Sorry Not Sorry

[Shindigs 1,771]

4 minutes ago, Horcrux said:

Knowing something will cause a reaction, and posting it to cause a reaction is different. 

This. Exact same thing with my attribute thread over in league discussions. I knew the second I posted it that at the very least @GustavMattias would oppose what I said, because anything else would just be weird. But I didn't post it for that reason. I posted it because it's a topic I'm passionate about, and I realize that we all need to knock our heads together if we're going to find some kind of acceptable solution. There will be people who disagree, in fact based on the poll the majority of people disagreed with my idea. That's not really the important part to me, it's that there was a (mostly) constructive centralized discussion.

 

However when you are discussing a topic that many are passionate about you will always have someone get too passionate. I haven't read through this whole thread so I honestly don't know exactly what the drama was, nor do I really want to stress myself out by finding out. But please everyone, when someone brings up a league topic they are passionate about. Assume it's because they care enough about the league, to want what they think are best for the future of the league. You may find their ideas do not match your own. But at least appreciate that the intentions were good and ultimately you are both on the same side, as all your want is for the VHL to be the best place possible.

[Horcrux 322]

3 minutes ago, Shindigs said:

This. Exact same thing with my attribute thread over in league discussions. I knew the second I posted it that at the very least @GustavMattias would oppose what I said, because anything else would just be weird. But I didn't post it for that reason. I posted it because it's a topic I'm passionate about, and I realize that we all need to knock our heads together if we're going to find some kind of acceptable solution. There will be people who disagree, in fact based on the poll the majority of people disagreed with my idea. That's not really the important part to me, it's that there was a (mostly) constructive centralized discussion.

 

However when you are discussing a topic that many are passionate about you will always have someone get too passionate. I haven't read through this whole thread so I honestly don't know exactly what the drama was, nor do I really want to stress myself out by finding out. But please everyone, when someone brings up a league topic they are passionate about. Assume it's because they care enough about the league, to want what they think are best for the future of the league. You may find their ideas do not match your own. But at least appreciate that the intentions were good and ultimately you are both on the same side, as all your want is for the VHL to be the best place possible.

I have not been here long enough to be this Divisive. so its my fault. 

regardless this was written as a counter to the Anti E Sentiment that was going around, it was worded poorley and a little strong but that is because I had up to this thread not seen any Valid reasons as to why you should skip the E or dislike it. I didnt express that or word it well enough and thats on me. 

[Beketov 9,033]

5 hours ago, Moon said:

Oh for sure! I just know some people dont think of that and just want to go straight to the VHL.

For vets that argument could make sense I guess since they know what it used to be (even if they are ignoring the additional year and all that) but I’m not sure how much it holds water for new people.

 

Not to say they can’t hold that opinion, they can, it just comes off kinda like “where did they get it from” because if you joined the league now and saw that as the progression and no one told you that you SHOULD hate it why would you? You would just see that as the path, just as many saw staying in the VHLM an extra season because they enjoyed it as the “natural path.”

 

New people are influenced by the people that came before them. If they are told “hey, this thing is dumb and you shouldn’t want to go there” that’s what they will believe. If they aren’t told anything why would they have any reason to want to “get to the VHL as soon as possible” when that has historically not been the case (as we have seen with people stopping at the VHLM cutoff to stay down despite it being a bad idea) and when they don’t know that’s the “right thing to do.”

 

The VHLE rollout has not been perfect, it has kinks to be ironed out as we knew it would. However I think a lot of it’s problems would be solved with a mindset change more than a rule change. If people don’t view it as some kind of punishment then everyone’s enjoyment of it would be higher.

 

Mind you as I stated I do believe there’s a certain amount of “maybe we went too harsh” on the ability to skip it so that could help but we don’t want the divide between the “haves and the have nots” to be too wide either.

[Shindigs 1,771]

Just now, Horcrux said:

I have not been here long enough to be this Divisive. so its my fault. 

regardless this was written as a counter to the Anti E Sentiment that was going around, it was worded poorley and a little strong but that is because I had up to this thread not seen any Valid reasons as to why you should skip the E or dislike it. I didnt express that or word it well enough and thats on me. 

Yes, but I've talked about this with you before. And I know how passionate about it you are, so I appreciate that it comes from a good place. We all word things poorly sometimes, and we should learn from those mistakes. But that shouldn't stop you from continuing to do what you consider to be best for the league. Maybe try and be more neutral about it, yes. But don't just stop.

[Lemorse7 1,016]

For me a simulation league, its not a irl league, but you want it to be the more realistic possible. How many players go directly in the NHL, not much, the most recent one who had more then two players jump in the NHL the season right after the draft is the 2018 with Dahlin, Svech, KK and Brady Tkatchuk. and KK did go back to the AHL. Maybe it a tiny bit too hard to skip it, watching the S82 draft prospect I see 5 players maybe being able to skip the E, but realistically only three will made it. For the E being Inactive I think its kind a normal its the new kid, most people in the E will be more  active in the VHL LR team that drafted them, why because its their future ad they don't see the point to be active in their E LR and I understand that. 

[Spartan 4,408]

*cracks knuckles*

 

I've already commented on a decent amount of points that have come up in this thread, and I'm generally ignoring the stupid quabbling that happened in here. Some other points that I saw and went "oooh this could be fun to respond to" are what I cover below. I tried to group them up when applicable but probably failed a bit because I multi-quoted 8 posts and tried to group them into a single quote.....this'll go well eh?

Edit before posting: I've royally fucked up quotes so here are tags for everyone whose words I yoinked. @Horcrux @fromtheinside @a_Ferk @Moon @Beketov @Daniel Janser

 

Quote

Some members blame it for the problems in the VHLM when the problems existed before the VHLE / Most of the arguments I have seen against the VHLE so far have been blaming it for issues that already existed - Horcrux

Out of curiosity, what pre-existing issues are you referring to that are getting applied specifically to the VHLE? The main arguments against the E that I've seen is lower PF that is significant to a max earner, an extra season en route to the VHL, and a higher IA % than any other league. I'm a clear proponent of the E and have expressed skepticism of the anti-E sentiment as well, but I don't get this "blaming for pre-VHLE issues" argument against the people who don't like the E. 

 

Quote

there is no problem criticizing something in the league IF you come with Evidence, Stats and other statements and proof to back your statements. Otherwise your arguments fall flat. - Horcrux

 

sooo having an opinion requires evidence?? huh? - FTI

I personally haven't enjoyed the E due to how many inactive players it has. Some teams are over 50% inactive by VHLM standards - Ferk

Yeah this is an odd gray area here, where I think that people are allowed to have opinions without needing to explain them - except if they're a decision maker and need to back up an action. I also think that an opinion of "this adds an extra season between me and the VHL" isn't something you can demand evidence for. It's literally just an "I don't like this" and that is perfectly valid for someone to say. Ferk's comment here about inactive players is an opinion that also provides some statistic. Whether it's 100% accurate or not, I don't know, but I have seen inactivity numbers in the VHLE and they are more significant in number than in the VHLM or VHL.

 

Just an overall word of caution that just because you don't necessarily agree with an opinion doesn't mean you get to invalidate it if it isn't presented to your standards, especially when you're asking for discussion and opinions.

 

Quote

This league as I have seen over the past few months does not handle Change well, or tough questions. - Horcrux

More of an aside, but I just found this funny. When change occurs, people ask tough questions. It seems those tough questions aren't welcome though. Only the "tough" questions asked that lead to change you're in favor with seem to be acceptable. I've seen you try to shut down a lot of CoC questions in the past simply because you didn't like the questions being asked, or that you didn't agree with where they were coming from. Change is a two-sided coin, there will be proponents and dissonance to any change. People not liking specific changes does not mean the league as a whole does not "handle change well," it just means that people have opinions and that's perfectly natural. I don't know why you needed this odd jab in a post that otherwise was in good taste and presented with good intentions.

 

Quote

With that, I went around the league Discord and asked a key member of every Major group here in the League their thoughts. I asked an Admin, a Mod, a BOG member, a VHL GM, a VHLE GM, a VHLM GM, and a few players. - Horcrux

 

Also it should be noted that all members of the BoG (which includes all league commissioners)  are strongly urged to support league projects (such as the VHLE) regardless of whether they personally are in favour of them or not. This is to show a united front and help grow the league in a positive light. So you going and asking a bunch of BOG/commishes what their thoughts are on VHLE is kind of a moot point since we are urged to answer with positive reinforcement about it. That's not to say the users you questioned  weren't being honest with their answers, but if anyone was against the idea of the VHLE per se, nobody would outright come out and say as much.  - FTI

I actually didn't know BOG "needed/is strongly suggested" to publicly support league initiatives, but I guess that's pretty cool to see. I do think that dissonance should also be presented, but in a constructive manner instead of just ripping shit apart for the sake of it. Cool little insight here Scotty. But also yeah, of all the people you'd expect to support the E, it'd be:

Admin - approved the E's existence
Mod - literally just keeping the peace in the community, not going to tear apart a controversial topic and add fuel
BOG - overall also approved the E's existence
VHL GM - generally have benefited from the E existing since 250-400 players no longer clutter up rosters if the GM's don't want them there
VHLE GM - this is their job!
 

The only job group you mentioned I'd expect to gripe about it (and seemingly, they have) is the VHLM GM since the E has handcuffed their competitive inclinations , dropped the TPA of players available to them, and cycled their rosters faster than before. General members are a coin flip, veterans already didn't like being in the M because they only care about the VHL. First-gens will hold whatever opinion they're told to hold before they take the time to do their own research. Something something biased post something something not random sampling something something.

 

12 hours ago, Moon said:

VHLE sucks cause you only get 1 Practice tpe instead of 2 - Moon

writing off an entire league cause you loose 1 TPE a week says more about you then the VHLE - Horcrux


Counter argument then: the introduction of the VHLE brought with it 9 season careers which means an extra season of 1 TPE a week which means the same amount as if you spent an extra season in the VHLM previously.

 

So there’s your extra TPE you filthy animal.

 

Also something something, PF used to be 1 TPE a week and only on the VHLM, something something. - Bek

Writing off people who care about their earning is definitely not the proper look. 1 tpe per week over the course of the entire season adds up. It's more than a doubles week, and you don't even lose any contract money for it. Granted, I won't say that the VHLE "sucks" because PF drops from 2 to 1. If that's your logic, you're not going to like the VHL either . 

 

But to Bek's counterargument, I will also counter-argue. If I'm going to drop down to 1 TPE in my first post-draft season regardless of if I'm in the VHLE or the VHL, and if I have the choice to play in either the E or the VHL, I 100% will be choosing to play 9 VHL seasons. Though I would also fully support dropping PF in the M to 1 TPE again since we have lower caps now anyways, and as you said, there's an extra season on everyone's career that would make up the lost 1 TPE. As a max earner, I would just hate to lose out on 8-9 uncapped TPE while others in my draft class who didn't earn as well from recreation-next season benefit from it. It's like a punishment for earning too well.

 

8 hours ago, Moon said:

Oh for sure! I just know some people dont think of that and just want to go straight to the VHL. - Moon

With all due respect that seems to be a 'them' issue then and not a 'VHLE' issue per se. Let's face it: we need to accept that with no amount of effort will any sim league be the perfect product for everyone. It is literally impossible. However, what can ideally be achieved is that the league will cater the majority of 'needs' of the majority of those members/players it wishes to attract and retain. There will always be people who do not like something, just because it was not their idea. There are people who will always search (and find) the fly in the ointment. In my experience these are generally (not always) the same people who have nothing to offer when asked what they would like to change. Someone way smarter than me said once 'If you see a problem and do nothing to fix it, you are part of the problem' (and this is no literal quotation, but in the spirit it was said).  - Daniel Janser

Edited December 15, 2021 by Spartan

[fromtheinside 1,290]

13 minutes ago, Spartan said:

 

Just an overall word of caution that just because you don't necessarily agree with an opinion doesn't mean you get to invalidate it if it isn't presented to your standards, especially when you're asking for discussion and opinions.

 

 

This. 

 

Good post Spartan. Enjoyed your insight.

Edited December 15, 2021 by fromtheinside

[Horcrux 322]

44 minutes ago, Spartan said:

1. )Out of curiosity, what pre-existing issues are you referring to that are getting applied specifically to the VHLE? The main arguments against the E that I've seen is lower PF that is significant to a max earner, an extra season en route to the VHL, and a higher IA % than any other league. I'm a clear proponent of the E and have expressed skepticism of the anti-E sentiment as well, but I don't get this "blaming for pre-VHLE issues" argument against the people who don't like the E. 

 

2.) Yeah this is an odd gray area here, where I think that people are allowed to have opinions without needing to explain them - except if they're a decision maker and need to back up an action. I also think that an opinion of "this adds an extra season between me and the VHL" isn't something you can demand evidence for. It's literally just an "I don't like this" and that is perfectly valid for someone to say. Ferk's comment here about inactive players is an opinion that also provides some statistic. Whether it's 100% accurate or not, I don't know, but I have seen inactivity numbers in the VHLE and they are more significant in number than in the VHLM or VHL.

 

3.) Just an overall word of caution that just because you don't necessarily agree with an opinion doesn't mean you get to invalidate it if it isn't presented to your standards, especially when you're asking for discussion and opinions.

 

4.) More of an aside, but I just found this funny. When change occurs, people ask tough questions. It seems those tough questions aren't welcome though. Only the "tough" questions asked that lead to change you're in favor with seem to be acceptable. I've seen you try to shut down a lot of CoC questions in the past simply because you didn't like the questions being asked, or that you didn't agree with where they were coming from. Change is a two-sided coin, there will be proponents and dissonance to any change. People not liking specific changes does not mean the league as a whole does not "handle change well," it just means that people have opinions and that's perfectly natural. I don't know why you needed this odd jab in a post that otherwise was in good taste and presented with good intentions.

 

5.) Writing off people who care about their earning is definitely not the proper look. 1 tpe per week over the course of the entire season adds up. It's more than a doubles week, and you don't even lose any contract money for it. Granted, I won't say that the VHLE "sucks" because PF drops from 2 to 1. If that's your logic, you're not going to like the VHL either . 

I numbered things just so you know what parts of this im addressing. nothing else was edited I swear. 

1.) some of the other arguments I saw was about the 1 TPE change, and Yes that is a good chunk of TPE. but you wanting to max earn and get as much TPE as possible In my opinion, and my opinion only that not a good enough argument by its self as to why you should write off an entire league. (the VHLE)

2.) I have not once denied the Inactivity, my thing about it that was simply its still so new so Inactivity is unavoidable for some teams. it was an execution error and didnt take time to formulate my thoughts properly on that. I own that. 

3.) never invalidated anyone opinion. but thanks, ill remember that for next time. 

4.) so this is a misrepresentation of the situation, you know that so lets not try to paint it as something its not. I agree with the C.O.C and i have alos pointed out when its flawed. thats documented. What I was arguing was what people felt entitled to know certain information in certain cases when they were not involved. thats it. I was not arguing the C.O.C or what was being asked. 

5.) again i didn't Write of anyone, i was just syaing his need for more TPE I dont feel is a good enough argument to oppose the VHLE. 

The article was poorly executed, and rushed, I own that. I stand by my words and I wont appologize for them. just next time ill take more time to make sure my thoughts are worded out more clearly, and the article reads more nuetral. a good learning experience here for me. 

Edited December 15, 2021 by Horcrux

[a_Ferk 766]

4 minutes ago, Spartan said:

Whether it's 100% accurate or not, I don't know, but I have seen inactivity numbers in the VHLE and they are more significant in number than in the VHLM or VHL.

Obviously some teams are better, some are worse, but these are the last updates for my team in Rome:

 

(Red is inactive by VHLM standards, Yellow is active but hasn't updated since before last week, Green is fully active)

 

Forwards:

(S80) Brendan Marner: Week Ending December 19, 2021

 

(S77) Tyler Steel: Week Ending November 21, 2021

 

(S76) Gabby Dugan: Week Ending December 19, 2021

 

(S78) Deke Rike: Week Ending November 28, 2021

 

(S81) Robert Wilk: Week Ending December 19, 2021

 

(S75) Noah Mashford: Week Ending December 19, 2021

 

(S77) Russell Dixon: Week Ending December 05, 2021

 

(S78) Caleb Gaudette: Week Ending September 26, 2021

 

Defense:

(S79) Ben Aky: Week Ending October 03, 2021

 

(S81) Biggie Cheese: Week Ending December 19, 2021

 

(S80) Flynn Remy: Week Ending December 12, 2021

 

(S78) Milk Jugs: Week Ending June 20, 2021

 

Goalies:

(S75) Luke Spinelli: Week Ending September 26, 2021

 

(S74) Michael Olson: Week Ending December 05, 2021

 

We currently have 9 active players and 5 inactive ones. 3 active players are at risk of going inactive. Of the 9 active players, there are 4 that earn more than welfare and practice facility on a regular basis. (Marner, Wilk, Cheese, Remy)

 

It's worth noting that 4 players that are considered active already have depreciation to worry about and will likely never leave the VHLE.

[Spartan 4,408]

19 minutes ago, Horcrux said:

I numbered things just so you know what parts of this im addressing. nothing else was edited I swear. 

1.) some of the other arguments I saw was about the 1 TPE change, and Yes that is a good chunk of TPE. but you wanting to max earn and get as much TPE as possible In my opinion, and my opinion only that not a good enough argument by its self as to why you should write off an entire league. (the VHLE)

2.) I have not once denied the Inactivity, my thing about it that was simply its still so new so Inactivity is unavoidable for some teams. it was an execution error and didnt take time to formulate my thoughts properly on that. I own that. 

3.) never invalidated anyone opinion. but thanks, ill remember that for next time. 

4.) so this is a misrepresentation of the situation, you know that so lets not try to paint it as something its not. I agree with the C.O.C and i have alos pointed out when its flawed. thats documented. What I was arguing was what people felt entitled to know in certain cases when they were not involved. thats it. I was not arguing the C.O.C or what was being asked. 

5.) again i didn't Write of anyone, i was just syaing his need for more TPE I dont feel is a good enough argument to oppose the VHLE. 

The article was poorly executed, and rushed, I own that. I stand by my words and I wont appologize for them. just next time ill take more time to make sure my thoughts are worded out more clearly, and the article reads more nuetral. a good learning experience here for me. 

1. Which is fine, but also not a pre-existing issue that you had mentioned. I just wanted to know what pre-existing M issues are getting blamed on the VHLE. Perhaps this was a misstatement which is fine, I just hadn't heard of any arguments that met this criteria and was curious to learn more about it.

 

2. Some types of inactivity is unavoidable yes, like life catching up to people, or folks naturally losing interest. We do need to address when a league has higher inactivity rates than others, and I think there are others who have done research on it that will present it when the time is appropriate. Not going to step on toes, but I agree that the inactivity rates in the VHLE are a little concerning - that we're not putting an appropriate level of focus on retention and engagement on the VHLE that it deserves.

 

3/5. Not going to argue semantics, that's just how I saw the statements come off as, and I know it comes out of passion. Nothing wrong with it, but there are times when a dissenting opinion just merits a response of "ok cool," instead of a "this isn't a valid opinion." Again, just a point of caution.

 

4. It is not a misrepresentation of the situation, and I didn't say you disagreed with the revised CoC. I was referring to others asking for more transparency as to how the revised/updated/revamped policies are enforced, and more information on what is considered off limits so that the community can be more informed as to where lines are drawn. There's a difference between "Spartan is banned for cheating" and "Spartan is banned for deleting updates off of other players 3 months after the updates we approved." One is inherently more informative than the other, specifically only addresses the offending party, and does not provide any information about anyone potentially impacted by the offender's actions. That's what people were asking for. Not the juicy details of any and every situation.

Edited December 15, 2021 by Spartan

[Daniel Janser 2,184]

1 hour ago, Spartan said:

I also think that an opinion of "this adds an extra season between me and the VHL" isn't something you can demand evidence for.

 

1 tpe per week over the course of the entire season adds up. 

 

 

Okay, I do not know that first hand being a rookie and all, but did it not realistically take you (as in anyone) two seasons to get to the VHL pre-VHLE as well? If so, then this otherwise understandable argument would fall short, because it is factually wrong as it does not add an additional season to ones journey to the VHL. If you max earn, you spend one season in the VHLM, one season in the VHLE and then you reach VHL level. Same as before just via one additional league. 

 

Yeah, but no. You make a valid point that one loses out on the practice facility (I was surprised as well when I first saw it). On the other hand with the mere existence of the VHLE you have the opportunity to win up to 2 uncapped TPE per week by way of participating in the Fantasy quiz (or whatever it is called). So in fact you are break even or plus one compared to pre-VHLE conditions, depending on your luck/knowledge/what have you and I am sure max earners like you and me jump at that opportunity. I think we are amply compensated for the loss of 1 TPE when we have the opportunity to earn 2 TPE instead, which just was not there pre-VHLE.

Edited December 15, 2021 by Daniel Janser
Factual wrong data

[Esso2264 774]

6 minutes ago, Daniel Janser said:

Okay, I do not know that first hand being a rookie and all, but did it not realistically take you (as in anyone) two seasons to get to the VHL pre-VHLE as well?

max earner were out after 1 season after they are drafted

[Spartan 4,408]

2 minutes ago, Daniel Janser said:

Okay, I do not know that first hand being a rookie and all, but did it not realistically take you (as in anyone) two seasons to get to the VHL pre-VHLE as well? If so, then this otherwise understandable argument would fall short, because it is factually wrong as it does not add an additional season to ones journey to the VHL. If you max earn, you spend one season in the VHLM, one season in the VHLE and then you reach VHL level. Same as before just via one additional league. 

As a first gen, I joined right before the S71 VHLM Draft and was drafted to Vegas. I spent the full season there, and then was drafted to Moscow in the S72 draft. I stayed down in the VHLM in S72 because I had not hit 250 TPE, which is what you're saying.

 

However, as a TDL recreate, I went from 80 TPE at the S79 TDL to 206 TPE at the S80 VHLE draft. But my draft class is S81. So I realistically would have only spent 1 season in the VHLM and then gone to the VHL with Nico Pearce under the old system as well. First gens are just impacted more severely because you join randomly, and it is often not at the optimal creation point. Simply a lack of luck.

 

6 minutes ago, Daniel Janser said:

Yeah, but no. You make a valid point that one loses out on the practice facility (I was surprised as well when I first saw it). On the other hand with the mere existence of the VHLE you have the opportunity to win up to 4 uncapped TPE per week by way of participating in the Fantasy quiz (or whatever it is called). So in fact you are break even or plus three compared to pre-VHLE conditions, depending on your luck/knowledge/what have you and I am sure max earners like you and me jump at that opportunity. I think we are amply compensated for the loss of 1 TPE when we have the opportunity to earn 4 TPE instead, which just was not there pre-VHLE.

Guaranteed vs potential TPE. If you go to the E, you will certainly lose out on 8-9 uncapped TPE that you would have gotten in the VHLM. Also you can do all three fantasy zones while in the VHLM as well, which is why if I had gone up and Hylands had stayed down, he surely would have passed me in TPE.

 

When everyone in all three leagues can do all opportunities, the person who skips the M loses out more than someone who skips the E.

[Horcrux 322]

3 minutes ago, Spartan said:

1. Which is fine, but also not a pre-existing issue that you had mentioned. I just wanted to know what pre-existing M issues are getting blamed on the VHLE. Perhaps this was a misstatement which is fine, I just hadn't heard of any arguments that met this criteria and was curious to learn more about it.

 

2. Some types of inactivity is unavoidable yes, like life catching up to people, or folks naturally losing interest. We do need to address when a league has higher inactivity rates than others, and I think there are others who have done research on it that will present it when the time is appropriate. Not going to step on toes, but I agree that the inactivity rates in the VHLE are a little concerning - that we're not putting an appropriate level of focus on retention and engagement on the VHLE that it deserves.

 

3/5. Not going to argue semantics, that's just how I saw the statements come off as, and I know it comes out of passion. Nothing wrong with it, but there are times when a dissenting opinion just merits a response of "ok cool," instead of a "this isn't a valid opinion." Again, just a point of caution.

 

4. It is not a misrepresentation of the situation, and I didn't say you disagreed with the revised CoC. I was referring to others asking for more transparency as to how the new policies are enforced, and more information on what is considered off limits so that the community can be more informed as to where lines are drawn. There's a difference between "Spartan is banned for cheating" and "Spartan is banned for deleting updates off of other players 3 months after the updates we approved." One is inherently more informative than the other, specifically only addresses the offending party, and does not provide any information about anyone potentially impacted by the offender's actions. That's what people were asking for. Not the juicy details of any and every situation.

1.) that was one of those "in the heat of the moment" unedited things. however I said it so ill deal with the fallback for that. 

2.) I guess where I was trying to come from is their is inactivity in the M as well, but the difference is the E is new and we are still trying to Filter up players so its not. but saying the E is bad and not giving a reason, or explaining it properly could push off the very members we need to keep it active. if that makes sense. 

3.) no i get that, i own the mistakes ive made in regards to egging people on. I am a fighter and a strong personality and I guess im still learning how to harness that in in a group setting. 

4.) This i think comes form modern day "Transparency" can be interpreted differently. had people laid it out as you had I dont think i would have reacted as i did. that being said I agree with how you laid that out and i agree to that extent yes. 

[Spartan 4,408]

2 minutes ago, Horcrux said:

I am a fighter and a strong personality and I guess im still learning how to harness that in in a group setting. 

I just read what I wrote and question if I'd say it to my mom's face  

[Horcrux 322]

1 minute ago, Spartan said:

I just read what I wrote and question if I'd say it to my mom's face  

that is good advice. cause my mom would whoop my ass

[Gustav 6,430]

4 hours ago, Shindigs said:

Exact same thing with my attribute thread over in league discussions. I knew the second I posted it that at the very least @GustavMattias would oppose what I said, because anything else would just be weird.

 

And I hope you don't take this as me not appreciating your perspective--I do.

 

It's 100% possible to disagree with something without having a problem with the other person involved.

[Shindigs 1,771]

Just now, GustavMattias said:

 

And I hope you don't take this as me not appreciating your perspective--I do.

 

It's 100% possible to disagree with something without having a problem with the other person involved.

Don't sweat it, no bad blood what-so-ever from me nor any perceived from you. I literally knew you'd have something to say before I posted it. Because I know you feel very strongly about the league, and to be honest. If you didn't give a contrary argument, I would have considered it a sign that what I posted wasn't thought provoking enough to elicit a response. Which would have been miles worse. I posted it with it being such a raw idea precisely to get all that feedback and discussion back and forth. Sure I eventually got a bit exhausted by it. But that was to be expected.

[Alex 3,206]

27 minutes ago, Horcrux said:

2.) I have not once denied the Inactivity, my thing about it that was simply its still so new so Inactivity is unavoidable for some teams. it was an execution error and didnt take time to formulate my thoughts properly on that. I own that. 

 

Going to try and be as impartial as possible here, the current IA issues in the VHLE were unavoidable. At the time of the VHLEs creation and this season there just simply isn't enough active players between 200 and 350/400 TPE to support a 6 let alone 8 team league without the need for IA players to fill roster spots. As of a couple weeks ago exactly 40% of the VHLE was IA players (that has likely gone up, just with players naturally leaving), with 2 teams over 50% IA (77% and 54%).

 

Like the VHLM the VHLE is highly dependant on a high rate of recruitment and we should see the number of players in the VHLE reflect that of the VHLM 1-2 seasons prior. Going into next season we should see 40-50 players leaving the M for the E, and only about 25-35 leaving. If recruitment goes down to less than 100 players per season again we will more than likely see the VHLE fill up with IA players once again.

[Horcrux 322]

2 minutes ago, Alex said:

 

Going to try and be as impartial as possible here, the current IA issues in the VHLE were unavoidable. At the time of the VHLEs creation and this season there just simply isn't enough active players between 200 and 350/400 TPE to support a 6 let alone 8 team league without the need for IA players to fill roster spots. As of a couple weeks ago exactly 40% of the VHLE was IA players (that has likely gone up, just with players naturally leaving), with 2 teams over 50% IA (77% and 54%).

 

Like the VHLM the VHLE is highly dependant on a high rate of recruitment and we should see the number of players in the VHLE reflect that of the VHLM 1-2 seasons prior. Going into next season we should see 40-50 players leaving the M for the E, and only about 25-35 leaving. If recruitment goes down to less than 100 players per season again we will more than likely see the VHLE fill up with IA players once again.

I wish I knew the right answer and the right fix, I dont. but i think we should at least give it a fair shot. but i  agree retaining all 50 will be bear impossible. 

[Beaviss 4,957]

[Arce 755]

1 hour ago, Beaviss said:

 

[Horcrux 322]

29 minutes ago, Arce said:

 

[Moon 593]

6 hours ago, Horcrux said:

Knowing something will cause a reaction, and posting it to cause a reaction is different. 

 

Yes, I know this is a sensitive topic. However, I didn't post this to get a reaction I posted this to hopefully start a conversation because I had yet to see a valid argument against the VHLE. 

 

You have stated your opinions and even though I disagree with them, they are valid to you.

 

Their will be no lore opinion prices from me anymore.

I'm done commenting on this post. If you want to hear my opinion in full form dm me on discord 

[Spartan 4,408]

1 hour ago, Moon said:

I'm done commenting on this post. If you want to hear my opinion in full form dm me on discord 

say it publicly weenie