(03-31-2021, 11:17 PM)DarknessRising Wrote:Taking the power away from the heads and giving it back to HO where it belongs, a true people's warrior(03-31-2021, 11:09 PM)TeyonSchavari Wrote: From the perspective of former HO - I get what goes on behind closed doors. You start investigating something, you start to see how big it is, and then from there you start to see more than there probably is and develop your own bias. It happens. And I know in my stint I did exactly that and it made me very unforgiving on cases that I would likely not have cared much about if I hadn't been in HO and voted on the harshest outcomes on cases that I probably should have been more forgiving on. So I fully understand *why* HO made this decision. And given the evidence a punishment was justified in my opinion.
However, I do disagree with the severity of this particular punishment. To me, a fine and a probationary period would have sufficed with a warning to run a tighter ship. Being a department head should come with some level of autonomy and the ability to make judgment calls, and when the judgment starts to get out of line hit em with this first before going to the extreme of firing them.
Thats just my take on it. I'm not gonna get all emotional and yell Heck HO and call all their work bad based a couple decisions. I do still believe they are trying to do whats best for this league and its silly to think they did this just to swing their stick around. Lets hope appeals overturns this and that if they don't, more evidence is provided publicly to justify the decision.
Firstly, GM's just got a viewable version of the raw data we pulled so that's a step in the right direction.
Secondly, this has shown again the importance of needing to define what a head can and cant do at their discression. This and the Graphics rule summit has lead to us working out ways to define this. A first draft has come up in light of this
1) Valid rule proposals encompass anything which would require a change to the ISFL/DSFL rulebook if passed
2) It is at HO's discretion as to what does and what does not merit inclusion in the rulebook
3) "changes regarding money or tpe need ho approval"
Im putting this out there so people know where this is at and that this is another step in the right direction that has been taken
