Gustav

About the first point--maybe a reason for that is that the players aren't put on a team and therefore have no clear direction to follow. If they're placed on a team, it gives them a purpose (plus I'm a fan of @a_Ferk's suggestion involving Discord invites). About the second--I worded that weird. What I meant was players creating, getting offers, and going a while before getting into the locker room because the GM went offline. It's probably led to a few players quitting on everyone, even me--and I lived here as a VHLM GM.

Sure, but what about people creating and then just never getting invites? That's a problem too--along with many players who create and immediately leave. That part of the article isn't meant to solve one problem; it's meant to solve many. Even if you disagree with my opinion that instant offers from every team is a benefit, that's not the only benefit I see with the suggestion.

I mean, the GM would certainly get a notification on the forum (with the link maybe leading to the member's profile for easy access to a DM). I don't see how that gets people in servers any slower.

We're going to be here a while. And, as a result, I'm making it a public post rather than putting it in a BoG thread (and also because there's nothing wrong with a little public opinion-gathering once in a while). It's no secret to anyone keeping their finger on the pulse of my forum crusades that I've basically always had problems with the way the VHLM works. Usually, those issues are along the lines of "there are teams that enjoy throwing all pretense of retention under the bus in favor of the more nuanced approach we call 'screwing over active new members to win'". And usually, those complaints have come with a call to swing the all-powerful hammer of authority (which is ironic considering how little I usually appreciate said hammer being swung). I still have a few points of that variety to bring up, and a few tangents to go on in that direction. This article, however, will follow another direction as well. TL;DR: The VHLM has somehow gone too far, and not far enough, at the same time. Existing solutions to previous problems hurt more than they help. Allow me to explain. For further reading and a condensed, incomplete version of my first and fourth sections here, this is one of my former crusades on the matter. CURRENT AND FORMER PROBLEMS IN THE VHLM: Undermining the spirit of the league to win--or to lose. By itself, the boom-bust cycle--our very good friend known as "that thing every VHLM team does"--is NOT a problem. Teams will buy if they want to win, and sell if there's a better path in the future. There is nothing wrong with this IF those teams buying continue to treat new actives with respect, give fair playing time to everyone, and don't stop making offers out of the fear of having to--oh no!--give some ice time so someone at lower TPE. In addition, the selling team must do the same: maintain an active and supportive environment for the players who are left, maximize the playing time of whatever players they have, and not stop offering to new players out of the fear of--oh no!--accidentally winning a game or two. Most unfortunately, these things happen. Dodging the rules to make the cycle even more extreme. Some amount of (fair) controversy arose over Houston's dealings over the past few seasons. In one, I forget which but in one, they had three first-round picks and immediately after the draft traded future picks for other players selected in the first round (thus effectively exceeding the three-pick limit). Not long after, the Bulls sold off almost literally every player they had and spent some time with only one player on the roster. And guess what--they're not the only example of this, and I don't mean to call them out in particular. They just happen to be a fairly extreme one and one which exposed the first bit as a currently viable strategy. This is a relatively new problem, but a problem nonetheless. A highly imperfect first-come, first-serve waiver system, complete with some level of deception. How many times have you seen a player sign with the very first team who makes an offer, often before any other teams even see the thread? How many times have you seen people complain about this? This, by itself, isn't a super massive problem to me--if someone is making early offers because they're paying attention to the forum, I don't necessarily think that shouldn't be rewarded (counterpoint which I also think is fair: constantly staring at the forum and trying to be the first one in every thread is super unhealthy and will lead--and has led--to burnout). A bigger problem, and a less obvious one, in my experience, is that I've seen some teams in my time lying about the circumstances of their team to attract new signings. From teams promising first-line status and immediately burying someone in the lineup until they earn a decent amount to a brief period of time circa (I think) S68 where at least three different teams, possibly more, were telling new players that they were the hands-down favorites to win the cup, it's been made clear that the highly impressionable status of new members is one which is often manipulated. Inactive players, surrounding drama, and roster space. This is a former problem at the moment as the VHLM has effectively criminalized having inactive players (which we'll address later in what I consider a fairly hot take). Back in my day, the general guideline was that if a GM had an inactive player on their team, they could use said player however they wanted--as long as all active players had equal or better ice time. Got a 200-TPE inactive and a 50-TPE active? Guess who's getting more ice time. Though many GMs followed this rule, some others existed who preferred to ignore it, playing whoever had more TPE as much as possible regardless of activity and even in some cases making use of unethical means to keep inactive players on the roster. And, as any GM at the time will tell you, this led to a lot of people screaming at each other and trying to police everyone else's roster (though I can't imagine that bit has dissolved under the current rules). Equally importantly, these players would often take up space on a roster which would never be taken by a new, active player due to an unwillingness to make offers. For these reasons, it was eventually made illegal to use inactive players (which we'll get to later! Be patient smh). WHAT HAS BEEN DONE ABOUT THESE PROBLEMS (in chronological order): Teams which have been found to be operating outside the spirit of retention have been penalized (one SOURCE out of a handful). Though exact reasons are generally kept secret out of professionalism, the concept of crime and punishment is clear and present. Problem addressed: undermining spirit of league. Inactive players are required to be released from their teams (SOURCE). If a player has not updated for 21 days (or has gone 14 days without an update after creating), their team is required to release them. Problem addressed: inactive players. VHLM GMs are required to make waiver offers while their roster has open space (SOURCE and also another SOURCE with an official definition of what a roster with space is). Presumably, this is a factor that plays into the previously-mentioned punishments. Problem addressed: undermining spirit of league. Double shifting players is no longer allowed in many circumstances, and bots must be used to fill whatever space a team has left (SOURCE). Starting the season, teams must aim for a roster size of 9-6-1. Later on, if enough players are in the league, they must aim for 12-8-2. If the team has 6 forwards, for example, they must run a line of bots. If they have 7, they need to put two bots in their lineup. If 8, one bot. Problem addressed: undermining spirit of league. WHY THAT'S NOT GOOD: TL;DR: the VHLM has become increasingly authoritarian with no clear results. GMs now need to jump through more hoops to have less fun and players are often left negatively affected by changes designed to help them. Re: penalizing teams: depending on the infraction, I agree with this. Let's move on. Re: requiring release of inactive players: HOT TAKE--there is a better way to handle this. As I stated earlier, there were many GMs who were capable of using inactive players without getting in the way of actives. This helped in many cases, giving active players better linemates and making the team more competitive as a whole. Remember--a player on a competitive team is happy. There is no reason why a GM who acts with integrity should not be able to do so, as it would serve to the benefit of player and GM. Re: requiring waiver offers: I don't disagree, but...this is a very subjective guideline. How do we enforce this? Is there any real way to enforce it? It would be much more time than it's worth to quantify who's making how many offers, and part of me doubts that this is being actively monitored for every single team. Things are going to be missed, and standards are going to be inconsistent. That brings me to... Re: no double shifting: WHY? This is the first rule change I've had an issue with beyond just "well, I disagree with it, but it doesn't matter". Sure, it's a good thought that GMs should strive to fill up their teams, and I agree with setting guidelines as to what constitutes "having space on the roster" and what doesn't. But up until that point, GMs are forced to take away ice time from active players in favor of entities that are somehow less active than inactives. Taking away ice time from actives should be what these amendments are intended to prevent, but this one outright requires it for some reason. Also--if GMs are truly required to make waiver offers, the shifts current players take shouldn't matter because the GM is trying to fill the roster anyway. WHAT I WOULD DO ABOUT THESE PROBLEMS: Before I get into this section, I would like to mention that there is a BoG thread currently active in which we are discussing issues related to the VHLM, some of which are or are related to issues brought up in this article. I will not go into specific detail about points raised by others in that thread out of respect for the Board's private format, even though I think some of those points are good. However, my ideas are mine, and whether they're in (or whether they pertain to) that thread notwithstanding, I don't consider sharing them scandalous or leak-y (especially since there's no current plan to implement them). Where I think we should be more relaxed: Roll back the double shifting rule. For illustrative purposes, let's say a team has five active forwards. This, under the current rules, would force two players on said team to play with a bot AND would force said team to run a full line of bots--thus devoting only 55.6% of available forward space to active players. Get rid of this rule, and all five players will be able to play at maximum ice time, putting more players on the ice, making their stats better, and making the team better--all without stepping on actives, and in fact helping actives, to do so. Re-integrate inactive players in a controlled fashion. Let's go with the same example here--a team has five forwards. Let's further assume that we've rolled back the double shifting rule. Great! We're on our way to doing better. Now, this team has one top line...and one line with two active players and a bot. The performance (and morale!) of these players will suffer needlessly if their lineman is a liability. So, it's my opinion that if the team has an inactive player, it would better serve the interest of the players if that player were allowed to provide support for the other players' performance than if that player had to be released. My guidelines for ensuring fair practice in this manner are as follows: A complete line's worth of players is defined as three forwards, two defenders, or one goaler. If a team has a number of active players at a given position under the number equalling two complete lines (i.e. a lineup of 6/4/2), the team is allowed to use inactive players to fill the remaining space. For example, a team with 5 forwards will be granted the use of one inactive, and a team with 4 forwards will be granted the use of two. At least half of a team's active players at the position in question must be above the TPE level of the inactive player. For example, if a team has four forwards, with 120, 160, 80, and 110 TPE, respectively, they will be allowed to use two inactive players under 120 TPE if such players are owned. Once a player has gone inactive, if they are not allowed to be used in the lineup per the above rules, they must be scratched (not released) for all future games until they return to activity or become eligible for use in the lineup. Inactive players shall receive ice time equal to or less than active players. An inactive goaler may only serve as a backup, unless there is no active starter. Where I think we shouldn't: Tighten pick limits. Currently, a team is allowed three first-round and three second-round picks per season. This, as we've seen, is too much. Top teams are stacked beyond belief, and bottom teams are barren wastelands. What I'd like to see is this: Teams may own only two picks in each round of the draft. Points will be assigned to each pick. A rough estimate, for the purposes of this article, will be 250 points for a 1st-round pick, 200 points for a second-round pick, 100 for a 3rd-round pick, and 50 for a 4th-round pick. Each team will be required to hold, at minimum, 300 points at the time of each draft, with at least 200 represented by picks in the first three rounds. This makes the MAXIMUM amount of picks allowable 1st/1st/2nd/2nd/3rd/3rd/4th/4th, and the MINIMUM 3rd/3rd/4th/4th. Get rid of rule-dodging. Players picked in a draft should not be flipped to other teams for picks so one team or another can dodge a pick-related rule. The solution to this is very difficult to conceptualize--I have two main ideas, but I see a loophole with one and I think the other is too restrictive. My most fair solution, at the moment, is the restrictive one, though I've thought of a caveat that may make it more agreeable. Rule: A player who is selected in any given draft generally may not be traded in that season. Exception: Trades involving these players must be done with the prior approval of a VHLM Commissioner. Ideally, this would be a portal thing--a deal involving a player who was just drafted would be blocked, and the accepting GM would be prompted to provide proof that the trade does not allow one team or another to gain an unfair number of draft selections. For example, Boson Higgs is selected in the 2nd round of the S81 VHLM draft by Vegas. He is then traded to Halifax, who made one (not two, because I'm assuming the system works exactly the way I want it to) second-round choices in the draft. Halifax accepts the trade, gets blocked by the portal, and writes something along the lines of "Higgs selected in 2nd round/Halifax made one 2nd-round choice in the draft (Robert Livermore)". This is then forwarded to the commissioners, who can review the deal and put it through officially (on both forum and portal) with one click. And, finally... A BIG SOLUTION TO A LOT OF PROBLEMS: Standardize waiver offers and put them on the portal! And give them to waiver-eligible players immediately after they create! Here's how that would work. Upon player creation, eligible players are taken directly to a page containing a complete list of VHLM teams, projected line placement (based on number of actives, not actives and inactives), current record/spot in the standings, and short, general, digestible messages put on the portal by each team's GM to maintain somewhat of a personal feel. Why this works on many different levels: All players are effectively given an immediate offer from all teams with room. Teams cannot purposely avoid making offers, eliminating the need for an offer requirement--and also eliminating any pretense of a supporting argument for the double-shift rule as it was intended to stimulate offer-making. Real, automatic, unbiased numbers also eliminate deception (i.e. "we're the cup favorites" or "you'll be on the first line" when none of those things are true) and make for fair and transparent waiver offers. Since decisions may be made right away, players get on the roster more quickly and efficiently (especially since picking a team can be packaged in with accepting a contract offer) and will find themselves in the sims right away. This opens the door to more realistic implementation of the above re-integration of inactives--keeping inactives on the roster and not offering to actives is a big no, but this makes that impossible. So, what do you think? I've got a lot to say, and hopefully it's sensible. 2,764 words; no PT for me for a month goddammit it's also theme week

That's right, citizen!

I don't really care about hard guidelines; I'm just saying let's not start approving stuff like "7/10 good graphic I like the colors" anytime soon.

Fellas...I'm not making any sense here. I got enough sleep last night, I don't think I've been stressed out lately, but I've been doing stupid spaced-out/uncoordinated/nonsensical things left and right today for reasons beyond my understanding. While I can think of specific examples of moderation that I don't agree with, portraying that as a big issue with the entire mod team, all the time, is wrong and I like to think it isn't something I'd do normally. I don't know what kind of drug got slipped into my lunch but I've certainly been acting like it's something. Guess that carried over into our forum and I hope I didn't put anyone off.

And that's fine; in fact, it was a possibility that came to mind while I was writing this up. I can think of at least one other example of a thread that was hidden for what I thought was not much of a reason, though, and there seems to be a recent tendency to lock things as soon as they start to escalate--which helps nobody and really just leads to people holding grudges when they can't talk it out. I'm not pointing at anybody in particular but I feel like the line has slowly been pushed farther and farther up without any real discussion or agreement.

Anyone who's coming onto the forum and reading this article has probably already seen the thread about killing trivia which has inevitably gotten more popular than this one ever will by the time you've clicked into this one. And if you're attentive enough to read my comment in said thread for longer than two seconds, you'll notice me yelling (mostly satirically) about 1984 and such. Mostly. Upon thinking about what I said for longer than two seconds, I've started to wonder why the thread I was looking for was hidden--unless I'm just an idiot who searched up the wrong terms, though I don't think I am because I went as generic as searching for "answers" and going back to the correct date. I have no idea why it was hidden--discussion was had, disagreement was had, some people felt strongly, but the whole thing ran its course and we all forgot about it once the ruling in it was reversed. Presumably, it was hidden a while after it came up and after it had died out and was no longer a source of controversy. Nobody said anything derogatory, I don't remember any personal attacks, it was just controversial and that's okay. I've looked for one or two other threads where nothing worthy of serious punishment or controversy went down and have been similarly unable to find those as well. So...why? There are much more controversial, drama-filled threads I can think of that are still up. The most drama-filled thread I can think of from my time here is the one that led to our whole SBA affiliation fiasco (those who know, know), and that one is still visible. Hell, last I checked, the one about that over on their site (which was worse imo) is up as well. So why have we recently taken an interest in suppressing what's even remotely disagreeable? I completely understand hiding specific comments containing personal attacks or derogatory remarks, but entire threads, some of which contain legitimately enlightening discussion on matters relevant to the league's current affairs? That's where whatever is going on behind the scenes starts to lose me. Was there a shift in mod policies, official or otherwise? I don't understand what makes a thread lockable/hideable these days, because apparently it's not much. I think our mods are good people; I'm just really confused about where the apparent need to cover things up comes from. People are going to disagree, sometimes strongly, and that's fine.

I'm cool with allowing more reviews in any case--as long as standards for those are kept at an acceptable level. As for trivia, the thread seems to have been hidden for some reason (to which I say LITERALLY 1984 and LET US HAVE OUR FORUM DRAMA), but around January-February of last year sharing answers to trivia questions was made illegal for like...a day and a half before that announcement was retracted. Needless to say, it didn't go over very well. I wasn't against it at the time and even though I'm on team "let the people have their trivia" these days, I agree that it's a bit too easy. There's no real way to get around that, though, aside from nuking trivia entirely or banning answer sharing again, neither of which I'd personally rather have over the current system. It's not as rampant as it used to be--there was a time when half the league got their answers either directly or indirectly through me because @Esso2264 would just post them everywhere after I did.

We had the same exact thought at the same exact time...I was looking for this thread when I got the ping. I'm not complaining at all though because it's way easier (and more fun) for me to answer than ask. This is going to be a really really weird answer...but it's called The Mole. Only 2 seasons are on Netflix (and I heard it went way downhill after that point anyway), but it's a game show from 2001-2002 that features a pre-CNN Anderson Cooper as host. Challenges are super unique and fascinating and I found it really interesting to follow along and guess who the mole was. Probably something that's painfully truthful enough that it's really good TV but misses the "fun" mark the producers are going for. Get really into the emotional details and the hard training; call it This Will Be Our Year or something. I guess I could always YEET the entire team for a 4th a minute before the deadline hits. Lately it's been around the mid-60s here. I have no clue what that is in Celsius but I'm going to guess maybe 18ish. Every now and then I can put on a t-shirt and not be cold but I think shorts weather is over, sadly. As for winter...well, I hate winter, but winter break will be really nice when it comes around. I'll have all my grad stuff taken care of, school will be out, people I know will be home and (hopefully) able to catch up on things. Game 225 vs. Seattle for these; our most recent one. I got 2nd star, 2 points on 5 shots including the game-winner shorthanded! I actually had no clue that happened until I answered this question so that's cool. I took a stupid tripping call and Seattle scored on that power play. Maybe not do that next time.

This is now the Ping Josh Thread

Week 3

The E in VHLE stands for Reno...but yeah, I don't know how long I can guarantee me being around either. I have no problem at all being active now, but I also have no idea how my life will turn around after graduation. I guess the first thing that comes to mind is the generic "only be active if you actually want to" talk that everyone's given and received a few times. I'd love to see you recreate but don't want to hear that it's nothing but work.

Interesting deal that I guess makes sense for both. VAN got the better end of the deal in my opinion (especially if they stay good and the 2nd stays late) but Simon doesn't seem to like LA this season and you gotta do what you gotta do in that case. Should be interesting to see the extent to which LA sells--or is even able to sell--after cap was as tight as it was for some in the preseason.

For the week ending 10/12: 1. Our season didn't start well, but our luck has turned around in recent sims. What are your overall impressions so far? 2. I have this presser up quite late in the week. Why? Wrong answers only. 3. Right now, the team atop the standings is, surprisingly, Vancouver. What's going on with them, and why are things magically working out? 4. How much sleep do you normally get? 5. You go to a fairly cheap and fairly close place for lunch twice, order two different things, and like them both. Will you continue to order those things after that point, or do you want to try everything they offer? 6. What would you be doing right now if you weren't answering these questions? @Berocka@Ricer13@efiug @KC15 @TheCHEESE @Ahma @PatrikLaine @FrostBeard @JardyB10 @tcookie @Banackock

I remember way back when we had one preseason in the VHLM and drama went through the roof...both that season when we had a preseason and the next one when we didn't, and mostly just GMs screaming at each other for no good reason. I wouldn't mind seeing this at all but I don't know how possible it is to throw everyone together in the same league file.

@MMFLEX

While it's true that the VHL may have also hurt me academically--after all, I could be using the time I'm spending on this article to study--I think there are some very nice things to point to in its favor. For the three of you who don't know already, I'm currently in engineering school. I've never really been able to apply engineering to sim leagues or sim leagues to engineering in terms of what I'm learning in class, but there's one thing I do quite a bit around these parts that I'm just now starting to be able to transfer over to the school world. And that's writing. You see, for most of my time in school, I haven't written on any sort of consistent enough basis to seriously improve my writing skills. A lab report here, a short paper there, but not much more than a few projects per semester, mathematically equating to maybe 5 or 6 papers a year, or one every other month. Contrast that with sim leagues, where I'm an article writer. Here, it's true that I could just write a few run-on sentences about what my player page on the portal says this week, every week, but I like to be proud of what I do, and as such, I like to put out the best work that I can. This year, the scope of my major has shifted largely from learning concepts and doing assignments to figure out the math involved to applying those concepts through projects...and there's much more writing in projects. I was already a decent writer in high school and coming into the league, but something feels a bit off with some of my earlier articles. I've definitely gotten better, and with the majority of my writing being here over that time, I have no real choice but to attribute that improvement in part to sim leagues. This means a few things outside of better grades--I'm finally finding dependable people who want to work with me rather than being thrown in with random groups who don't like to communicate, and I recently scored a 5.0 on the writing section of the GRE (which is above the average at any grad program I know of in my field)! I think some of the skills picked up through dedication to sim leagues can be legitimately helpful (I'm also much better with spreadsheets and never would have touched Photoshop had I never joined here). If you're in high school or wherever and you write articles here, you may be studying without even realizing it.

I see two penalties for instigating with the same person on NY... Looks like someone cranked up the targeting slider.

Week 2