Gustav

D - Kristof Welch @UnkemptCL4PTP

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I'll admit I was surprised to see Taro on the list of nominees for MVP this season. I knew I'd done well--in fact, S80 was my best yet--but I had no clue I was being considered. I wasn't right on top of the points list, but those who were generally had another top player on their team, something which has in general contributed to a sense of "well, maybe they're not the most valuable player" in past seasons. So, I can understand why that may have tipped the scales somewhat in favor of Taro, especially when compared to the handful of players from Vancouver who made it to the top statistically. But that wasn't the whole thing, though--the point that seemed to sway most of the voting was that, among nominees, and potentially among all players, Taro accounted for the greatest portion of a team's offense, recording either a goal or an assist on something like 45% of Davos' points (as compared to, I think, 42% from the next-highest nominee). It does seem like a logical step, and I don't disagree with it being used. This led to me being named (co-)MVP this season, tied with Moscow's Duncan Idaho. I did not attempt to affect the voting in my favor in any way--I said nothing in the discussion thread, and, in fact, I took Taro clear out of the equation when submitting my own vote. I don't like the idea of being able to vote or campaign for myself when other nominees don't have the same opportunity, so I refused to even consider it. My vote, personally, went to Idaho, the nominee who received the most attention in discussion apart from myself. Would I have voted for Taro had he not been my own player? Perhaps. The above argument is at least valid, and I can understand why someone would hear it and decide to vote that way. But I think that, had it never been raised, I never would have stood a chance. Idaho had a good number more goals, and both he and Groovy Dood succeeded more physically. And, of course, there's always the outside chance that Camus would have generated sufficient hype to be considered (though it's historically been tough for a goaler to win MVP). And that's a thing that I don't remember ever being brought up before. If this were the S79 MVP, I'd be writing an article about how I'm happy I was nominated, and that's it. My main issues with the reasoning used, regardless of whether or not I would have voted Taro in a more neutral setting (because, again, I find it unfair to try to definitively state that I would or would not), are basically this: It's a new decision-making tool. I don't dislike it at all, but it hasn't been used too much in the past and precedent does happen to be a thing. I'd love for it to be part of future decisions, but for something new being a MAJOR part in discussion, I'm less enthusiastic about. I do wonder how many votes were based solely upon that metric. It's an impressive one, but as I said earlier, there's really nothing else about Taro that screams MVP on the surface level. I think "he did a lot of his team's stuff himself" is a really valuable part of MVP voting, and it is something I've considered strongly in the past without using actual numbers (think like, "the next-highest player on Player A's team is 20th in points, but the next-highest on Player B's team is 6th, so Player A was more of a star"), but I also think there's a legitimate argument for things like direct contributions (i.e. goals, the main reason why Idaho ended up getting votes in combination with a good amount the "being the team's clear #1 player" thing as well). If that's the only thing that determined voting for some, I'm worried that in the future we might see some deserving defenders and goalers being FISTED ANALLY BY A CIRCUS MONKEY because they don't fit into that stat the right way. I voted Idaho over Camus this past season (with Taro out of the picture), but if I felt Camus deserved it over Idaho the discussion might have been confusing had I been a part of it. It's totally possible to think Taro should have won MVP and back it up with good, legitimate reasoning. Do I, personally, think so? Maybe, but I'm not entirely convinced. Regardless, I've won an award--I've FINALLY won an award, I should say; this is my first one ever after losing the Wylde in S68 and outright campaigning against myself to lose the Knight in S72--and I'm going to enjoy it. Until next week!

For the week ending 11/28: 1. Sims start this week! As I ask before every season--predict your statline! 2. I'd call our draft a success--despite only having 4th-round picks, we've had three draftees join our locker room! What's a piece of advice you'd give to these prospects, who are looking to beat the odds and make a difference? 3. What are your own goals for this season, whether it's as a player or a member? 4. What's your go-to party trick? 5. When would you rather be outside--on a day that's too hot or a day that's too cold? 6. What's the worst fashion decision you've ever made? @Berocka@Ricer13@efiug @KC15 @TheCHEESE @Ahma @JardyB10 @tcookie @Banackock @Darth Kaprizov @Tyler

I'm not doing that. I don't care if you take the full 12 hours if that's what you'd like to do, because it is legal--I just interpreted your message as a response to your player being picked/potentially not knowing that you're also on the clock and wanted to make sure you knew. But yeah the gentleman's agreement thread was a shitshow and I'd rather not manage that

You're still up smh Figured I'd clarify/remind you instead of getting up at 5 to skip you (not that I would do that...unless?)

TL;DR: Gustav talks about 1984 and whatnot. Honestly this is the most civil "complaining about being punished" posts I've seen and the fact that (by admission of some higher-ups) it points out legitimate issues is good. Usually when someone is punished and wants to complain about it--even if they're right--it comes across terribly, and more often than not they're straight-up wrong. The couple posts made by Penny about this, for anyone who remembers those, are examples of this, where someone admits no wrongdoing and just makes themselves look worse. This is not that. @Hogan is being civilized for once and tells a story far different from the outright misleading (we'll get to that later) post in the ban thread. And what's happened here sets a dangerous precedent that could get ridiculous if the mods and the member base don't check themselves. Point 1: Yes, this was against the Code of Conduct at the time, and is now. I think this is already covered in this thread so I won't harp on it. Point 1A: Yeah, but no. Things equally as bad are said frequently across the league without punishment. I genuinely have no idea what member is being talked about in the main post (and I'm not interested in finding out who or why), but regardless I'm inclined to believe that the report was made for reasons other than the nature of the comment. Point 1B: I'm also disappointed by the lack of transparency. I complained about this recently and I think I communicated part of my point somewhat poorly--that being that I'm not saying we need to know EXACTLY what happened, just that a fair balance should be struck between keeping things private for the sake of professionalism and privacy and being honest and informative for the benefit of the members who are subject to the rules being enforced. This is not the same as the recent punishments for harassment, which it does make sense to keep more private to protect those affected. It's a public comment and a teachable moment. Not only is there precedent for making things like this public--if you'd like to say there isn't, I invite you to explain what isn't OK about this or this or this, or quite frankly any other post in the ban thread. We weren't told "for offensive remarks made under an alternate account in the S80 draft stream, which are in violation of sections 1.3 and 1.5 of the Code of Conduct..."; we were just told that the CoC was violated with zero explanation. And the fact that the post received four positive reactions is similarly not something I understand, because knowing that someone was punished and celebrating it without having any idea why is a bit of a disturbing mindset. Point 2: More about disturbing mindsets. This makes literally everyone in the league, mods and regular members alike, look bad and has the potential to create a shitstorm. Point 2A: If someone in fact did decide to dig into old draft streams for dirt on somebody...why? Also...that's against the Code of Conduct too! I understand that a motive will not (and should not) be made public, and that even if it supposedly is I'd be skeptical. If, and I am specifying if, this is what happened, I'd invite anyone reading this to consider that making reports specifically intended to punish another member is something that's done out of spite against another member with negative consequences for that member--in other words, a personal attack, which is specifically discussed multiple times in the league's Code of Conduct. If this truly is a case of someone trying to dig up dirt on someone else, that someone isn't innocent either. Point 2B: Why have we decided that every single post made by anyone in the past 2-4 years is subject to retroactive review? The replies in this thread bug me a bit, because they seem to imply this. We've got this post, which all but states that posts made after rules were officially drawn up are punishable offenses... ...as well as that the relative insignificance of this punishment somehow makes it not worth talking about. If someone decided to ban me for a week over this post (I'm not saying anyone will) and just broadly stated that I violated the Code of Conduct (I haven't), that doesn't make it OK because it's only a "tiny TPE ban". That would be an abuse of power as well as a hit to my own reputation with my name being put in the ban thread forever. To respond to the other similar comment: For the record, I agree that it's "less than ideal" that something got by everyone at the time. But there has to be some sense of reasoning--if someone wants to go through every post made over the last 2 years and demand that everyone who said anything against the Code of Conduct over that time be punished for it, they now have a precedent to do so. Even if someone wanted to dig up a post from 4 years ago and used the rule you mentioned, they now have a precedent to do that. Of course, it would be ridiculous to give someone a punishment today for something they said once in 2017, and I think you can agree with me on that. But where do we draw the line between rational and ridiculous? I think reporting things, or even considering reports on things, from 2 (or 4? whichever it even is, I'm confused) months ago is ridiculous unless said things were legitimately ban-worthy--and this wasn't. Were this said on Discord, the most that would have happened is a tempmute, and I've seen things of equal disgusting-ness just met with a request to shut up. But yeah, I don't like to think about how we're going to go about things in the future if it's suddenly perfectly acceptable to say "hey, this person made this one comment, months ago, and I think you need to punish him for it". We can talk all we want about how our forum used to be different and how things said after the Code of Conduct was made aren't subject to it--but I'm sure most who have been in the league for the past 2 years, myself included, can think of things they've said in that time that they'd like to have back. I'm not defending the comment, but the response to it is irrational and it embodies some legitimate concerns I have about recent shifts in mod policies. I've said it before and I'll say it again. I understand that we want a "higher standard" of moderation. But a higher standard of moderation does not mean more moderation. It means being consistent, it means being transparent when possible, and it means being respectful and accessible to members of the community. And yes, it does mean catching things when they come up--but what's the point in punishing anyone retroactively, especially when the infraction is pretty minor (no pun intended)? I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks this is strange, and I'm glad to know that Hogan can respectfully tell his story without being shut down. And I do seriously appreciate anyone in a position of power with the patience to read through and consider this whole thing. Much love and respect

@Alex_J32

I'm actually not a giant fan of this, and that's speaking as someone who this would save a lot of time if I were still active in the EFL. I know I would have kept up max earning but stopped paying attention entirely--something that led to me eventually burning out when the only thing I ever did for a while was show up, claim my affiliate stuff, spend 15 minutes processing updates, and leave until the next Sunday. For the people this actually helps, and who will continue to be involved in their secondary leagues, good on you for that (and I hope it's as cool as it's meant to be). It just isn't for someone like me who will just use it as an easy way out of doing things.

Keeping the Davos going! D - Reylynn Reinhart @BrutalBoost

Sorry, I've been at work all day. Next pick already pinged, so I shall draft MYSELF Taro Tsujomoto

It was no secret going into the draft that we here in Davos only had 4th-rounders. But, it's a very good draft to only have 4th-rounders. In some drafts, active players are off the board entirely by the time the 4th comes up, but this wasn't the case. (Almost) every pick we made was spent on a currently active player, and even the pick we made that wasn't has some level of potential. So, I'd like to write this article to highlight the fine players we were able to pick up in the 4th round, and to give all of you a preview of what's to come in Davos. 49th overall: Greg Romain | LW | 126 TPE | | @Greg Romain Romain is a forward who I was somewhat surprised to see fall to the 4th. Though the fact that he's earned more than just welfare in recent memory, with a few press conferences, by itself makes him 3rd-round caliber in most seasons, there was one thing that jumps out to me a bit more. Despite being a quieter member in public, Greg ended up being nominated for the Elmebeck last season! This shows us that we've got a solid member who may end up developing into a solid VHL-caliber player. 50th overall: Marttins Stepka | D | 111 TPE | | @DUSS7Y This was a pick that was made with position in mind. Though Stepka is a little-known member, he was the highest-TPE consistent earner among defenders at the time the pick was made. And a little bit of defense is something we could use--though Davos has a very solid core on the blue line with Reinhart, Peepants, and Tavau, the fourth spot was a question mark coming into this season and will continue to be one in the future until we manage to replace inactive and aging McLaren. Could the answer be Stepka? It's possible. 51st overall: Joe Mama | LW | 124 TPE | | @Matt_O Matt is inactive at the moment, not something I ever like to see as he's a funny dude who I've always gotten along well with. But with that being the case, and with his last two players being first-round-quality at some point in their careers through the ups and downs of his activity, I'm excited to see what might happen with Joe Mama if Matt decides he'd like to come back. Because of this history, I think this pick has the greatest steal potential out of all of them--as a dedicated Matt is an elite earner and an active member. 53rd overall: Ray Withers | RW | 130 TPE | | @Ray Withers I'm a bit puzzled as to why this player was available at 53, as there's a press conference in his recent earning history and he hasn't missed a week since creating. It's true that he's somewhat part of the "portal-only" crowd, not having visited the forum in a week, but there's still a 130-TPE active player available at 53rd overall, something that most GMs would be thrilled to find. 55th overall: Gus Bentley | RW | 66 TPE | | @boatsinking123 I'll admit that I initially considered this one because @Ricer13 told me I should go for a fellow Gus with my last pick. But when this pick came up, I had some thinking to do--there were higher-TPE players on the board who were active, including some who were no worse than Romain or Withers on paper. So I took a peek at Bentley's earning rather than just going for the meme pick, and I really liked what I saw. Despite having low TPE, we've got a player who fairly consistently does press conferences for that extra 2, and will be able to make up some ground fairly well because of it. This is also the first (and as yet only) member of the class to join our Discord, reaffirming my confidence that this was a great pick.

@Beaviss hi

F - Tyler Reinhart @BrutalBoost

For the week ending 11/21: 1. It is WORLD CUP time! Which team do you support? 2. You get to design your own VHL tournament. What does it look like? 3. The VHL draft is tonight, and even though Davos has only 4th-rounders, we have five of them. How many--realistically--will turn out to be steals? 4. What is/was your favorite subject in school? 5. What are you wearing right now? 6. What's the easiest recipe you can think of that actually makes something good? @Berocka@Ricer13@efiug @KC15 @TheCHEESE @Ahma @PatrikLaine @FrostBeard @JardyB10 @tcookie @Banackock @GustavMattias

Reposting for editing purposes: 1. @Acydburn F - Duncan Idaho F - Dominic Gobeil F - Nathan Perry D - Tom Eagles D - Jan Hlozek G - David Davis 2. @UnkemptCL4PTP F - Henry Tucker F - Cabe McJake F - Alex Johnston D - Sven Reikkinen D - Chicken Wing G - Sirkants Klamasteris 3. @GustavMattias F - Tyler Reinhart F - Taro Tsujimoto F - Phil The Rock Johnson D - Reylynn Reinhart D - Kristof Welch G - Papa Emeritus 4. @BrutalBoost F - Paul Atreides F - Justin Lose F - Brendan Telker D - Aurelien Moreau D - Scotty Kaberle G - Thadius Sales 5. @ajwllmsn F - Aloe Dear F - Pistil Stamen F - AJ Williams D - Tui Sova D - Hari Singh Nalwa G - Rara Rasputin 6. @v.2 F - Asher Reinhart F - Gunnar Odinsson F - Jerome Reinhart D - Battre Sandstrom D - Hard Markinson G - Artem Tretiak

Thank you for this.

Switching an inactive for...maybe the first time ever? I don't think I've done this before. @Commissioner

smh my head

That will be $50

...or so you thought. I'm going to ping a few people at random so they get the notification and spend a couple seconds wondering why I hate them so much: I was excited to see that I was given the opportunity this season to participate in the World Cup as a GM, something I've never done before! In the past, I'd applied a few times, but never got the job because: a) I was a GM and a lot of drama would sometimes erupt when people who were already GMs were hired to also be GMs somewhere else; and b) I would specifically state that if the choice came down to me and someone newer, I'd rather see it go to that someone newer--which I realize probably killed my chances. Nonetheless, I'm happy I finally got the chance to run a team here, and with World being as stacked as it is this season, I think we'll do great! At least, we'll do much better than my team did in my last tournament. I've told this story a couple times, but I haven't done it in a while and I think it's worth repeating for those who are unaware of it--I was THE WORLD'S WORST GM in the S65 World Juniors. First off, I was given Team Asia, which at the time had never won WJC and didn't even have enough active players eligible for me to be able to pick a roster. So, that got off to a bad start--though, thankfully, the commissioners were gracious enough to let me pick from other teams' leftovers to fill the spaces I had left. I didn't start with a very good team, but things got worse when I made the lines wrong and sent them in in a way where they just didn't work. And then my computer stopped working. And I became dead to the VHL world for the rest of that week. By the time I was back, the tournament was over and my team, with a non-existent GM and terrible auto-lines, had been steamrolled. To add real-life insult to injury--I missed an assignment because of the computer thing and the professor didn't believe me (though admittedly, it was a computer-based class so I'm sure someone told him that every week). I haven't run a team in a tournament since! So, here's to a better tournament experience! I'm super excited to see what Team World will do in this one.

I think it's cool how everyone's got a different favorite this season--I did vote for Camus but it was difficult.

Hello, and welcome to the World Cup! I'm your friendly neighborhood GM of Team World, and I'm excited to show all of you why it's called the WORLD Cup rather than the Canada Cup or whatever... On to the roster! FORWARDS: Duncan Idaho | @OrbitingDeath | RW | San Marino | S77 | 1005 TPA Taro Tsujimoto | @GustavMattias | C | Japan | S75 | 995 TPA Paul Atreides | @Mr_Hatter | C | San Marino | S77 | 992 TPA Asher Reinhart | @rjfryman | C | Greenland | S77 | 934 TPA Pistil Stamen | @DMaximus | Brazil | S75 | 860 TPA Lee Xin | @Blazzer | Malaysia | S74 | 732 TPA DEFENSE: Tom Eagles | @Greg_Di | Poland | S76 | 905 TPA Reylynn Reinhart | @Ricer13 | Greenland | S77 | 900 TPA Kristof Welch | @Juice | Hungary | S76 | 857 TPA Zeedayno Chara | @Jubis | Greenland | S77 | 805 TPA GOALERS: Doug Dimmadome | @Esso2264 | Honduras | S74 | 885 TPA Artem Tretiak | @Molholt | Russia | S75 | 814 TPA A link to the World Cup server may be found HERE: https://discord.gg/CaXykvxp I hope to make this a great tournament--WE ARE THE WORLD!

And this is exactly what people who ask what happened with these things should be told. It's respectful and gives a good reason why things were announced the way they were. The issue I had was that what was told was nothing like this. It's all in the past now, but in the future it would be appreciated if respectful questions were met with respect. (That's not directed at you specifically btw, and I don't intend to call out any individuals. I just feel that at times mod interactions with other members regarding rules have been a bit harsh for no real reason--which doesn't lead to many positive experiences.)