Create Structure and Transparency with GM/AGM Candidates

[Baozi 1,658]

(First off, I'd like to thank @rjfryman for helping to talk to me about this topic, I think a lot of this system comes from his discussions with me so I'd like to ensure that credit goes where credit is due. It is mostly his idea and I really just got this from him with my own current reasoning for it.) 

 

 

Hello,

 

I would like to propose a running list of a pool of GM candidates and the required qualifications associated with being in the pool. This pool would also apply to AGMs as well. 

 

The reasoning behind this would be to establish a public list and view of the users that are qualified for GM jobs based on them meeting minimum requirements (experience as AGM, length in league, external experience etc...) for transparency reasons. Once this pool is established, any person from this list can respond to a GM post hire and Blue/BOG is aware that a person on this list is qualified for the job. This also means that hires from outside the pool will be not possible barring extreme circumstances (along with sufficient explanation). In my mind this would alleviate the problems of favoritism in the selection process. OBviously establishment of the pool would not be the only reason for hire, as other internal factors should be considered, but at the very least people can see where they stand in terms of other qualified candidates.

 

I also would extend this to AGMing as well. Currently AGMs may be hired by the GM of teams without much due process. I propose that AGMs must also meet certain minimum requirements before being qualified to the AGM list, at which point then GMs can hire them at their discretion. 

 

To further this, all those AGMs that currently work in their teams would also be recognized as having "official gm training" and we could make this a mandatory step in qualification for the GM pool.

 

In part of my discussion with several members, which I'll let them tag themselves for credit if they choose to, this is the conclusion I arrived at in order to maintain a more transparent hiring atmosphere. 

 

The structure of this idea is not fully fleshed out yet so I do invite other input into this but I believe this would be a good thing to go towards.

Edited June 13, 2020 by tfong

[rory 1,916]

Imo there shouldn't be any requirements to be in the pool. If people want to be there, list their qualifications (or lack of) and put them on. Then let the blues/bogs/gms decide

[Advantage 2,891]

Yes and while we are at it.  Restore discussion of said candidates in BOG or remove it altogether.

 

No point in having a Board of Governors if you won't trust them.

[Da_Berr 219]

2 minutes ago, Advantage said:

Yes and while we are at it.  Restore discussion of said candidates in BOG or remove it altogether.

 

No point in having a Board of Governors if you won't trust them.

If BOG stays, you could honestly create a discord room where only BOG can write but everyone can see the convos, so they know whats going on and the reasoning.

[Motzaburger 1,590]

I think this is a step in the right direction, however, open applications are transparent with the community. The pool for each position could be made from a open GM application (with replies disabled - send PMs to apply) and those who don't apply, don't get considered. Those who apply are pooled for the spot(s).

 

8 minutes ago, Advantage said:

Yes and while we are at it.  Restore discussion of said candidates in BOG or remove it altogether.

 

No point in having a Board of Governors if you won't trust them.

And if we're not using BoG this is highly problematic. They are literally there to make sure silly/poor/unfavourable decisions aren't made for the COMMUNITY. 

 

The whole purpose of the VHL is a community. As members, we trust leadership and we hope they do what is in the general interest. As leaders, you must listen to your community. It's reciprocal. BoG is there to make sure it is not a dictatorship from top down. They bridge the gap and represent the community. Use the BoG.

 

Also, involve community in decisions. Surprises are good sometimes, but not all the time. Big changes should involve input and voice from a lot of people (or at least make it feel that way so there isn't mutinies against the leadership). Leaders put in time to make this place better, but so do members. It's give and take. It you lose that, you lose this whole thing. 

 

Lots of learning to take away from recent discussions. There is a lot of room to grow and make VHL better. 

 

Edited June 13, 2020 by Motzaburger
sorry I am sleepy

[Gustav 6,407]

2 minutes ago, Motzaburger said:

Also, involve community in decisions.

 

How so? 

[Baozi 1,658]

19 minutes ago, rory said:

Imo there shouldn't be any requirements to be in the pool. If people want to be there, list their qualifications (or lack of) and put them on. Then let the blues/bogs/gms decide

 

The minimum requirements I'd say would be things like

 

Haven't been banned or have a serious infraction in X months.

Has been in the league for X seasons

Has AGM experience of X seasons.

 

Stuff like that we could easily screen out. Also it gives people a goal to reach so that they can be "qualified" instead of tryying to figure out what commishes want.

[Motzaburger 1,590]

3 minutes ago, GustavMattias said:

 

How so? 

A recent events example could be: "The VHL is thinking of expanding and we'd like to hear your ideas for locations and what the logos should be!"

 

Or: "We've narrowed down a possible expansion for the VHL, here are the top 10 cities we've picked. Let's have a vote and see which the community likes best!"

 

Legit don't even have to listen and read all peoples comments, but at least make the effort to let people have their voices heard when it comes to big league decisions. You never know what members can come up with. Obviously this wouldn't exclusive to expansion nor every decision, but when they are big decisions, when you know lots of people will have opinions, don't hide from BoG, and leave it up to a small small number of people who think they know best without asking outwards. Give the community a voice. Don't be a dictatorship. 

[Gustav 6,407]

Just now, Motzaburger said:

A recent events example could be: "The VHL is thinking of expanding and we'd like to hear your ideas for locations and what the logos should be!"

 

Or: "We've narrowed down a possible expansion for the VHL, here are the top 10 cities we've picked. Let's have a vote and see which the community likes best!"

 

Legit don't even have to listen and read all peoples comments, but at least make the effort to let people have their voices heard when it comes to big league decisions. You never know what members can come up with. Obviously this wouldn't exclusive to expansion nor every decision, but when they are big decisions, when you know lots of people will have opinions, don't hide from BoG, and leave it up to a small small number of people who think they know best without asking outwards. Give the community a voice. Don't be a dictatorship. 

 

Good to read this. I've seen some of these types of threads basically devolve into "let the community make all the decisions" but I do agree with this sentiment. EFL did basically this and I'd say it was a success. 

 

With that being said, I do think that the decisions made in this case ultimately were fine, but can definitely understand the need for outside input in the future.

[Beketov 9,025]

3 hours ago, Motzaburger said:

A recent events example could be: "The VHL is thinking of expanding and we'd like to hear your ideas for locations and what the logos should be!"

 

Or: "We've narrowed down a possible expansion for the VHL, here are the top 10 cities we've picked. Let's have a vote and see which the community likes best!"

Congratulations, you just killed all the hype for the largest expansion the league has ever seen by telling everyone it’s coming. That announcement got people way more excited than any of the other expansions because it wasn’t leaked in advance like every other time. I’m fine saying there’s a possibility that we should have some general community pools without giving specifics (aka just an open “where should teams be” lost that isn’t specifying anything will necessarily happen) but it’s boring if everyone knows everything all the time.

 

3 hours ago, Advantage said:

Yes and while we are at it.  Restore discussion of said candidates in BOG or remove it altogether.

 

No point in having a Board of Governors if you won't trust them.

Our intention has never been to cut you guys out. Having a turnover rate as high as we have and changeovers in the middle of the season unfortunately means we can’t take a week of discussing the merits of everyone while a team, or worse a VHLM team, sits without someone at the helm.
 

We’ve already committed ourselves to being better in both regards though. Open applications more and use the BoG more. We’ve been iffy on both lately. At least personally I think the staff channel we made on discord helped to make this worse. I don’t know about anyone else but personally I forgot BOG weren’t in there. Wasn’t necessarily trying to hide just forgot who couldn’t see it.

[Victor 10,940]

5 hours ago, Advantage said:

Yes and while we are at it.  Restore discussion of said candidates in BOG or remove it altogether.

 

No point in having a Board of Governors if you won't trust them.

How many GMs has the BOG picked in its history?

[Tagger 2,722]

52 minutes ago, Victor said:

How many GMs has the BOG picked in its history?

From the time I remember in the BOG, a sizable percentage of GM changes in which the previous GM did not name a successor (which wasn't many, but is the most relatable to this subject as both those and expansion GMs are instances where there were vacancies that the league had to decide a candidate for) were discussed in the BOG. Ones that come to mind are when Bushito was leaving the Bears (both times, when it was originally going to be myself and then when it went to Mike a season two seasons later), Ahma taking charge of Davos and Bushito taking charge of Stockholm. 

 

 

[Beketov 9,025]

4 minutes ago, Tagger said:

From the time I remember in the BOG, a sizable percentage of GM changes in which the previous GM did not name a successor (which wasn't many, but is the most relatable to this subject as both those and expansion GMs are instances where there were vacancies that the league had to decide a candidate for) were discussed in the BOG. Ones that come to mind are when Bushito was leaving the Bears (both times, when it was originally going to be myself and then when it went to Mike a season two seasons later), Ahma taking charge of Davos and Bushito taking charge of Stockholm. 

 

 

All of which were off-season changes that we knew were coming if I recall. That’s the trickiness. It’s easy to discuss when we have time but when someone up and leaves in the middle of a season there isn’t a ton of time to discuss their successor.

 

In the case of expansion we probably could have been more open about it. We wanted to get going quickly mind you because we wanted the GM’s to have a say in their teams and logos take a long time to sort out.

[bigAL 2,176]

Love this. I think one way to solve some of the turnover messiness we’ve seen this season is to have the GM/AGM pool open for application once a season, either at the end or at the trade deadline or someone. The pool gives everyone who is interested in management a chance to express their desire at once, without getting their hopes up for a job immediately and quitting from frustration. Blues can vet as necessary at the time. When a job posting comes up, it can still be advertised and applied to, if there’s a concern that not every person would want every job, or blues/commish/BOG can appoint from the list as needed. 
 

As an added bonus, this pool will serve as a great skills inventory for the VHL. All our leaders, current and potential, will be evaluated and organized based on skills and experience. This info will help us better understand what our leadership capacity is, and can inform decisions about planning for the future. 
 

Very cool idea. 

[Rayzor_7 741]

Few things

1. GM pool sure. But the requirements of a GM are not really known.

2. AGM pool hard no, at least in the M.

3. If we want qualification for GM pool, make it a requirement to have managed the M not to have been an AGM.

[Tagger 2,722]

7 minutes ago, Beketov said:

All of which were off-season changes that we knew were coming if I recall. That’s the trickiness. It’s easy to discuss when we have time but when someone up and leaves in the middle of a season there isn’t a ton of time to discuss their successor.

 

In the case of expansion we probably could have been more open about it. We wanted to get going quickly mind you because we wanted the GM’s to have a say in their teams and logos take a long time to sort out.

The first sentence isn't entirely correct, Bushito taking over Stockholm was a known thing but the other two were responses to having/attempting to fire the previous GMs for inactivity following the off-season. That being said, this was during an era where no-one wanted to GM (only believe there was a max of 2 candidate per job), so the BOG discussions would have been a lot quicker. 

 

I wasn't using that statement to make any judgement on the way the league handled this particular situation, just answering Victor's question based on my own experience. 

[Advantage 2,891]

3 hours ago, Victor said:

How many GMs has the BOG picked in its history?

Just on recent memory I know we discussed the one mentioned above, Gustav taking Davos and Frost taking Malmo.  Me taking Cologne.  People were asked what they thought about me as GM of Malmo (Blue led the charge on that one otherwise) but not sure before cause its been a while and I dont feel like going through it.

 

Regardless of whether it is done I was told by an admin they dont want to discuss important stuff now because no one trusts the BOG so if that's the case just get rid of it and run without it.  Otherwise the blue team saying "Hey guys these five or six guys seem like good candidates anyone have any issues with them or is there someone we aren't thinking about" is not exactly hard to do.

Edited June 13, 2020 by Advantage

[frescoelmo 1,276]

How transparent does everything have to be in this league? Not picking sides, just interested to hear why or why not. One of the strongest parts of this league (imo) has been it's management and part of that is passed down to who is selected as general managers. I think transparency in the hiring process gives the potential to mutinize that, while not really offering any real benefits. 

[Victor 10,940]

1 minute ago, Advantage said:

I was told by an admin

you were told by Beaviss, I wouldn't treat that as gospel.

 

The last few expansion details have been decided by GM + blue team for several expansions now, I'm slightly confused why this one is causing more consternation. I do think there was a misstep in narrowing that conversation to just the 3 commishes and GM this time around - 20 opinions may be too many but 4 per team is too few imo, but that's done now. Either way, the issue seems to be with a few individual choices made, not with the whole relationship between blue team and BOG so let's not make this something bigger than it is.

[Beketov 9,025]

21 minutes ago, Advantage said:

Regardless of whether it is done I was told by an admin they dont want to discuss important stuff now because no one trusts the BOG so if that's the case just get rid of it and run without it.

I can’t speak for everything but I know Beaviss has been very worried lately about how much was leaking out of the BOG in recent seasons. I’m not saying it justifies every decision but that’s what he meant by lack of trust. Something this large didn’t leak out which is obviously a good sign.

[Advantage 2,891]

57 minutes ago, Victor said:

you were told by Beaviss, I wouldn't treat that as gospel.

 

The last few expansion details have been decided by GM + blue team for several expansions now, I'm slightly confused why this one is causing more consternation. I do think there was a misstep in narrowing that conversation to just the 3 commishes and GM this time around - 20 opinions may be too many but 4 per team is too few imo, but that's done now. Either way, the issue seems to be with a few individual choices made, not with the whole relationship between blue team and BOG so let's not make this something bigger than it is.

I treat it as a blue member telling me unless I should be trusting some less than others.

 

It was more the statement of the reason BOG doesn't get talked to anymore is cause they aren't to be trusted.

 

I just dont see the point of us if we aren't used on bigger issues or not.  Leaking or not, its not generally good for the league when we can instead have more eyes on an issue.  Who leaked? I have no idea but what I do know is no leak happened in this expansion and we were told over a month ago...so perhaps that person is no longer around..I'm not sure.

 

Just my opinion though.

[Advantage 2,891]

52 minutes ago, Beketov said:

I can’t speak for everything but I know Beaviss has been very worried lately about how much was leaking out of the BOG in recent seasons. I’m not saying it justifies every decision but that’s what he meant by lack of trust. Something this large didn’t leak out which is obviously a good sign.

Yes I agree and understand the concern.

 

Its just a weird statement to hear from a commish regarding a group that is put together to help the blues make important decisions.

[Doomsday 4,130]

If requirements are being placed on GM/AGMs, I'd like to see the WJC become a league-sanctioned proving ground for candidates to get experience. Make it so members that are, "qualified," cannot apply or receive a WJC GM position, only those who are seeking the experience. 

 

I personally don't like having requirements for an AGM... it's been described by multiple league officials as an internship to get the experience to learn how to be a GM. Why would the league want to prevent people from getting that experience?

[Gustav 6,407]

13 minutes ago, Advantage said:

perhaps that person is no longer around

 

Definitive PROOF that it was @Renomitsu

[Victor 10,940]

15 minutes ago, Advantage said:

I treat it as a blue member telling me unless I should be trusting some less than others.

You can't possibly take every single comment made by a blue as the official position of everyone blue, that's ludicrous. Shall I start assuming that what every BOG member says on Discord on Friday night is every other BOG member's opinion?

 

18 minutes ago, Advantage said:

It was more the statement of the reason BOG doesn't get talked to anymore is cause they aren't to be trusted.

 

This is why I brought up expansion - apart from expansion has there been something that caught you unaware? Did expansion catch you unaware? What exactly are you unhappy with other than Beav making off the cuff remarks?