*DSFL GMing: Points of Concern

[37thchamber]

What would you propose as some potential disincentives?

Complicated question. People's motives and situations will vary. I don't think it needs to be disincentivised though.

Like I don't think anyone is saying that it should never happen at all, or that it's inherently bad. If you're a semi-casual player who is happy and enjoying their experience in the DSFL, it probably doesn't matter to you whether you get called up, in which case I don't see an issue with being a DSFL lifer. If you're a veteran who wants a break, similar logic applies -- I mean, I just didn't recreate immediately; but this is just as valid -- you can still be part of the community and it's no big deal if you don't want to be called up.

Pretty sure the thrust of that point (and Jimi can correct me if I'm misreading this) was more to do with new users (who are, after all, the focus of the DSFL) coming in and being active enough to have their player be viable in the ISFL... but feeling a sense of loyalty to their DSFL team to the point that they don't want to be called up. That should probably be discouraged.

Perhaps it should be rebalanced in a way where teams can cover most or even all of a player's equipment/weekly training costs for some of their players. This might create an interesting dynamic where a team might offer a 3 year, $60mil contract to someone (which effectively allows them to not have to earn money for 3 seasons) in an attempt to keep them active.

Part of the reason this doesn't happen is because the fewer things you have to do each week, the more likely it is you become less active.
By creating a situation in which users who want a successful player feel the need to earn league cash to pay for equipment and training, we implicitly encourage the creation of gfx/media/podcasts, or doing league jobs etc. These things largely then contribute to overall activity by encouraging engagement in the league community as a whole.

There is some balance to be had here, obviously, but generally speaking, the higher contract amounts are more likely go to the people who have already put in the work (and thus proven they are worth the investment) ... which is a self-defeating argument for doing this in the first place, because those users are more likely to have the time and/or bank to not need subsidising via contract.

This is part of a whole other discussion around contracts, imo, and it's very easy to go off on a tangent here so I'll cut it short. But the TL;DR is "giving players more money doesn't really help with activity"

Also, people can pay for each other's equipment and training costs, right? I didn't see a rule specifically against this. If I choose to pay for another user's weekly training with my own money, I can do that, right?

No. That would fall under transferring funds, since there is no provision for allowing another user to buy equipment or pay for training that does not apply to their own player.
This should probably be clarified in the rulebook though, so ... well done for pointing it out.

But ultimately it is no fun for either party to either have to draft a player that quickly goes inactive, and/or for a casual player to create a player and then realize how incredibly ineffective they are if they aren't willing to put in the baseline level of work, especially when it takes a few seasons before you can start seeing your player pay dividends in the ISFL (of which this post says is the main focus of the league, not the DSFL).

The casual player in this example isn't what Jimi is talking about, to be fair. He did clarify this in response to Swanty.