A Gustav 30 in 30, #27: It Ain't Easy Being Green

[Gustav 6,468]

 

Not everyone was a fan of me becoming commissioner. But I said what I wanted to do, I was hired, and then it happened. That's nothing if not effective management--and a better track record than any politician.

 

 

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, and Gustav right back to the VHLM when I assumed my current role as VHLM Commissioner. Real administrative job openings are few and far between, and I got one the first time I applied for it.

 

It wasn't my first time thinking about it by any means. The first time I ever saw the job open was when I had been in the league for about a year and a half, which was enough time spent being super active that I'd be given a fair shot, and when I was just starting my third year of undergrad, which was definitely at odds with me taking on more league responsibility even though I was fine with staying super active. This was my first year being put in all the difficult core courses for my major, plus I had to work most days I wasn't at school, which would make job-specific commitments like being around to run drafts pretty difficult. All that notwithstanding, I had lots and lots to say as I assumed the job would remain filled for a pretty long time after it opened. 

 

At that point in time, the M had a few things I hated about it. Long story short, there really wasn't anything stopping a GM from placing wins over development, and despite every GM claiming they didn't, that certainly wasn't always true. A few teams were notorious for hanging onto high-TPE inactive players and making no effort to replace them or play actives first, and I'd go as far as to say that every team was guilty of this on some level. Considering that, it really wasn't the GMs' fault that the league was like this, because it was the culture that everyone was introduced to and the path to success led right through that. There weren't many things that didn't eventually lead back to this general point, but there were a few things that contributed to it most specifically. So, I wrote this article that outlined my issues with the M and proposed solutions, in the hope that whoever was hired next would consider it.

 

If you don't want to click the link (although I recommend that you do, because the whole discussion gives a good snapshot of where the league was then), I proposed to:

• Trim high-TPE inactives from rosters at the start of each season
• Establish a 4-season limit on VHLM play
• Reduce the maximum amount of picks held by a team to two 1sts and two 2nds (down from three of each)
• Expand or eliminate waiver limits and assign players without signing offers to teams automatically

 

Some of these sound familiar because something like them eventually went into the rules. In fact, the waiver idea was probably my first stab at modifying the waiver system, which at the time involved a few teams reaching the waiver cap while lots of others sat around with their inactive players and never offered to players. Expanding the limit would reward teams who used the waiver system to fill up, while auto-assignment would ensure that all players ended up with a home and incentivize teams that didn't want to offer waivers to do so anyway to maintain control over their rosters. Some things I didn't like in the replies were mentions of banning draft pick trading entirely (which would, in my opinion, make GMing a job not worth doing) and forcing teams to fill their rosters by also forcing them to put bots in their lineup if the roster were below a certain population.

 

The commissioner hired then was @Acydburn, who messaged me soon after to let me know that what I'd written was being considered. In time for S75, the VHLM:

• Banned all inactive players
• Removed the waiver limit
• Cracked down on past overuse of inactive players

 

It wasn't exactly what I'd proposed (and, in fact, I thought banning ALL inactives was a bit too harsh), but it was a huge step forward at a time when a supersaturated VHLM required it. Inactive players have not been allowed in the VHLM since that point, and we're glad today that it played out like this. In retrospect, I think the effectiveness of the rule change was (unintentionally) demonstrated by the huge crowd of low earners in the M staying active enough to become a huge problem for the VHL. Perhaps the whole E issue could have been eased by continuing to allow M GMs to be awful--but I guess that's just a random musing. Plus, it's straying a bit from the topic.

 

After a little under a year, Acyd moved up to the VHLE and the M job opened up again. I had fewer issues with the M at that point, and probably wasn't as interested, but I was still just a bit too busy to justify doing more VHL stuff overall and didn't apply. This time, the new commissioner was @McWolf, who was genuinely good in his job but was also part of one of the worst rules I've ever seen in a sim league (sorry).

 

In much the same rule that was proposed in the replies to my article from a year before, GMs were now required to set their lines in ways that were friendly to larger rosters, and to play bots in places where they weren't allowed to overuse players. It's important to understand a bit of context if you're on the newer end, because the reasons for this aren't completely obvious today. Then, waiver offers were done manually and at the discretion of GMs, so teams could simply choose not to make them if they didn't want to deal with new players who would take ice time away from the high-TPE players who helped the team most. It was clear by this point that banning inactive players really didn't solve this problem, so then why not make it so GMs couldn't max out ice time for their top players in the first place and light a fire under them to put players in those extra spots who wouldn't be a liability? From that perspective, it made lots of sense, and it really was an effective way of achieving that goal. From the perspective of getting GMs to do what the league wanted, it was great. There was a different side of this that immediately became clear, though, and that was that the league had failed to consider the player perspective. Especially in the seasons that followed as M numbers adjusted back down to normal, the M saw lots and lots of players who were losing ice time to bots, which was really weird coming from a league that was proud of its players not losing ice time to inactives. Lots of people weren't a fan of the rule from the start (in fact, the first reply to the announcement thread is my own objection to it), and the M had something I didn't like about it at all again.

 

To the green team's credit, this was rolled back almost immediately. The next offseason saw a rule modification that restricted the double-shifting rule to only being in place during playoffs--which I still wasn't a fan of, but it was much better than restricting the regular season. Plus, it still kept teams interested in making waiver offers during the regular season, because they didn't want to be underprepared for playoffs. 

 

It's worth mentioning that the double-shifting rule had gotten me excited again. In the two months that the rule was on the books, I'd come up with a whole new manifesto that outlined what I didn't like about the M. Getting rid of the double-shifting rule was a big part of it, but some other ideas I had to make that work included:

• Finding a controlled way to reintroduce inactive players in a way that didn't get in the way of actives
• Tightening draft pick limits (again) and introducing a floor to pick holding so teams couldn't go completely without resources
• Closing a loophole in the draft pick rule that had been recently abused
• Put waiver offers on the portal (!)

 

If you'll click that link, you'll notice that this article had put a different spin on things than had been floated out there before. It comes from the perspective that the M had at once continued to tolerate too relaxed standards that made things worse for players (like with its rules related to the draft) and tried to deal with those issues with rules that made things a lot less fun for GMs and stripped away many layers of trust (like with the double-shifting rule and the blanket ban on inactives). Importantly, I saw the portal waiver system as a massive solution to a lot of the VHLM's problems, and it would be something I'd advocate for behind the scenes for a while thereafter. The M now had a long list of things I wanted to do with it, and I was now very interested. 

 

The M also went mostly without rule changes for most of the next year. All of this ended up with the Commissioner job opening up at that point with me still wanting to do things. I was spending less time deeply involved in school at that point, because funnily enough, grad classes are easier, and I was no longer a GM, so I didn't really need to turn over in my head whether I could make it work. I applied for the job and got it.

 

In a surprise unannounced move, longtime VHLM Commissioner @diamond_ace stepped down at the same time, which is what led to @Spartan  and I being hired on the same day. Thankfully, we've usually been on the same page as it comes to most VHLM issues, with only minor disagreements coming up over little details of big pictures. That worked great when we took over, with our first change--raising GM job pay--coming just two days after we were hired. 

 

Something else we did within a season of being hired was to (finally!) tighten draft pick limits. Having earned GMs' trust with some extra TPE, we could make a move to cut down on the boom-bust cycle, and the effects were felt almost immediately. The days of the Hounds having zero players on the roster (as happened once) were over, as were the days of having one team who everyone knew was winning from the start of the season. 

 

Still my largest-impact idea ever came about pretty soon after I was hired, too, with waivers moving to the portal in advance of S86. With this going down, we were finally able to get rid of the last remnant of the rule I hated. We abolished the double-shifting rule five days later, and GMs were once again free to orient their lines however they chose. That same offseason, we actually did do something to reintroduce inactive players, at least as far as Spartan was willing to let me take it, in that we allowed for teams without a goaler to go and get one. 

 

Since that point, the VHLM has been in a place we're very happy with, and it's hard to believe that it's existed without any major rule changes for about two years now given how much things shifted around across the S70s. But until I hear that we have major issues on our hands--which I have no reason to believe that we do--I'm happy holding the league steady in a place where we like it. None of it would be possible without all the players that give the VHLM its character or the GMs that support them in doing so.

 

Plus, now that the league is restructured and most people will be spending a couple seasons in the M, you've got no choice but to follow my rules for a little bit! Stop by and enjoy the experience.

 

 

Read my other articles for the full Gustav experience:

 

#1: Lightning Glory Gonna Be My Name

#2: Can't We All Just Get Along?

#3: Who Needs Cybersecurity Anyway?

#4: The House That I Built

#5: Can We Fix It?

#6: American Beauty

#7: The Kids Are Alright

#8: Dogs In A Pile

#9: I Just Wanna Grill For God's Sake

#10: This Old House

#11: Go Directly to Jail

#12: If You Can Dodge a Color, You Can Dodge a Ball

#13: How I Messed Up Davos

#14: Ello Gov'nor

#15: Weewoo

#16: Jolly Kranchers

#17: How I Messed Up Davos, Part 2

#18: I've Been Everywhere, Man

#19: The Sun Also Rises

#20: Ripple In Still Water

#21: How I Messed Up Davos, Part 3

#22: I Hate the Meta

#23: I Hate the Mods

#24: I Hate Bureaucracy

#25: I Hate the VHLE

#26: Mint Jams

[Lemorse7 1,021]

How do you write so much 

[Gustav 6,468]

40 minutes ago, Lemorse7 said:

How do you write so much 

 

Boredom and stream of consciousness.

 

It's really not difficult to fill up tons and tons of words if you write down everything on your mind; you just have to be able to organize it into a story.

[OrbitingDeath 3,228]

Did you keep a vhl diary or so that you remembered all this stuff?

[OrbitingDeath 3,228]

Oh and i agree with :

It Ain't Easy Being Green

 

that's why i changed my username

[Daniel Janser 2,213]

11 minutes ago, OrbitingDeath said:

Oh and i agree with :

It Ain't Easy Being Green

 

that's why i changed my username

[Corco 1,260]

[Not to say that this is the point you are making, but in my opinion] a VHLM GM's skill/success should be measured more by the VHL graduation rate of their team as opposed to Founders Cup wins. Do we have any current mechanisms or bonuses in place that reward this?

[Spartan 4,530]

11 minutes ago, Corco said:

[Not to say that this is the point you are making, but in my opinion] a VHLM GM's skill/success should be measured more by the VHL graduation rate of their team as opposed to Founders Cup wins. Do we have any current mechanisms or bonuses in place that reward this?

There's no bonuses in place to specifically address this, because it's still their role to be involved in their team and meet the standards that have been set of a VHLM GM. We haven't been shy about removing people from the role if they're not adequately meeting the responsibilities of the job. We bumped pay from 2 to 4 knowing that the expectations are high and there is a significant time commitment. 36 TPE a season to check in with players who choose your team (portal waivers) and try to engage them somewhat frequently doesn't merit bonuses or additional TPE/rewards in my opinion.

Edited October 18 by Spartan

[Gustav 6,468]

1 hour ago, Corco said:

[Not to say that this is the point you are making, but in my opinion] a VHLM GM's skill/success should be measured more by the VHL graduation rate of their team as opposed to Founders Cup wins. Do we have any current mechanisms or bonuses in place that reward this?

Awards like Top GM often end up with strong consideration of the community a GM has built up. Additionally, one could argue that those Cup wins themselves are directly tied to retention/graduation rate since they now have to be won by active players (which is even more true now that the M cap is larger). I think being good at retention is something that rewards itself with wins at this point, and that’s the way it should be rather than everyone thinking about those things as completely separate. 

[Corco 1,260]

6 minutes ago, Gustav said:

Awards like Top GM often end up with strong consideration of the community a GM has built up. Additionally, one could argue that those Cup wins themselves are directly tied to retention/graduation rate since they now have to be won by active players (which is even more true now that the M cap is larger). I think being good at retention is something that rewards itself with wins at this point, and that’s the way it should be rather than everyone thinking about those things as completely separate. 

This is good to hear, I really like the "Active only" VHLM policy. I'm happy that players like Jeevan Samuelsson aren't allowed to run roughshod on the VHLM anymore. 

 

1 hour ago, Spartan said:

There's no bonuses in place to specifically address this, because it's still their role to be involved in their team and meet the standards that have been set of a VHLM GM. We haven't been shy about removing people from the role if they're not adequately meeting the responsibilities of the job. We bumped pay from 2 to 4 knowing that the expectations are high and there is a significant time commitment. 36 TPE a season to check in with players who choose your team (portal waivers) and try to engage them somewhat frequently doesn't merit bonuses or additional TPE/rewards in my opinion.

 

My mistake, in my original post I meant to specify that the graduation rate of 1st-gen players should be of paramount importance when discussing the merits of VHLM GMs. Which GMs have been removed from their post for failing to do their duties (not including members who simply go inactive)?

[Spartan 4,530]

14 minutes ago, Corco said:

My mistake, in my original post I meant to specify that the graduation rate of 1st-gen players should be of paramount importance when discussing the merits of VHLM GMs. Which GMs have been removed from their post for failing to do their duties (not including members who simply go inactive)?

I think the 1st gen part is always emphasized, everyone knows that keeping new blood around is critical. We of course don't want recreates to be burning out or feeling neglected either since not everyone is a self-motivated max earner. But for your second point, we're not gonna name and shame people, but we have had to remove people or have conversations about a GM's future when we notice a lack of activity. I would say GMs have generally been self-aware in these regards so fortunately we haven't had to remove anyone in recent memory.

[LucyXpher 1,572]

Great article!  Not that I’ve ever known any different, but I think the M is in a pretty healthy place right now from what I can tell, and that both of you as commissioners have done and continue to do an exceptional job keeping it a great point of entry to the VHL

[Gustav 6,468]

2 hours ago, Spartan said:

I think the 1st gen part is always emphasized, everyone knows that keeping new blood around is critical. We of course don't want recreates to be burning out or feeling neglected either since not everyone is a self-motivated max earner. But for your second point, we're not gonna name and shame people, but we have had to remove people or have conversations about a GM's future when we notice a lack of activity. I would say GMs have generally been self-aware in these regards so fortunately we haven't had to remove anyone in recent memory.

 

 

3 hours ago, Corco said:

My mistake, in my original post I meant to specify that the graduation rate of 1st-gen players should be of paramount importance when discussing the merits of VHLM GMs. Which GMs have been removed from their post for failing to do their duties (not including members who simply go inactive)?

 

Additionally (and not that this is the point here either), our GMs don’t need to live under a microscope. If we become aware of a systemic lack of effort that’s being spent on first-gens, then that certainly warrants some action, but that’s really not the case at the moment. It’s largely working out completely fine to trust GMs to do their jobs and we feel that having the system built on that trust is much healthier than pushing people to work in a way that meets some specific metric. Besides, in the cases where we’ve had an issue with anyone specific, that’s usually been very clear from the outside. I don’t think we need to closely monitor. 
 

If it did become clear that we had a problem, though, I would agree that having an incentive to do better would be helpful. It’s definitely the better choice to make it naturally in people’s best interest to do something rather than just deciding that there will be consequences if they don’t. 

[rory 1,943]

good call by me but I think I was referring to Spartan not you