Keaton Louth Rule

[Advantage 2,891]

Just now, Beketov said:

That’s actually a really good way of looking at it.

Yeah that's what I don't get about all this complaining.

 

QUE started backup 5 times.  Other teams started them 8 times...risking three extra losses because they followed the rule.

[Banackock 8,053]

@boubabi ? 

[Banackock 8,053]

1 hour ago, DollarAndADream said:

That's probably about as mad as I was when my 1000 TPE goaltender got beaten out by a 400 TPE one a few seasons ago in the playoffs, posting under .900 saves while the 400 TPE guy had like .930, even though in the regular season my goalie was the best one.

I think i might remember this? 

[DollarAndADream 3,356]

2 minutes ago, Banackock said:

I think i might remember this? 

You  may or may not have been involved.

[Enorama 2,038]

I think part of Arthur's argument here is that the punishment isn't 100% clearly laid out in the rule. It reads as if commishes can pick and choose which punishment to dole out which then leaves it open to bias and possible corruption or whatever.

[Quik 4,113]

1 hour ago, Enorama said:

I think part of Arthur's argument here is that the punishment isn't 100% clearly laid out in the rule. It reads as if commishes can pick and choose which punishment to dole out which then leaves it open to bias and possible corruption or whatever.

I mean, most rules regarding punishment have gray area. If you box yourself in by making it completely black and white then there is no room to adjust for extenuating circumstances. That’s not to say that cases will be treated differently, but that obviously there can be special cases that require more or less punishment than the norm. For example, if Beaviss or myself were to screw up again next season, it’s entirely possible that more than just playoff games are the punishment. 

 

At at the end of the day, GMs all knew that if you made the playoffs and broke the rules, this would be the punishment. It’s not even like it was inconsistent, I suffered the same fate, and I’m a commissioner. As much as Arthur may want to believe the punishment isn’t laid out clearly, his GM knew the consequences and while Beaviss thought he met the minimum, it was easy enough to verify before the end of the season. 

[eaglesfan036 4,603]

Well it's been a while since we've had a good shit show so this has been entertaining

 

My favorite part was comparing starting QUE G to the atom bombs being dropped on Japan

 

Also, Que G > Arthur

[Eudaldkp 160]

Man this thread has been a blast, I had never seen something like this since I joined.

 

On to my opinion, the rule was quite clear, and Beaviss failed to follow it. The punishment wasn't crystal clear, but as Quik said they need some room to decide. It is even stated in this same thread "This punishment can involve loss of draft picks and/or cap space in following seasons, as well as potentially having to start a backup goaltender in the playoffs, for games missed in the regular season."

To me this is pretty much nonsense, I get that it can be upsetting that your player didn't play because of a GM fuck up but what else can you do, rules are rules and at the end of the day this is a sim league where the GMs don't get paid, they won't be putting their 100% into the team. Plus come on, it's a sim league, there's no need to be this upset.

[BOOM 8,758]

So Arthur likes the rule? Or no? Not sure I understand his position on the ruling. 

[jRuutu 2,464]

11 hours ago, Quik said:

With the rule, it was understood from last off-season that this would happen. Beaviss even hired an AGM, who could have made sure. Hell, you yourself could have kept track, same as Sonnet did with his own starts and reminded me when we were getting close to the end of the season (my screw up came with changing lines for the last sim, and accidentally overwriting the backup goalie game). Say what you will about the rule, but there was nothing unclear about any playoff team failing to meet requirements having to start a backup in the playoffs, and your team is the reason these rules came into existence lol. 

 

As for the series, there’s no way you or I can say that you definitely would have changed the series. If you want to believe that, that’s fine. But, as you said, anything is anyone’s game with STHS, so it’s also possible you would have been blown out had you started. We don’t know, we never will, and it’s not the league’s fault for that. No matter how much you wish to gripe, and I understand your anger with the situation, the rules are in place, understood, and for whatever reason, they were broken, so Quebec has to deal with the consequences. 

 

Going forward, I’m hopeful that neither Beaviss or myself make the same mistake and have to put this on you or Sonnet again, nor any other GM/goalie combination. The rules are clear, and will clearly be enforced, no matter who you are...

Don´t you think that punishing innocent users like Arthur and Sonnet is the wrong way to go - no matter what the situation is? This is directly preventing them from playing in the only games that really matter, they should be playing and you guys find some other way to punish the GM.

[jRuutu 2,464]

11 hours ago, Beketov said:

Cap hit could potentially hurt the team for the entire season if they are near the cap which most teams are. So basically for 3 games you could lose a player forever? Hardly seems fair.

 

Extra backup games the next season, and really the cap hit as well, both punish in the future which doesn’t necessarily make sense. What if it was your last season competiting and you were going into a rebuild? Congrats, you get extra games with your starter basically because next season doesn’t matter. You see how it needs to be subjective? I like black and white rules as well, trust me I fought for them on this, but ultimately subjective makes more sense with all the variables with this.

 

When possible removing from the playoffs makes the most sense. It’s also not like there is no discussion. The admin team that isn’t involved (so for this season myself and Will) will make the decision based on the infraction severity and situation. We laid out in the rules what the options basically were.

How about Rayne and Jones? Two defenders who are retiring, their last chance in playoffs sabotaged by individuals who are drunk with power and who run around on their high horse and dish out whatever penalties they feel is right. Is that fair?

 

How about other players in the team who put in the work to be active in this league, but their chances in playoffs were sabotaged? I don´t care what you people say on what could have happend and what happened with the actual games and the numbers, I want the number one goalie in net over a bot goalie in the playoffs.

 

This punishment reminds me of how someones big brother will not tell to the parents about what the little brother did as long as he does something stupid, ´hey little bro, go roll on dog shit or I´m telling´,  the big brother gets to have his fun and little brother looks equally silly with dog poo all over him. Whatever the little brother did, is not as bad as the bigger brother forcing the little one do something like that, no real lessons were learned, just negativity.

 

 

[jRuutu 2,464]

10 hours ago, Beketov said:

How is it at all forseeing the future? We only look at starts at the end of the season when the playoffs are set. IE we knew Quebec was in the playoffs after cheating in regards to the backup rule so they were punished accorsingly. Had they not been in the playoffs they would have been punished accordingly for that.

 

It makes far more sense to do that than potentially screw to entire team the next season with a cap hit or have no effect if they go into a rebuild. We recognize it sucks for the players that have to sit when they did nothing wrong. It was discussed at length that it’s an unfortunate side effect but ultimately a required one. If a goalie is getting concerned about the backup rules they can always PM the simming team about it. If it’s a situation where a GM hasn’t been updating their lines we’ll be reasonable and allow a substitution to be made.

 

We aren’t looking for reasons to punish teams. We would honestly rather not have to. But the rules exist and it’s no longer on the Simmer to do a GM’s job which is entirely fair.

That is kinda funny, no? Not looking for reasons to punish teams, but at the same time don´t really go out of your way to make sure they don´t happen either - wait all the way to the end to see what is going on? And cheating, please - 22 point difference to next team behind us.

 

And no, it does not make sense. It just does not.

 

Backup goalie rule, a bot goalie played 5 out of 8 games in a playoff race where Quebec had 22 point lead to the next team in the standings, the three games made absolutely 0 difference on the team behind us making it or not. Instead of you guys in the league office making the best of the best play and handing out punishment for next season like any normal and reasonable league would, you decided to do something else.

[jRuutu 2,464]

9 hours ago, Sonnet said:

 

Don't bring me into this, I actually thought it was a fair ruling. We didn't take the time to play our backup when it didn't matter, when every other team did? Then we have to make it up during the games that DO matter, against teams that followed the rule. It's shitty, and I didn't like sitting out for a game, but we fucked up and I saw that as a fair payment for it. Luckily, we managed to come out with a win anyway, but relying on HSK G for ANYTHING always gets me nervous.

 

At any rate, it's been pointed out before but QUE G didn't even lose you the series. He was really the only thing that kept you guys in it, after completely standing on his head for two games.

Fair ruling, fair punishment -  lot´s of comedians in this league.

 

Equally fair to say that we could have been playing better offensively if Arthur was in net? No slobby rebounds that kept the play going, no penalties that could have been caused soon after bot failed to control the puck etc etc?

 

Or why teams decide to play their bot goalies only the minimum required during the season if they are this good?

 

[jRuutu 2,464]

2 hours ago, Eudaldkp said:

Man this thread has been a blast, I had never seen something like this since I joined.

 

On to my opinion, the rule was quite clear, and Beaviss failed to follow it. The punishment wasn't crystal clear, but as Quik said they need some room to decide. It is even stated in this same thread "This punishment can involve loss of draft picks and/or cap space in following seasons, as well as potentially having to start a backup goaltender in the playoffs, for games missed in the regular season."

To me this is pretty much nonsense, I get that it can be upsetting that your player didn't play because of a GM fuck up but what else can you do, rules are rules and at the end of the day this is a sim league where the GMs don't get paid, they won't be putting their 100% into the team. Plus come on, it's a sim league, there's no need to be this upset.

If it´s just a sim league, why the need to prevent a innocent user from playing?  ´It´s the rules´, make new rules? If you need to punish the GM, punish the GM. Leave innocent users out of it.

 

Also, in this thread: Power hungry users and backwashers of the elite getting to pile on one GM and throw jabs at him. Three hoorays for VHL,

 

Hooray

Hooray

Hooray

 

 

[Beketov 9,026]

3 minutes ago, jRuutu said:

That is kinda funny, no? Not looking for reasons to punish teams, but at the same time don´t really go out of your way to make sure they don´t happen either - wait all the way to the end to see what is going on? And cheating, please - 22 point difference to next team behind us.

 

And no, it does not make sense. It just does not.

 

Backup goalie rule, a bot goalie played 5 out of 8 games in a playoff race where Quebec had 22 point lead to the next team in the standings, the three games made absolutely 0 difference on the team behind us making it or not. Instead of you guys in the league office making the best of the best play and handing out punishment for next season like any normal and reasonable league would, you decided to do something else.

1. We’re not micromanaging the teams, that’s the whole point. What would you like us to do, post updates for them every week to show if they are doing what they are supposed to be doing or not? It is part of their job and they all know it. We can hardly say “hey, you haven’t played your backup enough” every single week when we have no way of knowing what their plan is and have the same visible information they do. What I will say is that perhaps we could mention it in the trade deadline thread. Just a quick update on where teams are in relation to the rule so they know a few weeks ahead of time if they are in trouble.

 

2. The rule exists so that teams with an active backup don’t get hurt playing that backup. You take it out the advantage goes to teams who don’t use cap space on a backup and thus fewer goalie jobs then we already have. That doesn’t make sense. It sounds fine for a team with a CPU to say they shouldn’t have to play him but it needs to be universal so that means teams with an active should be able to bench him all season which isn’t fair.

 

3. As I’ve mentioned several times, punishment for next season could easily punish a team too much or not at all depending on the situation. Having it be this season is the fairest outcome. They broke the rules this season, they pay the price this season. Same as Helsinki did yet none of their players are complaining about it.

 

I don’t understand how this is turning into you guys thinking it’s some kind of corruption of power grab thing. These rules were listed prior to the season with the list of punishments. It was all there for everyone to see and no one had an issue with it until their team was involved. But please, tell me more about how I’m biased.

 

I don’t understand how your GM has accepted the ruling and accepted the blame but you guys are still putting it on the league as if we arbitrarily decided to screw you. There’s no conspiracy, there’s no power hungry elite. Hell, @Quik was punished too. All I see is people fine with the rules until those rules bite them.

[Eudaldkp 160]

19 minutes ago, jRuutu said:

If it´s just a sim league, why the need to prevent a innocent user from playing?  ´It´s the rules´, make new rules? If you need to punish the GM, punish the GM. Leave innocent users out of it.

 

Also, in this thread: Power hungry users and backwashers of the elite getting to pile on one GM and throw jabs at him. Three hoorays for VHL,

 

Hooray

Hooray

Hooray

 

 

Bruh I love Beaviss and I've talked with him about this in the Discord, he perfectly understands he's in the wrong here and no one is piling on him. In fact it's only Arthur (and Bush but he's just throwing salt in the wound) shitting on him.

It's just a sim league, but there needs to be rules too. The point of the league is having fun, and there needs to be some regulation. If there is a rule that 6 teams follow but the other 2 teams don't, there needs to be some sort of punishment for the teams that don't follow it or else it would be unfair. It's pretty simple.

[jRuutu 2,464]

1 hour ago, Beketov said:

1. We’re not micromanaging the teams, that’s the whole point. What would you like us to do, post updates for them every week to show if they are doing what they are supposed to be doing or not? It is part of their job and they all know it. We can hardly say “hey, you haven’t played your backup enough” every single week when we have no way of knowing what their plan is and have the same visible information they do. What I will say is that perhaps we could mention it in the trade deadline thread. Just a quick update on where teams are in relation to the rule so they know a few weeks ahead of time if they are in trouble.

 

2. The rule exists so that teams with an active backup don’t get hurt playing that backup. You take it out the advantage goes to teams who don’t use cap space on a backup and thus fewer goalie jobs then we already have. That doesn’t make sense. It sounds fine for a team with a CPU to say they shouldn’t have to play him but it needs to be universal so that means teams with an active should be able to bench him all season which isn’t fair.

 

3. As I’ve mentioned several times, punishment for next season could easily punish a team too much or not at all depending on the situation. Having it be this season is the fairest outcome. They broke the rules this season, they pay the price this season. Same as Helsinki did yet none of their players are complaining about it.

 

I don’t understand how this is turning into you guys thinking it’s some kind of corruption of power grab thing. These rules were listed prior to the season with the list of punishments. It was all there for everyone to see and no one had an issue with it until their team was involved. But please, tell me more about how I’m biased.

 

I don’t understand how your GM has accepted the ruling and accepted the blame but you guys are still putting it on the league as if we arbitrarily decided to screw you. There’s no conspiracy, there’s no power hungry elite. Hell, @Quik was punished too. All I see is people fine with the rules until those rules bite them.

1. For example yea, little update/reminder post week or two or whatever before season ends wound be ok.  Not maybe micromanaging, but looking over your own product and making sure that in the playoffs we see the best players available is something everybody who run the show should do, not just the GMs.

 

2. That is the GM´s right though? To use whatever goalie and build the team in whatever way? Also, by the sound of it - why the need to even have active backups when bot G does the job just fine   Why would any GM now spend few mills on backup when they saw what brave bot did for Quebec?

 

3. The punishment for playoffs hurt Quebec too much. How can you say Quebec is not a rebuilding team, have you seen what the defense looks like for example? Two guys retiring, why not a pick penalty?  Why not put a TPE penalty on the GM? Why not suspend the GM player for three games?

 

Maybe you guys did not think these rules over that well? If you think whatever you dish out will be just accepted meanwhile you can say that it´s on the rules and how everybody had the chance to read them. Maybe nobody said anything, because there is no way to know for sure what you will give as a punishment? Clearly don´t look too much into the future if the league thinks the proper punishment for this ´break of rules´ was to force Quebec play 3 games with a backup on playoffs. PLAYOFFS!

 

How anybody can justify benching a active goalie over a bot and in the playoffs - terrible call when there clearly is other tools to punish the team. Just went with the easy way, so VHL can sweep it under the carpet without having to look back.

 

 

 

[jRuutu 2,464]

1 hour ago, Eudaldkp said:

Bruh I love Beaviss and I've talked with him about this in the Discord, he perfectly understands he's in the wrong here and no one is piling on him. In fact it's only Arthur (and Bush but he's just throwing salt in the wound) shitting on him.

It's just a sim league, but there needs to be rules too. The point of the league is having fun, and there needs to be some regulation. If there is a rule that 6 teams follow but the other 2 teams don't, there needs to be some sort of punishment for the teams that don't follow it or else it would be unfair. It's pretty simple.

Of course there needs to be rules and I´m not saying you need to let Beaviss walk for free or any other GM, but unreal to me how they think the right move was to play those missing backup games in the playoffs?

 

Super easily could have just said: Quebec plays 14 games with backup next season and that would have been that. (Double the missed games + normal eight). Would anybody cared? Would anybody said: Woah woah, what about the bot backup G, he earned his right to play 8 games in the season, put him in on the playoffs

 

The point is absolutely to have fun and that is why we are here, now league prevented a innocent user from having fun and behind that, others in the team are watching with their mouths open and asking: What if? Two players are retiring, they will not get a second chance to play in the playoffs, ever again.

 

Is that the right way to punish a GM, try to make him look like a piece of something in front of the team by jumping on top of him: Now you will learn, now you will learn when there are other tools to punish the GM.

 

 

 

 

[Advantage 2,891]

Man you guys sitting here saying they are punishing one player when he also got to start more games in the regular season...you know the main criteria they look at for Hall of Fame and such.

[Advantage 2,891]

6 minutes ago, jRuutu said:

Of course there needs to be rules and I´m not saying you need to let Beaviss walk for free or any other GM, but unreal to me how they think the right move was to play those missing backup games in the playoffs?

 

Super easily could have just said: Quebec plays 14 games with backup next season and that would have been that. (Double the missed games + normal eight). Would anybody cared? Would anybody said: Woah woah, what about the bot backup G, he earned his right to play 8 games in the season, put him in on the playoffs

 

The point is absolutely to have fun and that is why we are here, now league prevented a innocent user from having fun and behind that, others in the team are watching with their mouths open and asking: What if? Two players are retiring, they will not get a second chance to play in the playoffs, ever again.

 

Is that the right way to punish a GM, try to make him look like a piece of something in front of the team by jumping on top of him: Now you will learn, now you will learn when there are other tools to punish the GM.

 

 

 

 

So what your saying is we shouldn’t punish teams in years where they can compete cause that isn’t fun for said teams who broke the rules?

[Beketov 9,026]

1 minute ago, jRuutu said:

1. For example yea, little update/reminder post week or two or whatever before season ends wound be ok.  Not maybe micromanaging, but looking over your own product and making sure that in the playoffs we see the best players available is something everybody who run the show should do, not just the GMs.

 

2. That is the GM´s right though? To use whatever goalie and build the team in whatever way? Also, by the sound of it - why the need to even have active backups when bot G does the job just fine   Why would any GM now spend few mills on backup when they saw what brave bot did for Quebec?

 

3. The punishment for playoffs hurt Quebec too much. How can you say Quebec is not a rebuilding team, have you seen what the defense looks like for example? Two guys retiring, why not a pick penalty?  Why not put a TPE penalty on the GM? Why not suspend the GM player for three games?

 

Maybe you guys did not think these rules over that well? If you think whatever you dish out will be just accepted meanwhile you can say that it´s on the rules and how everybody had the chance to read them. Maybe nobody said anything, because there is no way to know for sure what you will give as a punishment? Clearly don´t look too much into the future if the league thinks the proper punishment for this ´break of rules´ was to force Quebec play 3 games with a backup on playoffs. PLAYOFFS!

 

How anybody can justify benching a active goalie over a bot and in the playoffs - terrible call when there clearly is other tools to punish the team. Just went with the easy way, so VHL can sweep it under the carpet without having to look back.

 

 

 

I’m fine having that added to the trade deadline. Honestly though all the other GM’s has no problem keeping track (Quik’s mistake came from a slip up in his last sent lines) and even Beaviss. Came from miss-reading stats. However it’s not hard to add. Like I said, they should be keeping track but it’s easy enough to add to the post as a reminder.

 

Come from the guy who loves depth it’s amazing to me that you’d say teams shouldn’t have active players but I digress. There are cap clauses in that make backups cheaper and an active backup will basically always play better than a CPU. Had Quebec had one maybe this wouldn’t have even been as big a deal. If a GM wants to risk their backup games by having a CPU instead of rewarding an active member that’s their choice but that doesn’t mean we will give them extra incentive to do it.

 

Punishing the team is punishing the GM. Punishing Beaviss’ players would result in a punishment for his other team when they did nothing wrong and it violates the whole point of GM and player being separate entities. The Louth’s shouldn’t be punished because of a team made mistake by @Beaviss. As for why not a pick, it’s quite simple. Let’s say a team is in a close battle for the playoffs. They decide, “I don’t care about that pick, we’re gunning for it this season” and leave their starter in all season. Not only does that starter now have an unfair advantage stat wise but that team has an unfair advantage in regards to making the playoffs because they have a better player in for more of the season. Now a team that might have made the playoffs is out because they followed the rules and their opponent didn’t. The fairest method is to punish the team that broke the rules in order to make the playoffs during those playoffs. 

 

And yes, these rules were thought over (and fought over) for a long time. Anyone from the BOG can tell you that, we spent ages going over them to try and find a black and white way we could write it but ultimately there’s is no singular punishment that works in every situation which is why we left it open. For the most part it will fall to “if you make the playoffs, playoff starts will be taken. If you don’t, draft picks” but there is wiggle room as their needs to be with anything that can vary so wildly. I’m not saying everyone needs to accept it but calling out the league for being on a power trip because we followed through on punishment as we said we would is going a little far.

 

I get the disappointment but ultimately the rules were broken and Quebec needed to pay for it, end of story. It’s lovely to say the best players should play in the playoffs but that does t always get to be the case. In the NHL if you get suspended in the last game of the season and you’re the team’s leading scorer do they just decide you get to play in the playoffs? No. You broke the rules, you pay the penalty. We didn’t hide these rules and arbitrarily decide to implement them only after they were broken. It’s always been a rule for 64 seasons and it’s been known all season that there would be punishments for it.

[Beketov 9,026]

8 minutes ago, jRuutu said:

Super easily could have just said: Quebec plays 14 games with backup next season and that would have been that. (Double the missed games + normal eight). Would anybody cared? Would anybody said: Woah woah, what about the bot backup G, he earned his right to play 8 games in the season, put him in on the playoffs

Please see my above note.

 

Anything that involves a playoff team getting punished the next season opens the door for people to abuse the rules in order to gain an advantage. Yes, in this season Quebec was not close to missing the playoffs but that doesn’t mean a team never will be. If we just said this was the rule and a team was in a close playoff battle I guarantee you’d see them leave the starter in and deal with the consequences later when things aren’t as tight. At that point you could easily have an entire team that followed the rules missing the playoffs because their opponent chose not to follow the rules. That isn’t fair, plain and simple. No team should be potentially rewarded for breaking the rules.

[Beketov 9,026]

6 minutes ago, Advantage said:

Man you guys sitting here saying they are punishing one player when he also got to start more games in the regular season...you know the main criteria they look at for Hall of Fame and such.

I’m still mad Moon is listed in the record books as tying me at 20 SO in a season (2nd all time) when he got a SO in his 65th game.

[jRuutu 2,464]

10 minutes ago, Advantage said:

So what your saying is we shouldn’t punish teams in years where they can compete cause that isn’t fun for said teams who broke the rules?

But still the option to punish teams who are ´rebuilding´ is there with cap or pick penalty?

[Beketov 9,026]

Just now, jRuutu said:

But still the option to punish teams who are ´rebuilding´ is there with cap or pick penalty?

Well we can’t punish a team that didn’t make the playoffs with playoff starts but we also can’t let them break the rules without punishment while others would be punished. So yes, an option needs to be there. Arguably for a team that’s rebuilding and not making the playoffs a draft pick is worth more than a playoff game they won’t play so that’s fair punishment.