Spartan

Have to read the whole section to see the bot backup bit. Its one of the explicitly defined portions within that rule that is easiest to uphold due to the quantitative nature.

You're mixing up two different rules here. The Louth rule specifically requires every VHL team to play their backup goalie 8 times in a season. It doesn't have to be just 1 goalie, could be any combination of backups as long as a single goalie on their roster doesn't have more than 64 starts in a season. Not GP, just starts. From what I recall, this rule was to ensure teams would be forced to play their secondary goalies since there are almost always a few human backup goalies in all seasons. If competitive teams aren't required to start their backups, GM's will take advantage of it. The Spirit of Competition rule simply states that if you have a bot backup goalie, the bot can't start more than 8 games in a season. The logic is that pretty much every VHL-eligible human created goalie will be better than a bot, attribute wise, and we should always be playing user created players over bots. If you don't have a human goalie, you must make a significant/reasonable effort to acquire one. That's the rule that was broken here, hence why overplaying human backups is never punished, since there's no rule around their max starts.

Why did I watch a harpy lay an egg

??

Find Jesus holy shit. I'm 22 seconds in, there's no fucking shot man. I'm canceling this contract by abusing my admin powers. edit: I had to crop this image too to save everyone else

Straight to Warsaw (in S94) @Grape what anime episode am I watching

Said nothing about broken rules, just about "one mistake" when they seem to be adding up. Not like you to miss things after being in the role for this long.

Happy to pitch in mate. Arbitration rules weren't an oversight on your part either?

So if the punishment is still just reduced odds but not a punishment to overall position, couldn't a team egregiously tank (perhaps doubling bot starts and losing a majority of those starts) and guarantee 2nd overall at worst in a class with 2 elite players? Almost like the situation this season? We had the warning with WAR/CGY that further infractions would be punished more harshly since it was one of the first instances with the rule being broken and also punished, when do we hit the threshold of actively punishing teams that break these rules? Seems like even Bana recognizes this tactic? Multiple "honest" mistakes this season for a very tenured GM....

One more game

You were the simmer, could have changed it

If we win game 6 and 7, I'll have next season's simmer rename our arena to Jarmo Ruutu Arena

Voss??? C'mon, you've had some studs since Tordahl, cut yourself some slack. You make fantastic players, don't let anyone tell yourself otherwise.

Shit's cursed

By now? You're like 10 seasons late.

Brutal

I'd run through a wall now

My first suggestion would be to bring up previously written articles that somewhat mirror the writing style he claims to have been consistent with the denied article. Second might be to go back to Grammerly or whatever tool he uses since sometimes I think they leave a history of recent pieces reviewed? As you said it's not a court of law, we don't have that sort of "innocent until proven guilty" with what you claim for TPE. If something looks off and updaters agree, then the user can find some way to communicate with us and explain how our analysis of their work is wrong and can provide more details.

Everything else in here is your opinion, which you're allowed to have and is fine. Not going to push back on anything else other than this. There would never have been a league ban involved, only a TPE ban at most which is fairly standard for people caught using AI for their tasks. The punishment thread has a few of the recent ones to show that a TPE ban is standard there. If you pushed back with V.2, the head of PT who has been given jurisdiction on final say on tasks and punishments for breaking task rules, it would go to the mod team, aka Fong. Personally if you had proof of not using AI or some other sort of rebuttal, I don't see how V.2 wouldn't have taken it unless he simply disagreed with you. Listen, detecting AI is never going to be definitive here - we're not going to get every decision right and we generally try to give people a window to explain to an Updater. That's why we have the denial PMs and are on Discord to chat as well. However, you even claim to use software that changes your sentences and words. That's stuff that might get triggered for AI input here, and seemingly did trigger one of the primary sites Updaters use, including a few others that I ran your original submission through. Others were not as high percentage, some were very low. I just don't know why these comments or proof wasn't brought up with whichever Updater you spoke with, or V.2 before it would ever need to get to mod appeal. At the least, I never saw any follow up comments from you passed on in the Updater chat. Anything that goes through AI checkers and comes off as AI generated, yes. We've tossed in old staff member media spots and vhl.coms to see what the false positive rate is, and we feel fairly comfortable about avoiding false positives. However, we can't say the same for pieces that go through sites like Grammarly and get essentially rewritten. For graphics we usually ask to see layers if we're not comfortable with originality. Maybe media spot users will have to save their pre-Grammarly or whatever write-ups if they're going to go through those avenues that might get flagged. That way updaters can see that there was original content prior to the modification by the editing site. But again, this would only get triggered if your work contains elements of AI, which most completely original content doesn't get flagged for. Dunno what this means, but surely we're not advocating for Updaters not to be checking tasks for compliance with guidelines right? We're not comparing Updaters to Big Brother? Don't think the rules for content are that harsh either. Hit the word count and keep it original. We don't want to have to look at every task through a fine tooth comb, but as we see submissions with AI elements pop up more frequently, its the community itself that forces the league to keep a closer eye out for infractions.

Vote in poll, maybe another poll for how we play. Just gauging interest now so @Dil can see if its worth hosting.

There's a lot to talk about, but not much I want to talk about. Motivation for this VHL.com article is significantly lacking, along with my general VHL interest recently. Now that's not a bad thing I'd say, because I'm still max earning and doing everything I should be doing. However, I'm not rushing to get my capped TPE all done at the start of a week and am relatively content to finish my claims midway through the week or so. I will admit, I've forgotten whether I've claimed all my stuff for a week a few times recently and panic check my player page to make sure I haven't forgotten anything on a Sunday evening. Maybe I'll get back in a groove soon. The gen chat discourse still runs strong, which I love to see. For anyone new to my opinion on gen chat, I've always thought that gen chat should only be a landing spot for the league and a space for a little bit of casual chit chat, but I am a strong advocate for most activity to be funneled into team LRs. A massive community all in one channel just doesn't seem appealing, and is more intimidating for people to engage in. Breaking down that activity into LRs (use public chat channels!) makes the community seem less intimidating and its just a more intimate and relaxing setting. Every GM has a vibe and the LR will generally match it. Gen chat has always been the place where you go if you're super bored or procrastinating and want to shoot the shit or stir some shit. However that's really not what a central channel for the league should be, and that's probably why new members generally avoid it. So yeah, I'll still agree that gen chat is a cesspool that often has conversations that people simply get turned off from ever wanting to join. It's basically just the new thunderdome to me.

Locking for further investigation.

I know you're joking, but I'm curious to see what people get if they take the text and run it through an AI detection tool of their choosing.