Pythons GM Resignation

[manicmav36]

As some of you have may read by now, the GMs for the Portland Pythons were asked by HO to step down. This is not a decision we took lightly. After days of discussion, we voted unanimously (with 1 abstention) 3-0 on the decision.
The DSFL is very important to this league. Without an active and healthy DSFL, this league would wither and die. We need the best league advocates we can find for these GM positions, and while I personally enjoy toasty and saba as users, their combined work as GMs was not up to snuff and lacked many basic requirements. The following is a list of just some of the mistakes and examples of inactivity during this season only.

- Greatly delayed the DSFL draft despite, at times, one (or both) of them chatting for lengths of time in GM/general chat while the rest of the league waited for their picks. This includes their first-round selection, which took 882 minutes (14+ hours) to make.

- Despite being initially asked on January 13th to submit a depth chart, they did not do so until January 18th. Portland was the last. 4 teams did so in under 24 hours, while it took Portland over 128 hours. When they did, it included both retired players and players that are currently on other DSFL teams. They were reminded to make a depth chart numerous times by both the simmer and members of HO. This is a basic requirement for GMs and delayed the making of the off-season file. Which, in turn, led to the delay of the season.

- Despite being the only team in the DSFL with 1 active TE while all others had 2, delayed making a claim on a waiver TE. That TE then sat unclaimed for days. Yet another basic requirement of DSFL GMs. The longer a player sits unclaimed, the more likely they’re to go IA/

- Have yet to make GM bots for their team, while every other GM in the league has done so. This is used by GMs to fill holes on their rosters and is a large disservice to their team.

The purpose of this list is not to drag saba and toasty through the mud, but to inform league members of the reasoning behind the decision. Obviously, this is something we would like to avoid at all costs and hope we never have to do again.


This decision was appealed and was upheld by the appeals team, 4-0.