TOR/RIG: VOID

[VHL Bot 3,080]

Toronto recieves:

S63 RIG 1

Riga recieves:

Sebastian Ironside

This trade has been accepted by both parties

[Devise 4,475]

Glad to know VHL Bots first Portal trade involves 1oa. The little milestones. 

[McWolf 3,116]

Kastelic now a Legionnaire? @Enorama

Edited October 9, 2018 by McWolf

[hedgehog337 3,483]

@oilmandan Ryan Kastelic Toronto jersey OUT NOW

[.sniffuM 1,741]

9 minutes ago, Devise said:

Glad to know VHL Bots first Portal trade involves 1oa. The little milestones. 

 

Nah mayn.

[Devise 4,475]

Just now, .sniffuM said:

 

Nah mayn.

 

Pschhh...what even is a VHLM?  

[Banackock 8,124]

15 minutes ago, Devise said:

Glad to know VHL Bots first Portal trade involves 1oa. The little milestones. 

[Banackock 8,124]

5 minutes ago, .sniffuM said:

 

Nah mayn.

Oh shit. Great minds think alike! Long live us! 

[Beaviss 4,958]

Isnt Ironside a forced retirement next season?

 

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by Beaviss

[Beketov 9,095]

Man, Riga’s continuing to be scary.

[Beaviss 4,958]

8 minutes ago, Beketov said:

Man, Riga’s continuing to be scary.

 

Am I wrong about the forced GM player retirement after the new gm joins the team?

 

this is what sparks this thought

 

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by Beaviss

[Beketov 9,095]

6 minutes ago, Beaviss said:

 

Am I wrong about the forced GM player retirement after the new gm joins the team?

 

this is what sparks this thought

 

 

Yeah, the predecent from the announcement was kinda set there. @Will had told @Devise that Ironside would play out his career but that doesn’t sound right...

[hedgehog337 3,483]

We could argue this is not even in rules, at least I can't see it.

[Will 4,662]

What was done with STZ's player when he stepped down? 

 

Whatever that is, that is what should happen to Ironside. 

[Devise 4,475]

10 minutes ago, hedgehog337 said:

We could argue this is not even in rules, at least I can't see it.

 

Yeah @Beketov talking it over with @Quik it seemed to be the interpretation of the rulebook here. 

 

14.2 – General Manager Players

• General Managers must have a designated GM player at all times.
• A General Manager cannot swap his GM player for a 2nd player belonging to that GM unless that 2nd player is already on the roster and the GM player retires.
• A GM player cannot be traded or released unless retired. 

 

Specifically the last part. Obviously the ability to freely create a new 2nd GM player to facilitate a clean GM transition makes this situation different to precedence. But is it not my understanding that as I created Rift, he becomes the new GM player removing the GM player tag from Ironside? Again the rule states GM players, not player acquired via the GM rule. Maybe that distinction isn't intentional, but I thought it was. 

 

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by Devise

[Beketov 9,095]

9 minutes ago, hedgehog337 said:

We could argue this is not even in rules, at least I can't see it.

It was mentioned in the announcement regarding GM’s keeping P2. Since the goal is to get 1 player for free, that was Ironside. By creating a second player @Devise would be getting a 2nd player free which means Ironside needs to retire. Pretty sure that’s how it went with Arkander.

[Beaviss 4,958]

3 minutes ago, Will said:

What was done with STZ's player when he stepped down? 

 

Whatever that is, that is what should happen to Ironside. 

 

he was forced to retire

[hedgehog337 3,483]

2 minutes ago, Will said:

What was done with STZ's player when he stepped down? 

 

Whatever that is, that is what should happen to Ironside. 

 

So you just you mis-info'ed Devise?

 

If Ironside is only for one season, veto this trade then. I'm not paying first OV for rentals. 

 

And that last part Devise showed me now is vague as hell tbh

[hedgehog337 3,483]

2 minutes ago, Beketov said:

It was mentioned in the announcement regarding GM’s keeping P2. Since the goal is to get 1 player for free, that was Ironside. By creating a second player @Devise would be getting a 2nd player free which means Ironside needs to retire. Pretty sure that’s how it went with Arkander.

 

so put this in rules then. As I said, the current one is vague as hell. This may even mean Ironside should be retired right now and I can't even make a trade.

[Devise 4,475]

Just now, Beketov said:

It was mentioned in the announcement regarding GM’s keeping P2. Since the goal is to get 1 player for free, that was Ironside. By creating a second player @Devise would be getting a 2nd player free which means Ironside needs to retire. Pretty sure that’s how it went with Arkander.

 

I mean obviously if that is how it goes then he has to auto retire. Or not actually. Technically the rules state that he only has to auto retire when another player is on my own team via the GM rule. So until Rift comes to the team, he could still play. Just only for Toronto. Right? Am I understanding our vague rules correctly? Lol.

 

Anyways, obviously yeah veto this then and sorry to @DollarAndADream if I want to trade you, I can but then you have to retire. Or you can play right until Rift comes up. Whatever you wanna do. 

[Will 4,662]

4 minutes ago, hedgehog337 said:

So you just you mis-info'ed Devise?

 

Possibly, I thought that's how it was handled, sometimes I'm wrong. 

[Devise 4,475]

4 minutes ago, Will said:

 

Possibly, I thought that's how it was handled, sometimes I'm wrong. 

 

I mean, I'm not going to say it isn't a little silly to have Dollar go so long trying to find a replacement and to have his relatively recently created player basically have been a waste. I suppose had we all understood a little more clearly how this all worked he'd of known that the moment he created him, and not put any work into him. Since your pretty much as a GM in a situation with this ruling works that if your finding a new GM from outside your team or not a player you used an asset on/acquired via FA, your current GM player can only ever be a rental at best to another club. 

 

Obviously in this situation because it's his second player, he's not really losing anything. But in cases where a GM would only have one player that is kind of a bummer. Again though this was never really ironed out entirely and a lot of comes up based on the way a GM change transition occurs. 

[Will 4,662]

8 minutes ago, Devise said:

 

I mean, I'm not going to say it isn't a little silly to have Dollar go so long trying to find a replacement and to have his relatively recently created player basically have been a waste. I suppose had we all understood a little more clearly how this all worked he'd of known that the moment he created him, and not put any work into him. Since your pretty much as a GM in a situation with this ruling works that if your finding a new GM from outside your team or not a player you used an asset on/acquired via FA, your current GM player can only ever be a rental at best to another club. 

 

Obviously in this situation because it's his second player, he's not really losing anything. But in cases where a GM would only have one player that is kind of a bummer. Again though this was never really ironed out entirely and a lot of comes up based on the way a GM change transition occurs. 

 

I don't disagree.

 

Thinking on it now, I believe the rational was just that 2nd players are a bonus privilege for GMs only and since the whole 2nd player thing really eliminated the situations where a GM would give up compensation for their player, they should be tied to the organization and retired when they step down. 

[Tyler 885]

So if you trade a GM player you have to retire them? That's silly.

[Devise 4,475]

6 minutes ago, Will said:

 

I don't disagree.

 

Thinking on it now, I believe the rational was just that 2nd players are a bonus privilege for GMs only and since the whole 2nd player thing really eliminated the situations where a GM would give up compensation for their player, they should be tied to the organization and retired when they step down. 

 

Yeah true.

 

I think the Rulebook is probably a little vague in this instance though. It mentions swapping designations of GM players, but only among a GM's 1st and 2nd player. So it already establishes the idea that the GM player tag is something that is given to a single player, not the reality, which is that a GM player is established as any player acquired by the free GM rule. However even then, this "ex" GM player still has special rules, right? Because the rules state that said player can't be traded or released. However that is meant to be for the actual designated GM player. In the instance any ex GM player is allowed to be traded, they just have to retire. 

 

The reason I was also confused is because in an older rulebook re Project Two, there was an actual line that stated that when a new GM is named the GM's previous GM player is automatically retired right then. However that didn't get carried over the rulebook, per the changes post the removal of Project Two and with the new GM system. So easy to get confused here with the terminology. 

 

Edit - Also just re-reading this. I'm also wrong on a front. Because technically can't a player that wasn't acquired via the GM rule still be designated as a GM player? Ergo if a GM steps down and gives the role to a player on their team acquired via an asset. That player would be designated GM player per the rules no? Yeah this absolutely needs ironing out just in terms of how we present it so that it reads like we enforce it. 

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by Devise