S28 Rules Summit

[iStegosauruz]

6. SD must remain in ISFL HO. Forever.

We should question whether the users that proposed and voted for this rule should continue to be eligible for voting in the future. An overwhelming majority of the userbase does not have a direct vote in league matters, and seeing a proposal like this along with 9 joke votes to add it to the rulebook does not inspire much confidence that a large minority of the voting base takes their role seriously. Fortunately we have been given an offseason task that addresses this exact topic, so thank you to HO for giving us this type of platform for feedback. If you proposed or voted for this rule and simultaneously believe that a players' union type body is a farce, your position is untenable. Please reconsider using your exclusive ability to propose rules on a joke and instead solicit feedback for a proposal from other users as has been done previously.

Couple of things: 

First, excluding that proposal we had 15 rule proposals.
In Season 27 we had 10.
In Season 26 we had 17.
In Season 25 we had 21.
In Season 24 we had 19. 
In Season 23 we had we had 11. 

In any of these seasons we are not using our full slate of rule proposals. If the community at large has changes they'd like to see in the rulebook approach your GM, any relevant department head, or any member of Head Office. We have MORE than enough space. 
That is not a vindication or opinion on the union or providing some level of vote to the general member base. Its an acknowledgement that the union/member base voting ideas came on the heels of a six (and maybe more) season low in rule proposals. I respect and understand that the general member base of the league does not possess direct votes but there are still ways to influence proceedings in rules summits, and one major indicator (not the only, but one we can look at) of that is rule quantity. 

Second, we passed an incredible number of rules this offseason that have huge impact on the league at large. If anyone here would like to zero-in on one proposal for the fun of GMs and HO and completely ignore the substantive changes that the league just passed, thats their choice. I urge league members to look at the fact we just codified sets of punishments almost unanimously, refocused one of the more controversial and confusing awards, clarified regression, codified some expansion procedures, passed multiple rules to address issues with ISFL/DSFL position switching, and voted to give the league more money for quality graphics. These are changes in multiple different areas of the league that are good for the league.

Allowing General Managers and Head Office to have fun with a fellow member of that group during the busiest time of the season for us - two drafts, regression, the Ultimus, the Ultimini, Rules Summits, Off-Season Prep, etc. - should not be used as a blackmark against anyone and isn't an indication that individuals don't take their jobs seriously. Head Office is constantly told we're too formal and don't look like relatable humans to the rest of the league. When we make decisions that showcase that fact we're criticized for doing it. The league doesn't get it both ways.

I'll be the first to understand, respect, and acknowledge it was not a smart decision to include but I take a lot of offense to using it as a mark that anyone involved in this process isn't taking their job seriously.