S97 Louth & Spirit of Competition Punishments

[Spartan 4,648]

1 minute ago, rory said:

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

Oh I have no issues with doing punishments, moreso people are complaining that there's even an effort to punish rulebreakers because it "wasn't that bad." Like sure, impact was pretty negligible in Riga's situation but we have the rule in place. Follow it is all.

 

1 minute ago, Nykonax said:

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.

The rule is if you have a bot backup, you cannot play them more than the required 8 times. Pretty clear cut. Human goalies have no restriction.

[Spartan 4,648]

Quote

14.3 - Spirit of Competition

i. Best Available Roster - General Managers are expected to put forth their best available roster, every game of the season. Managers found to be violating the spirit of competition within the league, especially, but not limited to, any form of tanking, will face punishment, at the discretion of the League Commissioners. Punishment will range up to, and including, but not limited to: Draft Pick Forfeiture, Salary Cap Fines, GM Dismissal.

 

Example:

If a team in S73 is found to be playing CPU Players, or inferior Inactive Players, over better Human Created Players, they may face reduced Draft Lottery Odds, or possibly the loss of their 1st Round Pick entirely, in the S74 VHL Entry Draft. Depending on the severity of their transgression, the General Manager may also face dismissal.

 

ii. CPU Goaltenders - Teams may not start a CPU Goaltender for more than 8 games in a season, when a human created goaltender above 250 TPA is available. If the team does not have a human created goaltender on their roster, they must make a reasonable attempt to acquire one, whether that is through trade, free agency, or the VHL Entry Draft.

 

[Pifferfish 722]

8 minutes ago, Nykonax said:

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.

Nyko I do see where you are coming from but let me throw out a hypothetical, just bc it didn't impact Riga doesn't mean there isn't impact. What if that accidental bot game is against NYA and that one extra win puts them in the postseason over CHI? Or if it was against LDN and they won now their seeding and lotto odds are worse. I'm not saying either of those necessarily occured as I have no clue when and where Riga played their bot, but there could be unforseen impacts

[badcolethetitan 982]

1 minute ago, Pifferfish said:

Nyko I do see where you are coming from but let me throw out a hypothetical, just bc it didn't impact Riga doesn't mean there isn't impact. What if that accidental bot game is against NYA and that one extra win puts them in the postseason over CHI? Or if it was against LDN and they won now their seeding and lotto odds are worse. I'm not saying either of those necessarily occured as I have no clue when and where Riga played their bot, but there could be unforseen impacts

 

it ok chiraq sux noob gm

[Pifferfish 722]

35 minutes ago, Beketov said:

At least someone else gets it.

 

Remember this for future GM applications I put in.

[Daniel Janser 2,268]

1 hour ago, rory said:

So where does the line for the Louth rule start? ~225 TPE difference? A 225 TPE difference between London's two goalers is a massive difference and it'd be remiss for them not to be mentioned here!

London has two human goalers though. Letting a human goaler play additional backup games never was an issue (and hopefully never will be). It is only considered not in the spirit of competition when one plays the bot too many times.

[Nykonax 1,604]

24 minutes ago, Spartan said:

The rule is if you have a bot backup, you cannot play them more than the required 8 times. Pretty clear cut. Human goalies have no restriction.

Ok I'm wrong, but still think it's extremely dumb.
 

15 minutes ago, Pifferfish said:

Nyko I do see where you are coming from but let me throw out a hypothetical, just bc it didn't impact Riga doesn't mean there isn't impact. What if that accidental bot game is against NYA and that one extra win puts them in the postseason over CHI? Or if it was against LDN and they won now their seeding and lotto odds are worse. I'm not saying either of those necessarily occured as I have no clue when and where Riga played their bot, but there could be unforseen impacts

I mean yeah but I don't think that's really worth considering. I can already start my back up like 6 times vs. Chicago and boost them somewhere if I wanted to. It's already an issue with the automatic +2 points to the tanking teams (they could've already won that backup game) but I think in this case it's so small and not worth considering. Teams already get unlucky/lucky with the games they play vs. backups in so I don't think it really changes anything.

[Daniel Janser 2,268]

1 hour 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?? 

A backup goalie costs a salary, a bot does not. Normally 'openly' tanking teams would trade away their human backups to a more competitive team for picks. And if you are competing, why would you deliberately play your worse goalie more often than your number one? 

[BOOM 8,941]

Why TF is Calgary not getting the 1st Round picks from these heinous rule breakers?

[Victor 11,143]

1 hour ago, Frank said:

Get rid of back up games. Nobody cares about Greg Clegane's career stats. @Victor

Y'all couldn't beat me even if you got 72 starts. 

[Victor 11,143]

2 hours ago, der meister said:

Meh. Just take Riga out and put Toronto in the finals instead. Problem solved.

Man wants to lose to Seattle twice.

 

3 hours ago, Beketov said:

 

@Lemorse7 @qripll @InstantRockstar @McLovin on the punishment front

 

@N0HBDY @Baby Boomer @badcolethetitan on the heart attack front but really just because your odds have

You already tagged all GMs at the top lmao

[Pifferfish 722]

38 minutes ago, Nykonax said:

Ok I'm wrong, but still think it's extremely dumb.
 

I mean yeah but I don't think that's really worth considering. I can already start my back up like 6 times vs. Chicago and boost them somewhere if I wanted to. It's already an issue with the automatic +2 points to the tanking teams (they could've already won that backup game) but I think in this case it's so small and not worth considering. Teams already get unlucky/lucky with the games they play vs. backups in so I don't think it really changes anything.

Well it's a matter of there could be impacts that you don't see and so giving no punishment is a bit like a problem in observational scope.

[Beketov 9,206]

3 minutes ago, Victor said:

You already tagged all GMs at the top lmao

Yeah I know but it feels more right to shout out the actual involved people. The GM tag was just a sentence really.

[der meister 3,335]

15 minutes ago, Victor said:

Man wants to lose to Seattle twice.

 

Need a real series without Justin Kea-ass officiating.

[N0HBDY 1,148]

Just wait till they find out I split my goalie starts 50/50 (about)

[BOOM 8,941]

I blame Keaton Louth.

[Josh 1,702]

2 hours ago, rory said:

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

S1

[STZ 5,421]

Does this count as @Beketovs Zoo Tycoon Stream?

[Pifferfish 722]

@Beketov @Spartan so what ended up being the final punishments? What is currently at the top of this thread? 

[Alex 3,306]

1 hour ago, Pifferfish said:

@Beketov @Spartan so what ended up being the final punishments? What is currently at the top of this thread? 

Correct, lotto already happened too

 

[Pifferfish 722]

11 minutes ago, Alex said:

Correct, lotto already happened too

 

So the Riga pick still is going down to 16th?

[Alex 3,306]

4 minutes ago, Pifferfish said:

So the Riga pick still is going down to 16th?

Honestly, I would probably suggest another punishment or it just be waived, it's not fair to punish a new GM for the previous' error.

[Pifferfish 722]

51 minutes ago, Alex said:

Honestly, I would probably suggest another punishment or it just be waived, it's not fair to punish a new GM for the previous' error.

Not even the fact Lem is stepping away, they don't own the damn pick. It's a non punishment.

[Alex 3,306]

19 minutes ago, Pifferfish said:

Not even the fact Lem is stepping away, they don't own the damn pick. It's a non punishment.

lol, why even have the punishment then? LA's got lessened because they didn't have the pick, not to mention it's their 8th time breaking the same rule. Kind of just seems weird to me.