Jan 4, 2018
New Jersey Devils
2nd Favourite Team
Posts per Day
<a href="/users/A_K" target="_blank">@A_K</a> <a href="/users/Bo53Horvat" target="_blank">@Bo53Horvat</a> <a href="/users/Gronk" target="_blank">@Gronk</a>
In light of the recent changes posted that are affecting the games BOG going forward, I'd just like to share my thoughts.....
First, THANK YOU to all 3 of you for the time and efforts you committed to the game and you individual roles in getting v4 up and running.
I've always understood the "real life" factor to the game and how we all have many things going on outside the game. I truly hope that each of your decisions are based more on that, rather than some of the game related headaches that develop via our Twitter chats.
I'm sure I won't be the only one to wonder about this, but with Alex (AK) stepping down, how much will that one decision affect the scoring aspect of the game as it pertains to in game standings and rankings? I hope there is someone with the same level of integrity willing to take over and keep it running.
Our game is meant to be something that resembles the real life world an NHL GM lives in, but mostly it should be about a group of 32 people having fun with "pretending" to manage a virtual NHL club. Often times that aspect gets lost when it comes to evaluating different happenings within the game, and unfortunately the BOG are usually the targets of peoples displeasure. That shouldn't happen. I doubt there would or will ever be a time where all 32 of us 100% agree on anything, but that doesn't give us a ticket to go off on certain people and direct our anger at them. It's a game, we need to remember that.
Now of course there will also be some really "out of whack" things that happen and it's those times where we also hope the selected group in charge of trying to maintain decorum in the game can get together and find an acceptable solution. It's certainly never easy, but, and I say this will all the respect it deserves.......for all the younger GM's in our game, if you can't find a way to show respect to everyone, or be open minded enough to listen to someone else's opinion without your first reaction being to cut them down, you shouldn't seek a role in the game where you need to be able to formulate rational, game altering decisions. That last statement is exactly why I was forced out of a BOG role at one time. I shared my opinions and when I didn't just do what others wanted, they rallied and threatened to quit the game unless I was removed. That's NOT how we should have our game run from the inside which is why formulating the next BOG is such an important decision for the game.
For those who will look to put their name on the ballot, really, really think about it and what comes with the role.
-Do you have the time it takes to focus on the game
-Are you capable and willing to put aside personal feelings of other GMs in order to make the best decisions for the game as a whole
-How will you react when the criticism is directed at you when someone doesn't agree
-Do you foresee anything that may get in the way and result in you having to step down
All things that should be asked internally. Another "personal thought" I have about this......going forward, if you are elected onto the BOG and you choose to step down before the end of the current season we're in, you should also have to step aside as the GM of your team. It just seems it creates more trouble when people will be allowed to make game altering decisions but then if a time comes where they get upset about something can just step away and not have to further deal with whatever crisis has been created.
You need to view this just like you would any real world job. You wouldn't be allowed to quit, but still remain in the company.
I'm probably losing track of my thoughts, so I'll stop now. To close this out just go back tot he opening remarks and again understand it started out thanking the now former BOG members. I truly hope I personally didn't say or do anything that added to your choice to step down. I always tried to come to each of you straight up and express my concern and a open mind to accept the answers you gave.
As I will continue to do with the NEW BOG whoever they turn out to be.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>A_K</b></div><div>This is forever a hot topic - please see our latest rule adjustments to the trade revision/reversal process in the <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LEj5icst7Q6oP-Ov9d1iNLykAg-NpcLBp0A0WShYbk8/edit?usp=sharing" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">rules doc</a>
tl;dr BOG votes on flagged trades. It takes a majority vote to reverse. Reversed trades still count against trade limits for each team. If GMs want to revise a reversed deal, it will be done as a separate trade, posted in the Official Trades thread, and subject to BOG further review/reversal. BOG can advise, but will not re-create revised deals - it must be done by the GMs.
Use the Msg to BOG thread for any questions on this ruling.
***do not post in this thread, Mike***</div></div>
I want to start off by mentioning that all you guys on the BOG are awesome and I really appreciate all the hard work you guys put into the game.
Before I get to how horrible this rule is, do you honestly think it's fair to apply it to trades that happened before it was actually a rule? You can't make up a new rule and then apply it to trades that happened in the past. If there was anything left that I could resign from in protest I would. This is a horrible misuse of power.
Now let's start with changing the rules to only a majority being needed to reverse a trade. Before I was kicked from the BOG chat yesterday, I helpfully mentioned that I thought this was a horrible idea and now I'll elaborate on why that is.
First off I urge you guys to look over the trade votes from V3, every one of the BOG members voted to keep a trade that was eventually kept, but would have been reversed if we only needed a majority to reverse.
27 trades were brought up for revision in V3 and 12 of them received enough votes to be kept, meaning that if your trade was voted on for revision, there was a 55.6% chance that it would need to be revised.
Looking at those 27 trades, if we changed the rules to only needing a majority of votes for revisions, only 6 of them would have received enough votes to be kept. That increases the likelihood of a trade voted on for revision actually needing revision to 77.8%.
If you look at trades that weren't unanimous, meaning that at least one BOG member voted for both keep and revise, there are 13 trades where BOG members disagreed. Of those 13 trades, 7 received enough votes to be kept, meaning that if your trade was brought up for revision and just one BOG member thought your trade was fine, it would only have a 46.2% chance of needing to be revised.
Make it so only a majority of votes are needed for revision and only ONE of those 13 trades would have received enough votes to be kept. That changes the chance of a trade where BOG members disagree amongst themselves being reversed to 92.3%.
So to recap using the trades from V3 as a sample size, you're increasing the chances of a trade where BOG members have disagreement about whether it's fair or not getting enough votes to be reversed from 46.2% to 92.3%. Basically you are eliminating the power of any disagreement within the BOG. As soon as one BOG member votes for revision, the chances of it being reversed, using V3 as a sample size, would be 96.3%.
What really interests me about this rule is why the hell you guys actually want to do it, I honestly don't see a single good reason why it is a good idea. I would highly reccomend that you guys go back to the V3 rules that any trade that gets more than one keep vote will be kept, especially considering that you are now harshly punishing GMs who have their trades revised.
That brings me to the second part of the rule, you have decided to punish GMs who have their trade reversed by counting reversed trades towards the offseason limit.
First off I'd like to point out that this rules will not only effect GMs who make good trades, it will also have the exact same effect on teams who are taken advantage of and make bad trades. Punishing GMs who get taken advantage of simply makes no sense.
Even just punishing GMs who make good trades and maybe take advantage of other GMs by counting their reversed trades towards the limits makes no sense. I have always been strongly against the trade limits, because they only lead to two things, increased inactivity and boredom with the game and teams making trades that count towards future months limits weeks in advance (something that led to a number of issues in V3). If you want to punish GMs who may take advantage of other GMs, fine them draft picks or something, don't reduce their trade limit. If you're really set on this rule, I would reccomend at least increasing all teams offseason trade limits. All you're asking for with this rule is increased inactivity and confusion over future months trades. If you want to make this game better, the absolute last thing that you want to do is limit trades any more than they already are.
Thanks again for all your hard work
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>flamesfan419</b></div><div>You have every right to disagree, and I respect that.
But I never said one side over the other was 100% to blame for what happened.
The main point is even when situations such as this don't directly affect someone, to sit back and say "ignore it" or "don't get offended" is where things like this escalate.
Instead of overlooking it, or asking for it to be overlooked is the wrong approach. WE as a group need to look after each other, even in this game.
I guess having grown up in an overly abusive family and childhood, this is a little sensitive for me.
Like you, I've tried to be respectful of everyone in the game. Yes, we've disagreed or had argument but I've never let it dissolve to name calling.
And even if they won't ever admit it, there are people in this game who have gone through tough times in real life and whether it helps or not, I've tried to make a point of reaching out if for no other reason than to be a sounding board for them if they need/want it. Trust me kids, I know you can't always talk to parents etc when life craps on you. So sometimes it is just nice to know someone will listen without trying to tell you what to do.
Last point...it takes far more energy to "hate" than it does to "support" each other.
2 people can disagree without having to pound their internet chests and cut someone down.
Now, let's go out there and be the example, not the cause.</div></div>
I 100% agree with everything you just said. You never "ignore it" in the real world where issues are bigger and much more harmful to individuals. My point, is that for the sake of our irrelevant online hockey game that will come and go and soon enough be totally forgotten, the fight just isn't worth it. People are braver behind their screens as I've seen first hand many times on Twitter, but fighting back doesn't stop them, it only adds to their platform which is feeding into the very thing they want. Online trolls need attention to survive, and when we take that attention away they just look stupid and the game is better off in the long run. Firing people like this is for sure something I'd support, but we just don't have the GM supply to do so, and therefore we must work with what we have. Again, I agree with you and I apologize for potentially being to vague in my initial response, but I just see the bullying in the virtual world and the real world as two different diseases with two very different solutions.
But if there's one thing we can agree on, it is that people need to remember that there is still someone on the other end of the screen that you're hurting. All of us need to keep this in mind moving forward in this game.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>flamesfan419</b></div><div>And this is a perfect example of why and how cyber bullying exists in today's world.
The attitude of "just ignore it", "look the other way", "don't be offended".
WORDS HURT. They may not be directed AT you, but that doesn't mean they don't have a negative impact to another person.
To just push it aside and direct blame on the person those words were directed at, is wrong.
Sorry, but maybe one day you high school kids will understand this.
I wish there was some kind of time capsule we could put all of this in, and when you kids grow up and have families of your own when little Johnny/Jane comes home crying because someone at school or work berated them with name calling, or worse, I hope you can look your own child in the eye and tell them they should just ignore it and not talk to that person or "don't be offended".</div></div>
Going to have to disagree. Targeted cyber bullying is one thing when someone specifically attacks an individual for no real reason. But a lot of people in this game chose to engage with the idiots and in turn they get hurt for it.
I just play this game for fun, I negotiate, trade, and enjoy this game, and funny enough not a single person has attacked me or said anything to me to hurt me. Why is that? Because I chose to stay away from the majority of the garbage people throw around at each other. This drama is a cancer to this game, and it takes both sides to grow up if we're going to move on.
I'm not taking blame off the select group of people that are responsible for starting some of this, but the reality is we can't stop them from doing that. All we can do is be the bigger person, move on, and the game will be better off for it.