League Transparency

[inferno31]

This just a message to voice my concerns over the leagues apparent lack of transparency.

Here is my issue essentially. Nate was removed for being under the floor for 3 consecutive weeks, which is a decision I agree with and makes sense. My problem is no one in the rest of the league knew this was happening. I check this site fairly regularly and I noticed when the first warning to Nate went up. So as a member of the non-CC league I see Nate fucked up, and have no idea what happened with it or what the ongoing debate about the topic was.

Today he was removed. Again as I said he should of been. But where was the documentation to the rest of the league in the warnings form? As far as I see it, Nate was removed while he was sitting on one warning, which is blatant violation of our leagues 3 warning policy and an issue I don't want to have us go through again. Nate Deserved 3 warnings one for each week, then deserved to be considered for removal. He shouldn't be seen sitting on one warning and then get booted, and then the rest of the league informed of the reason. We should know before you guys consider booting him, not after. He did deserve 3 warnings all I'm asking is you document the warnings accordingly, otherwise I and other members in the league have no idea what the hell you are doing.

Now theres talk about removing Frank, now I look at his infractions and I see theres one of note. How can there be talk of removal till there are 3 warnings (2 for new members)? We made a CBA to avoid these issues, the removal process I assure you is not a typo in how things are done, its league policy and it exists for a reason. All I'm asking is you follow it so the rest of the league is understanding why people are getting booted. I won't use this message to argue if Frank deserves to be booted or not, but as its currently seen from an outsider looking in I can't follow how the discussion can even be had (if theres new information, then let all of us know). You shouldn't be able to pick up 2 or 3 warnings in one go, it doesn't make sense.

All I'm asking is you post those transgressions and warnings, so we can follow the logic and know when someones close to being removed. Also if you let us know all the members of the league can police someone with 1 or 2 warnings to prevent someone being kicked out. It also makes all GMs keep their eyes open for when someone slips up and eases the workload on you guys. Its easier to get people to shape up then find new members. Our league went through a period where we kicked too many people out too easily, I don't want to see us fall back into that. Just keep us in the loop, and follow our leagues procedure for removal, or else this topic will likely be a lot messier than it needs to be.

[inferno31]

This is the message I sent to the CC and the league Admins, I am posting it here for further discussion.

Frankly I'm confused about the Frank situation, how did he get two warnings in the same day? Isn't the whole point of the system that you get warned and get appropriate time to correct those actions? Using this logic if any GM makes a trade error, a claim error and a corresponding cap error they could be removed immediately?

Also I see now that Mike has indeed posted the Warnings. My only thing on this is, we should see this first before anyone is even removed, not after a removal has taken place.

Lastly, did Nate get his 3 warnings in person/on msn etc. at least? I was told he did, but just now someone said otherwise. I think he had to have known either way, but some confirmation would be nice.

[MSP4LYFE]

This is the message I sent to the CC and the league Admins, I am posting it here for further discussion.

Frankly I'm confused about the Frank situation, how did he get two warnings in the same day? Isn't the whole point of the system that you get warned and get appropriate time to correct those actions? Using this logic if any GM makes a trade error, a claim error and a corresponding cap error they could be removed immediately?

Also I see now that Mike has indeed posted the Warnings. My only thing on this is, we should see this first before anyone is even removed, not after a removal has taken place.

Lastly, did Nate get his 3 warnings in person/on msn etc. at least? I was told he did, but just now someone said otherwise. I think he had to have known either way, but some confirmation would be nice.

Nate got his 3 warnings on MSN/PM.

Frank was not removed.

[inferno31]

This is the message I sent to the CC and the league Admins, I am posting it here for further discussion.

Frankly I'm confused about the Frank situation, how did he get two warnings in the same day? Isn't the whole point of the system that you get warned and get appropriate time to correct those actions? Using this logic if any GM makes a trade error, a claim error and a corresponding cap error they could be removed immediately?

Also I see now that Mike has indeed posted the Warnings. My only thing on this is, we should see this first before anyone is even removed, not after a removal has taken place.

Lastly, did Nate get his 3 warnings in person/on msn etc. at least? I was told he did, but just now someone said otherwise. I think he had to have known either way, but some confirmation would be nice.

Nate got his 3 warnings on MSN/PM.

Frank was not removed.

Is that a decision, or simply the progress thus far?

All I'm saying about Frank is that its strange to be able to get multiple warnings in a single day. For example Shoalize's bad trades were multiple trades over a long course which was taken down to one warning.

Also about Nate, thats what I thought too just wanted to confirm it was true.

[inferno31]

Thanks Mike for the post on Frank, clears things up.

I posted my message here because other GMs have messaged me with the same concerns.

Now it seems to be a discussion about going forward just let people know whats happening a bit more. The reason is simple, had I known Nate was still under the cap and accruing multiple warnings I could of talked to him (He was trying to make a deal with me only a few days ago). It just lets the rest of the league help police these situations better, and lets us all understand whats going on.

I don't want us to go back to the shitshow that happened last year around this time, where we had about 5-6 teams and a New GM every few weeks.

[Mike]

Nate knew, he didn't add salary, even though he would have been able to.

There is no rule that prohibits multiple warnings for different issues being issued at the same time.

[Shoalzie]

I thought the Nate situation moved pretty fast...only just saw the first warning last week and now he got two more and he's gonzo. It kinda sucks because I was in trade talks with him and never was able to concemate a deal before this went down. It happens though. It's too bad that he couldn't fly right.

I know I've been dangerously close to the salary floor for most of the season. I think I had one week where my lineup was only $100K or $200K above the low water mark.

Maybe I'm being picky here but I found the explanation of his warnings to be confusing. He was under the salary floor, right? We're supposed to be below the salary cap. I know it's symantics but there's a difference. I hope he knows what he did wrong and the fact he didn't do enough to fix it was the reason for his removal.

I don't care about complete league transparency...ie--knowing what the big wigs of the league are talking about...I'm more about things being clearly explained and communicated to each of us and not have an issue catch someone by surprise...ie--being removed without warning. None of us need to know what exactly was said to Nate during each of his violations and I'm glad we have the posted warnings on the forum. Again, it's too bad Nate wasn't more proactive in trying to resolve his cap issues.

[Shoalzie]

For example Shoalize's bad trades were multiple trades over a long course which was taken down to one warning.

Well with my situation, I was removed without warning. I had to ask why I kicked out and had to plead my case to stay. I think this was the reason we started the warning system in the first place. All I'd ever ask is if we're doing something truly wrong, tell us. If someone isn't able to resolve an issue after repeated warnings, then that's on them and they should be removed.

Back to my situation, there were probably some idle threats thrown my way when someone criticized a bad trade...but not a formal warning. Any rules about making "bad" trades would be a very subjective process. I don't think we have a written rule about it. One person can say a deal is okay but 4 may think otherwise. Having to stay under the salary cap or above the salary floor or having the proper number of players in your lineup...those are black and white issues. It's far easier to police rules that are clearly written out.

When it came to trades...there isn't a rule that I could or couldn't make a certain trade. It just came down to the fact that some felt I was ruining my own team. To me, that's a subjective opinion and open to interpretation. Considering we all value players differently...it would be impossible to write a rule that says you have to trade value for value. Some trades are moves that have to be made...ie--you're under the salary floor or you need games played...and value for value doesn't usually happen. When it comes to being $2 or $3 million under the salary floor at the time of the weekly roster deadline...that's a blatant violation of a clearly-written rule. You can't talk your way out of that.

[Nick]

I agree Scott.

The 3 strike system is to prevent hasty decisions and inform the GM of topic that there is concern. The vote afterwards is whether or not the GM is good for the league or not, and ideally that's handled by level headed, veteran GM's with the BBKL in mind.

We do need to remember that this is not a dictatorship, but instead a community. No one is above the rules, but those abusing, ignoring and/or cheating the rules will not be tolerated, we expected and require a certain level of diligence to be part of this league. Our CBA is not a final word, it's a governing set of topics that have been covered. We did not hire a bunch of lawyers to write it, but instead a few of the GMs got together and put something together.

I know I'll never accept the argument

There is no rule that says that

, we have openly stated more then once that if you see a loophole, or a gap in the CBA (by wording or simply left out), rather then using/abusing it, point it out to admin's/CC and adjustments will be made -> good of the league and future of the league easily trumps one leg up IMO. I'd like to CC warnings be removed for good conduct and warning be added for shady attempts.


Regarding the good/bad GMing -> I agree any single trade can be difficult to judge, however a body of work that is not so. If you had a GM had a reasonable # of valuable assets, and after 6 months in the league had very few, flags should be raised -> is this GM suitable for the BBKL... as it creates two issues. First and foremost is the ruined team, Secondly is the pumped up team that ruined that team... It's not like 29 teams got stronger, more likely 2 or even just one. If we allow that to happen, the league would be a joke; the fear of trades and managing being monitored should encourage our GMs to think more about the deals they make.

/rant.

[Chuck Norris]

The only thing about the Nate situation is it caught me off guard. I keep up on our forums daily including the infraction list and as far as I knew he was only on 1 warning. So to hear that suddenly he had 3 and was booted was a bit shocking. That being said yes he violated rules and yes he should have been booted for it.

I wouldnt go so far as to say its a transparency issue, the infraction list is there to give us some degree of transparency. We voted in the CC as a community and should trust them with our (and the league's) best interests. What the issue is someone dropped the ball on updating said list in a timely manner to keep everyone up to date on the situation. I think the infraction list is quite frankly all the transparency we need but admins/CC/whoever need to keep up on it. When you send a warning you should post the infranction on the list. Tisk tisk leadership. Slap on the wrist and lets move on.

Simple as that.

[inferno31]

The only thing about the Nate situation is it caught me off guard. I keep up on our forums daily including the infraction list and as far as I knew he was only on 1 warning. So to hear that suddenly he had 3 and was booted was a bit shocking. That being said yes he violated rules and yes he should have been booted for it.

I wouldnt go so far as to say its a transparency issue, the infraction list is there to give us some degree of transparency. We voted in the CC as a community and should trust them with our (and the league's) best interests. What the issue is someone dropped the ball on updating said list in a timely manner to keep everyone up to date on the situation. I think the infraction list is quite frankly all the transparency we need but admins/CC/whoever need to keep up on it. When you send a warning you should post the infranction on the list. Tisk tisk leadership. Slap on the wrist and lets move on.

Simple as that.

This was my main point, we have that list set up for transparency. Thats all the transparency I really want/need. But Before a GM comes up for removal, the league should know. It shouldn't be a case of a removal then we are told oh he had 3 warnings. Before the CC even had the removal discussion, the league should know. The warnings let us fellow league members police the issue as well, and may stop such situations in the future.

[Mike]

Yep, the lack of info up on that page was my fault. I was working on both of these issues for 7 straight hours yesterday and was very tired by the end of it. Info's up there now.

[Shoalzie]

I know I'll never accept the argument

There is no rule that says that

, we have openly stated more then once that if you see a loophole, or a gap in the CBA (by wording or simply left out), rather then using/abusing it, point it out to admin's/CC and adjustments will be made -> good of the league and future of the league easily trumps one leg up IMO. I'd like to CC warnings be removed for good conduct and warning be added for shady attempts.


Regarding the good/bad GMing -> I agree any single trade can be difficult to judge, however a body of work that is not so. If you had a GM had a reasonable # of valuable assets, and after 6 months in the league had very few, flags should be raised -> is this GM suitable for the BBKL... as it creates two issues. First and foremost is the ruined team, Secondly is the pumped up team that ruined that team... It's not like 29 teams got stronger, more likely 2 or even just one. If we allow that to happen, the league would be a joke; the fear of trades and managing being monitored should encourage our GMs to think more about the deals they make.

/rant.

I said awhile ago that my lack of grasping all aspects of this league early on hurt me in the moves I made and how I strongly undervalued certain statistical categories and as well as prospects and draft picks. It was a case where I had to learn from my mistakes. I've said on several occasions that if I could do it all over with the knowledge I have gained since I joined, I wouldn't have the majority of the moves I made. In fact, I think this league has made me more shrewd in other leagues with similar rules. I know that doesn't apply here but it's not like I'm in other leagues and all I do is make bad trades and screw myself.

I'm not any less of a hockey fan than any of you...it's just understanding the value of the total package for a player in a league like this. This is the first time playing in a league of this size and with this much detail. When I'm used to playing in leagues where you only value goals and assists...understanding why trading away a 4th line center that kills penalties and wins a lot of faceoffs and makes less than $2 million is a big deal in this league. This experience has made me more vigilant towards all statistical categories as well as having a broader knowledge and awareness of prospects around the league. I fully acknowledge my team is in rough shape but I feel I've gained enough knowledge to know what I have to do to fix my problem. It's nothing that can happen quickly but if I'm allowed to stay with the league going forward, I will improve.

[Nick]

Sorry, that message was not intended to be directed at you in any way shape or form Scott. It was simply a random rant stemming from multiple conversations over the past 2 months. If something felt targeted or directed at you in anyway I apologize, was not my intention.


Now Berg, if you find something in there directed @ you, your probably right... Goofy hick that you are.

[Shoalzie]

Sorry, that message was not intended to be directed at your in any way shape or form Scott. It was simply a random rant stemming from multiple conversations over the past 2 months. If something felt targeted or directed at you in any way I apologize, was not my intention.

It's all good, Nick...even if it was directed at me, I took no offense.

[kyuss]

for what my opinion may matter, i don't think it should be possible to assess the 3 warnings in such a short period of time. That somehow kills what i thought was the purpose of the 3 warning system.
Personally i don't think more than a warning per week makes sense.

As far as we could see, Nate got his 1st warning on nov.28, a couple of days later he is out of the league. wow.

I think people should get a fair chance to fix their situations/mistake before getting kicked out.

I'm not necessarily saying Nate was not given such chance, maybe privately he was warned repeatedly over the weeks, but the procedure seems to need some improvement.
If someone can get 3 official public warnings in a matter of few days (or even on the same day) he is not assured to be given a fair chance to fix things:
suppose a GM makes a mistake and then real life takes over for him in the next couple of days (anyone can have real life problems all of a sudden).. by when he can get his head back over BBKL stuff he may be already out..

i surely wouldn't want to find myself in a situation like that after all the effort put into this.
Again, not saying it's exactly the situation happening here with Nate or Frank, but this use of warnings open the door for it on paper.

[Mike]

Mik, we need you in the CC!

[kyuss]

Mik, we need you in the CC!

right now i'm actually concerned about being able to stay in the league long term!

[armandtanzarian]

Ok, yes, maybe the warnings never got updated fast enough, but Nate knew what was going on. He had one official noted warning. He broke a league rule 2 weeks ago and was warned via PM by Mike to become legal and it was an official warning. He read the pm and did not respond. fine. Then come last week, nothing changed and his roster was in fact illegal again. Therefore he ignored warnings and did not fix his illegal roster. He was on his third strike and eligible for removal discussion. The vote went through and it was supported. There was no personal agendas and rules are rules. Yes I agree that official warnings need to be posted and visible and that was one shortcoming which will not happen again. But Nate knew what was going on and still did not conform. In the future official warnings will updated asap so everyone can be aware or maybe even help that person. In this case it is not like there was a secret agenda. The GM in question had ample opportunity to fix problems an was aware, so to say that there is a fear of removal if something happened is unfounded. Extenuating circumstances will always be considered. And in Nates case he was conversing with other GMS , so it was known that he had received his warnings.

[anton]

can't really argue against the removal of a guy with an illegal roster for 3 straight weeks.