HO members, 1 league owner, and 2 simmers), 24 votes were needed for a proposal to pass.


Once again, only 28 voting members cast a ballot this year. That brings the number of votes needed for the 70% threshold to 20. That doesn't meet the # of teams + 1 threshold, however. The number needed to pass a proposal as such was 23.

With this proposal having 4 different options to cast a ballot for the "change" options were required to reach the threshold when added together - so 23 - and then the highest of those would be picked. 

10. Pro-Bowl Change


4 For Option A - 4 For Option B - 11 For Option C - 9 Against
Rule Does NOT Pass

Code:

ISFL Rules 2, 4,  and 6 pass. Rule 2 will be added to the rulebook and will go into effect during the off-season. Rule 4 will be added to the rule book and go into effect this season on its respective timeline. Rule 6 will go into effect at the discretion of the Hall of Fame Committee.

Universal Rules 1, 4, 5, and 6 pass. Rules 1 go into effect at the discretion of the Sim Head. Rules 4 and 5 will be added to the rulebook and will go into effect during the off-season. Rule 6 will go into effect at the discretion of the Awards Committee. 

Please feel free to tag @iStegosauruz with any questions!

[zaynzk]

3. Non-QBs may no longer apply newly-earned TPE to arm or throwing accuracy, and non-K/Ps may no longer apply newly earned TPE to kick power or kick accuracy.


why did so many people vote against this? Seems like all this would change is that it would make the updaters life easier



7. Change on the submission rules for graphics: A. Change the weekly card limit to either 8 or unlimited. B. Change weekly uniform submissions to 4. C. Change logo submissions to 8 or unlimited. D. Cap sig submissions to 10 per week.


also this rip

[infinitempg]

Jesus Christ 1 vote from freeing HO from voting. Also time to find the 4-6 people who voting against my proposals

[Nokazoa]

Why against the gfx one? Seems like no issue

[IsaStarcrossed]

Why against the gfx one? Seems like no issue

I think because it was multiple choice. The 8 submissions or unlimited. In that sense it was an unfinished rule due to there being options. I think if it had been left at "limit it to 8 submissions" or "make it unlimited submissions" it would have had a better chance at passing.

[slate]

On the graphics one, I don't understand why that (and some other similar rules that have been proposed) needed to be passed during a rules summit. There's no rule specifying the Twitter or Media grading scales, those teams just come up with them (presumably with HO approval). If the Graphics team really wants to limit submissions, why did they need to put it on a rules summit ballot rather than changing it themselves?

In general what each department does and doesn't have the authority to do on their own, and what things should be handled by league vote vs. handled by department decision, should be much better defined IMO.

[Nokazoa]

Why against the gfx one? Seems like no issue

I think because it was multiple choice. The 8 submissions or unlimited. In that sense it was an unfinished rule due to there being options. I think if it had been left at "limit it to 8 submissions" or "make it unlimited submissions" it would have had a better chance at passing.

That's fair. I also think it should just be left to the gfx grading department to set their own cap without rules summit approval.

[Colabear]

On the graphics one, I don't understand why that (and some other similar rules that have been proposed) needed to be passed during a rules summit. There's no rule specifying the Twitter or Media grading scales, those teams just come up with them (presumably with HO approval). If the Graphics team really wants to limit submissions, why did they need to put it on a rules summit ballot rather than changing it themselves?

In general what each department does and doesn't have the authority to do on their own, and what things should be handled by league vote vs. handled by department decision, should be much better defined IMO.

I tend to agree that a lot of stuff ends up in rules summits that doesn't need to be. But I don't think we do any vetting on submissions - I guess that would cause it's own drama and accusations of HO bias and lust for power. We tend to let the voting sort it out.

[LimJahey]

On the graphics one, I don't understand why that (and some other similar rules that have been proposed) needed to be passed during a rules summit. There's no rule specifying the Twitter or Media grading scales, those teams just come up with them (presumably with HO approval). If the Graphics team really wants to limit submissions, why did they need to put it on a rules summit ballot rather than changing it themselves?

In general what each department does and doesn't have the authority to do on their own, and what things should be handled by league vote vs. handled by department decision, should be much better defined IMO.

In terms of this, I vaguely remember our old head Cal talking about not being able to change submission rules, so when I took over I took it as something that would have to pass during a rule summit. I never really questioned HO on if it was something I can or can’t do at my own discretion, but going off of the vote it doesn’t look like it would’ve been a popular rule to pass anyways.

[caltroit_red_flames]

Code:

2. With the increasing number of OL creates, Reduce the weight of bot OL to 325 across the board no matter of position played.

6 For - 25 Against
Rule Does NOT Pass

The fight for fair rubs continues.