The VHLM Has Gone Off the Deep End. Here's Why (and How I Would Fix It)

[Gustav 6,223]

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

[Nykonax 1,558]

6 minutes ago, GustavMattias said:

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. 

Is it really a bad thing to get players on teams quickly though with the current system. Like is it actually a bad thing that players sign with the first team? I think its only bad because of the waiver limit being 8 or whatever, so teams can get 8 more players than another before stopping. If you reduce that to 3 then teams only get ~3 players more than another. It also keeps players on the forum and having somewhat personal pitches, where something on the portal would contribute to more clickers and people not coming on the forums or discord. Plus the quick pitches are people get on teams fast and into discords, good for retention. If it's a generic portal offer the GM might not see it was accepted for 8 hours, and by that time the player might already be gone. Typed this up quickly so might not make a whole lot of sense but I think you can see my points?

[a_Ferk 762]

Bots getting 18 minutes a game: I sleep

 

Inactive players being on the team at all: real shit

[Gustav 6,223]

9 minutes ago, Nykonax said:

Is it really a bad thing to get players on teams quickly though with the current system. Like is it actually a bad thing that players sign with the first team? I think its only bad because of the waiver limit being 8 or whatever, so teams can get 8 more players than another before stopping. If you reduce that to 3 then teams only get ~3 players more than another. It also keeps players on the forum and having somewhat personal pitches, where something on the portal would contribute to more clickers and people not coming on the forums or discord. Plus the quick pitches are people get on teams fast and into discords, good for retention. If it's a generic portal offer the GM might not see it was accepted for 8 hours, and by that time the player might already be gone. Typed this up quickly so might not make a whole lot of sense but I think you can see my points?

 

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.

[a_Ferk 762]

Jokes aside I was in disbelief when I questioned Matty's lines at the start of the season and he said 9-6-1 was required, effectively making bots get significant ice time. I don't think a single team had 6 defense to start the season, and as far as I'm aware there still aren't any. 

 

Seeing a bot get a point was once memeworthy and a rare occurrence, and now it happens almost every sim.

[Nykonax 1,558]

3 minutes ago, GustavMattias said:

 

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.

well doesnt the problem your saying stem from not every team is watching the threads and posting within 10mins. Like a team is at a disadvantage if they can't offer until like 5 hours later and by that point the player is signed right. If it's on the portal and the player chooses the team that wouldn't be able to offer for 5 hours, that player doesnt get a discord invite or anything until 5 hours after they sign. Might not be a huge issue, but I feel like some people would be "what next", and if nothing happens in the next 5 hours they just leave. If that person gets a discord invite within 10 mins then they might stay right.

[Gustav 6,223]

3 minutes ago, Nykonax said:

well doesnt the problem your saying stem from not every team is watching the threads and posting within 10mins. Like a team is at a disadvantage if they can't offer until like 5 hours later and by that point the player is signed right. If it's on the portal and the player chooses the team that wouldn't be able to offer for 5 hours, that player doesnt get a discord invite or anything until 5 hours after they sign. Might not be a huge issue, but I feel like some people would be "what next", and if nothing happens in the next 5 hours they just leave. If that person gets a discord invite within 10 mins then they might stay right.

 

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.

[a_Ferk 762]

5 minutes ago, Nykonax said:

well doesnt the problem your saying stem from not every team is watching the threads and posting within 10mins. Like a team is at a disadvantage if they can't offer until like 5 hours later and by that point the player is signed right. If it's on the portal and the player chooses the team that wouldn't be able to offer for 5 hours, that player doesnt get a discord invite or anything until 5 hours after they sign. Might not be a huge issue, but I feel like some people would be "what next", and if nothing happens in the next 5 hours they just leave. If that person gets a discord invite within 10 mins then they might stay right.

Easy fix; get an invitation for every VHLM locker room that doesn't expire, and give the new create a link to it when they select their respective team.

[Nykonax 1,558]

1 minute ago, GustavMattias said:

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 people creating then immediately leaving isnt something you can fix, like what are you supposed to do if someone closes the site right after creating and never comes back. Not sure what you mean with people creating and never getting invites? Are GMs signing people and not inviting them? Sounds like a GM problem and not a system problem

[Nykonax 1,558]

Just now, a_Ferk said:

Easy fix; get an invitation for every VHLM locker room that doesn't expire, and give the new create a link to it when they select their respective team.

I like that, just sends a welcome thing right when they sign. My only other concern at this point would just be adding work for the portal people.

[Gustav 6,223]

1 minute ago, Nykonax said:

I mean people creating then immediately leaving isnt something you can fix, like what are you supposed to do if someone closes the site right after creating and never comes back. Not sure what you mean with people creating and never getting invites? Are GMs signing people and not inviting them? Sounds like a GM problem and not a system problem

 

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.

[rory 1,802]

vhlm has too many teams for da bot rules

[mattyIceman 1,139]

I'll die on the hill of no first round pick trading.  In essence, first round is more like picking up free agents.  If everyone gets a good player, no excuse to "tank" or get "stacked".

 

I'll also die on the hill of never ever seeing a bot in a lineup again.  I'd rather see 60-70 tpe inactives fill lineups.  Want more icetime? Earn for a week or two; otherwise, become an inactive bot replacement.

 

I like ferks idea and gustavs idea about waivers on the portal.  List of teams and standings, roster breakdown by position, so they just don't sign up and leave.  Once they choose a team, a popup shows up with their contract details and discord server invite, along with maybe a brief "how-to-vhl" (if they're not returning members or recreates).  Ricer's article comes to mind...

Edited October 12, 2021 by MattyIce

[youloser1337 1,071]

15 hours ago, GustavMattias said:

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

You can just @ me next time.

[JardyB10 4,839]

15 hours ago, Nykonax said:

I mean people creating then immediately leaving isnt something you can fix, like what are you supposed to do if someone closes the site right after creating and never comes back. Not sure what you mean with people creating and never getting invites? Are GMs signing people and not inviting them? Sounds like a GM problem and not a system problem

I assumed he meant like: Loser instantly posts an offer, the user maybe doesn’t accept until an hour later and now Loser is in a three hour long gunfight with the police. He returns to the VHL three hours later to send a Discord invite, but the player he had offered 4 hours earlier is gone for good already.

 

Anyway, all these portal centric solutions sound very good, but as an Best people here I obviously have concerns with how that might affect forum activity. I suppose that’s partly on GMs in the Discord being like “go on the forum and do PTs!” And I also feel like the portal should have more prompts to go the forum.

[bigAL 2,176]

On 10/12/2021 at 12:51 AM, GustavMattias said:

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.

A million times yes.

 

What I'm picturing:

1. Player creates on the portal
2. Final step of creation: join a team
3. They're taken to essentially this page. (weird it won't hyperlink to the VHLM, but you get it)
4. Under each team name/logo, there's:
   1. A standardized pitch about the franchise and/or the goals for the season (basically what's copy/pasted in the threads now)
      1. This can be edited at any time by the A/GM
   2. A permanent link to the team's discord server
   3. Current roster numbers (forwards, defense, goalie)
   4. A big button that says JOIN TEAM

Pressing JOIN TEAM immediately puts the player on the team in the portal. The A/GM gets a ping that a new player has joined their team. They reach out by DM or meet them in the discord server. The player dresses for the next sim, the GM submits new lines, and away we go.

 

The pros:

1. Player choice
   • We're always talking about how offering on forums is the best because it gives players choice on which team they sign with
   • This way, the player gets to make an informed decision about what team to join. They know exactly what they're getting themselves into, and can easily compare/contrast all teams
   • "All teams" - they get to choose from all teams and not just the ones who appear in the forums in the first three hours after creation
      
2. Player experience
   • Creating and then waiting sucks. SUCKS.
   • Creating and joining the general discord server mostly sucks, because you're a stranger in a massive, massive new place.
   • Creating and joining a team server, with a dedicated development GM and a group of other people in the same situation as you: DOESN'T SUCK!
   • Bonus: you get into the sims much quicker than the other way, which means capitalizing on the hype of player creation.
      
3. GM workload
   • The worst part of being an AGM is copy and pasting the same damn post a million times every time you get a notification from Create A Player subforum.
   • Because it's a shitty job (or because of malicious intent), people don't always prioritize (or actually do) this part of the job. That's a problem.
   • This puts the onus on the player to do the legwork of joining a team. Any time we can take work off the GM plate, we should.
      
4. "Competitive balance"
   • Players know exactly what they're getting themselves into now.
   • If you want players to get into your shit, you have to make it attractive.
   • Having an empty team is super visible now, and is (probably) a red flag for new members and a mark of shame for recreates.
   • I flip-flopped on including "Current W/L Record" on the team info page, because I don't want to unfairly stigmatize the teams that are shit this season, but I suppose you could address that bit in the pitch. 
     • Either way, players will likely want to join "good" teams, and since GMs don't really have a choice who joins them, this "don't sign waivers because they'll slow us down" bs won't be a thing anymore.
        
5. Roster min/max
   • With the forward/D/goalie numbers posted on the team page, players know what their ice time will be, more or less.
   • Players will want to join winning teams, but we don't want them to terribly drag a champion down.
   • We can either warn the player or prevent them from joining a team that's above the 9/4/1 roster creation.
     • If you're a forward., the teams with 9 forwards already will be highlighted in red. Either you don't sign there, or know you're getting fourth line minutes

 

The cons:

I'm sure someone will find something.

[Beketov 8,798]

On 10/11/2021 at 8:02 PM, Nykonax said:

If it's a generic portal offer the GM might not see it was accepted for 8 hours

Just as a minor note on this as well because I do agree: this would definitely happen and 100% counteract any amount of gains regarding getting them into the sim faster. Because of a player is signed I’ll put them in but if the GM doesn’t notice, because they aren’t actively making the waivers, then they won’t message me to replace a bit and actually get said new player in.

 

You could probably implement a forum tag to the GM in question when a player signs but they still have to see it.

 

On the whole I think portal waiver offers have their advantages (as addressed in the OP) and their drawbacks, namely that as useful as the portal is we already have an issue of people using exclusively the portal. Giving them no exposure to the rest of the league from the get go would definitely not improve this.

 

Edit: Of note I have read at this point the OP and Nyko’s comment only so it’s possible someone addressed this.

[Beketov 8,798]

1 hour ago, bigAL said:

Bonus: you get into the sims much quicker than the other way

Not really. Portal =/= index and never can. We still manually add every player and GM’s can’t put them in lines until we do so. That’s why the “put a bot in your lines and message me” thing still exists. So whether they sign with the first team that offers or they sign upon creation it’s the same difference sim wise. They’ll be in the next sim assuming their GM sends the simmer a spot to put them and if the GM doesn’t they’ll be in the sim but not the lines

[RomanesEuntDomus 442]

I don't follow other teams/leagues outside of my own a whole lot, but I can say that the overly cyclical nature of the VHL(M) might be the one thing that has always bothered me the most about this league. It often makes you feel like a passenger that is subject to the currents instead of a player that has actual impact. The fact that most teams choose to either be super shitty or to stack up and compete for a few seasons means that you rarely make an actual difference.

 

If you are on a shitty team then you won't be able to pull them out of the hole by being a great player or by leading by example. You either are basically the only person there or winning is actively discouraged because everyone on the team just waits for those drafts a few seasons down the line where you have stacked up on 1st Rounders.

 

If you are on a stacked team then things are somewhat better but still not great because likely this team will be stacked no matter if you are on it or not. Most of a time it's a team that wasn't built by your or your teammates dedication, but by the fact that the team stacked up on 1st rounders three seasons ago, or the fact that the current GM has just traded most of the teams future for star power players.

It's always nice to win but with this kind of preparation, it's also somewhat expected and less special.

 

Even though I haven't held the position in a long time, I think it's also something that makes the GM-job less rewarding and actually makes being a good GM less important. Of course being a good GM still helps, but in this kind of cyclical system it often isn't so much about shrewd drafting and good trades and signings, but simply about embracing the cycle and then waiting. If you trade everything you have, tank for a few seasons and then have like six 1st rounders over two drafts then you'll probably end up with a good team even if you aren't a great GM. There are still many ways a GM can have an impact and of course good GMs will eventually be more successful then others, but I think GM quality is generally less important and the job is less fun, especially after burning through the cycle for the first time, than it would be in a less cyclical system.

 

On some of your other points: I quite strongly agree that it is a mistake to prohibit/criminalize inactives. We absolutely should promote active players and make sure they get the ice-time they need, but we don't need to get rid of inactives for that. I would argue that having a high TPE Inactive or two sprinkled throughout your roster that make your team have more success on the ice actually makes things more fun for the active players compared to being on a team that has no high-TPE inactives, plays a lot of lower TPE actives in important positions and loses a lot more as a result. There's a middle-ground here between no inactives and stacking the team with inactives. Also,  if a team always have to play a new 50-TPE active they just signed over all of their high-TPE Inactives, it might actually make the team less likely to bring in those actives in order to avoid the hassle. That is especially true for lower probability players, people that arent super active yet or that we think have a relatively high chance of busting. Those players need a good GM and a locker room the most, but if you automatically lose your inactives then bringing in those kinds of players is hardly worth the risk.

 

I actually like the no double-shifting rule, the excessive double-shifting is also something I never really liked about the league. But I don't have that strong of an opinion or knowledge about this matter so not much more I can say about it.

 

I'm not super sure about tightening the pick limits, I definitely like the spirit behind this suggestion but there are also a lot of potential risks and problems. It's something worth discussing for sure though and I think I tend to see more positives with this suggestion than negatives.

 

Oh and review I guess so I can claim teps for this: 10/10

[thadthrasher 1,692]

@GustavMattias, as always your articles are well written, presented neatly, and show careful thinking. In this particular article you present problems, offer insights, and offer potential solutions. Instead of kicking sand and complaining into the void you're actually attempting to make a change or at least promote conversation. I appreciate that, and this carefully written article. 10/10

 

Now, to respond.

 

It seems to me that most, if not all, of the problems you have highlighted stem from one similar problem, an undermining of the spirit of the league. As I came into the league, and of course started as a player in the VHLM, I could tell quickly that the VHLM served a specific purpose. As I understood it the spirit of the league was to bring in new players, teach them the ropes, keep them active and happy, and try to keep them engaged. When I was hired as a VHLM GM, that spirit of the league is what I kept in mind as I had players asking me the same questions over and over again. I kept that in mind when I had players message me from different time zones and I tried to make it a point to be as available as possible. It even got to the point where I would step away from real life things to answer questions and help new players. I loved it, absolutely loved it. 

 

Knowing that the VHLM is a league of recruitment and retention I made it a point to try and fill my roster, even if new players weren't coming in through advertisements. I would reach out to friends, family members, and to people on hockey fan groups on various social media platforms. It led to me signing quite a few people (though the retention rate isn't great there). I would do exactly what you said in the waiver section. I made sure I got new create notifications in my email, prioritized them, and even kept the New Create page of the forum open on my computer so that I could quickly run in and pitch my team. It was fun at first, and exciting, but as you noted it became more of a chore and draining. Burnout was knocking on my door. So, I slowed down a bit. That, coupled with a few life changes and craziness going on I ended up not offering nearly at the rate I was, and to admit, I was negligent in that aspect of my job for a little bit.

 

Even though I knew the intended spirit of the VHLM, the spirit of competition also weaved itself into my mindset, which makes sense. My players wanted to perform well, be on a team that performed well, and win. It led to me making strategic trades, but nothing as extreme as selling off my entire roster for future picks (this isn't a dig at that move, just an extreme in one direction). However, what started happening was that I was making moves that prioritized winning over the true spirit of the VHLM. I sold off a few players from my team one time without thinking to contact them first, received a few angry messages (rightly deserved), all so that I could gain a few future picks. I prioritized the "future" of my team over my current players. 

 

All of that to say that I can't really offer a solution at this time. I just wanted to share a few of my thoughts and reminisce on some past mistakes.

 

 

[Dom 1,444]

3 hours ago, Beketov said:

Because of a player is signed I’ll put them in but if the GM doesn’t notice, because they aren’t actively making the waivers, then they won’t message me to replace a bit and actually get said new player in.

I don’t think a GM that doesn’t look at his pings daily should be a GM

[Beketov 8,798]

5 minutes ago, Domg5 said:

I don’t think a GM that doesn’t look at his pings daily should be a GM

Well yes but people also sleep. I guess what I meant is mostly say a GM is in a different time zone than me and someone signs after they go to bed but before I sim (even more likely with Devise simming). That player is in the index but the GM has no way to get them into lines.

 

I’m not saying that’s a huge deal, it’s no different than now. Just that the idea of “portalizing = faster getting people into sims” isn’t really true.

[Gustav 6,223]

3 hours ago, Beketov said:

Just as a minor note on this as well because I do agree: this would definitely happen and 100% counteract any amount of gains regarding getting them into the sim faster. Because of a player is signed I’ll put them in but if the GM doesn’t notice, because they aren’t actively making the waivers, then they won’t message me to replace a bit and actually get said new player in.

 

You could probably implement a forum tag to the GM in question when a player signs but they still have to see it.

 

On the whole I think portal waiver offers have their advantages (as addressed in the OP) and their drawbacks, namely that as useful as the portal is we already have an issue of people using exclusively the portal. Giving them no exposure to the rest of the league from the get go would definitely not improve this.

 

Edit: Of note I have read at this point the OP and Nyko’s comment only so it’s possible someone addressed this.

 

This is fine and I don't completely disagree with it. That said, even if we don't consider that part a benefit, there are still many others that I think make it worthwhile. As @JardyB10 mentions earlier (and which I've said in the past as well), the portal could use more links to the forum. Maybe after picking a team, you're automatically redirected to the forum or something.

 

1 hour ago, thadthrasher said:

@GustavMattias, as always your articles are well written, presented neatly, and show careful thinking. In this particular article you present problems, offer insights, and offer potential solutions. Instead of kicking sand and complaining into the void you're actually attempting to make a change or at least promote conversation. I appreciate that, and this carefully written article. 10/10

 

Now, to respond.

 

It seems to me that most, if not all, of the problems you have highlighted stem from one similar problem, an undermining of the spirit of the league. As I came into the league, and of course started as a player in the VHLM, I could tell quickly that the VHLM served a specific purpose. As I understood it the spirit of the league was to bring in new players, teach them the ropes, keep them active and happy, and try to keep them engaged. When I was hired as a VHLM GM, that spirit of the league is what I kept in mind as I had players asking me the same questions over and over again. I kept that in mind when I had players message me from different time zones and I tried to make it a point to be as available as possible. It even got to the point where I would step away from real life things to answer questions and help new players. I loved it, absolutely loved it. 

 

Knowing that the VHLM is a league of recruitment and retention I made it a point to try and fill my roster, even if new players weren't coming in through advertisements. I would reach out to friends, family members, and to people on hockey fan groups on various social media platforms. It led to me signing quite a few people (though the retention rate isn't great there). I would do exactly what you said in the waiver section. I made sure I got new create notifications in my email, prioritized them, and even kept the New Create page of the forum open on my computer so that I could quickly run in and pitch my team. It was fun at first, and exciting, but as you noted it became more of a chore and draining. Burnout was knocking on my door. So, I slowed down a bit. That, coupled with a few life changes and craziness going on I ended up not offering nearly at the rate I was, and to admit, I was negligent in that aspect of my job for a little bit.

 

Even though I knew the intended spirit of the VHLM, the spirit of competition also weaved itself into my mindset, which makes sense. My players wanted to perform well, be on a team that performed well, and win. It led to me making strategic trades, but nothing as extreme as selling off my entire roster for future picks (this isn't a dig at that move, just an extreme in one direction). However, what started happening was that I was making moves that prioritized winning over the true spirit of the VHLM. I sold off a few players from my team one time without thinking to contact them first, received a few angry messages (rightly deserved), all so that I could gain a few future picks. I prioritized the "future" of my team over my current players. 

 

All of that to say that I can't really offer a solution at this time. I just wanted to share a few of my thoughts and reminisce on some past mistakes.

 

 

 

And this is another reason I think it would be a good move. You lived on the forum. I did, too. That's an unhealthy and unrealistic expectation for the league to place on its GMs and for the GMs to place on themselves (as well as each other). To your credit, I've never seen you as "part of the problem"--GMs who know avenues to screwing over newer players exist and choose not to take them are a wonderful thing, and it's part of the reason why I'm advocating for some freedom in some places to be given back. There's absolutely nothing wrong with buying or selling, as long as the players you do have love playing for you.

[Viper 530]

aaaaaaaaa many words aaaaaaaaaaa vhlm aaaaaaaa

[Gustav 6,223]

Week 2