|
|
Post by Markus - Hurricanes on Mar 6, 2013 10:21:59 GMT -5
8/12 votes in a poll needed to reverse the decision should the league feel differently. Subsequently, a universal 2/3 or 8/12 votes will be applied to all league matters henceforth. Galchenyuk was returned to Boston against the precedent set last year: "No more warnings will be issued beyond this first one. Those teams found in subsequent violation will forfeit player/players to free agency and/or the upcoming waiver/entry draft."Now immediately after the decision made by Derrick several neutral GM's voiced concerns about the consequences of such decision to the league in the future. Thus the creation of this poll. |
|
|
|
Post by Tyler - Jets on Mar 6, 2013 10:34:33 GMT -5
This is getting ridiculous. I vote no more polls based on the same stuff. In some instances you need a commissioner to take charge. I agree with what Derrick has done in both the Bruins vs. Hurricanes and O'Reilly situations. We need to amend development team rules now and move forward. Enough is enough every team follow ALL the rules now and there should be no more hand holding. You make a mistake you live with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Mar 6, 2013 11:04:24 GMT -5
8/12 votes in a poll needed to reverse the decision should the league feel differently. Subsequently, a universal 2/3 or 8/12 votes will be applied to all league matters henceforth. Galchenyuk was returned to Boston against the precedent set last year: "No more warnings will be issued beyond this first one. Those teams found in subsequent violation will forfeit player/players to free agency and/or the upcoming waiver/entry draft." Now immediately after the decision made by Derrick several neutral GM's voiced concerns about the consequences of such decision to the league in the future. Thus the creation of this poll. It has been proven time and again that, in instances such as these, the league vote (and implementation of subsequent rules) is determined blindly, through evoked emotion, and without rationale, which ultimately proves to be detrimental to the league in the long run. The fact that this (and many other) controversies exist now is because the league voted against the logical approaches I have attempted to implement in the past. The league should be governed by foresight, not whimsical rules that are created to appease certain situations and/or certain individuals at the current time. I guess what I am trying to say is that the league is kind of like the U.S. Presidency. We preach democracy, freedom, diversity, and change, but fact of the matter is, these are all just buzz-words used to evoke emotion and nothing that results from the aforementioned is ever productive. If this decision is overturned, a "no-nonsense" approach must be taken with EVERY league related matter. All or nothing. And since it is IMPOSSIBLE to predict/account for every single problem that could occur in the future by inclusion of rules in a rulebook, an era of unprecedented technicality wars will be ushered in. GM's will find rule loopholes, words will be twisted around, players will be poached, polls will be started every other day, and a constant state of turmoil will exist, resulting in the degradation and ultimate down fall of the league. It is crucial that we preserve the precedence and the right to amend rules as discrepancies occur the first time (allowing a rule change to prevent future discrepancies of the same nature). Without this, our rulebook becomes static, one dimensional, and unable to be changed, a la the holy texts of religions. |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Mar 6, 2013 11:11:09 GMT -5
8/12 votes in a poll needed to reverse the decision should the league feel differently. Subsequently, a universal 2/3 or 8/12 votes will be applied to all league matters henceforth. Galchenyuk was returned to Boston against the precedent set last year: "No more warnings will be issued beyond this first one. Those teams found in subsequent violation will forfeit player/players to free agency and/or the upcoming waiver/entry draft." Now immediately after the decision made by Derrick several neutral GM's voiced concerns about the consequences of such decision to the league in the future. Thus the creation of this poll. The "precedent" you are quoting is not in the rulebook. Therefore, it can not be taken as "fact." It was an isolated ruling, that for whatever reason was not/has not been included in the most recent version of the rulebook. We have already been over this. |
|
|
|
Post by Markus - Hurricanes on Mar 6, 2013 11:19:24 GMT -5
Galchenyuk was returned to Boston against the precedent set last year: "No more warnings will be issued beyond this first one. Those teams found in subsequent violation will forfeit player/players to free agency and/or the upcoming waiver/entry draft." Now immediately after the decision made by Derrick several neutral GM's voiced concerns about the consequences of such decision to the league in the future. Thus the creation of this poll. It has been proven time and again that, in instances such as these, the league vote (and implementation of subsequent rules) is determined blindly, through evoked emotion, and without rationale, which ultimately proves to be detrimental to the league in the long run. The fact that this (and many other) controversies exist now is because the league voted against the logical approaches I have attempted to implement in the past. The league should be governed by foresight, not whimsical rules that are created to appease certain situations and/or certain individuals at the current time. I guess what I am trying to say is that the league is kind of like the U.S. Presidency. We preach democracy, freedom, diversity, and change, but fact of the matter is, these are all just buzz-words used to evoke emotion and nothing that results from the aforementioned is ever productive. If this decision is overturned, a "no-nonsense" approach must be taken with EVERY league related matter. All or nothing. And since it is IMPOSSIBLE to predict/account for every single problem that could occur in the future by inclusion of rules in a rulebook, an era of unprecedented technicality wars will be ushered in. GM's will find rule loopholes, words will be twisted around, players will be poached, polls will be started every other day, and a constant state of turmoil will exist, resulting in the degradation and ultimate down fall of the league. It is crucial that we preserve the precedence and the right to amend rules as discrepancies occur the first time (allowing a rule change to prevent future discrepancies of the same nature). Without this, our rulebook becomes static, one dimensional, and unable to be changed, a la the holy texts of religions. Remember i t was you who decided to invoke a vote even though a clear precedence was given by you earlier on the very same issue. Then you decide to return the players in question against the vote of the league. Not once has any logical reason been given for any of these decisions. Vague "betterment of the league" really doesn't cut it when making decisions that set precedents like this. Heck one of the GM's who originally voted against me decided that his original reasoning of the issue wasn't correct and realized what a terrible precedent this gives to the league. You've constantly pointed out you're against hand holding rules and that GM's should be held responsible for mismanagement. Yet every decision you've taken has been contradictory to that view and contradictory to your own decision on the previous occurance of the same issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Mar 6, 2013 11:39:39 GMT -5
You've constantly pointed out you're against hand holding rules and that GM's should be held responsible for mismanagement. Yet every decision you've taken has been contradictory to that view and contradictory to your own decision on the previous occurance of the same issue. Right. As I have also explained numerous times. I PERSONALLY BELIEVE that individuals should be held responsible for their actions, taking a "no-nonsense" approach, but FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE LEAGUE, it is necessary that we allow rules to be amended when the first time discrepancies arise, for reasons previously stated in the very post you quoted. I understand how confusing it must be to try and comprehend a "greater good" approach when paralleled with personal gain and satisfaction, furthering my point of how these rules are decided by the league in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Mar 6, 2013 12:07:28 GMT -5
There seems to be some confusion. Advocating for the approach I have outlined does not set a precedence for anything other than the fact that there should exist the option that we can amend our rules to cover instances that are not currently covered in the rulebook or that are poorly worded in the rulebook the FIRST TIME THEY OCCUR. This method is effective because it preserves the solid foundation we already have without subtracting anything (that has proven effective) from it, while allowing for growth and betterment in the future. I am not advocating "hand holding" through multiple instances of the same mistake. Once new rules are implemented for this specific case (Galchenyuk), the same mistake will never be able to be allowed to happen again, thus the league is better off. And for the next instance that crops up that isn't covered in the rulebook, the same approach be taken, and so on and so forth. This is how NAFHL has been built and what makes it the best fantasy league around (in my opinion). There is no need to take two steps forward and then one step (or more) backwards.
|
|
|
|
Post by Markus - Hurricanes on Mar 6, 2013 12:08:19 GMT -5
You've constantly pointed out you're against hand holding rules and that GM's should be held responsible for mismanagement. Yet every decision you've taken has been contradictory to that view and contradictory to your own decision on the previous occurance of the same issue. Right. As I have also explained numerous times. I PERSONALLY BELIEVE that individuals should be held responsible for their actions, taking a "no-nonsense" approach, but FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE LEAGUE, it is necessary that we allow rules to be amended when the first time discrepancies arise, for reasons previously stated in the very post you quoted. Oh I wholeheartedly agree with that. The thing is as you're well aware this isn't the first time this particular discrepancy raises it's head and a crystal clear decision was given the last time it happened. I must salute you for a very well written and eloquent rant about the effect of emotion when it comes to voting on heated issues and I thoroughly agree with almost everything that was said there, especially this part: "It is crucial that we preserve the precedence and the right to amend rules as discrepancies occur the first time (allowing a rule change to prevent future discrepancies of the same nature)." Again. No one can claim this is the first time this happened. Now I asked you first in private and then publicly why we are even voting on something that for which the ground rules have already been set. I have yet to recieve an answer. The fact that you did decide to invoke a vote on it in the first place makes that subsequent, very eloquent rant about emotions clouding judgement when it comes to voting very interesting. Now previously I've had no qualms what so ever with decisions that you've taken as the commish of the league. I haven't agreed with them all, but decisions are hard to make and as long as there's a clear logic behind them they'll have my support. However it makes absolutely zero sense that you first give a loud and clear warning that mismanaging development teams will not be tolerated and then when it happens again you take a complete U-turn on the issue. There's no logic in that what so ever. At this rate nothing you actually say on league dividing issues can be counted on because there's a good chance that word holds zero value the next time the exact same thing happens again. You really think I would have even made these moves had you not given out a clear ruling on this the last time? |
|
|
|
Post by Markus - Hurricanes on Mar 6, 2013 12:12:33 GMT -5
There seems to be some confusion. Advocating for the approach I have outlined does not set a precedence for anything other than the fact that there should exist the option that we can amend our rules to cover instances that are not currently covered in the rulebook or that are poorly worded in the rulebook the FIRST TIME THEY OCCUR. This method is effective because it preserves the solid foundation we already have without subtracting anything (that has proven effective) from it, while allowing for growth and betterment in the future. I am not advocating "hand holding" through multiple instances of the same mistake. Once new rules are implemented for this specific case (Galchenyuk), the same mistake will never be able to be allowed to happen again, thus the league is better off. And for the next instance that crops up that isn't covered in the rulebook, the same approach be taken, and so on and so forth. This is how NAFHL has been built and what makes it the best fantasy league around (in my opinion). There is no need to take two steps forward and then one step (or more) backwards. How can you even begin to argue anything like that? This certainly isn't the FIRST TIME THIS OCCURS. It's the SECOND TIME. |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Mar 6, 2013 12:23:49 GMT -5
Now previously I've had no qualms what so ever with decisions that you've taken as the commish of the league. I haven't agreed with them all, but decisions are hard to make and as long as there's a clear logic behind them they'll have my support. However it makes absolutely zero sense that you first give a loud and clear warning that mismanaging development teams will not be tolerated and then when it happens again you take a complete U-turn on the issue. There's no logic in that what so ever. At this rate nothing you actually say on league dividing issues can be counted on because there's a good chance that word holds zero value the next time the exact same thing happens again. You really think I would have even made these moves had you not given out a clear ruling on this the last time? You fail to see the "clear logic" because you aren't paying attention to what I am saying. I will now attempt to structure this post in a logical way that any one who answers truthfully to the following questions will arrive at the answer to your question. Question 1: What is the written law of the league that we have sworn to follow? A.) The Official Rulebook B.) An isolated ruling of precedence on the forum (If you answered A to Question 1) Question 2: Is the ruling of precedence that you continue to quote in the Official Rulebook of the league? A.) Yes B.) No (If you answered B to Question 1) Question 2: You're a liar. (If you answered A to Question 1 and B to Question 2) Question 3: If the Official Rulebook is the written law of the league that we have sworn to follow, and the ruling on precedence on the forum is not included in it, how can we grant it merit without undermining the written law of the league? A. We can't, and subsequent rules must be established (If you answered A to Question 1 and A to Question 2) Question 3: You're a liar. |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Mar 6, 2013 12:27:04 GMT -5
The point is, your entire argument rests on an isolated ruling on the forum that was, for whatever reason, not included in the rulebook. Therefore, it is superseded by what IS written in the rulebook. So, for the FIRST TIME, we will be including it under the Galchenyuk clause.
|
|
|
|
Post by Markus - Hurricanes on Mar 6, 2013 12:36:19 GMT -5
The point is, your entire argument rests on an isolated ruling on the forum that was, for whatever reason, not included in the rulebook. Therefore, it is superseded by what IS written in the rulebook. So, for the FIRST TIME, we will be including it under the Galchenyuk clause. So in short: one must not trust any rulings that you have written or will write in the future to the forums if the same exact ruling cannot be found in the rulebook correct to every damn comma? A) Correct. You're a liar B) Incorrect. That really sets a very nice precedence, doesn't it? Heck it's even clearly stated in the rules that all parties are held responsible to what they say in trade negotiations. You however can't be held responsible for what you say regarding rule violations. Previously pointed out "spirit" and "intent" of the rules truly get served. |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Mar 6, 2013 13:35:45 GMT -5
So in short: one must not trust any rulings that you have written or will write in the future to the forums if the same exact ruling cannot be found in the rulebook correct to every damn comma? A) Correct. You're a liar B) Incorrect. Correct? I am not sure why you find this so alarming. This is the exact stance you are currently arguing FOR (a more authoritative approach, with no room for interpretation or modification). Furthermore, your generalization is neither true, nor accurate. My rulings on the forum are just that; rulings. ANY ruling may be overturned with a 2/3 majority vote using facts from the rulebook (or elsewhere) to prove a case. There is not a single "ruling" included in the rulebook anywhere, only rules. I am so glad you took the time to point this particular rule out because it lends further precedence and consistency to my claims. The rule you are referring to came about long before your time, as a result of a disagreement between the San Jose Sharks, the Winnipeg Jets (now Washington) and the Columbus Blue Jackets which can be found HERE. And just in case you don't take time to read the thread, let me quote you what I wrote back in 2007. Perhaps we should be focusing as much energy as we are focusing on this matter toward changing and finalizing the rulebook from the ground up so that there wont be any more controversy. A lot of the negative things that happened this past season all could have been avoided had everything been set in stone before the season. I suggest everybody read the now defunct rulebook and propose any changes, subsections or sub rules or any other modification that seems note worthy. I haven't changed my tune one bit. |
|
|
|
Post by Markus - Hurricanes on Mar 6, 2013 15:02:00 GMT -5
So in short: one must not trust any rulings that you have written or will write in the future to the forums if the same exact ruling cannot be found in the rulebook correct to every damn comma? A) Correct. You're a liar B) Incorrect. Correct? I am not sure why you find this so alarming. This is the exact stance you are currently arguing FOR (a more authoritative approach, with no room for interpretation or modification). Furthermore, your generalization is neither true, nor accurate. My rulings on the forum are just that; rulings. ANY ruling may be overturned with a 2/3 majority vote using facts from the rulebook (or elsewhere) to prove a case. There is not a single "ruling" included in the rulebook anywhere, only rules. Alright. First of all there rulebook hasn't changed one damn bit from the time the original ruling was given. Fact is that you used the same exact rulebook to come up with a ruling back then and the fact that an admitted oversight by you prevented that ruling making the rulebook doesn't magically make the original ruling dissapear from the history of the league. Precedent was set back then and since the rulebook wasn't changed in anyway that original ruling is still just as effective as it was that day that it was given. I repeat one more time. Rulebook wasn't changed at all. The variables didn't change one bit (except the number of teams in question) so there can be no alternative except to draw the same conclusion as the last time.Therefore, as you clearly accomplished here: "ANY ruling may be overturned with a 2/3 majority vote using facts from the rulebook (or elsewhere) to prove a case."Boston would need 2/3 of the votes to overturn the original ruling. The original vote didn't give Mark the necessary votes to accomplish that so therefore this ruling must still be in place: "No more warnings will be issued beyond this first one. Those teams found in subsequent violation will forfeit player/players to free agency and/or the upcoming waiver/entry draft." You see I, as you clearly pointed out, I didn't at any point have to overturn anything. You really explained it way better than I ever could have, thanks. The hard part was to actually get you to admit that there is an existing ruling, which you have now clearly referred to and since it hasn't been overturned to date, there's nothing more to discuss. The fact that the rulebook wasn't changed that day doesn't make the ruling any less effective today than what it was back then because we are still under the same circumstances and same rulebook. And let's not forget you're big on consistency. Case closed. |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Mar 6, 2013 20:50:04 GMT -5
You can't continue to attempt to confuse the league by talking in circles and spouting off random irrelevant nonsense, all the while ignoring every valid point I make.
You are wrong. Plain and simple. What exactly is it that you do not understand? One of the major points I have been making throughout this entire debate is the fact that the rulebook has not changed to include a rule based on the ruling from the forum you keep clinging to. A ruling is an isolated event that, while, does set precedence, is only applicable to that particular ruling. A rule is an inclusion in the Official Rulebook based on a ruling (or otherwise) that is applicable to ALL cases and/or rulings unless overturned or amended by a league vote. Precedence is not binding, it is merely a measuring stick.
*SEE ABOVE*
PAY. ATTENTION.
THERE ARE/WERE NO RULES IN THE RULEBOOK THAT GOVERN THE LEAGUE ON ISSUES OTHER THAN MANAGER REMOVAL AND RULE AMENDING. Therefore a 2/3 vote is and was not applicable to the Galchenyuk case. We were voting in the 2nd Poll to establish such rules. Such rules were not able to be established, so I made an executive decision returning Galchenyuk to Boston. It is now our goal to to put rules in place so that this does not happen again in the future. I am not going to repeat myself again.
*SEE ABOVE, "SEE ABOVE"*
You need to take a deep breath, step back, and take a look in the mirror because I think you are getting a little to big for your britches. You don't determine when ANY league related case is closed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Markus - Hurricanes on Mar 7, 2013 5:24:11 GMT -5
Such rules were not able to be established, so I made an executive decision returning Galchenyuk to Boston. So under the same exact rulebook, same exact variables, you make two completely different executive decisions. You know whatever you say here it does not make your decisions from before somehow vanish from existance. You've never explained what makes these cases so different that you can reach different conclusions in two cases. Again same rulebook, same damn mistakes. Don't avoid it. Just answer. Oh and remember the whole time Mark's defence was relying on something that was not in the rulebook: "it's not defined that a player becomes a free agent after going over 10 games played and rostered in the Development team."That was the whole argument that you found "great" while introducing the whole first poll. Again a poll that resulted in my favor. Meawhile my own argument was based on this: "The main farm team is eligible to roster any prospect or minor leaguer player. The additional farm team is only permitted to roster prospects with 10 (or less) NHL games played."and the fact that you gave a precendence giving ruling on this 1.5 years ago. Makes a whole lot of sense. So much sense that the majority of the league should be ignored in the case. |
|
|
|
Post by Markus - Hurricanes on Mar 13, 2013 10:11:47 GMT -5
Take the time and go through what's been said. Everyone needs to vote so we can focus on other, hopefully less tedious issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Mar 14, 2013 16:35:26 GMT -5
Colorado, Toronto, Calgary. Please vote.
|
|
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.