I have a Major problem with how the VHLM waiver system works

[frescoelmo 1,276]

1 hour ago, nurx said:

I'm complaining that the developmental league sits in this in between situation that harms both competitiveness and development in different ways 

 

It's also a developmental league....

[Pifferfish 512]

1 hour ago, Otis Boudreaux Jr said:

During that 1st season I agreed to be traded to a contender where I, honestly felt like an outsider, and I saw my production drop as I moved from 1st line to 4th. 

I returned this year before the M draft, talked to some of the GMs and ended up being drafted by Saskatoon. I am happy with my career there and am excited to see what comes next. But even with this tough season we are having, the conversation turned to the possibility of trading some of us to contenders. What I see, from this side and my experience, is the better players from "not-so good" teams are traded to the contenders so they keep being contenders. Even if some of us "TPE" out of the M, it is not normally all of the players. 

 

So the contenders of this season start next season with a cadre of veteran players. 

 

but Saskatoon had a shit-load of draft picks when I was selected...and if they had traded any of us (which in all fairness didnt happen) what would they have next season? A shit-load of draft picks. 

 

 But how does the trading of draft picks foster that? Does it allow for different teams to experience the thrill of winning the cup? What is the history of which teams have won? Are there teams who seem to own the M? 

Lastly, activity does matter. Who wants to join a team that is super-quiet? 
 

I'll address a couple of things. Teams with good active GMs for a long time will compete pretty much every season. But parity seems to be strong. Ottawa was a runner up in 86, then cup winner in 87, now bottom with a pretty good outlook for next season to be in the mix. Las Vegas off 2 straight cups in 83 and 84, with a finals appearance in 85 hasn't quite found it's footing again but is looking like a strong candidate to make have some solid seasons for the next 2 years with their picks. So parity feels good to me in my 4 seasons in the M so far. Maybe a longer standing member can counter this assertion.

 

Speaking to the ice time thing. I personally don't really support trading top line players to situations where they will get bottom minutes unless they specifically request to head to a contender. Some people value their stats in the M and if that was done to you without your approval I think that's messed up. I will say that sometimes these kinds of trades are made to keep newer members active. I personally explore this a bit. If I feel a player doesn't like their production on my team I'll attempt to trade them to a lesser team so they can secure ice time if I feel that's what will keep them interested in the league. Conversely a player disconnected due to poor team performance and low Locker Room activity I would highly advise we seek to place on a team competing. Those teams I'll mind you often have the most active locker rooms bc let's be honest... Rallying with your teammates after a win (even in a game) is a hell of a good time.

 

"So the contenders of this season start next season with a cadre of veteran" players. To this specifically I'll say, most of the contending teams are trading for people who won't play in the M next season. They often trade the players who will be vets the next year to grab better players now who aren't returning. My team will uniquely begin next year with a cadre of vets but that's because for some damn reason none of these goons want to consistently earn unless I ping them 35 times a week... And trust me I occasionally do ping them that much.

 

I think to your point about your team in specific, Idk what truly went wrong. The roster seems pretty solid. I'd imagine it mainly came down to a lower TPE goalie dragging the team down a bit, and next year if he keeps earning that won't be the case, instead you'll have a top 5 trendy. But yeah, you never know who randomly won't have time for the sim League after the draft. So picking 8 times versus picking 2 helps a ton. Idk. I appreciate the questions though. I know I might also be wrong but that's my 3 cents. Keep being great OB!

[Lemorse7 1,015]

22 hours ago, nurx said:

My proposal is this, either go full development and ban draft pick trading completely or stop this sham of allowing teams to compete while having a waiver system that unfairly hinders specific teams. I have heard arguments that when GMs are more active in the league they get more waiver signings, but why would that make sense? Maybe recreates, but it would not effect new members. Do you honestly believe that new members are going and asking random members in the community who they believe is the best GM? No they are not.

You could go even harder and just not allow trades at all in hope to get a really competitive league in the m where new players would join pretty much any team if they are looking to win a contenders because the league would be so close that. 

 

23 hours ago, nurx said:

2. The Contender Only: This member wants to win cups. There is nothing wrong with that and therefore they will gravitate towards the best teams in the league.

 

3. The Minutes Hoarder: This member wants to get as many minutes as possible and doesn't care as much as the other two things.

those 2 type of user (factor) would be very minimal if not none existence. I also understand that not everyone can be on the forum or on discord every time a new player created but looking at the most recent one new gens usually just join the 1st contract they received. 

 

21 hours ago, Triller said:

#blamecole

I approve this 

[nurx 914]

1 minute ago, Lemorse7 said:

ooking at the most recent one new gens usually just join the 1st contract they received

they shouldn't be getting contracts until after they press join team

[Lemorse7 1,015]

Just now, nurx said:

they shouldn't be getting contracts until after they press join team

you know what I mean the waiver thing 

[Gustav 6,425]

Hi, I'll respond to this! Please know I consider feedback valuable even if I disagree with it:

 

On 5/2/2023 at 3:19 PM, nurx said:

First of all, let's go over the types of players I believe there are when they are looking at joining teams.

 

1. The Brand Man: This member looks at a name and logo and loves it. I was one of these players and saw Miami's logo and joined simply because it was my favorite.

 

2. The Contender Only: This member wants to win cups. There is nothing wrong with that and therefore they will gravitate towards the best teams in the league.

 

3. The Minutes Hoarder: This member wants to get as many minutes as possible and doesn't care as much as the other two things.

 

I do believe that nobody is just one, which leads to a 2nd or 3rd place team gathering players who are going for contenders.

 

I agree with this. I'm also curious what you think about how much this says about the spread of players in general. The way I see it, I think it's cool that we have "I want to play for a good team", "I want to play for a bad team", and "I want to play for a team that looks cool" in the same place and I generally think that would lead to quite a bit of variance and a healthy spread in general.

 

 

On 5/2/2023 at 3:19 PM, nurx said:

However, this leads to teams not being able to control one of the bigger factors. Their brand. You can't control if players like the logo or name of your team it is as simple as that.

 

Objectively it's true that this isn't controllable. I disagree with some of what I've read recently that claims that some teams are just being entirely disregarded because of their logo. Mississauga, for example, has a terrible logo IMO (delete the damn text!) but they've done very well with waivers. I think within "people sometimes go for the teams they think look cool" (a true statement!) there's also "people will have different opinions on what looks cool."

 

 

On 5/2/2023 at 3:19 PM, nurx said:

You can control the minutes or the contending more, but if you are 4th place to 8th place you are SOL. I personally believe that the Miami brand is really good, but because of my goal of never missing playoffs. I don't get many waiver picks ever. I leave a draft and I expect that I will get one or two players max. At first, I believed this is how everyone operated until I looked at other teams deeper.

 

I think the most legitimate argument against the waiver system--and this is coming from the guy who spent about a year brute-forcing the waiver system through BOG--is that it removes the competitive aspect of waiver signings. We'd have some GMs who got by on being incredibly active in waiver threads, and even though "who tanked the hardest last season" would almost always determine the next season's champion, there was something to be said for the effort those people put in and how well it worked. This was ALSO something that led to a lot of GM burnout, though--and I think relieving that level of stress was a benefit. 

 

Could it be a fair solution to block player signings--and allow GMs to reach out--for a short (~1 hour) period of time after creation? I can see that potentially adding an element of individuality back into the system, but I also feel like that more or less just reverts things back to exactly how the old system worked. I'd love to see some competitive/skill-related element added back, but I don't see a perfect solution right now. It's worth discussing.

 

 

On 5/2/2023 at 3:19 PM, nurx said:

I understand that the VHLM is a developmental league first, but when it comes to certain rules it doesn't feel like that is the goal. We allow teams to trade draft picks in order to compete, but block them from doing it too much.

 

Yes. This is the point.

 

 

On 5/2/2023 at 3:19 PM, nurx said:

We get messages from the commies saying we are allowed to try and compete, but we are also told it is developmental only.

 

It is not developmental only, neither commie believes in that, and at least on my end I've never used that specific phrase. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with expressing "run your team with a focus on development" and "it's OK to do things that will lead to you winning more games" and I think both of those things can exist at the same time (I also think lots of people think they can't and I disagree with it).

 

 

On 5/2/2023 at 3:19 PM, nurx said:

We sit stuck in a situation that leads GMs to answer differently to the question, "Should teams have bad seasons to compete?"

 

Good.

 

The fact that this is no longer an obvious answer is awesome and we're OK with the amount of "bad season" you're legally able to create. If you want to do that (while still supporting your players, of course), you have every right to. If you don't want to do that, also great! Go do things the way you want; I don't think GMs would react positively to banning that.

 

 

On 5/2/2023 at 3:19 PM, nurx said:

My proposal is this, either go full development and ban draft pick trading completely or stop this sham of allowing teams to compete while having a waiver system that unfairly hinders specific teams.

 

I'm fully against "full development" and I've gone off multiple times about how much I hate the mindset (to be clear, I don't think you're going this far) that it's straight-up not OK to want to win a game in the first place, let alone try. In fact, I think players deserve a competitive environment, because I think it makes the league more fun when your GM has a definite plan for improvement. I'll also note that full development the way other leagues often experience it leads to insane turnover--the EFL just moved to a draft system for this reason.

 

I largely disagree with "hinders specific teams" on the basis of branding, but I think there's a point to be made for middle-of-the-pack/"nothing special at first glance" teams and players not signing on the basis of standing. I also fully understand that you, as someone who's demonstrated the willingness to be really active for your players, are working in a waiver system that quite arguably holds you back from using that to its full potential.

 

 

I think the most fair policy change would be one that does re-introduce some personal element to waivers and allows GMs who try harder to do better--but I also don't want to create a "GM is held back because of night shifts or weird time zones that don't keep them around all the time" situation or a "people are burning out because you can't sign anyone if you're not available 24/7" one. I think the system we have is WONDERFUL in a lot of ways and improved on a lot of things from the way we used to do them, and I'd love to work to make it better--that includes finding answers to difficult questions like these.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Gustav

[Pifferfish 512]

32 minutes ago, Gustav said:

 it's true that this isn't controllable. I disagree with some of what I've read recently that claims that some teams are just being entirely disregarded because of their logo. Mississauga, for example, has a terrible logo IMO (delete the damn text!) but they've done very well with waivers. I think within "people sometimes go for the teams they think look cool" (a true statement!) there's also "people will have different opinions on what looks cool."

To this point I think I discussed in the past with Nurx that he has 2 things working against him largely brand wise. 1 Miami is not a hockey city with hockey fans by in large. MIS, SSK, HFX, OTT can get more away with IMO shit logos because they also can draw from the crowd most likely to populate this league, good ole Canadian boys. Then comes the actual imagery. The Marauders logo I feel attracts a similar attention and coolness factor as people would see in the Reapers and Kings logos. People drawn to one I feel are likely drawn to the others. Cole has also said that he doesn't pull a lot of waivers bc usually he is stocked up post draft. So that leave Philly and Miami and frankly for me the key difference (despite an IMO worse logo) is the color scheme of the Reapers is better to me. Anyways that's my two cents on branding and how with no control over it I can totally understand how a team like Miami and more importantly the travesty that is the HFX logo fall behind in the waivers. And all animal logos are at an advantage bc animals are classic and great, tough to go very very wrong.

[Frank 5,211]

Fold the VHLM. Everyone gets 300 tpe to start and we let em cook for a season until they reach the VHLE or VHL.

 

 

[Pifferfish 512]

@Gustav also, is it illegal for me as a GM to DM a new create and just say Hi and show them I'm active and around the second they create? If not then I say doing this could be a way for more active GMs to compete. I hate to do this but first two people in the league to interact with me were Shawn and Shindigs. And Shawn asked me to join his team first so I did, that's as simple as it was. He was active and teaching me so I chose him. Not his team, it's position, my playing time, it was Shawn that I chose. I think maybe instilling this mindset of "being on the forums and interacting with newbies can be a good idea" I'm not sure how AJ is doing on waivers but I know he welcomes practically every new member in their thread.

[jacobcarson877 2,536]

4 minutes ago, Pifferfish said:

@Gustav also, is it illegal for me as a GM to DM a new create and just say Hi and show them I'm active and around the second they create? If not then I say doing this could be a way for more active GMs to compete. I hate to do this but first two people in the league to interact with me were Shawn and Shindigs. And Shawn asked me to join his team first so I did, that's as simple as it was. He was active and teaching me so I chose him. Not his team, it's position, my playing time, it was Shawn that I chose. I think maybe instilling this mindset of "being on the forums and interacting with newbies can be a good idea" I'm not sure how AJ is doing on waivers but I know he welcomes practically every new member in their thread.

I know for a fact that this is what drove my waiver success, and I stopped doing it with the new system and immediately lost that advantage, but also wasn't going insane anymore. Glad someone is going to actually clarify that though for y'all.

[Gustav 6,425]

1 hour ago, Pifferfish said:

@Gustav also, is it illegal for me as a GM to DM a new create and just say Hi and show them I'm active and around the second they create? If not then I say doing this could be a way for more active GMs to compete. I hate to do this but first two people in the league to interact with me were Shawn and Shindigs. And Shawn asked me to join his team first so I did, that's as simple as it was. He was active and teaching me so I chose him. Not his team, it's position, my playing time, it was Shawn that I chose. I think maybe instilling this mindset of "being on the forums and interacting with newbies can be a good idea" I'm not sure how AJ is doing on waivers but I know he welcomes practically every new member in their thread.

 

This is fine! I think, anyway; I'll give @Spartan  the opportunity to slap me for this if for some reason it isn't. It's perfectly acceptable to welcome someone into the league server, answer questions, and get and answer DMs from a new player, and I don't see anything wrong with doing exactly that but taking the initiative to reach out yourself. What you describe is absolutely in that category and I'd personally be proud of someone who does that well.

 

The one thing I'll warn GMs about is that if we find out other teams are being dragged in private, that will be a HUGE no. But as long as things stay positive and helpful and not entirely dependent upon the player's choice of team, I don't see why it hurts anyone.

[Spartan 4,403]

8 hours ago, Gustav said:

 

This is fine! I think, anyway; I'll give @Spartan  the opportunity to slap me for this if for some reason it isn't. It's perfectly acceptable to welcome someone into the league server, answer questions, and get and answer DMs from a new player, and I don't see anything wrong with doing exactly that but taking the initiative to reach out yourself. What you describe is absolutely in that category and I'd personally be proud of someone who does that well.

 

The one thing I'll warn GMs about is that if we find out other teams are being dragged in private, that will be a HUGE no. But as long as things stay positive and helpful and not entirely dependent upon the player's choice of team, I don't see why it hurts anyone.

Just to clarify, you're saying it's fine to assist new members proactively and reach out to do so which I agree with. However I think what the GM's are asking is if they can insta-DM a create and tell them to sign with their team. While it's not necessarily illegal, it's exactly what we wanted to stop with the new waiver system that didn't require people to be online and around 24/7, it's just unhealthy. Some GM's may have a lot more free time, that makes it unfair to other GM's who have less time. Not sure if the different question interpretation changes your answer.

[Bojovnik 487]

Sort it out @Spartan

[twists 409]

[Doomsday 4,130]

What I've always enjoyed about VHLM recreates getting to pick their team is that for most players, it's the only time in their career where they get to choose what team they're on. All the different reasons aside, it's up to the player to evaluate their options and pick the team that's the best fit for them. As a S90 recreate, I really enjoyed being able to see the way it was set up, as it allowed me to quickly narrow down my options for what I wanted out of this opportunity, and then made my pick. 

 

What's great about it for GMs is that you don't need to be present at the time a player creates to have a chance at getting them. So many times with the old system, whoever had the most time to devote to getting waiver players was usually the one that got them, regardless of if that player would have a better experience elsewhere. The playing field has been leveled now, but GM's can still do things to tip the odds in their scale.

 

The OP reads more like a complaint that players aren't choosing to sign with their team, and instead of making their team a more attractive destination, wants to change the rules to force players to go places they wouldn't have chosen to go, and that's lame. I firmly believe that retention for a new player is far more likely when they are having the experience that they want, and while they can't always choose whether or not it happens, taking away a new member's ability to choose how to begin their VHL experience because your team isn't an attractive destination to them for them to choose you on their own is pretty sad.

[AJW 2,156]

I see nothing wrong with the waiver system. Players gets to choose what team they want and like cole and jacob said, people choose random teams for random reasons. If you draft your team well and sit at the top of the leader board, new players are going to want to hang out with you too.

 

I wanted to come on here to talk about how Houston deals with waivers. If you've seen any new create post made, you'll see my name saying welcome to every member. The members that I see and recognize I reach out right away and give a hi. I got @Kisslinger and @leafsman onto the Bulls this season just by seeing what's up and talking to them like a normal human lol. I do this for some newer faces for my eyes too. @Will3 San Diego's newest stud can back me up, I reached out to them right away, had a small chat and they joined San Diego. I'm not saying my method is hitting jack pot every time but I believe it works. Build relationships and connections for your team and then members will want to join your community. Can thank @leandrofg for trusting us with @cLoWn this season

 

Houston was in 8th at one point of this season, now we are pushing for the top 4. That's exactly what I did last season too, Houston finished 4th. Slowly we are learning and getting better every season.

 

 

Edited May 4, 2023 by AJW

[McLovin 466]

As I am a fresh recreate this season, I think my two cents on the matter could be valuable. I haven't made a character for the league in a few years, and when I last played, it was back when GM's would send offers to players in their creation post, and the player would accept right then and there. Usually the pitch would include something along the lines of "Hey! Join my team and we'll throw you on the first line and maybe even draft you in the upcoming draft!" sort of deal. Nowadays, at least from what I've seen, it's a little bit more disconnected and automated. Whereas before GM's had to make individual pitches to players they felt would fit in nicely to their team, they now have to hope that players show interest in their teams with a pitch message and hope even more that the ones that do show interest fit into their scheme. As I am still rather new to this way of operation, there are more likely than not many things of this system that I'm missing or are completely unaware of, but PERSONALLY at least I much rather enjoyed the old system. It involved the GMs more directly with the players, made it feel more personal and was a bit more realistic in all honesty.

 

I totally understand that as the league has grown and grown over the years, the need for more hands off ways to manage teams is becoming more prevalent. Call me a boomer but at least for me, I enjoyed the old ways of waiver claiming from a few years back more.

[Gustav 6,425]

9 hours ago, Spartan said:

Just to clarify, you're saying it's fine to assist new members proactively and reach out to do so which I agree with. However I think what the GM's are asking is if they can insta-DM a create and tell them to sign with their team. While it's not necessarily illegal, it's exactly what we wanted to stop with the new waiver system that didn't require people to be online and around 24/7, it's just unhealthy. Some GM's may have a lot more free time, that makes it unfair to other GM's who have less time. Not sure if the different question interpretation changes your answer.

 

I understand this. I'm not necessarily in favor of telling people to start insta-DMing purely for the sake of getting new signings either.

 

I feel like it's borderline impossible to regulate, because we've established that it's a good thing to proactively help (and in that situation I think it's fine to mention that you're a GM--it's kind of weird if you don't). So where's the line between that and direct recruitment? I'm not sure there really is one and lines would get blurred super fast if we tried to say "these are the things you can and can't tell people." So in the sense we've talked about it, I disagree that it's an issue and I'd rather allow it than not and have a "yeah sorry I'm not allowed to answer your questions" thing come up.

 

In another sense that I hadn't considered, though, I'm not quite for it because, with player signings happening (at least in the "pick a team" sense) right after creation, I don't want GMs flipping people away from their initial choices. That's enough for me to say no--though I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of "you can reach out after 24 hours" exception.

[Pifferfish 512]

10 hours ago, Spartan said:

Just to clarify, you're saying it's fine to assist new members proactively and reach out to do so which I agree with. However I think what the GM's are asking is if they can insta-DM a create and tell them to sign with their team. While it's not necessarily illegal, it's exactly what we wanted to stop with the new waiver system that didn't require people to be online and around 24/7, it's just unhealthy. Some GM's may have a lot more free time, that makes it unfair to other GM's who have less time. Not sure if the different question interpretation changes your answer.

To be clear, my question was about DMing to introduce yourself, your team, and offer a hand. Even now I have DMed every unsigned waiver player to offer them help in getting on A team. DMs is not the place to pitch. But getting my name and affiliation in their mind I think has to consequence of making me a more likely choice for them sure.

[Pifferfish 512]

53 minutes ago, Gustav said:

 

I understand this. I'm not necessarily in favor of telling people to start insta-DMing purely for the sake of getting new signings either.

 

I feel like it's borderline impossible to regulate, because we've established that it's a good thing to proactively help (and in that situation I think it's fine to mention that you're a GM--it's kind of weird if you don't). So where's the line between that and direct recruitment? I'm not sure there really is one and lines would get blurred super fast if we tried to say "these are the things you can and can't tell people." So in the sense we've talked about it, I disagree that it's an issue and I'd rather allow it than not and have a "yeah sorry I'm not allowed to answer your questions" thing come up.

 

In another sense that I hadn't considered, though, I'm not quite for it because, with player signings happening (at least in the "pick a team" sense) right after creation, I don't want GMs flipping people away from their initial choices. That's enough for me to say no--though I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of "you can reach out after 24 hours" exception.

I think that's what I was getting at with my original post. Like so far I've only done this and this I started this season.

 

I see a player has not been offered a contract by a team. I can assume that they never clicked a join button. So after a day I just reach out. "Hey, I'm piffer, GM of Philly in the VHLM, if you have questions or need any help let me know" that type of thing.

 

Im also against people going in and being like "hey I'm GM of the this team and you should really click the join button bc we are the best" 

 

The other alternative reason I pro DMing people is because that's sends an email notification. Idk if everyone's vhlforum is like this but those are the only emails I get (DMs). So it gives them that Gmail alert for this thing they happened to sign up for the day before and forgot about otherwise. It's how I got Bynum to return to VHL.