Two Players Proposal

[Will 4,662]

Now that Victor has consolidated most of what was discussed in the lengthy initial suggestion thread, I'd like to do another poll and see where the community stands now that it's laid out for the most part. 

 

Two Players Proposal

 

Please give that thread a read before casting your vote if you haven't already. Also feel free to include some explanation on why you do or don't support the proposal in this thread, I haven't fully decided my stance on it yet and I'd like to hear from some more of the community.

[stevo 797]

Give me cocaine

[frescoelmo 1,286]

Before voting, help me understand this:

 

  On 5/20/2016 at 9:02 PM, Victor said:

No initial expansion.

It's not necessary. First goal should be 11 actives per 10 teams.

Expand  

 

Or is it 5.5 actives on 10 teams 

[Phil 5,156]

Gotta read the thread very carefully before I cast my vote! 

[Victor 11,247]

  On 6/2/2016 at 4:20 PM, frescoelmo said:

Before voting, help me understand this:

 

 

Or is it 5.5 actives on 10 teams 

Expand  

wat

[CowboyinAmerica 3,012]

The ultimate question for me is: Will it help bring in new, active members? Frankly, I'm ambivalent. I see the excitement it brings; I also am sympathetic to the complexity point. I feel like I'd need to see some sort of recruitment plan or how it's a centerpiece for a people push before I threw my whole weight behind it.

[eaglesfan036 4,635]

I am strongly against this proposal, I don't think it is going to help what actually needs to be fixed. 

 

Also, I really don't like this part: 

 

2. Two players on the same team

 

I believe there was no opposition to my suggestion as follows:

 

Draft

Second player can be drafted to the team of the first player BUT NOT if the user forces other GMs to pass on him.

Free Agency

Under no circumstances can a user choose to sign with one of their players to the team of the other.

Trades

No trades which bypass the FA restriction above (i.e. sign and trade). Otherwise, free trade remains.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

We need to make this simple, both of your players cannot be on the same team and that's final. Otherwise, there are too many ways to work around it. As a GM, if this rule applies I am going to create my second player and if I don't draft him I will insta retire him. I will not be forcing other teams to not draft my player, but if they do it will be an insta retire from me. Why would I help out an opposing team? 

[Higgins 3,618]

  On 6/2/2016 at 8:21 PM, eaglesfan036 said:

I am strongly against this proposal, I don't think it is going to help what actually needs to be fixed. 

 

Also, I really don't like this part: 

 

2. Two players on the same team

 

I believe there was no opposition to my suggestion as follows:

 

Draft

Second player can be drafted to the team of the first player BUT NOT if the user forces other GMs to pass on him.

Free Agency

Under no circumstances can a user choose to sign with one of their players to the team of the other.

Trades

No trades which bypass the FA restriction above (i.e. sign and trade). Otherwise, free trade remains.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

We need to make this simple, both of your players cannot be on the same team and that's final. Otherwise, there are too many ways to work around it. As a GM, if this rule applies I am going to create my second player and if I don't draft him I will insta retire him. I will not be forcing other teams to not draft my player, but if they do it will be an insta retire from me. Why would I help out an opposing team? 

Expand  

 

That pretty much falls under the  "Second player can be drafted to the team of the first player BUT NOT if the user forces other GMs to pass on him."

 

You would likely be barred from re-creating another player or something else.

 

Plus you need to wait 3 seasons?

[Victor 11,247]

  On 6/2/2016 at 7:36 PM, CowboyinAmerica said:

The ultimate question for me is: Will it help bring in new, active members? Frankly, I'm ambivalent. I see the excitement it brings; I also am sympathetic to the complexity point. I feel like I'd need to see some sort of recruitment plan or how it's a centerpiece for a people push before I threw my whole weight behind it.

Expand  

 

  On 6/2/2016 at 8:21 PM, eaglesfan036 said:

I am strongly against this proposal, I don't think it is going to help what actually needs to be fixed. 

Expand  

why does everything have to be geared towards recruitment? This is an unhealthy obsession, not to mention an unfair way to judge new ideas.

 

This is about retention more anyway. You know, like improving the VHLM. Why did we bother constantly reforming the VHLM if it doesn't help recruitment?

[Molholt 2,185]

Everyone should come up with a recruitment idea that actually helps if they are so concerned.

 

Or, just give @Kendrick however much TPE he wants and let him go at it. Give him a 1,000 TPE player for recruiting and he will find a way to get us more members. 

[CowboyinAmerica 3,012]

  On 6/2/2016 at 8:44 PM, Victor said:

This is about retention more anyway. You know, like improving the VHLM. Why did we bother constantly reforming the VHLM if it doesn't help recruitment?

Expand  

 

Is it? I don't see it that way. It doesn't change something structurally about the league like the VHLM does, or like changing a point earning structure does, or even creating a magazine and more job opportunities does. All it adds is more players, which to me if they're not going to stick around for one, I don't see how the option of "more time to sink in!" is going to change that.

 

To me, the main draw of two players is to give people on the fence about creating in the first place more options and double the chances of creating a star. People already here apparently don't need that draw, or are happy with something in the current system anyway. So yes, recruitment.

[Victor 11,247]

  On 6/2/2016 at 8:51 PM, CowboyinAmerica said:

 

Is it? I don't see it that way. It doesn't change something structurally about the league like the VHLM does, or like changing a point earning structure does, or even creating a magazine and more job opportunities does. All it adds is more players, which to me if they're not going to stick around for one, I don't see how the option of "more time to sink in!" is going to change that.

 

To me, the main draw of two players is to give people on the fence about creating in the first place more options and double the chances of creating a star. People already here apparently don't need that draw, or are happy with something in the current system anyway. So yes, recruitment.

Expand  

more players = more active LRs

more players = less shitty teams, more parity

 

the state of the VHLM, most of its LRs, as well as 30-40% of VHL teams from season to season is not a good look.

[CowboyinAmerica 3,012]

  On 6/2/2016 at 8:55 PM, Victor said:

more players = more active LRs

more players = less shitty teams, more parity

 

the state of the VHLM, most of its LRs, as well as 30-40% of VHL teams from season to season is not a good look.

Expand  

 

That's fair. Still maintain that recruitment is relevant though, and this is a hell of a radical change to make for primarily more active LRs.

[Victor 11,247]

  On 6/2/2016 at 8:57 PM, CowboyinAmerica said:

 

That's fair. Still maintain that recruitment is relevant though, and this is a hell of a radical change to make for primarily more active LRs.

Expand  

Obviously recruitment is relevant but not everything has to be geared towards it.

 

In fact, how do you even make a league-wide change to benefit recruitment? Recruitment, not retention. Recruitment means appealing to outsiders. Nothing we do inside makes any sense to outsiders to start with so wtf? Recruitment ideas I get, but recruitment is a background process, when has anything ever been implemented rule change-wise to benefit recruitment? Is that even physically possible? It's not like we're a marketing agency, out product is pretty intangible anyway....

 

Seriously guys, how is this even a counter-argument?

[CowboyinAmerica 3,012]

  On 6/2/2016 at 9:07 PM, Victor said:

In fact, how do you even make a league-wide change to benefit recruitment? Recruitment, not retention. Recruitment means appealing to outsiders. Nothing we do inside makes any sense to outsiders to start with so wtf? Recruitment ideas I get, but recruitment is a background process, when has anything ever been implemented rule change-wise to benefit recruitment? Is that even physically possible? It's not like we're a marketing agency, out product is pretty intangible anyway....

 

Seriously guys, how is this even a counter-argument?

Expand  

 

By making the product more appealing. Lots of changes do that, I disagree that the product is intangible. This fundamentally changes how you do those background processes, how you sell the league to outsiders, the first thing they'll notice after the fact it's hockey and the teams. The VHL is now "that two player league" as a key part of its identity with a change. It absolutely has an affect. I agree not everything has to be geared towards recruitment; it's my opinion that this should, or at least be a large consideration.

 

Anyway, no point in arguing with me. I said I'm ambivalent, I'm already fine with two players. I don't think that new identity is a bad thing. It's the Sterlings and Eagles of the world you should probably be arguing with.

 

[Kendrick 4,742]

Recruitment doesn't matter in this league, or some would have you believe with their constant bickering and not enough action.

[Victor 11,247]

  On 6/2/2016 at 9:24 PM, CowboyinAmerica said:

 

By making the product more appealing. Lots of changes do that, I disagree that the product is intangible. This fundamentally changes how you do those background processes, how you sell the league to outsiders, the first thing they'll notice after the fact it's hockey and the teams. The VHL is now "that two player league" as a key part of its identity with a change. It absolutely has an affect. I agree not everything has to be geared towards recruitment; it's my opinion that this should, or at least be a large consideration.

 

Anyway, no point in arguing with me. I said I'm ambivalent, I'm already fine with two players. I don't think that new identity is a bad thing. It's the Sterlings and Eagles of the world you should probably be arguing with.

 

Expand  

If you asked me, I wouldn't mention it in recruitment at all. Much for the same reason my proposal for junior players was shut down, it IS probably too confusing for new members. I don't think it should be referenced in any new member guides, just something to come into contact with later.

 

Unless there's a valid case that it would be an effective recruitment tool that is.

[TheLastOlympian07 2,391]

  On 6/2/2016 at 8:46 PM, Molholt said:

Everyone should come up with a recruitment idea that actually helps if they are so concerned.

 

Or, just give @Kendrick however much TPE he wants and let him go at it. Give him a 1,000 TPE player for recruiting and he will find a way to get us more members. 

Expand  

im so down for this. i say we give @Kendrick and @Green tpe to get more members. 

[frescoelmo 1,286]

  On 6/2/2016 at 7:19 PM, Victor said:

wat

Expand  

 

110 active members (assuming most have 2) is really 55 active members.

[Victor 11,247]

  On 6/3/2016 at 5:47 PM, frescoelmo said:

 

110 active members (assuming most have 2) is really 55 active members.

Expand  

Yeah but you don't just ignore one of your LRs.

 

Ideally activity doubles. At worst it should be multiply by 1.5.

[eaglesfan036 4,635]

  On 6/3/2016 at 6:07 PM, Victor said:

Yeah but you don't just ignore one of your LRs.

 

Ideally activity doubles. At worst it should be multiply by 1.5.

Expand  

If we are trying to make LR activity double why would we allow both players to be on the same team?

[Will 4,662]

  On 6/4/2016 at 12:41 AM, eaglesfan036 said:

If we are trying to make LR activity double why would we allow both players to be on the same team?

Expand  

 

I don't think the point of it is specifically to double LR activity..

 

[eaglesfan036 4,635]

  On 6/4/2016 at 1:00 AM, Draper said:

 

I don't think the point of it is specifically to double LR activity..

 

Expand  

I shouldn't have said double, I meant to say increase. Point still stands though

[Victor 11,247]

  On 6/4/2016 at 12:41 AM, eaglesfan036 said:

If we are trying to make LR activity double why would we allow both players to be on the same team?

Expand  

Not everyone will be on the same team though....

[Devise 4,475]

Yeah circumstances aren't always going to work out to allow players to be on the same team. And if they auto retired, or whatever have you we'd have consequences in plae to prevent that type of abuse. Whether that be x number of seasons until they can recreate, or not allow it altogether after so many. 

 

Also I think it speaks to your character as a member Eagles when you flat out said you'd just retire if drafted by another team. Unless you were purely using that as an example, the VHL as it stands currently has tons of exploitable rules that operate on a good faith basis that see punishment if abused regularly.