Team Roster Page Question

[Derrick - Senators]

andrew1125 said:

admin said:

If it isnt an issue it isnt a issue. It is what it is. A reminder. Stop nitpicking at every minute detail trying to start trouble.

There should be a better system. "If it isn't an issue, it isn't an issue" is a bad philosophy. Personal things can come up and in some circumstances you can't reach a computer, so players like Crosby etc. being dropped because of that would be a huge issue. Maybe it was a just a fun way to mess with Nos, but you couldn't actually go through with it. Dropping the last player drafted is a better way to work things. Me losing Arnott and Cloutier (which I don't intend to do obviously) would not be as devastating as Nos losing his top three players.

seriously, who is going to be "away from the computer" for over a month? if they are, its best they not be in the league in the first place.

obviously cloutier and arnott arent comparable to crosby and luongo...but what was i supposed to do? Nose's team is sooooooooooooo awesome. I had to pick someone.


Anyway, "if it isnt an issue, it isnt an issue" were not my words directly. i was paraphrasing brad who stated "it shouldnt be an issue BUT...." which he followed up with "...there needs to be a better system." basically i was stating there wasnt the need for a qualifier if it truely wasnt a problem as he was claiming. I cant stand those who try to straddle the line and play both sides of the ball. state your opinion and stand by it.

as far as the "method" in which this should be dealt with is non-existent. "last drafted" "me picking" whatever. Its not in the rulebook and it shouldnt ever be. It is silly to start the poll, vote for however long that drags on for, and then write up an entirely new section in the rulebook for something that should be common sense, easily understood, and even easier to correct.

[Andrew]

It's pretty safe to say that no one will be away from the computer for over a month, but anyone over the roster limit is going to leave their team over that limit for as long as they can, presumably to watch how things play out in training camp/preseason, etc. I wouldn't plan on making my cuts until the free agent signing date, or maybe even later.

Careful with your paraphrasing by the way. "Shouldn't be an issue" and "isn't an issue" are two very different sentences. Brad, like the rest of us, just assumed you were highlighting players so they could be dropped first should this become an issue. Apparently that's not why they were highlighted (which wasn't clearly stated in your initial post) but now that that's cleared up, it's a dead issue.

[patriot0103]

admin said:

Since you seem to have trouble comprehending I'll spell it out for you.

IT IS NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY TO MANAGE YOUR TEAM, JUST AS IT IS NOT MY DUTY TO "BABYSIT" AND CONSTANTLY REMIND YOU OF THE RULES AND/OR VIOLATIONS.

If a manager chooses to ignore or fails to adhere to the rules and regulations placed before them, then THEY ARE CHOOSING to forfeit their managerial right(s) for the matter at hand. As commissioner, by default, it then becomes my responsibility.

I am not forcing any player to be dropped from any team's roster, nor am I making it impossible for the problem to be solved.

As I said, the red highlighting is just a REMINDER. R-E-M-I-N-D-E-R. Who cares why I have certain players highlighted on certain teams? Really it's none of your business. Be it because they were selected randomly, they were the last players drafted, or I just flat out don't like them. It doesnt matter. Its only an issue because youre making it one. Just as easily as it would be to implement an "objective method," it is something that can be dealt with even easier. "The manager drops/trades/sends down player x to meet roster requirements." end of story.

I agree that if you're gone for a month, then you lose managerial rights... fine, however just because it becomes your responsibility as commish doesn't give you the right to treat it in a bias way depending on the team. You can say it's a R-E-M-I-N-D-E-R...but when you say...(and I quote)...

admin said:

If a team forgets or fails to meet roster requirements by the "final roster submission" deadline, this/these will be the players forfeited by default in order for said team to remain within roster limitations.

OBVIOUSLY it's avoidable by making moves when you should. Any violations is avoidable, but regardless it is still unfair that it's stars for some teams and almost worthless minor leaguers for others. ..and it shouldn't be. When there's a rule in place where "players can be forfeited", there should be a way to determine which one.

[Derrick - Senators]

In the event that the very unlikely should ever happen, just as any other rule, a poll will be started and a solution will be voted upon. I'm sure the voice of the league will speak and resolve it accordingly.

This is not an arbitrary situation. Since there isnt a concrete rule, how it should be handled is merely opinion until a poll or a league wide agreement is reached. Unfortunately i dont ever see this happening because it will not be an issue. Therefore, if i want to say a manager loses their whole team and has to compose and entirely new one of free agents, so be it. There are very few things I have SOLE discretion over.

[Hawks]

It would have been much easier, as opposed to getting an attitude if you had just stated that in the beginning. Myself, and most if not all of the other managers assumed that the players highlited in red were the ones to be dropped in the occasion that a manager failed to meet the roster requirements. Noone is nitpicking or trying to make your life difficult, it was just an honest question/concern.