Multi Bans are....

[nurx 914]

the right amount of time...

 

Over the last few days we have seen a bunch of bans and I have seen plenty of people talking about them. There are some arguments that are based on bias against the mod team, but the main argument I really want to talk about is how long the users are receiving bans. The main thing is all of the users who have been banned that I have talked to have been remorseful and wished they hadn't done it. This is not as important as some other factors but you must realize this.

 

The big argument about the bans not being long enough has been how much it has hurt the general managers. The reality of it is not many of the multis that have been banned are incredibly important players for team. However, if the commishes were to announce reconciliation picks I would not be upset. This really should only be important for the VHL or VHLE where picks are much more important and cause more problems if a pick isn't useful. I also would argue that the reconciliation picks should not be used because teams should expect some picks not to be as good as they expected. The argument about how these picks are hurting teams while is correct is incredibly selfish in the scheme of things especially in the VHLM where teams should be focused on increasing member retention instead of winning.

 

I know I am largely calling a few members out on this argument, but I truly believe that they should read this because it could help them understand what other members view about their argument. I again hope that people bring their ideas into the conversation because the best way to improve this league of ours is to have civil discussions has to what people believe should be changed.

[Gustav 6,417]

3 hours ago, nurx said:

The argument about how these picks are hurting teams while is correct is incredibly selfish in the scheme of things especially in the VHLM where teams should be focused on increasing member retention instead of winning.

 

Yes and no. If the point is purely being made to say "oh no, now I'm not going to win", then sure--it's not about the GM. It's about the player who shouldn't have existed in the first place.

 

But taking that a little bit further...

 

Let's say you're a GM and you use your first-round pick on a player. They play a position you need, they earn, and you want them to stay active and earning. It's a point of pride for you and your players that this player is on your team and contributing to your team's success. 

 

And then it turns out that player is someone's multi.

 

I think it's unfair to say that being upset by the hit to your team caused by this is selfish. You may have just lost an active voice in the locker room. Your players just lost a teammate who might have been tearing it up. Your team's reputation may have gone down, and probably unfairly so. Your team's chances at winning just went way down, and that's something that negatively impacts every player on the team. One place where the whole "retention over winning" thing (which I support) loses me is when some (not necessarily you) start to believe that nobody in the VHLM--players and GMs alike--should ever be allowed to care about succeeding and try to say things that completely ignore that the players, as players, want to put up numbers and see their team win. A potentially high-profile player, and even sometimes a low-profile player, being thrown out because they shouldn't exist is not (in most cases) the fault of the GM or any of the team's players. It hurts much more than the GM, and a GM who (with some degree of civility and reason) is upset that their pick has gone to waste is perfectly within the realm of okay-ness in being that way. 

 

 

3 hours ago, nurx said:

However, if the commishes were to announce reconciliation picks I would not be upset. This really should only be important for the VHL or VHLE where picks are much more important and cause more problems if a pick isn't useful. I also would argue that the reconciliation picks should not be used because teams should expect some picks not to be as good as they expected.

 

I'd support picks being given in cases where it's clear that the team/GM had nothing to do with the multi and were screwed over by someone else's rule-breaking. They shouldn't be first-rounders or anything, but if a team gets an extra 3rd or something similar I think that would be fair.

 

My opinion on which league matters more for this is kind of the opposite of yours--in the VHLM, inactive players must be cut, meaning that a player owned by a banned member must be removed immediately. Not only is this not the case in higher leagues, but most of the multis we've seen have been in the VHLM. Thus, the VHLM is most affected by these things and the challenges faced by teams there should certainly be addressed.

 

 

4 hours ago, nurx said:

There are some arguments that are based on bias against the mod team

 

Which ones? I'm sincerely asking because outside of one incident I haven't seen much I'd call unreasonable, nor have I seen anything I'd call motivated by bias. 

 

I also haven't seen much (outside of said incident) with people advocating for longer bans for everyone. In fact, I've seen more of people saying that everyone is doing this than I've seen people doing this. 

 

I do sincerely ask which arguments you mean, because perhaps I'm missing something. But the fact that I've asked elsewhere already and nobody answered leads me to believe that this may be a generalized narrative that was based on one thing and snowballed into "the entire community is doing this".

 

 

Ironically, I believe the punishments have been fair, so I agree with your main point. I'm just looking for some clarification on your reasoning.

[Shindigs 1,771]

23 minutes ago, GustavMattias said:

My opinion on which league matters more for this is kind of the opposite of yours--in the VHLM, inactive players must be cut, meaning that a player owned by a banned member must be removed immediately. Not only is this not the case in higher leagues, but most of the multis we've seen have been in the VHLM. Thus, the VHLM is most affected by these things and the challenges faced by teams there should certainly be addressed.

This is likely in a pretty large part dealing with the Oslo situation, they lost their entire 2nd round to multis. That's rough. So while those players weren't in the E this year. They were very much part of the plan of how to make Oslo and actual team in S82. Currently Oslo is Nurx' player and a bunch of IAs/borderline IAs, with about half the team in/about to be in depreciation.

 

So as much as the M is the main league for retention, the E is the next step. So if a team loses out on a significant portion of the their supposedly active drafted players (beyond what is normally expected). That means a ghost town team for at least one more season, before they can put together another roster. Since there is that inherent lag between being drafted and playing in the E, due to TPE requirements. Whereas in the M there is a semi-constant stream of players coming in even without the draft. Due to waivers. So the E is naturally a lot more reliant on the draft than the M. Which I believe is the point Nurx was making about draft picks mattering more there than in the M.

[Gustav 6,417]

2 minutes ago, Shindigs said:

This is likely in a pretty large part dealing with the Oslo situation, they lost their entire 2nd round to multis. That's rough. So while those players weren't in the E this year. They were very much part of the plan of how to make Oslo and actual team in S82. Currently Oslo is Nurx' player and a bunch of IAs/borderline IAs, with about half the team in/about to be in depreciation.

 

So as much as the M is the main league for retention, the E is the next step. So if a team loses out on a significant portion of the their supposedly active drafted players (beyond what is normally expected). That means a ghost town team for at least one more season, before they can put together another roster. Since there is that inherent lag between being drafted and playing in the E, due to TPE requirements. Whereas in the M there is a semi-constant stream of players coming in even without the draft. Due to waivers. So the E is naturally a lot more reliant on the draft than the M. Which I believe is the point Nurx was making about draft picks mattering more there than in the M.

 

It's not at all that picks don't matter in the higher leagues--believe me, as a GM, I know they do. I think Nurx seems to neglect a few things about the importance of picks in the VHLM (my question is mostly "why say that it doesn't matter for the M? I think it does"), though I acknowledge that my response may have neglected a few things about the E/VHL.

 

To clarify: I support lower-round compensatory picks being given for teams in any league, VHLM/VHLE/VHL, where applicable. Tangentially, I do think, however, that something like this...

• Player with 150 TPE is found to be a multi and is banned
• VHL team is awarded a pick for a welfare player 200+ TPE away from making it up

...is a bit much, so some guidelines as to who gets a pick and in which cases should be established.

[Shindigs 1,771]

Just now, GustavMattias said:

To clarify: I support lower-round compensatory picks being given for teams in any league, VHLM/VHLE/VHL, where applicable. Tangentially, I do think, however, that something like this...

• Player with 150 TPE is found to be a multi and is banned
• VHL team is awarded a pick for a welfare player 200+ TPE away from making it up

...is a bit much, so some guidelines as to who gets a pick and in which cases should be established.

Yeah for sure, the gap is the thing there. Any and all players from a VHL standpoint were far enough away that there is room to adapt to what happened. I personally see the loss impacting the M the most in the short-term (duh), the E in the mid-term and the VHL basically not being impacted in a measurable way. So maybe no VHL draft compensation, just E? Hard to say, honestly.

 

So it's all about fair returns based on that. The easiest being to literally just award you an extra pick in the round you "lost" a pick from next draft. Sort of like how the "expansion teams" in the E draft got double picks. Clearly there is precedence for adding picks along that line, so it doesn't seem like something that's unthinkable to the league. Would say that a team probably shouldn't be able to be awarded and extra 1st though, even if they did lost a 1st to a multi. I haven't gone into the weeds enough to know if that case even happened. But giving out extra 1st round picks seems like a bad precedence to set, in general. But a 2nd doesn't seem too outlandish.

 

But at the same time if there are no compensatory picks at all, I don't think we will really look back 3+ seasons from now and go "What if". Because in the grand scheme of things, it probably doesn't matter that much. It may make a place like Oslo worse for retention in the short term, but then maybe the players they did get to keep are just LR legends and it won't matter at all?

[Ledge 1,131]

8 hours ago, GustavMattias said:

I'd support picks being given in cases where it's clear that the team/GM had nothing to do with the multi and were screwed over by someone else's rule-breaking. They shouldn't be first-rounders or anything, but if a team gets an extra 3rd or something similar I think that would be fair.

 

100% this. If we're talking about compensation for a team that has been affected out of no wrongdoing by a player that happened to be a multi, after said team used a draft pick on said player, then that team should receive compensation in exchange for, as has been mentioned, especially in the M (although specifically with players that are close to the 200 TPA cap), something that could end up being a sizeable hole in the team that could have effects on the play of the team in the sim as well as interaction in the locker room. 

 

Not to mention the whole reputation thing, which in my honest opinion, is the most deteriorating aspect of harbouring a multi. Especially when the team in question had absolutely nothing to do with the rule breaking. It may not be as apparent with first gens, who are usually wholly unaware of the history of things in the VHL. But let's say you're an experienced, returning member, creating a new player, which Gus and I guess I will be in a few seasons, and you're given offers by a bunch of teams, mostly ran by newer, less experienced members than yourself (not in my case, but is definitely a variable), and some of those teams you know have histories with having multis on their teams, whether it was their fault or not. I'm not saying this is a definite variable, which it is absolutely not, but I believe that if a recreating member is well-educated on the on goings of the VHL, they would perhaps avoid choosing a team that has previously had multis within their organization? 

 

Not to mention the users themselves. And I want it to be clarified that I'm not necessarily defending them, definitely not all of them, but some in particular who haven't really done anything malicious at all. While I support the fact that if a user has, say, 9 multis, somewhere along the road they have to say to themselves, wow, what I'm doing could be wrong. But if the case is that the user is unfamiliar with the rulebook, and has created one or two multis with obviously no mischievous intent, then they should be subject to not nearly as much dragging through the mud of their reputation as they maybe deserve. That's why I also, for the most part, agree with the punishments issued by the mod team. Not long enough to drive them away from the league, but enough to let them know that what they did is against the rules and unacceptable. 

 

Well, that's my two cents. I'm very open to further discussion