SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/GM Game 2018-19

2018-19 Gm Game - Messages to the BOG/Commisioner

9 nov. 2018 à 19 h 34
#551
GM - Canucks
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: déc. 2016
Messages: 5,192
Mentions "j'aime": 1,218
Quoting: rangersandislesfan
Do i still need to pay Plekanec?


Yes, for his % of games played.
9 nov. 2018 à 20 h 18
#552
CFGM Game Moderator
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mai 2017
Messages: 2,662
Mentions "j'aime": 1,498
Quoting: TonyStrecher
The BOG has ran out of time to vote on these trades. So they do not need to be reversed or restructured. The pieces involved are unfrozen


Well, I've had an absolutely craptastic day, so why not pile on and stick my nose in where it doesn't belong....again.

Can anyone explain exactly how the BOG "ran out of time" to vote on potential trade revisions or restructure??
There's 7 members, and wasn't the whole point of getting rid of certain members only to elect new members, and more, up to 7 so this kind of thing wouldn't happen?
A situation such as this opens the BOG up to far more scrutiny the next time you step in and determine a trade needs to be revised or cancelled.
How can you find the time to rule on future trades when you've proven you couldn't find the time to vote on past trades?

We're told there are 7 of you but we never seem to see any postings from certain members...on anything. Where are they and why aren't all of you more active in keeping an eye on things.
I am well aware I can be a pain in the a$$ to more than a few people in this game, but someone has to hold the ruling powers accountable.
As AK can attest, and I guess Dylan & Bolts I've had to point out quite a few things that are/were "bending the rules" of late. ALL of those are things that someone on the BOG should've discovered and dealt with before having it brought to your attention.

I know AK puts a lot of time and effort into keeping the scoring up to date and giving us updates from time to time, and for that I'm sure we are all appreciative.
Bolts seems to be the one to look after waivers and subsequent waiver claims which is great, but again, it's something that works on a specific 48 hour window.
What the other 5 members do.....does anyone even know what facets of the game they are overseeing?

Like I said, crappy day and this may just be adding to it, but I also think it's all things that the other 24GM's in the game have a right to know and understand what their elected leaders are doing to keep the game on track.
TMLSage et Gronk a aimé ceci.
9 nov. 2018 à 20 h 41
#553
GM - Canucks
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: déc. 2016
Messages: 5,192
Mentions "j'aime": 1,218
Quoting: flamesfan419
Well, I've had an absolutely craptastic day, so why not pile on and stick my nose in where it doesn't belong....again.

Can anyone explain exactly how the BOG "ran out of time" to vote on potential trade revisions or restructure??
There's 7 members, and wasn't the whole point of getting rid of certain members only to elect new members, and more, up to 7 so this kind of thing wouldn't happen?
A situation such as this opens the BOG up to far more scrutiny the next time you step in and determine a trade needs to be revised or cancelled.
How can you find the time to rule on future trades when you've proven you couldn't find the time to vote on past trades?

We're told there are 7 of you but we never seem to see any postings from certain members...on anything. Where are they and why aren't all of you more active in keeping an eye on things.
I am well aware I can be a pain in the a$$ to more than a few people in this game, but someone has to hold the ruling powers accountable.
As AK can attest, and I guess Dylan & Bolts I've had to point out quite a few things that are/were "bending the rules" of late. ALL of those are things that someone on the BOG should've discovered and dealt with before having it brought to your attention.

I know AK puts a lot of time and effort into keeping the scoring up to date and giving us updates from time to time, and for that I'm sure we are all appreciative.
Bolts seems to be the one to look after waivers and subsequent waiver claims which is great, but again, it's something that works on a specific 48 hour window.
What the other 5 members do.....does anyone even know what facets of the game they are overseeing?

Like I said, crappy day and this may just be adding to it, but I also think it's all things that the other 24GM's in the game have a right to know and understand what their elected leaders are doing to keep the game on track.


^this
12 nov. 2018 à 0 h 5
#554
V3 Canucks GM, BOG
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mai 2017
Messages: 1,932
Mentions "j'aime": 653
Quoting: flamesfan419
Well, I've had an absolutely craptastic day, so why not pile on and stick my nose in where it doesn't belong....again.

Can anyone explain exactly how the BOG "ran out of time" to vote on potential trade revisions or restructure??
There's 7 members, and wasn't the whole point of getting rid of certain members only to elect new members, and more, up to 7 so this kind of thing wouldn't happen?
A situation such as this opens the BOG up to far more scrutiny the next time you step in and determine a trade needs to be revised or cancelled.
How can you find the time to rule on future trades when you've proven you couldn't find the time to vote on past trades?

We're told there are 7 of you but we never seem to see any postings from certain members...on anything. Where are they and why aren't all of you more active in keeping an eye on things.
I am well aware I can be a pain in the a$$ to more than a few people in this game, but someone has to hold the ruling powers accountable.
As AK can attest, and I guess Dylan & Bolts I've had to point out quite a few things that are/were "bending the rules" of late. ALL of those are things that someone on the BOG should've discovered and dealt with before having it brought to your attention.

I know AK puts a lot of time and effort into keeping the scoring up to date and giving us updates from time to time, and for that I'm sure we are all appreciative.
Bolts seems to be the one to look after waivers and subsequent waiver claims which is great, but again, it's something that works on a specific 48 hour window.
What the other 5 members do.....does anyone even know what facets of the game they are overseeing?

Like I said, crappy day and this may just be adding to it, but I also think it's all things that the other 24GM's in the game have a right to know and understand what their elected leaders are doing to keep the game on track.


Sorry that you never received a reply on this.

The trade in question was a very complicated situation. Precedent was set with the Landeskog trade earlier this season allowing teams to use multiple one-sided trades to make up one trade in order to make retention work. Because of this the BOG had a number of discussions about it and a few people weren't able to make up their minds. We lost track of time and then realized that we had been discussing it for over 7 days meaning that we had run out of time. The trade did not have the required amount of votes to be reversed at that time.

In terms of what the BOG is currently working on, with the season underway, there really isn't a ton of stuff that needs to be done. We're dealing with trades, waivers and the standings. We're also looking for issues with the game and opportunities we see to improve it with new rules such as the one that I just posted.

It is true that we have missed certain instances where GMs have not been compliant with certain rules. This is partly because we expect GMs to understand the rules and be able to follow them, though some clearly don't. I'm really not sure about everyone else, but personally I don't have the time to look over ever single detail of every single roster often enough to find everything, this is why we really appreciate when GMs such as yourself notice these things and point them out to us.

Thanks
Bo53Horvat a aimé ceci.
13 nov. 2018 à 22 h 34
#555
CFGM Game Moderator
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mai 2017
Messages: 2,662
Mentions "j'aime": 1,498
SERIOUS question time......

For the purpose of the impending expansion draft, let's assume teams have players who currently have a NMC attached to them.
Since this is a "game" and we are the GM of the team, can we not just say the player has agreed to waive his NMC for the purpose of being exposed for expansion?

Who can determine that a player didn't waive? It can't be left up to the 7 member panel to say yes or no since that would seem like a blocking action.
It could help "now" if someone wanted to acquire a guy with a NMC knowing that come expansion time he can still be exposed.

It is just a game. I know it's stopped me from looking at certain players because of that clause.
Gronk a aimé ceci.
14 nov. 2018 à 10 h 5
#556
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: janv. 2017
Messages: 7,743
Mentions "j'aime": 1,922
Quoting: flamesfan419
SERIOUS question time......

For the purpose of the impending expansion draft, let's assume teams have players who currently have a NMC attached to them.
Since this is a "game" and we are the GM of the team, can we not just say the player has agreed to waive his NMC for the purpose of being exposed for expansion?

Who can determine that a player didn't waive? It can't be left up to the 7 member panel to say yes or no since that would seem like a blocking action.
It could help "now" if someone wanted to acquire a guy with a NMC knowing that come expansion time he can still be exposed.

It is just a game. I know it's stopped me from looking at certain players because of that clause.


I believe the intention was always to protect the NMC players as we have no real basis of the player being exposed IRL.
Because of this, there will be a buyout period before expansion so teams can rid themselves of a NMC contract.
My intention was to buyout Russell when I originally acquired him.
15 nov. 2018 à 10 h 50
#557
Black Lives Matter
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mars 2017
Messages: 29,915
Mentions "j'aime": 4,649
In the next 5 days do i need to send in my roster for November?
TMLSage a aimé ceci.
15 nov. 2018 à 10 h 54
#558
Lets Go Blues
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: juin 2016
Messages: 6,749
Mentions "j'aime": 4,320
Quoting: rangersandislesfan
In the next 5 days do i need to send in my roster for November?


Nope, we'll take the roster from your team page and then later in the month you can email me with any tweaks. Just remember, tweaks can only involve players on your team before the 20th.
1 déc. 2018 à 12 h 16
#559
CFGM Game Moderator
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mai 2017
Messages: 2,662
Mentions "j'aime": 1,498
Modifié 3 déc. 2018 à 20 h 33
It's been fixed by the parties involved.
1 déc. 2018 à 17 h 14
#560
Go Habs Go
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mars 2017
Messages: 10,667
Mentions "j'aime": 4,091
Modifié 1 déc. 2018 à 17 h 55
I'm not littering someone's page with this, so I'll post here.

Quoting: TabooPenguo
Mike, you seem to be the only one having a problem with this, so do us all a favor and settle down before this gets out of hand.


He's not the only one who sees that as a bad trade, I'm just not freaking out over it. A top 10 pick isn't something you trade away for a player with career threatening injuries. You trade high picks to make improvements and this trade doesn't improve Colorado in any way.

I also have an issue with trades that make a team non-compliant being allowed to stand. Any trade which causes a team to go above/below the cap or contract restrictions should be rejected unless a simultaneous move is made which corrects it. I don't know how long Ottawa has been under the floor, but I'm guessing it's been a while if they are still under, even after moving their LTIR players to the regular IR so their cap hit applies again.
This has happened before with other GMs being over contract limits and under the cap floor, and it shouldn't be permitted. I want to add some players right now, but my cap doesn't give me the room to do it.

Am I allowed to go pick up a $6M player and take a week or two to get back under the cap? If I am, I don't have a problem. Others have done it without consequence.
If I'm not allowed, or a trade that puts me over the cap would be rejected, then the same has to apply to a team going under the cap or over the contract limit.

I've pretty much given up on stopping bad trades. I don't have the patience to argue opinions on valuations. Staying between $X-Y or within X-Y number of players isn't an opinion or open for debate though. Before you even look at the value of Baertschi, you have a team that is already under the cap shipping out another $3M.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Edit: apparently Baertschi's contract is actually over $3M.
Gronk, TMLSage, Max and 1 other person a aimé ceci.
1 déc. 2018 à 19 h 53
#561
Lets Go Blues
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: juin 2016
Messages: 6,749
Mentions "j'aime": 4,320
Quoting: ricochetii
I'm not littering someone's page with this, so I'll post here.

He's not the only one who sees that as a bad trade, I'm just not freaking out over it. A top 10 pick isn't something you trade away for a player with career threatening injuries. You trade high picks to make improvements and this trade doesn't improve Colorado in any way.

I also have an issue with trades that make a team non-compliant being allowed to stand. Any trade which causes a team to go above/below the cap or contract restrictions should be rejected unless a simultaneous move is made which corrects it. I don't know how long Ottawa has been under the floor, but I'm guessing it's been a while if they are still under, even after moving their LTIR players to the regular IR so their cap hit applies again.
This has happened before with other GMs being over contract limits and under the cap floor, and it shouldn't be permitted. I want to add some players right now, but my cap doesn't give me the room to do it.

Am I allowed to go pick up a $6M player and take a week or two to get back under the cap? If I am, I don't have a problem. Others have done it without consequence.
If I'm not allowed, or a trade that puts me over the cap would be rejected, then the same has to apply to a team going under the cap or over the contract limit.

I've pretty much given up on stopping bad trades. I don't have the patience to argue opinions on valuations. Staying between $X-Y or within X-Y number of players isn't an opinion or open for debate though. Before you even look at the value of Baertschi, you have a team that is already under the cap shipping out another $3M.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Edit: apparently Baertschi's contract is actually over $3M.


thanks @ricochetii. to clear up one thing: similar to the rule for when a waiver claim puts a team over 23, teams have 24 hrs to resolve cap issues or they become subject to draft pick forfeiture. as for the rest of your concerns, the weekend isnt the best time for some of us on the BOG so we will try to sort out any violations/funny business as soon as we can all huddle and discuss.
ricochetii a aimé ceci.
1 déc. 2018 à 20 h 14
#562
Go Habs Go
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mars 2017
Messages: 10,667
Mentions "j'aime": 4,091
Quoting: A_K
thanks @ricochetii. to clear up one thing: similar to the rule for when a waiver claim puts a team over 23, teams have 24 hrs to resolve cap issues or they become subject to draft pick forfeiture. as for the rest of your concerns, the weekend isnt the best time for some of us on the BOG so we will try to sort out any violations/funny business as soon as we can all huddle and discuss.


No problem.
I'm not completely familiar with Ottawa, but at a glance it looks like they have been under for a while. I'm pretty sure LA and NYR were allowed to be non-compliant for more than 24h as well when they went under the cap and over the contract limit, respectively.
It's too late for those cases, but it shouldn't still be happening.
Max, A_K et TMLSage a aimé ceci.
1 déc. 2018 à 20 h 28
#563
Démarrer sujet
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: juin 2017
Messages: 2,216
Mentions "j'aime": 1,161
Quoting: ricochetii
No problem.
I'm not completely familiar with Ottawa, but at a glance it looks like they have been under for a while. I'm pretty sure LA and NYR were allowed to be non-compliant for more than 24h as well when they went under the cap and over the contract limit, respectively.
It's too late for those cases, but it shouldn't still be happening.


Just fyi, no, I haven't been under for quite a while. Just since I made my December trades went through. Either way I'll just be postponing my McNabb and Nieto trades until I can build up sufficient cap space
1 déc. 2018 à 20 h 30
#564
GM - Canucks
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: déc. 2016
Messages: 5,192
Mentions "j'aime": 1,218
Quoting: Bo53Horvat
Just fyi, no, I haven't been under for quite a while. Just since I made my December trades went through


Trades shouldn't be allowed if you go under the cap wink
1 déc. 2018 à 20 h 32
#565
Démarrer sujet
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: juin 2017
Messages: 2,216
Mentions "j'aime": 1,161
Quoting: TMLSage
Trades shouldn't be allowed if you go under the cap wink


It's fixed so shhhhhhhhhh
1 déc. 2018 à 21 h 20
#566
CFGM Game Moderator
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mai 2017
Messages: 2,662
Mentions "j'aime": 1,498
Calgary Flames

Yasin Ehliz has been released by the Calgary Flames and is no longer an active NHL player.
Therefore I will be removing him from my team.

https://www.capfriendly.com/players/yasin-ehliz
1 déc. 2018 à 21 h 28
#567
Go Habs Go
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mars 2017
Messages: 10,667
Mentions "j'aime": 4,091
Quoting: Bo53Horvat
Just fyi, no, I haven't been under for quite a while. Just since I made my December trades went through. Either way I'll just be postponing my McNabb and Nieto trades until I can build up sufficient cap space


Sorry! Like I said, I only glanced. I also was counting Baertschi at $2M when I looked and didn't re-check when I discovered he was at over $3M.
It looks like it was indeed just the December trades. (Most of your moves prior to that have been negative cap, so it looked like it might have gone back beyond November using that wrong amount. Sticking Out Tongue)

Having a 24h period to correct it is fine as well, but if that's the case I want to see it enforced.
If you're illegal after 24h, you forfeit a pick and get another 24-48 hours.
If you're still illegal, you forfeit a higher pick and get another 24-48 hours.
Repeat until you are legal.
Until you've corrected the situation, you can only make moves which will help to correct the situation. (ie: you can't make a trade that increases your cap, when you are already over the limit)
That way there's some pressure to not only avoid getting into those situations, but to correct them quickly.
Hopefully enough of a deterrent that it won't need to be enforced and people will pay more attention and crunch the numbers first.
Bo53Horvat a aimé ceci.
3 déc. 2018 à 20 h 24
#568
Retired V2 V3 GM
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mai 2017
Messages: 3,585
Mentions "j'aime": 1,127
Quoting: Bo53Horvat
The BOG has flagged the following trades as potentially "obscenely unfair, having a profound impact on general market values or attempting to circumvent trade rules.". We will be voting on whether deal reconstruction will be necessary, in the mean time all assets involved will be frozen.


huff OMG, just before coming on, I said to myself, "watch with my luck this trade will be "BOG Flagged". I was laughing and then I seen this.

You know, the NHL isn't as serious as this video game. (Yes, its a video game, don't argue) There is a bunch of trades every year in the NHL and I know for a fact that there is no BOG going around flagging pretty well every trade made. Its a video game, who cares if someone makes a bad trade its not the end of the world, as long as both GM's are happy who cares. It would be better to have a trade ratings thread like in V2 and NO BOG flagging. This game restarts every year so if a bad trade is made who cares.

If you want my opinion to make this game better here it is:
1. NO BOG Flagging, let GM's do what they want cause they have faith in what they are doing. Have a trade ratings thread instead then the GM's can still see if they are making the right moves or not.
2. After each month the BOG should review what the GM has done, review there pros and cons. Then decide whether or not it was a winning month or a losing month for that GM. After at least 2 months if the GM has horrible lost them both and hurt his team, then fire him and give another person a chance.
3. Don't be so judgy on people - BOG judges people before they are even given a job, that does make sense in a real life job, but in a video game job. Who cares, give everyone a chance. This is one of the reasons you guys don't have a bunch of people wanting to join this game because it is way to serious, judgy and extremely controlling.

I will be honest it is very offensive and hurtful when BOG is always flagging trades, I love this game because I am making trades and being my own GM, but this game is absolutely no fun when you have the BOG peeking over your back about everything, basically controlling your decisions to make sure "general market values aren't impacted". Who gives a crap about General Market Values, its a damn video game!

Now BOG, I ask that you think about this alot, discuss it.

Sincerely,
Missouri
Florida Panthers
TMLSage a aimé ceci.
3 déc. 2018 à 21 h 34
#569
Go Habs Go
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mars 2017
Messages: 10,667
Mentions "j'aime": 4,091
Quoting: Missouri
huff OMG, just before coming on, I said to myself, "watch with my luck this trade will be "BOG Flagged". I was laughing and then I seen this.

You know, the NHL isn't as serious as this video game. (Yes, its a video game, don't argue) There is a bunch of trades every year in the NHL and I know for a fact that there is no BOG going around flagging pretty well every trade made. Its a video game, who cares if someone makes a bad trade its not the end of the world, as long as both GM's are happy who cares. It would be better to have a trade ratings thread like in V2 and NO BOG flagging. This game restarts every year so if a bad trade is made who cares.

If you want my opinion to make this game better here it is:
1. NO BOG Flagging, let GM's do what they want cause they have faith in what they are doing. Have a trade ratings thread instead then the GM's can still see if they are making the right moves or not.
2. After each month the BOG should review what the GM has done, review there pros and cons. Then decide whether or not it was a winning month or a losing month for that GM. After at least 2 months if the GM has horrible lost them both and hurt his team, then fire him and give another person a chance.
3. Don't be so judgy on people - BOG judges people before they are even given a job, that does make sense in a real life job, but in a video game job. Who cares, give everyone a chance. This is one of the reasons you guys don't have a bunch of people wanting to join this game because it is way to serious, judgy and extremely controlling.

I will be honest it is very offensive and hurtful when BOG is always flagging trades, I love this game because I am making trades and being my own GM, but this game is absolutely no fun when you have the BOG peeking over your back about everything, basically controlling your decisions to make sure "general market values aren't impacted". Who gives a crap about General Market Values, its a damn video game!

Now BOG, I ask that you think about this alot, discuss it.

Sincerely,
Missouri
Florida Panthers


If we didn't have some kind of controls in place, you would have stepped into a team full of Girardis when you took over, and we'd have things like Crosby and McDavid at 75% retention on the same team.
IMO, there aren't enough trade restrictions. Sticking Out Tongue
Bo53Horvat, LicMysak et Missouri a aimé ceci.
3 déc. 2018 à 21 h 39
#570
Démarrer sujet
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: juin 2017
Messages: 2,216
Mentions "j'aime": 1,161
Quoting: Missouri
huff OMG, just before coming on, I said to myself, "watch with my luck this trade will be "BOG Flagged". I was laughing and then I seen this.

You know, the NHL isn't as serious as this video game. (Yes, its a video game, don't argue) There is a bunch of trades every year in the NHL and I know for a fact that there is no BOG going around flagging pretty well every trade made. Its a video game, who cares if someone makes a bad trade its not the end of the world, as long as both GM's are happy who cares. It would be better to have a trade ratings thread like in V2 and NO BOG flagging. This game restarts every year so if a bad trade is made who cares.

If you want my opinion to make this game better here it is:
1. NO BOG Flagging, let GM's do what they want cause they have faith in what they are doing. Have a trade ratings thread instead then the GM's can still see if they are making the right moves or not.
2. After each month the BOG should review what the GM has done, review there pros and cons. Then decide whether or not it was a winning month or a losing month for that GM. After at least 2 months if the GM has horrible lost them both and hurt his team, then fire him and give another person a chance.
3. Don't be so judgy on people - BOG judges people before they are even given a job, that does make sense in a real life job, but in a video game job. Who cares, give everyone a chance. This is one of the reasons you guys don't have a bunch of people wanting to join this game because it is way to serious, judgy and extremely controlling.

I will be honest it is very offensive and hurtful when BOG is always flagging trades, I love this game because I am making trades and being my own GM, but this game is absolutely no fun when you have the BOG peeking over your back about everything, basically controlling your decisions to make sure "general market values aren't impacted". Who gives a crap about General Market Values, its a damn video game!

Now BOG, I ask that you think about this alot, discuss it.

Sincerely,
Missouri
Florida Panthers


Well here goes: (P.S. Michael, feel free to stay out of it. I'm in no mood to deal with you tonight)

First of all, we've heard it time and time again about people mad that we review and sometimes revise trades. We get it. There are a select handful of you who think that we do it too much. Well, what if we stop reviewing trades? Guess what happens then? We get people (oftentimes the same people who complain that we review too many), who complain that we should never allow such a terrible trade to pass through.

You make the comparison that this isn't real life, and you're right. But that doesn't mean we're going to allow terrible trades to go through left and right. I should also mention that just because we flagged your and Daryl's trade doesn't mean it will be voted to revise. There is a much, much higher percentage of trades that we vote on that make it through then ones that we vote to revise, which I think a lot of you don't realize. We also should've been a lot stricter at the beginning of V3 to set a good precedent because a lot of dumpster fire trades made it through at the beginning.

Just because both GM's are happy with a trade doesn't make it less of a dumpster fire, might I add. For example, before you were the GM of the Panthers, the previous GM *acquired* Brent Seabrook, not to mention gave up *real value* to acquire him. Trades like that have no place here and we refuse to allow things like that happening because it sets a bad example.

As for your three suggestions: First of all, there will always be BOG flagging whether you and others like it or not. No amount of complaining about trade reviews will change our mindsets on that. We will not allow for our Game to turn into the Expansion or Discord game with the awful, awful trades that are allowed to happen over there. We hold our game to some level of realism. You say this isn't real-life, but we try to keep it as real as possible for a game that isn't real. Just because a GM feels that they know what they're doing, doesn't mean they actually do. The amount of trades we saw happen that were just so bad during V1 and V2 and nothing was done was absurd. So, long story short, trade flagging isn't going anywhere.

I'd also like to mention as I stated before just because a trade is flagged by no means is it assured to be reversed please keep that in mind. 6 out of our 7 BOG members need to feel that it was completely unfair and needs to be fixed.

Your second point has some decent points, as I personally partially like the idea of reviewing GM's after a certain period of time. But it's not like we're out here firing people left and right. If you'll notice, the only people who leave the game are either fired because they've made continuously bad trades or they've left under their own accord. I for one don't exactly feel as though it would be worth reviewing people every month or two because the group we have here is solid and most of the time any GM's that make terrible trades aren't here for long. Mostly everyone here has been a mainstay for quite a while and if they've lasted this long, there's not much chance we have at firing them. The biggest problems we have are with newer GMs making mistakes which brings me to your last point.

I think it's pretty clear that if we just hired anybody that wanted to be a GM we'd have problems. Numerous times we've made new hires and had to fire them 2 or 3 trades into their tenure because they were just that bad. Now, don't get me wrong, we've had people prove us wrong before but the rate at which new GMs arrive and stick around is quite slim because they just have no idea what fair value or good trades are. We like to make sure the people that we hire are qualified and that we can ensure they aren't fleeced the moment they get into the game. Sometimes, guys slip by us that end up being not-so-great. That's bound to happen. But we're going to take the best measures that we can to make sure our new GMs are good fits to be apart of our league.

I'm sorry you happen to feel offended and hurt if we review trades, but this is probably the first instance where I've had that kind of reaction to trade reviews. If you feel that way, all I can do is apologize. But that's not going to stop us from flagging trades. We have yet to have a single good reason for us to scrap trade reversals. All we've had are people who either fleece and are upset about not being able to keep their fleeces.

Thanks for understanding,

The BOG
LicMysak, ricochetii, flamesfan419 and 2 others a aimé ceci.
3 déc. 2018 à 21 h 47
#571
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mars 2017
Messages: 7,711
Mentions "j'aime": 2,820
Quoting: ricochetii
If we didn't have some kind of controls in place, you would have stepped into a team full of Girardis when you took over, and we'd have things like Crosby and McDavid at 75% retention on the same team.
IMO, there aren't enough trade restrictions. Sticking Out Tongue


Hey, Girardi is actually decent. Use Alzner instead.
ricochetii a aimé ceci.
3 déc. 2018 à 23 h 9
#572
CFGM Game Moderator
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mai 2017
Messages: 2,662
Mentions "j'aime": 1,498
Quoting: flamesfan419
Another thing that would for sure spur on trades would be to re-work the silly rule that Free Agents who were given NTC's can't be moved for a full year. I've never really liked that, but I don't make the rules.
The change I would propose would be to allow teams to trade those plays starting on Jan 1st.


Has nothing to do with revisions being discussed, but I seriously think the BOG should discuss, and consider this slight rule change to open up more players to the trade market.
I get the thinking that went into putting this rule in place, but I've always been one to speak out about it being changed.
Yes, we want to try and keep some realism in the game, so when v4 rolls around why not just eliminate the clauses completely in our game?
That would allow for every player to be possible trade bait without being handcuffed because of a clause that really, for the purpose of our "game" means nothing.
Sadly all you have to do is look at DET and how many free agents were given some kind of clause, and if you go through that team, there's not too many players that can even be traded.
That is something the new GM will need to fully understand coming in. That many of his players can't be moved. That's a tough start before even starting.

As always, this is all just the opinion of the elder statesman around here. And we all know I think things differently than most.
4 déc. 2018 à 1 h 0
#573
Retired V2 V3 GM
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mai 2017
Messages: 3,585
Mentions "j'aime": 1,127
Well, thanks guys. @Bo53Horvat @ricochetii I’m glad we could discuss this. I was afraid I would get a strip torn off me for starting something. LOL, But I’m glad we could discuss this and get a better understanding on the BOG’s plans.

I like to think of a league as a community that works together to be better and it’s good for us to vent and have discussions on things.

All in all, I totally understand. Just needed to express some frustration haha.
Bo53Horvat et ricochetii a aimé ceci.
4 déc. 2018 à 11 h 21
#574
GM - Canucks
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: déc. 2016
Messages: 5,192
Mentions "j'aime": 1,218
Quoting: Bo53Horvat
Well here goes: (P.S. Michael, feel free to stay out of it. I'm in no mood to deal with you tonight)

First of all, we've heard it time and time again about people mad that we review and sometimes revise trades. We get it. There are a select handful of you who think that we do it too much. Well, what if we stop reviewing trades? Guess what happens then? We get people (oftentimes the same people who complain that we review too many), who complain that we should never allow such a terrible trade to pass through.

You make the comparison that this isn't real life, and you're right. But that doesn't mean we're going to allow terrible trades to go through left and right. I should also mention that just because we flagged your and Daryl's trade doesn't mean it will be voted to revise. There is a much, much higher percentage of trades that we vote on that make it through then ones that we vote to revise, which I think a lot of you don't realize. We also should've been a lot stricter at the beginning of V3 to set a good precedent because a lot of dumpster fire trades made it through at the beginning.

Just because both GM's are happy with a trade doesn't make it less of a dumpster fire, might I add. For example, before you were the GM of the Panthers, the previous GM *acquired* Brent Seabrook, not to mention gave up *real value* to acquire him. Trades like that have no place here and we refuse to allow things like that happening because it sets a bad example.

As for your three suggestions: First of all, there will always be BOG flagging whether you and others like it or not. No amount of complaining about trade reviews will change our mindsets on that. We will not allow for our Game to turn into the Expansion or Discord game with the awful, awful trades that are allowed to happen over there. We hold our game to some level of realism. You say this isn't real-life, but we try to keep it as real as possible for a game that isn't real. Just because a GM feels that they know what they're doing, doesn't mean they actually do. The amount of trades we saw happen that were just so bad during V1 and V2 and nothing was done was absurd. So, long story short, trade flagging isn't going anywhere.

I'd also like to mention as I stated before just because a trade is flagged by no means is it assured to be reversed please keep that in mind. 6 out of our 7 BOG members need to feel that it was completely unfair and needs to be fixed.

Your second point has some decent points, as I personally partially like the idea of reviewing GM's after a certain period of time. But it's not like we're out here firing people left and right. If you'll notice, the only people who leave the game are either fired because they've made continuously bad trades or they've left under their own accord. I for one don't exactly feel as though it would be worth reviewing people every month or two because the group we have here is solid and most of the time any GM's that make terrible trades aren't here for long. Mostly everyone here has been a mainstay for quite a while and if they've lasted this long, there's not much chance we have at firing them. The biggest problems we have are with newer GMs making mistakes which brings me to your last point.

I think it's pretty clear that if we just hired anybody that wanted to be a GM we'd have problems. Numerous times we've made new hires and had to fire them 2 or 3 trades into their tenure because they were just that bad. Now, don't get me wrong, we've had people prove us wrong before but the rate at which new GMs arrive and stick around is quite slim because they just have no idea what fair value or good trades are. We like to make sure the people that we hire are qualified and that we can ensure they aren't fleeced the moment they get into the game. Sometimes, guys slip by us that end up being not-so-great. That's bound to happen. But we're going to take the best measures that we can to make sure our new GMs are good fits to be apart of our league.

I'm sorry you happen to feel offended and hurt if we review trades, but this is probably the first instance where I've had that kind of reaction to trade reviews. If you feel that way, all I can do is apologize. But that's not going to stop us from flagging trades. We have yet to have a single good reason for us to scrap trade reversals. All we've had are people who either fleece and are upset about not being able to keep their fleeces.

Thanks for understanding,

The BOG


tl:dr

The reason I get angry if because the whole point of v3 was to not have anyone monitoring trades.
Then the BOG implemented a rule stating they would only revise those trades that were drastically unfair.

Now the BOG revises every trade that isn't close, (trades are allowed to be unfair).
4 déc. 2018 à 11 h 38
#575
Lets Go Blues
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: juin 2016
Messages: 6,749
Mentions "j'aime": 4,320
Quoting: TMLSage
tl:dr

The reason I get angry if because the whole point of v3 was to not have anyone monitoring trades.
Then the BOG implemented a rule stating they would only revise those trades that were drastically unfair.

Now the BOG revises every trade that isn't close, (trades are allowed to be unfair).


We review trades to protect new GMs by giving them a chance to reverse the deal or to at least get a little better return. If you look at the revisions, I don't think you can make the case that we forced a trade to become unbalanced in the other direction. It's the nature of the game that newer, less-experienced GMs end up getting preyed upon by those of us waiting around for someone to rip off. Then the guy gets ripped off 3x in a row and gets fired or quits and the next guy has no motivation to play because the team is in the gutter.

We don't review the trades to ridicule GMs, or to prevent teams from getting better.

There have been approximately 300 trades in the game. This BOG has voted on 19 trades and revised 7...

I don't speak for the whole BOG, but personally, if you all don't want a BOG to review trades and keep the game running, then I'll gladly step down and we can just let the whole thing go into mob rule. I don't know why people think that the BOG is some power hungry-group of people that wants to dictate all the moves of the game. We're just here to try to keep some structure to things. TBH I reluctantly took this position thinking that it might help out the game, but I don't take anything positive from being on the BOG, it's a fruitless job.
Bo53Horvat, flamesfan419, Missouri and 1 other person a aimé ceci.
 
Répondre
To create a post please Login or S'inscrire
Question:
Options:
Ajouter une option
Soumettre le sondage