|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Mar 19, 2017 9:34:12 GMT -5
This is fun. Out of all the hypocrisy and all the flat out lies you have been spreading you FINALLY managed to come up with something that was true. You are right. I did add rules on my own, but allowed the league to do a full audit before the rule book was implemented. And do you know the results of those changes? A steady increase in parity every single year culminating in the league standings you see today. What hypocrisy? You keep saying this bullshit but where is it exactly? Flat out lies? Like what? Every single thing I've said is 100% correct, you're delusional. There it is, you admit to illegally adding rules without proper, and agreed upon, approval. Full audit? You mean all of my work that was shrugged off and everybody else remaining virtually quiet? Gotcha. You didn't even have the good sense to change grammatically incorrect sentences, alright? Steady increase in parity? The trade market has been killed by no keeper slot trading. You don't get that it actually adds value a lower placed team doesn't have access to otherwise. My team is leaps and bounds ahead of any other team and I've dealt with severely detrimental injuries to several key players. Had my team been as healthy as everybody else's I would be much further ahead instead of the already whopping 33 points ahead of the next 'best' team. The thing is, the rule book wasn’t authored by a third party so there is very little need to discuss “intent.” I wrote the rule, I know what the intent was. I hated the rule then and I hate it now. I predicted this would happen. However, the difference between you and I is that I am consistent in my opinion (even at my own detriment) and don’t constantly change my argument to serve my own selfish needs. I will say it then as I say it now. The current rule is poison to the league, and retroactive amendments to rules should be avoided at all costs. When have I ever changed my mind? Just because you keep saying it doesn't actually make it true, you know? Why is reasoning a difficult concept for you? Do you not get that the Robyn situation had confusion tied to it? Robyn didn't even 'forget' or make a 'mistake', he was going by the 'Games Started' column rather than the 'Games Played' column for goalies. Do you get that? You are the guy who put that rule into the rulebook, alright? You can say you hate the rule, it's poison to the league, etc. You put that poison into the league. You added unnecessary stipulations to the poll, really an illegal event itself, effectively throwing a hissy fit through my eyes. It's actually comical you shy away from the meat of my vote, here it is again, to really be clear. I don't find these added stipulations to each side to be important to this vote. I don't agree wholly with either. I don't think there should be leniency in every instance, but since this had to do with goalies and the ambiguity in the rules behind 'experience' I felt it could be given the benefit of the doubt. The rules should be amended. Robyn's intentions were made clear.'The rules should be amended.' was in reference to the wording for goalies, changed from 'Experience' to 'Games Played'. This is a joke and entirely false. "My" rule book did not allow for this nonsense we are dealing with today. The league voted Calgary owned the rights to Steve Mason and allowed Robyn to reverse a minor league transaction setting precedence. In order to maintain consistency with that precedence the current rule you see in the book was added. And according to that precedence, Toronto should maintain the rights to Reinhart. If the league would like to change the rule, IT should be voted on in it's entirety, not as a single incident attempting to retroactively apply it. I've explained the Robyn situation really clearly at least four or five times now so see it for what it is or don't and that's fine, he can keep him. Just know that you don't get do overs in life and to accept this kind of help dishonors yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Capitals on Mar 19, 2017 12:13:27 GMT -5
If we're going by the book then Toronto retains Reinhart. This rule needs to be amended in the offseason
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyler - Jets on Mar 19, 2017 18:46:11 GMT -5
We're still missing 4 votes this could go 6-6 then Reinhart stays a Leaf anyway and we still vote on removing that amended rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Mar 19, 2017 20:28:23 GMT -5
Like I've already said, this isn't a thread to change a rule, this thread was a waste of time. My advice to the rest of the league is this, take some initiative. I'm done having my neck stepped on by inferior minds solo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Mar 19, 2017 23:36:16 GMT -5
What hypocrisy? You keep saying this bullshit but where is it exactly? When have I ever changed my mind? I am not sure if you are just blind or are just conveniently choosing to overlook the post (complete with screenshot) of your contradictory quotes. But let me reiterate. On Mar 17, 2017 9:10:19 in a thread arguing FOR your own cause you said, "I did not vote to implement this farce of a rule in the first place." On Feb 9, 2010 3:51:11 in a thread discussing the same rule, arguing AGAINST someone else you said, "I'm voting Calgary." I even uploaded a screenshot physically showing you cast a vote WITH the 'added stipulations I attached prior to you casting your vote. On Feb 9, 2010 3:51:11 you argued for leniency and parity AGAINST an opposing GM pretending to know what Robyn was thinking, stating, "Robyn's intentions were made clear. It only helps the league and its competitiveness if the Calgary franchise keeps Mason." On Mar 14, 2017 8:41:20 you then claimed in a thread arguing FOR your own cause, to know what Scott was thinking this time arguing against leniency and parity when you said, "I don't buy you not knowing what you were doing. If true that's even more embarrassing. Was your fault. Learn, don't bitch and pass blame, at least act like a man." On Mar 13, 2017 16:30:37 you argued in a thread FOR your own cause in support of the rule book when you said, "This is the most impressive and clear fantasy rulebook of all time." On Mar 17, 2017 9:10:19 you then attacked the same rule book defending your cause stating, "You asked for input too, you didn't actually want input, you didn't change a thing. You didn't even change grammatically incorrect sentences like, 'B) Only Prospects with 10 or less NHL games played (not from the current year’s draft class) may be drafted.' littered throughout the rulebook that I pointed out." What you don't seem to realize is that you are not the commissioner. Nor are you the other 10 GM's in the league. You don't get to determine how a poll reads or what is voted on. The poll was there with the stipulations attached PRIOR to you voting. If you didn't like them you didn't have to vote the way you did. But you did anyway, because you didn't want me to have Steve Mason. But then when the shoe is on the other foot, you completely change course and argue the exact opposite when you and your team are involved. Why is reasoning a difficult concept for you? Do you not get that the Robyn situation had confusion tied to it? Robyn didn't even 'forget' or make a 'mistake', he was going by the 'Games Started' column rather than the 'Games Played' column for goalies. Do you get that? It DOESN'T MATTER what YOU think is a justified reason and what isn't. The fact is that an excuse is an excuse and we must treat them equally. Just because Robyn finds a more believable loophole (in your opinion) than Scott doesn't change the circumstances. They were both "illegal" moves. Both GM's claimed they made mistakes. Robyn was awarded his player back (precedent set). Scott should be afforded the same luxury since both are instances of hearsay. The ONLY difference between the two is that you didn't want me to have Mason and you want Reinhart for yourself. You are the guy who put that rule into the rulebook, alright? You can say you hate the rule, it's poison to the league, etc. You put that poison into the league. You added unnecessary stipulations to the poll, really an illegal event itself, effectively throwing a hissy fit through my eyes. It's actually comical you shy away from the meat of my vote, here it is again, to really be clear. Again, I know this is a difficult concept to understand but I actually put the league before my own interests. Yes. I hate this rule. I hated it then and I hate it now. But in order to remain CONSISTENT (albeit a terrible rule) the addition of the rule to the rule book was necessary. So despite my disdain and against my better judgement, it was added because that is how the league voted in a thread where the implications were explicitly stated no matter how you try to toe the line or claim otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Mar 19, 2017 23:40:53 GMT -5
Had my team been as healthy as everybody else's I would be much further ahead instead of the already whopping 33 points ahead of the next 'best' team. Right. Conveniently forgetting that Granlund has 65 points (more than Stamkos had all of last year) and Backlund has 50 points. Points I assume you think you would be getting in addition to Stamkos' and Letang's because you have 21 roster spots on your team I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Mar 20, 2017 1:28:35 GMT -5
Blah, blah, blah, same crap you've been spewing without listening to reason. Why do you think that's the precedent that should be set anyway? Don't you think a more accurate and logical action would be to amend the poor wording in the rulebook that leaves goalie 'experience' ambiguous? Like I've said a thousand times before, you added stipulations to influence the vote because of sour grapes. You sit there and constantly tell me that I can't tell you what your intentions are/were yet you do the same exact thing to me, saying the reason I voted was because I didn't want you to have Steve Mason. That is false, you can't tell me why I voted the way I did, I've told you my reason for voting, back then and right now. It's been clear as day. Talk about hypocrisy.
You act like those are the players I would drop for their production, far from it, one of those players will be kept. Stamkos and Letang put up elite production, losing them hurts no matter what. Losing Quick for most of the year hurts, injures to Barkov, Hall, Parise, Nash and Allen hurts. You bitched about minimal injury impact on your team to me, boasting that you'd be better when you were healthy. You've been healthy for weeks, a lot healthier than my team's been and yet you're winless in 5 straight weeks heading into the playoffs. You just lost to your upcoming playoff opponent, and you will be bounced in the first round. My team is unbeaten in 10 straight weeks heading into the playoffs.
Stay in your place and don't step to real muthafuckin' G's!
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Mar 20, 2017 2:05:05 GMT -5
Blah, blah, blah, same crap you've been spewing without listening to reason. Why do you think that's the precedent that should be set anyway? Don't you think a more accurate and logical action would be to amend the poor wording in the rulebook that leaves goalie 'experience' ambiguous? YES! I think I should have been awarded Mason and then the rule amended in the off season. INSTEAD, the league voted to disregard the then current rule book and "retroactively" award Robyn with Mason. The same way that I am now arguing that under the current rule book, Scott should be awarded Reinhart (because of an ignorant rule) and the (now a problem) rule should be amended during the off season. I don't think that is the precedent that should have been set, but that is what the league said it wanted to do so I wrote it up as such. You can complain about me "adding stipulations" all you want but all I did was literally translate league action into written word. There was an "ambiguous rule" (that every single other GM seemed to understand except Robyn) that existed in the rule book that was used as a loophole, undermining the rule book and retroactively awarding a GM a player. You seem to want your cake and eat it too. There is no way a league could allow its rule book, ambiguous or not, to be amended and retroactively applied without damaging the integrity of the league and setting up for future problematic scenarios (such as the one we are dealing with now) without including these 'stipulations' you speak of. Savvy GM's would comb through the rule book and look for ANY ambiguity to take advantage of knowing a league vote could at any time supersede the rule book. With a strict set of black and white rules, this is not a possibility. *See Above* At the end of the day it's all hearsay. His word vs. His word. Your word against mine. The difference is that I have a lot more verifiable evidence (most provided by you on the forum) supporting my claims about your character/intention whereas you can't produce any, because it doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Mar 20, 2017 2:29:40 GMT -5
You just lost to your upcoming playoff opponent. Do you just randomly make up things or what? This is again, not true at all. Blind AND dyslexic. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Mar 20, 2017 8:01:01 GMT -5
What 'verifiable evidence' is that exactly? You've produced dick. A bunch of garbage you see a certain way and refuse to listen and use reason. I literally just produced evidence of your hypocrisy in my last post and it's the fact you're telling me why I voted the way that I did when you cried before saying I did the same to you and that I couldn't do it. That is evidence. You just lost to your upcoming playoff opponent. Do you just randomly make up things or what? This is again, not true at all. Blind AND dyslexic. Woah! That is like, majorly compassionate of you Commish. Probably worse than saying retard.  Funny though. My bad, could have sworn it was swapped, I was looking at the Stat Tracker when I said that so it could have potentially not been finalized. So what though? You managed to squeak out a win by a single category vs. a first time in eleven years playoff berth team to improve your Last 5 record to 1-4 heading into the playoffs? Top quality, I was way off.  All animosity aside, I get your point of view, but don't you think your point of view is part of the old world rulebook? If a rule was retroactively changed back then wasn't precedent set for retroactive changes by your logic? Furthermore, if that rule and outcome was changed back then retroactively couldn't the reverse logically happen retroactively? I know we both want what's best for the league, we just disagree with what's best for this one issue. |
|
Mike
Second Liner
50%
Posts: 297 
|
Post by Mike on Mar 24, 2017 14:49:32 GMT -5
How are we still missing 2 votes?!?! This has been up for plenty of time
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Mar 25, 2017 6:38:04 GMT -5
How are we still missing 2 votes?!?! This has been up for plenty of time It really is unacceptable. But I think the general consensus is that Toronto will keep Reinhart and we will address the rule book and this rule specifically during the off season. |
|
Out of all the hypocrisy and all the flat out lies you have been spreading you FINALLY managed to come up with something that was true. You are right. I did add rules on my own, but allowed the league to do a full audit before the rule book was implemented. And do you know the results of those changes? A steady increase in parity every single year culminating in the league standings you see today.
Funny though. My bad, could have sworn it was swapped, I was looking at the Stat Tracker when I said that so it could have potentially not been finalized. So what though? You managed to squeak out a win by a single category vs. a first time in eleven years playoff berth team to improve your Last 5 record to 1-4 heading into the playoffs? Top quality, I was way off. 
So exciting.
You better make that pick or trade it! I'm excited to see if we can use up all the draft picks this year.