Will

@sterling$15 for hosting plz 

I'm sure someone would be willing to run some more test sims to see anything's changed- keep in mind we have spent a lot of time trying to upgrade the engine in the past so it's not a matter of the blue team being unwilling, it's just a matter of being able to get reasonable results. 

As far as 1.5 in particular, I think we've been able to get some semi-decent results in the past so there's some chance it could be viable. Unfortunately we've never had any luck with 2.0 or 2.1 to get giveaways and takeaways and I don't think we'll ever get there without major changes to the league. 

11 hours ago, Victor said:

I would definitely add them to the franchises they became, find it quite dumb that for the portal Vancouver's history starts in S65.

 

1 hour ago, Sonnet said:

Or hell, maybe I'll just leave them all separate for the sake of accuracy, and the portal can just group them logically. Depends on what @Will and @Josh would prefer.

Yeah, keep them separate. The reason they're separate on the Portal is just that currently we'd have no way of grouping them together without actually assigning them to the newest team which would a) change the team abbreviation that shows up on the stat lines and b) remove any ability to look at only one team. We could probably set something up to specify any previous teams and then group the stats together wherever we want to do that, but best to keep them separated in the database for flexibility. 

7 hours ago, Josh said:

 

I want this. Just remove #5 because it's ridiculously annoying to code.

Uhhh yeah fuck that. I think this is the simplest and safest option though. I don't love the idea of changing how points are awarded personally.  

9 minutes ago, Victor said:

I think it creates more issues than it solves. An assessment of the lower-performing GMs is what we should be aiming for realistically. Really, I think we want more Banas and hedges in more franchises than taking them away from the franchises that already have them.

I see your point but Bana has been a GM for nearly 5 years, I think that's way beyond what we should want 

I think with so many people interested in GM'ing, it's only fair that the league ensures there's opportunities by some means whether that's term limits or making sure every GM is always performing at a high level. 

If we went the performance review route, I would probably suggest maybe a sub-committee of non-GM BOG that could provide recommendations to the blue team, who would make the final decision. That being said, firing someone for their performance as a GM is obviously a lot more subjective than firing someone for being too inactive or what have you, so there's the potential to inject a fair bit of controversy. For that reason I'd probably jump on @flyersfan1453's train first.

The thing that I think kind of sucks with term limits is there's always a chance someone gets forced out at a time when their team is highly competitive and has a good shot at winning. Not really any way around that unless we said we'd consider requests for 1 or 2 season extensions or something. 

yeah 2/5/6 definitely the right call

46 minutes ago, Quik said:

How does everyone feel about evaluating GM performances? I'm thinking after 5 seasons of running teams, if things aren't looking good we consider firing GMs? IMO, there's 4 GMs who would be on the hot seat, I'd likely give them at least 1-2 more seasons to get it together, but with all the people who want a GM spot, we can't have teams toiling forever with the same GM

I think that's the right approach now with a line of people wanting to be GM, can't really afford to let people just hang around until they resign or go inactive anymore and we know that's what people tend to do. Might get some anger at first since we've historically not really fired for performance as long as they were reasonably active but just need to make replacing a GM less of a hot take and more the natural progression of things, maybe make it known that performance reviews will be done every 5 seasons. 

5 hours ago, Banackock said:

 

 

 

Nice going dude. I don't have any personal experience quitting cigs but I was a dip guy through most of my university years and it was (obviously) a tough thing to kick. Those first 30 days or so were the toughest dealing with both the mental cravings and physical symptoms of withdrawal. That's not to say it was easy after that but if you've made it 43 days, you can can certainly tackle this long-term 

For me the biggest thing in fighting urges was keeping the health aspect top of mind. Leading up to it I had been thinking about quitting for awhile and one day when I was running low I just said enough is enough, for the sake of my mouth. So I finished my last tin and haven't touched it since. I don't have a date but that was sometime around spring of 2017.

1 hour ago, Quik said:

 

Is it? The league isn't meant to be so complex. If we really wanted to add "depth" to it, I'd rather do something with team finances/facilities, which I did pitch a long time ago, but that's also something that would be very complex and kinda kill training camp as it is now.

I tend to agree.. I do see the need for more depth around cash but not sure the investing scheme is the best fit, don't think the ends would justify the means in terms of complexity:benefit in this case

The first (and least complex) thing that comes to mind when I think of potential for cash usage is mainly fantasy/betting related stuff but then I'm not too sure how much depth you can really get with kind of thing. 

2 hours ago, sterling said:

After all of this, we're at $4340 Canadian for balance.

Make that 4323

I just renewed the vhlportal.com domain for 17.54 CAD / 13.16 USD if you could   

Great job everyone and please be sure to take a second and spam all of the @Commissioner’s to thank them for putting all of this together. 
 

It’s crazy to me that this site that we all visit to watch simulated hockey games is donating $3,800 at Christmas to some great causes. It really speaks to the quality of our members and I think makes contributing to the league a much more rewarding experience. 

@sterling $15 for a month of forum hosting, please 

I've noticed this too since yesterday, definitely seems like a theme issue so may have to wait for an update but i'll try to fix it 

JFK for sure. The Epstein death is pretty suspect. Recently attempted suicide, cellmate moved, guards fell asleep, cameras magically malfunctioning that night.. it at least seems someone wanted to give him the opportunity 

Then again, it also seems like there'd be way less suspicious ways to go about it so who knows.

Regular members have just lost the ability to mention groups. You can thank @chatfan036 for this

On 11/18/2020 at 4:36 PM, Devise said:

Portal wizards; is there a way we could flag a user as a first gen and set it so that within their update page they always have the wiggle room to adjust up to 10 TPE worth of attributes even after they are applied? So they could then reduce any of their attributes at any point to freely redistribute no more than 10 TPE at a time.

It's generally easy to tell if someone's a first gen, just have to check if they have old players. Could be some old people with no previous player linked to them that would slip through that but I don't think there's many (if any) of those at this point. It would also be easy to do based on being within x weeks of creating or before the draft as others suggested.

But: it would be a lot easier to do a full or single attribute re-roll compared to the 10 redistribution thing. As it is, the tool to update your ratings is only designed for attributes to go up  

24 minutes ago, Banackock said:

Man trump should be checked into a hospital.. his tweets are nuts. Where is he getting all these stats and stuff from? Where’s the evidence? No one that supports him cares to see the evidence. Far right media and trump spew it and they just eat it up  

This is what gets me dude. I’m 100% sure there are people on the left that would do the same but nowhere near the numbers as the right. Just imagine if Hilary refused to concede and cried fraud. But these guys are so willfully ignorant that they think result-changing election fraud wouldn’t have been presented in court by now if the evidence existed.... 

it must be exhausting to be rational in the US and constantly be under attack by the other (less than) half of the country

Just now, Victor said:

Should have done this after S72 tbh.

I.... can't argue that. 

1 hour ago, Beketov said:

Money wise I don’t believe it was much, if any. Just a tiny bit of extra hosting and another domain. Man power was also very limited, basically just Will after my initial mock-up design. Man hours would be the biggie. @Will can attest to how many hours they original portal took him to code but I’m guessing it’s a lot. Mind you he was also self taught so that probably made things take a bit more.

Yeah I mean I didn’t keep track but...many many many hours, continuing to this day  even putting aside the initial learning curve.

The team management side of things in particular was a pretty huge undertaking that I likely would have had difficulty doing if i wasn’t unemployed for a month or so while I waited for my job to start. 

34 minutes ago, GustavMattias said:

Welcome to the VHL @Josh

Wrong admin sonny 

Dump of votes in AZ coming in 90 minutes 

2 hours ago, Devise said:

We've had the CNN feed up here, and it's so refreshingly hilarious and almost a little karma esque to see how unbiased they are being in their reporting. Fox was giving races to Biden well before they did. They left Florida up forever, and in general have refused to project any states unless the numbers were there count wise to support it. That many including in Trumps own campaign have declared Arizona and CNN is refusing until it's really official by the numbers feels like a real "fuck you" to the fake news movement. 

 

Say what you want about CNN on a regular day, their election coverage is hands down the best of the cable networks. John King is a fucking wizard on the magic wall 

1 minute ago, Victor said:

I want to think this but it is simplistic. It's the same argument that I made and still sometimes generalise over here with Brexit voters. Ultimately that's where the left falls down, by insulting the intelligence of the opposition. Yeah some of them are dumb thugs, probably on both sides, but the most influential are the people who truly would rather kill the poor and the blacks and whatever else. And just rich people.

That’s a fair point and I thought about editing my post to say it’s obviously not true of every supporter. I do think it’s mostly true for the people that seem to come out of the woodwork and drive up his turnout. But your definitely right that the influential ones, also the ones who are actually riling up these masses of people with dog whistles and ‘alternative facts’, obviously have more...nefarious motives. 

Just now, RomanesEuntDomus said:

For me personally this basically comes down to the very simple litmus test of if you are okay with Trump's character or not. To me he is just so immoral and reprehensible as a person, he personifies so many of the traits that I hate in people and also in myself sometimes, he is just the anti-thesis of a good, decent human being which is reflected in the way he does politics. You can't separate someones personality from the way he does politics because one is clearly reflected in the other.

 

If you don't care enough about all that to try and vote him out (and voting third party counts as not trying to vote him out) then that says a lot about your character. It doesn't necessarily mean that you are as bad as him but that you are opportunistic enough to be fine with all  that as long as it only affects other people negatively and not yourself.  And his character is only one part of the problem, it doesn't stop at his personal flaws but there are a million other issues, above all else his clear anti-democratic, authoritarian tendencies that seem to become stronger and are probably only kept in check somewhat by his incompetence and lack of impulse control.

To me it seems it mostly comes down to his base being largely uneducated (And a conservative news media that preys on that fact). They really don’t care about foreign affairs or the ramifications of his anti-democratic tendencies and attacks on institutions. All they care about is their short term, domestic wants - conservative judges, guns, destruction of planned parenthood, FREEDOM, etc. 

I don’t think they really grasp or care about the greater impacts his presidency has on the US or the world in the long term.

Interesting that the NY Times is now giving Biden a 64% chance of coming back and winning Georgia on their needle. It was 95%+ for Trump at one point last night 

(the needle is a forecast based on which votes are actually left to come in)