Gustav

@AnthonyOuellet last pick reminder

Would you also be shutting it down to hit the mod quota?

My failed entry to the banner contest. Certainly wouldn't have deserved to win but I'm proud of it.

Damn I thought I'd be at least top 4; I thought mine was good. All these are better though so that's not a complaint. I'm voting for 2 even though I usually like things way too saturated.

Just for the record @Jtv123--don't pick yet. I gave Zeph a crack at it because nobody else up until his team had an open forward slot. So you're up after Anthony. Also since there's only one team with an open forward slot--@Lilpfigher you can feel free to make your last pick whenever you'd like

Since I'm the only one without a goalie I'm going to finish up my team just to speed things up at the end. @zepheter since nobody needs a forward between now and your pick, you can feel free to make your pick as well if you'd like. G - Ajay Krishna

D - Alex Letang @Jtv123

For the week ending 3/21: 1. The draft just happened! Name one Davos prospect (regardless of draft position) that you're excited about. 2. Is there anybody we didn't draft that you wish we did? 3. We have a lot of similar forwards on our roster this season. Since we have 8 on the team, how do you think we should build our three lines? 4. How many wins (out of 72 games) do you think is realistic for us? 5. COVID ends, and bands start scheduling tour dates. What's the first band or artist you look up for concert locations? 6. With a lot of GM turnover this season, we're seeing four new teams under new management: Malmo, Calgary, Moscow, and Vancouver. Which of these are you most optimistic about? @Big Dee@Advantage @Grape @Berocka@Kmatt @jimmyallen93 @Brrbisbrr @WebberP@Duddy @Azlan @Ricer13@efiug

All this post did was make me realize that I've never once hit the tab button here.

F - Robin Winter @Lilpfigher

Avangard. I mentioned this in Davos probably while you were writing this up, but "real" in Spanish can mean either "royal" or "real" as in "not fake". Whoever came up with the Salt Lake City team name probably directly translated Madrid's without looking into it, thought it meant "not fake", and was like "oh that's cool, let's call ourselves that so our name says we're legit." Unless they thought it meant "royal" and decided to go with it anyway, in which case it would be a bit stupid. But then what about the LA/Sacramento Kings or the Kansas City Royals? Avangard is straight-up...not a place. Plus it was the franchise's second attempt at putting the team in an actual place after the first one just turned out to be a river.

D - Tyler Walker @Jtv123

F - Groovy Dood @Lilpfigher for 2 picks

And just like that @Esso2264 now has the third-longest GM tenure.

F - Mikko Lahtinen @Jtv123

Good luck with New York @PadStack! We've spoken but your time with us was much appreciated.

Reposting for easy edits: 1. Lilpfigher F - Ray Sheilds F - Rhynex Entertainment F - Jungkok D - Latrell Mitchell D - Matty Socks G - Jean Pierre Camus 2. GustavMattias F - Mikko Lahtinen F - Groovy Dood F - Robin Winter D - Tyler Walker D - Alex Letang G - Ajay Krishna 3. Jtv123 F - Christian Mingle F - Luke Thornton F - Onde Sandstrom D - General Zod D - Spencer Elsby G - Jacob Tonn 4. zepheter F - Ola Vikingstad F - Gary Rush F - Patrik Laine D - Erik Killinger D - Micah Adrienne G - Rara Rasputin 5. AnthonyOuellet F - Chris Hylands F - Valtteri Vaakanainen F - Jim Bob D - Roque Davis D - Randy Marsh G - Zamboni Driver 6. TTtheT F - SS Hornet F - Thomas Landry II F - Jeffrey Pines D - Fat Palloon D - Jiggly Gumballs G - Calvin Harvey

So with a lot of ANTI-BOARD OF GUSTAV SENTIMENT making its way around the forums and Discord lately, I thought I'd share a bit of an insider's perspective on what goes on there. We do: -Vote on awards. A separate discussion thread for each award goes up, and then a while later the actual award ballot is created. Discussion threads are meant for discussion--I've touched upon lack of discussion and will acknowledge that it can be an issue, but some form of actual discussion does happen in most non-obvious cases. -Provide opinions on suggested policies. These can be from anyone, be it commissioners, other BoG members, or people outside of the BoG. The majority of BoG discussion threads are no different from what you'd find in the suggestion forum...they're just not public. -Occasionally provide feedback on secret stuff. The most obvious example is expansions. Outside of secret stuff and voting, there's really nothing separating BoG threads from the suggestion forum. We do not: -Have the final say in decision-making. That's a blue team thing. We're an advisory board. I'd concede that BoG generally comes to a more-or-less-in-agreement point before an official decision is made, but we don't make said decisions (as evidenced by the fact that the blues are the ones who post threads about policy changes). -Have any sort of official power. We're not mods, we're not staff. I think one of the biggest misconceptions about the BoG is that we're somehow in some sort of elevated position. We really aren't. A possible source of confusion is a distinction between BoG (an advisory board like what we have here) and BoD (a group of people who play a larger part in decision-making, are usually considered staff, and receive job pay), a structure found in the EFL and SBA. All being hired to the BoG means is that the blue team (and potentially current BoG) thinks you're a rational person who will contribute positively and make constructive comments on things. That's it, and there's no reason someone who isn't on the BoG can't contribute positively and make constructive comments. That's just my two cents. Hopefully this gives some people a better understanding of things and helps get my general point across that being BoG is...really not a big deal.

That rights deal be looking Still got a good amount of Warsaw in my predictions though.

I'm just here so I won't get fined

God imagine commenting in this thread for rep points smh my head

Damn these are some big payouts. Isn't 8-9 usually unheard of?

A point about this I'd like to make is...how would this work? When you think about "people who are actively willing to put in effort", you'd likely consider quite a few BoG members in that category. I'd assume the old Award Committee...that wasn't discussing anything and voted completely illogically at times (at least from what I heard from @Phil a while back)...was also put together with the intent of bringing in said people. So it doesn't matter who's selected, we're going to have the same problem. UNLESS people are required to discuss votes before submitting them. UNLESS voting (and by extension, discussion) becomes mandatory and expected. UNLESS there are guidelines to make legitimate discussion happen. The problem exists otherwise and "lol just don't let BoG do it" (not that you said it like that, because you didn't) isn't a solution.