''If the rule doesn't fit, you must acquit'' - #FreeRory

[jRuutu 2,464]

 

We have all gathered here today to fight against injustice. I believe we all know what is right and what is wrong. Rory, a kind and friendly soul, who has transformed LA Stars from a violent place to a nature preserve for bunny rabbits is now standing in front of us being accused of tanking the draft stock of Tavish DeGroot. Rory is innocent! I will tell you why.

 

1. Tavish DeGroot.

When we look at TPE right now, Tavish is ranked second among all S82 draftees. Tavish is also a player with certain ''meta-esque'' qualities. So why did so many teams pass on Tavish? Why was Tavish picked 20th overall? Teams were afraid. They were not able to see through Rory's mental games. In this thread, Rory claims retirement is the result if Tavish gets drafted by someone else than LA. This is obviously a ruse. Rory is playing a game called ''diamonding''. By acting a certain way and posting questionable content, Rory is making sure only the teams that truly want Tavish are interested. New York saw through Rory's ruse, and they got themselves a solid player. Rory should not be punished for the failures of other teams.

 

2. Spirit of the game

 

January 31st, Rory tried to reason with the good people of VHL in a public forum. Rory's efforts were met with ridicule. I have gathered two comments from an official VHL representative openly stating Rory's mind games were an attack against the spirit of the game. This is simply a false statement. How can Rory's actions be against the spirit of the game if Vancouver and their actions regarding building a meta team were allowed to happen? Vancouver exploited the sim engine and clearly did something that was against the spirit of the game. They were never punished. They were never put under a TPE ban of any kind. Why is Rory now punished? Rory's actions were according to the spirit of the game. Roleplaying, playing games, twist and turns, this is what VHL is all about.

 

3. Rules - ''Change Log (2021-01-26) - Section 14.1 - Removed the portion about claiming GM players in the draft.''

How convenient. Rory gets punished only five days later. Why is it ok to change the rules and then go back to punish something that happened in the past? Why is a painter, who mixed their own colors punished when an ingredient they used in the colors is considered illegal in the future? Why can't we enjoy a nice painting instead of stating the painting is made incorrectly and even punishing the painter? The rulebook has a section for cheating. Still, nothing happened to Vancouver. If the league is not willing to find a latter to reach the apples higher in the tree, they should not be so eager to punish the apples on the lower branches.

 

Rory is not guilty of manipulating the draft stock of Tavish DeGroot. Rory is guilty of believing in freedom. Rory is guilty of believing everybody is treated equally. Rory is guilty in believing that every user has the right to be a bad player. Not every player is guaranteed to reach their potential.

 

If the rule doesn't fit, you must acquit.

 

Rory must be set free immediately. The TPE ban must be lifted immediately!

#FreeRory

[jRuutu 2,464]

@rory

[rory 1,915]

Yeah the "spirit of the game" argument is the funniest one to me as the league is getting decimated and a resolution is fucking being worked on. I really believe the commies rushed into changes here and it ended up with a horrible change that made everything worse.

[Beketov 9,022]

2 hours ago, jRuutu said:

How convenient. Rory gets punished only five days later. Why is it ok to change the rules and then go back to punish something that happened in the past?

The rule was changed months ago and Rory commented on the thread in which it was changed, they knew the rule was changed and ignored it. All this change log did was update the rulebook to reflect changes, something we are woefully far behind on but that doesn’t mean the rules don’t exist.

 

I’ll read through the rest about how horrible  I surely am later.

[jRuutu 2,464]

1 hour ago, rory said:

Yeah the "spirit of the game" argument is the funniest one to me as the league is getting decimated and a resolution is fucking being worked on. I really believe the commies rushed into changes here and it ended up with a horrible change that made everything worse.

It's not your job as a painter to tell what you are painting. If the audience takes your work the ''wrong'' way - that is their interpretation. It doesn't mean you should get punished for it.

 

Did every team with a pick in the first round interview you? If not, it's outlandish to punish you for teams lack of effort when it comes to scouting. They are the ones that tanked your draft stock. You can't demand to be interviewed. You can't demand to be drafted in the first round.

[Jubis 1,347]

[Jubis 1,347]

Try to cheat and 

Vhl will 

say :

[DMaximus 1,046]

I don't know why the rule was ever changed from just locking the GM player to their team. There will always be a conflict of interest when a GM player is on an opposing team. Why allow it? The conflict of interest is so strong that some come to the conclusion that they shouldn't even create a player. A completely rational decision, why would a GM want to help another team? How is having a rule that creates a conflict of interest good for this league and the spirit of the game? The current GM player rules are harming the league. For what benefit? 

[Spartan 4,399]

20 minutes ago, DMaximus said:

I don't know why the rule was ever changed from just locking the GM player to their team. There will always be a conflict of interest when a GM player is on an opposing team. Why allow it? The conflict of interest is so strong that some come to the conclusion that they shouldn't even create a player. A completely rational decision, why would a GM want to help another team? How is having a rule that creates a conflict of interest good for this league and the spirit of the game? The current GM player rules are harming the league. For what benefit? 

There's a lot of differing opinions on how GM players should be treated. With expansion, it didn't make much sense for a max earner at the top of their class to get selected at 16oa if the GM traded down for that pick, knowing he only had to use a first on his player. It made sense that it wasn't the fairest overall, as a team that did poorly but had a GM player in the draft would likely have to use a higher pick if no one wanted to trade up for the pick. 

 

The rules were changed because of how GM players put other teams into unfavorable situations, denying teams the opportunity to take the players that they felt were the "best" for their teams. The counter-argument around GM tethering here is that all teams would still be able to take their GM players, but not all GM players are the same. Some are max earners, some claim welfare and practice facility. No one would bat an eye if a non-max earning GM went in the low first or the early second round because that's their natural value.

 

There's room to discuss whether the process around GM players needs to be reevaluated, which I'd agree with. But this situation was a pretty clear and blatant case of draft stock tanking and frankly, the punishment was light imo.

Edited January 31, 2022 by Spartan

[Dom 1,445]

8 hours ago, jRuutu said:

(2021-01-26)

You sure that’s 3 days?

[DMaximus 1,046]

1 hour ago, Spartan said:

There's a lot of differing opinions on how GM players should be treated. With expansion, it didn't make much sense for a max earner at the top of their class to get selected at 16oa if the GM traded down for that pick, knowing he only had to use a first on his player. It made sense that it wasn't the fairest overall, as a team that did poorly but had a GM player in the draft would likely have to use a higher pick if no one wanted to trade up for the pick. 

Always thought the no-brainer solution to that was to make the pick be the team's pick or better. Not just any first round pick, like the rule was, because naturally what happened would happen. Easily preventable with a minor rule change. But really the rule should be that GM Players just automatically go to their team, no draft pick needed.

 

1 hour ago, Spartan said:

The rules were changed because of how GM players put other teams into unfavorable situations, denying teams the opportunity to take the players that they felt were the "best" for their teams. The counter-argument around GM tethering here is that all teams would still be able to take their GM players, but not all GM players are the same. Some are max earners, some claim welfare and practice facility. No one would bat an eye if a non-max earning GM went in the low first or the early second round because that's their natural value.

I don't think it's wise to cater GM player rules to less active GMs. If a GM is not earning full TPE and that harms their team, that's on them. Maybe they should reevaluate how much they actually care about their team and their position if they can't be bothered to earn TPE for their player and team.

[Spartan 4,399]

Just now, DMaximus said:

Always thought the no-brainer solution to that was to make the pick be the team's pick or better. Not just any first round pick, like the rule was, because naturally what happened would happen. Easily preventable with a minor rule change. But really the rule should be that GM Players just automatically go to their team, no draft pick needed.

The argument here is that this naturally benefits teams that do well. If Moscow was the worst team in the league, I have to take myself at 1oa. If Moscow won the cup, I get myself at 16oa. That hardly seems fair.

 

2 minutes ago, DMaximus said:

I don't think it's wise to cater GM player rules to less active GMs. If a GM is not earning full TPE and that harms their team, that's on them. Maybe they should reevaluate how much they actually care about their team and their position if they can't be bothered to earn TPE for their player and team.

I used to be of this mentality, that GM's should be the most active members of the community, and therefore the best earners. But GM players also have the convenience of being flexible to the team, potentially being a cheap cap option as well. I don't think low earning means a GM doesn't care about their team. A lack of overall activity and effort fits that narrative better.

 

But yeah, from a personal standpoint I think even a welfare GM player is valuable to the team due to the flexibility they bring. I don't know if I'd just assign GM players to their teams for free though. Even though every GM could do it, I think teams need to pay a suitable price for career players that can be molded to the team's future.

[UnknownMinion 727]

I mean I was apart of the chat with rory and Bek where Bek clearly pointed out to rory the rule about draft stock, with that in mind I think the two week tpe ban was kinda earned do to such, Bek wasn't hiding the rule change nor was rory not aware Bek made sure he was and rory didn't listen so, Even if it was a joke from rory it ended in a rule being broke and the League is trying really hard to be consistent as we the User have requested, So at the end of the day the ban sucks but it keeps the league fair TBH, and yes I know everyone will hate me for saying this.

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

2 hours ago, DMaximus said:

I don't know why the rule was ever changed from just locking the GM player to their team. There will always be a conflict of interest when a GM player is on an opposing team. Why allow it? The conflict of interest is so strong that some come to the conclusion that they shouldn't even create a player. A completely rational decision, why would a GM want to help another team? How is having a rule that creates a conflict of interest good for this league and the spirit of the game? The current GM player rules are harming the league. For what benefit? 

 

In addition to what Spartan said, it also becomes extremely messy during the transition between GMs. I don't remember the particulars, but previously, if the team got the GM player "for free", then they weren't able to trade them away and receive any additional assets. If the player for the new GM was on another team, we'd have to find a way to barter a trade between the two teams that was "fair", and the majority of the time it wasn't fair at all to the team losing the player.

 

All in all, this led to a ton of messy transitions and one off rulings - it was impossible to create a fair blanket rule about the transitions because the situations of each team was always different.

 

Keeping the GM player not automatically attached to the team has made GM transitions 1000% easier and more fair than before.

 

This rule has been in the league for a while now - it's not a surprise. If you (as in everyone, not you in particular) don't think you can separate "you the GM" and "you your player", then you don't have to apply for a GM position.

 

This is also from someone who wasn't in favor of this change at the time, but it's proven to be a good one IMO.

[DMaximus 1,046]

11 minutes ago, Spartan said:

The argument here is that this naturally benefits teams that do well. If Moscow was the worst team in the league, I have to take myself at 1oa. If Moscow won the cup, I get myself at 16oa. That hardly seems fair.

If you're able to time the success of your team to the exact year your GM player is draft eligible, props to you and you should receive the benefit of being able to take your player 16th OA. I don't have a problem with rewarding success. Or, just not make it cost a draft pick, to eliminate that concern. But I don't know how to placate both sides of the argument here, if it feels unfair to have it not cost a draft pick, but it also feels unfair to make it cost a draft pick, there's not a lot of room to work with there. I guess that's what leads to the existing scenario where possible tampering, threatening, and just not even playing are actually happening.

 

To other point about TPE earning. If a GM determines that the best use of their GM player is to be a non-max earner, that's up for them to decide. I'll accept that. Ultimately that decision doesn't really effect the GM locking conversation, except obviously how TPE earning (or lack thereof) can be used as a tool to sabotage a GM player on an opposing team.

 

 

[DMaximus 1,046]

6 minutes ago, Fire Fletcher said:

This rule has been in the league for a while now - it's not a surprise. If you (as in everyone, not you in particular) don't think you can separate "you the GM" and "you your player", then you don't have to apply for a GM position.

Quick and obvious counter is that you're not being the best GM to your team possible if you're not thinking about your player and how they effect your team. The fact your forcing GMs to separate themselves from their player is what creates the conflict of interest.

[Spartan 4,399]

7 minutes ago, DMaximus said:

Quick and obvious counter is that you're not being the best GM to your team possible if you're not thinking about your player and how they effect your team. The fact your forcing GMs to separate themselves from their player is what creates the conflict of interest.

At the same time, your one player won't singlehandedly destroy your team if you play against your team. If they do, shit, hope you win some individual awards lol. There is also always the possibility to trade for your player, as many GM's have done since the rules were changed. Josh traded for Davis once his contract was up with Moscow, I traded for Letang once his contract was up with DC. Ricer just traded for himself from Davos. Eno traded for himself from Moscow as well. There are still plenty of avenues to get your own player should you want to.

 

But yeah, I think that the current rules put too much of a spotlight on the presumed conflict of interest Between GM'S and their players which results in creating more GM desire for themselves. You can't auto-draft them with a first, they're not assigned to the team, and you can't sign them in FA. Those restrictions feel like your GM player is a lot more valuable asset than they really are. It's a tough debate with no real "clear" direction to go in.

[Tate 450]

Review:

 

Great media spot for a number of reasons. First off, it's hard to tell if JRuutu is being serious or doing what he does best and play Devil's advocate. I genuinely believe that any media that kicks up a fuss and gets lots of looks is a good one as it brings activity. The use of pictures and the graphic of the cheque are a nice touch, and if I was a real stickler I'd probably ask for some more bolding and italics in there but all in all this is some solid work from a true vet of the sim world. 

 

9/10

[fromtheinside 1,290]

@jRuutu well done, this was a fun read.