Claimed:A Comprehensive Study on VHL Activity

[Molholt 2,185]

12 minutes ago, StevenStamkos91 said:

why wont i be considered very active? 

 

TPE

 

[TheLastOlympian07 2,388]

Just now, Molholt said:

 

TPE

 

but i am only a S46 draftee... S46, S47, S48 and now S49

115.75 per season, would be more if i didnt take last season off.

[Molholt 2,185]

33 minutes ago, StevenStamkos91 said:

but i am only a S46 draftee... S46, S47, S48 and now S49

115.75 per season, would be more if i didnt take last season off.

 

Exactly you took a season off. Last season. Therefore you didn't seem very active  

 

[TheLastOlympian07 2,388]

Just now, Molholt said:

 

Exactly you took a season off. Last season. Therefore you didn't seem very active  

 

im going to go to oklahoma pretty soon. find you and youre gonna have to square up 

[solas 1,951]

2 hours ago, Draper said:

 

Tim reminds me of @solas

 

Often silent but always deadly 

That's because he's my multi.  My ultimate goal is to just have two accounts but not post anything with either of them. 

[scoop 3,429]

2 hours ago, Victor said:

Apparently you're touching @Streetlight in the Brampton LR as well.

No the problem is that he's not touching me in the Brampton LR.

[sterling 1,997]

3 hours ago, Draper said:

 

I agree completely. A lot of people seem to have this doomsday-league-is-dying perspective lately, but I haven't seen any significant decline between my joining in S37 to now. And when you consider the next 'prominent' first-gens after me were gorlab and eventually Ahma, we've gotten pretty lucky recently to have a lot of solid first-gens like Dwyer, Evans, Evryday, Daniel, ATW, Dangles, and probably more that I'm missing.

 

That is definitely not to say we shouldn't be doing more for recruitment, but the imminent death of the league is exaggerated by some.

Except we`re not growing and the league is making changes that will directly result in fewer recreates. We`ve seen recruitment continue to go down since you joined.

[Will 4,660]

32 minutes ago, sterling said:

Except we`re not growing and the league is making changes that will directly result in fewer recreates. We`ve seen recruitment continue to go down since you joined.

 

And what changes would those be? The removal of the pension plans? You've been preaching 'quality over quantity', how quality are people who aren't recreating because their welfare claim

is 4 instead of 5?

 

It seems like your against pretty much everything lately without offering any alternative solutions. Doing absolutely nothing directly results in fewer recreates as well.

[Molholt 2,185]

@sterling negative attitude is confirmed more of a detriment than any changes tbh 

 

 

[sterling 1,997]

32 minutes ago, Draper said:

 

And what changes would those be? The removal of the pension plans? You've been preaching 'quality over quantity', how quality are people who aren't recreating because their welfare claim

is 4 instead of 5?

 

It seems like your against pretty much everything lately without offering any alternative solutions. Doing absolutely nothing directly results in fewer recreates as well.

I didn't preach that, I said for myself that's true, yes. In general, we need more members and the more you have, the more quality members you'll have. That's pretty obvious to me. So no, allowing members to create two players doesn't actually fix the problem, but you don't care about the actual problem.

 

Yes, what it is really is a lack of respect for older members. It's an attitude that's unfortunate, but it is what it is. To me, the leadership is more focused on protecting their best interests as opposed to growing the league. I.E. recruitment incentive changes, TPE scheme changes (because how dare people gain more TPE than Higgins) welfare changes, two player systems - this is not to mention many rulings that are completely inconsistent and unfair to certain members or teams..

 

[sterling 1,997]

35 minutes ago, Molholt said:

@sterling negative attitude is confirmed more of a detriment than any changes tbh 

 

 

If you think I'm a detriment then I'll leave, no loss to me. Having a difference of an opinion on how changes are made and the changes proposed isn't 'a negative attitude'.

[Will 4,660]

58 minutes ago, sterling said:

I didn't preach that, I said for myself that's true, yes. In general, we need more members and the more you have, the more quality members you'll have. That's pretty obvious to me. So no, allowing members to create two players doesn't actually fix the problem, but you don't care about the actual problem.

 

Yes, what it is really is a lack of respect for older members. It's an attitude that's unfortunate, but it is what it is. To me, the leadership is more focused on protecting their best interests as opposed to growing the league. I.E. recruitment incentive changes, TPE scheme changes (because how dare people gain more TPE than Higgins) welfare changes, two player systems - this is not to mention many rulings that are completely inconsistent and unfair to certain members or teams..

 

 

Yup, I really have a lot of vested personal interest in the two player system happening. Literally creates more work for me and that's about it. Disagreeing with you doesn't equate to lack of respect, accusing me of 'protecting my interests' with 0 basis does.

 

My post in this thread said simply we have a lot more good first-gens right now than we've had in recent history. I said it's not to say we shouldn't be doing more for recruitment, and we are trying to do that if you have read the S50 drive. If you want to accuse me of not caring or acting in personal interest you go right ahead, but I think attacking us is a bullshit response to you being on the minority side of certain issues in the community.

[sterling 1,997]

9 minutes ago, Draper said:

 

Yup, I really have a lot of vested personal interest in the two player system happening. Literally creates more work for me and that's about it. Disagreeing with you doesn't equate to lack of respect, accusing me of 'protecting my interests' with 0 basis does.

To me it's obvious that the only people who benefit from a two player system are the elite members of the league. Average or below people either wouldn't have he time or energy to do it. How does this proposal actual address the concern that we can't recruit new members? Retainment is also bad, how would this increase retainment? Not everyone wants more Things to do, especially considering a lot of jobs we have often cannot be properly filled. Two players doesn't bring in new members.

[Will 4,660]

28 minutes ago, sterling said:

To me it's obvious that the only people who benefit from a two player system are the elite members of the league. Average or below people either wouldn't have he time or energy to do it. How does this proposal actual address the concern that we can't recruit new members? Retainment is also bad, how would this increase retainment? Not everyone wants more Things to do, especially considering a lot of jobs we have often cannot be properly filled. Two players doesn't bring in new members.

 

I don't really know why this is directed at me then considering I posted at least 3 times in the past days that I'm very much undecided on it and this two players business was nowhere close to being my idea, but:

 

Who's saying it will bring in new members? I don't think that's the point of it or that anyone has claimed it will solve any problems with recruitment. In fact, I don't see it as very relevant to recruitment at all. Which is fine, because I don't think every single change you make needs to get vetoed if it isn't directly targeted at attracting new members, as long as it doesn't detriment the existing ones of course (and in this case it is seeming like it's what the existing ones want). With the two player proposal, it would put people who have time to do at least 1 point task a week at an advantage over welfare claimers. There's no denying that. Now, if it was going to prevent new people from joining I would be concerned - but I just don't see that. It wouldn't be at all relevant to them until at least their 3rd season or whatever and I just have a hard time seeing someone say 'This league lets you make 2 players? fuck this, im out'.

 

I think it was originally suggested as an additional feature for our current members to enjoy, not as an elaborate recruitment tool.

 

Like I said, I'm fairly undecided so you'd probably be better served arguing with Victor about it. I worry about the effect it will have on the sim and the effect on the league overall as it really would be a huge change to the sort of fabric of the league. But, nobody is saying it's a fix or a replacement for recruiting. 

[FacePuncher 1,343]

I'm inactive

[Jala 922]

What factors played into the rankings of active/moderate/not very? Seems like pretty arbitrary ratings. Need more information on what you used as values for these rankings before an educated opinion can be formed.

 

Edit hard numbers, is someone posting 5-6 times one day over a week a moderate or low activity?

Edited June 5, 2016 by Jala

[gorlab 4,321]

interesting info

 

 

one day i will hit the very active list imotbh

[Daniel 565]

I rarely go more than a couple hours without checking here and I'm moderately active wow ok thanks eagles 

[stevo 792]

I'm fully active? Bitch I haven't even started to get really active again

 

[Victor 10,940]

5 minutes ago, stevo said:

I'm fully active? Bitch I haven't even started to get really active again

 

This isn't even stevo's final form.

[stevo 792]

52 minutes ago, Victor said:

This isn't even stevo's final form.

My evolution to a stage 2 pokemon is imminent.

[atw2592 286]

I'm ok with being the only moderately active VHLM GM. Our team contends every season and that's all I care about

[Kendrick 4,741]

Claimed

[eaglesfan036 4,602]

bump

[bigAL 2,176]

Do this again Mr Scientist @WentzKneeFan036

 

but for real, 91 active members must’ve been great in 2016 but unfathomably small in our current form. 4 very/somewhat active members per team is wild, especially considering the amount of teams there were. Wild, thanks for bumping the trip down history lane.