S97 Louth & Spirit of Competition Punishments

[jacobcarson877 2,607]

get rid of goalies!

[Spartan 4,648]

My bad for missing pick ownership, think we're settling it down now. It's a super blurry line with trying to change punishment precedent to make punishments impactful, because just tweaking lotto odds for top 6 teams really didn't feel like a punishment, as GMs and other BOG members had been discussing.

[LucyXpher 1,766]

17 minutes ago, Beketov said:

We shouldn't be making decisions like this over lunch breaks while not looking at everything; that much is clear. I have adjusted things in the OP in regards to LA's punishment and we will look into options further in future seasons regarding teams that don't own their picks in order to mores punish the GM's rather than the teams. Or, ya know, people can just follow the rules.

Lol you're fine  
The OP makes more sense now, though I will ask one more question lol, sorry...
Why is it that the Warsaw, London, and Chicago odds increase by 6% from DC and Helsinki and the LA pick odds don't?  It still seems like that degrades the value of the pick that Prague acquired in good faith and imposes a kind of punishment on that pick that has no bearing on LA.  Shouldn't the odds of that pick also increase from the Helsinki and DC drops too since LA doesn't own it?

Edited February 14 by LucyXpher

[N0HBDY 1,148]

Thank you sir may I have another

[Beketov 9,206]

1 minute ago, LucyXpher said:

Lol you're fine  
The OP makes more sense now, though I will ask one more question lol, sorry...
Why is it that the Warsaw, London, and Chicago odds increase from DC and Helsinki and the LA pick odds don't?  It still seems like that degrades the value of the pick that Prague acquired in good faith and imposes a kind of punishment on that pick that has no bearing on LA.

Because it’s been a long day and I didn’t think of that…

[BOOM 8,941]

Bring back public floggings.

[LucyXpher 1,766]

5 minutes ago, Beketov said:

Because it’s been a long day and I didn’t think of that…

You're great  You deserve a good rest!

[rory 1,985]

23 minutes ago, Beketov said:

It's a massive difference but they are still two human controlled goalies.

 

TBH Spirit of Competition was always designed to prevent teams, as has happened in the past, from starting a bot for 30+ games to intentionally tank their performance. It was never intended to be a 1 or 2 start thing but teams have kept pushing their luck which means we've had to get more strict. We will likely need to adjust the wording on both rules

Which begs the question - WHERE IS THE LINE!? Both Warsaw and London should be punished as well for starting their backups waaayyy too much! Next season if Cole plays their backup 64 times and Fartymov 8 times, is that okay?? Because their backup is a human?? 

[Nykonax 1,604]

1 hour ago, Beketov said:

Riga broke the Spirit of Competition by playing their bot goalie 1 extra game. 

tbh this seems kinda weird especially when they made playoffs by a mile, not even like they tanked for a better seed. feel like the point of the rule is anti-tank but if they're making playoffs it's just unlucky that their starter gets to play 1 less game (and if thats deserving of a punishment then shawnglade needs to be banned for benching me a game 30 seasons ago)

edit: the starting goalie is also @Lemorse7's own player? so not even like he messed with another user. all this does is punish whoever holds the pick for literally 0 reason.

Edited February 14 by Nykonax

[Beketov 9,206]

2 minutes ago, rory said:

Which begs the question - WHERE IS THE LINE!? Both Warsaw and London should be punished as well for starting their backups waaayyy too much! Next season if Cole plays their backup 64 times and Fartymov 8 times, is that okay?? Because their backup is a human?? 

I mean strictly speaking yes. If their backup is an active human we've always allowed splitting time. But perhaps we should have a set TPE threshold before we consider it "you basically have a bot"

 

2 minutes ago, Nykonax said:

tbh this seems kinda weird especially when they made playoffs by a mile, not even like they tanked for a better seed. feel like the point of the rule is anti-tank but if they're making playoffs it's just unlucky that their starter gets to play 1 less game (and if thats deserving of a punishment then shawnglade needs to be banned for benching me a game 20 seasons ago)

Like I said above, I think we need to look at these rues a bit more in depth. Normally 1 game wouldn't spark anything but then you get complaints that some people are smacked for it and others aren't in the same season and it's just a whole mess. Like if you tank intentionally but make the playoffs because of a weak conference does that excuse the behaviour? Obviously 1 game isn't tanking but ya know what I mean? This is why rules can't really be black and white as much as people sometimes force our hand into making them so.

[Rin 184]

How hard is it to mildly pay attention to lines smh

[rory 1,985]

1 minute ago, Rin said:

How hard is it to mildly pay attention to lines smh

Bro u don’t get it, life got in the way for 3 months 

[Nykonax 1,604]

Just now, Beketov said:

Like I said above, I think we need to look at these rues a bit more in depth. Normally 1 game wouldn't spark anything but then you get complaints that some people are smacked for it and others aren't in the same season and it's just a whole mess. Like if you tank intentionally but make the playoffs because of a weak conference does that excuse the behaviour? Obviously 1 game isn't tanking but ya know what I mean? This is why rules can't really be black and white as much as people sometimes force our hand into making them so.

But you're the commissioner and can decide the punishment. Obviously there is subjectivity to it but nothing is stopping you from being subjective about it? Like I think this is totally a case where you can just go "they broke the rule, but there's literally 0 intention or harm in breaking it" and just fine a week of GM pay out of principle.

Then there's some aspect of favouritism accusations or whatever, but anyone should be able to see that it's so clearly a different case than other instances of the rule.

[Pifferfish 722]

Can we just remove Riga's third, have LA lose their next 1st, and then divvy up the Helsinki and DC odds around already jeez.

 

Also @Beketov it would be a lot less complex if the rules were broken 0 times, to be fair. 

[Beketov 9,206]

4 minutes ago, Pifferfish said:

Also @Beketov it would be a lot less complex if the rules were broken 0 times, to be fair. 

At least someone else gets it.

 

5 minutes ago, Nykonax said:

But you're the commissioner and can decide the punishment. Obviously there is subjectivity to it but nothing is stopping you from being subjective about it? Like I think this is totally a case where you can just go "they broke the rule, but there's literally 0 intention or harm in breaking it" and just fine a week of GM pay out of principle.

Then there's some aspect of favouritism accusations or whatever, but anyone should be able to see that it's so clearly a different case than other instances of the rule.

I’m not saying we don’t make subjective decisions. Just a lot of years of dealing with complaining by people who want everything in stone.

 

Not that stone cold rules don’t breed complaints anyway so no matter what I have to deal with it. I need to stop announcing things while Im

meant to be working.

[dstevensonjr 508]

Everybody who broke the rules has to give their 1st round pick to Toronto. In Riga's case, they have to give their spot in the Finals.

[Spartan 4,648]

8 minutes ago, Nykonax said:

But you're the commissioner and can decide the punishment. Obviously there is subjectivity to it but nothing is stopping you from being subjective about it? Like I think this is totally a case where you can just go "they broke the rule, but there's literally 0 intention or harm in breaking it" and just fine a week of GM pay out of principle.

Then there's some aspect of favouritism accusations or whatever, but anyone should be able to see that it's so clearly a different case than other instances of the rule.

Fwiw we did discuss the impact of each rule infraction in the OP when discussing the punishment. It went from a "black and white" approach to rule breaking to "lets examine the context of the situation" to make more customized punishments. Obviously we mixed up ownership for LA and Prague, and when the ideas went to the other Blues, it didn't get much more nuanced between severity/frequency of prior punishments. But even if its a GM player, I don't think you're going to go "oh it's fine" when LDN didn't start their bot enough times last season, played the human more and still got dinged 5% as a lotto team. Dropping Riga to 16, or maybe a bit lower if they win the cup now, is probably the mildest out of all the punishments in here.

[Rin 184]

Just now, dstevensonjr said:

Everybody who broke the rules has to give their 1st round pick to Toronto. In Riga's case, they have to give their spot in the Finals.

 

I mean, if you're itching for a rematch with Seattle after that 4-1 pounding... I'm MORE than happy to go round 2 for Valentine's Day

[Pifferfish 722]

5 minutes ago, Spartan said:

Fwiw we did discuss the impact of each rule infraction in the OP when discussing the punishment. It went from a "black and white" approach to rule breaking to "lets examine the context of the situation" to make more customized punishments. Obviously we mixed up ownership for LA and Prague, and when the ideas went to the other Blues, it didn't get much more nuanced between severity/frequency of prior punishments. But even if its a GM player, I don't think you're going to go "oh it's fine" when LDN didn't start their bot enough times last season, played the human more and still got dinged 5% as a lotto team. Dropping Riga to 16, or maybe a bit lower if they win the cup now, is probably the mildest out of all the punishments in here.

It is the mildest bc they don't own their first lol. 

[Nykonax 1,604]

2 minutes ago, Spartan said:

But even if its a GM player, I don't think you're going to go "oh it's fine" when LDN didn't start their bot enough times last season, played the human more and still got dinged 5% as a lotto team.

But that's a different rule. It's just the Louth Rule that you have to start your backup 8 times. That's black and white and just has to be done in fairness to all the other teams. If you make playoffs while starting you're backup more than you need to, you're literally only handicapping yourself.

The rule violated here is spirit of competition, which makes sense to punish tanking teams for if they're playing a backup to tank harder. If you're a playoff team and play a backup extra games you're still competing, you're just dumb and fucked up lol. I'd like to see the rule at least changed going forward so that Spirit of Competition can't be violated unless you miss playoffs or you're obviously tanking for a lower seed in playoffs (wildcard buff anyone?) which makes sense to me.

 

5 minutes ago, Spartan said:

Dropping Riga to 16, or maybe a bit lower if they win the cup now, is probably the mildest out of all the punishments in here.

But Riga or Lemorse isn't even punished here. The way I see it is Riga didn't do anything deserving of punishment, and then now another team is being punished. It just doesn't make sense to me.

[dstevensonjr 508]

9 minutes ago, Rin said:

 

I mean, if you're itching for a rematch with Seattle after that 4-1 pounding... I'm MORE than happy to go round 2 for Valentine's Day

Perhaps the powerplays won't be 32-16 for Seattle in the rematch

[Spartan 4,648]

4 minutes ago, Pifferfish said:

It is the mildest bc they don't own their first lol. 

Don't do things half assed ig, we'll figure it out then. Honestly might just get removed if Lemorse is actually quitting now.

[Spartan 4,648]

2 minutes ago, Nykonax said:

The way I see it is Riga didn't do anything deserving of punishment

I agree with the rest of it as said to Piffer, but we have rules man. Why can't we follow the most basic of instructions lol

[rory 1,985]

Just now, Spartan said:

I agree with the rest of it as said to Piffer, but we have rules man. Why can't we follow the most basic of instructions lol

At what point do the seasonally punishments become too much for you and your blue coworkers!?

[Nykonax 1,604]

2 minutes ago, Spartan said:

I agree with the rest of it as said to Piffer, but we have rules man. Why can't we follow the most basic of instructions lol

But the rule is you have to doing your best to compete, not you have to play your backup exactly 8 times. I don't even see how they broke the rule.