Buds Board Keepers League

CasperX22 wroteCOLON

kyuss wroteCOLON

Jordan (VGK) wroteCOLONYou can't use the logic that we cannot make a rule change because it would impact previous weeks, when the rules were only revealed in week 3. Were we supposed to disagree with rules that weren't in place before the season started?

in week 1, 2 and 3 GMs could not put in LTIR players in covid-protocol, whereas under your requests starting with week 4 GMs would be allowed to do that (or to even bury those players in the minors temporarily lol).

You can play around with words as much as you want, but that's a pretty simple and incontrovertible fact.

Also, please tell me you are willing to replace me in the CC.

So is that your go to response when you are proven to be full of shit?

No I am not full of shit. And clearly you have proven nothing, other than some lack of understanding on your part.

Speaking of the CC, I asked them to replace me there a looong time ago. They still have to do that unfortunately. I just hope they will pick someone who is able to understand topics and carry on a discussion.

For my part I am not blaming the CC nor Mik specifically. He just tends to be the person to respond first and more often. I brought this up since it seems like the ruling as it was drawn up isn't as black and white as intended, as confirmed by Mik's comment that common sense dictates that players held out long term should be able to be put on LTIR. This would seem to suggest that a revision of the rule is necessary in order to make it more black and white.

Matthew wroteCOLONIt's tough creating this ruling as there are many different interpretations of how this should be handled, so it kinda becomes a patchwork of bureaucratic votes. We have 7 people in cc so a lot of voices, and sometimes u gotta cede one idea so another can go through and things get done, rather than just go on and on without any resolution.

And then u have people constantly complaining about the choices made, when we've all ready argued for a week or two about it in cc. Just becomes exhausting (although everyone is entitled to their opinions, obv). It isn't going to be perfect, but there are likely going to be holes in any direction we go in for covid since it's constantly evolving.

I agree, it's a bitch to figure this all out. I'm obviously the one who's always critical of a lot of decisions here. I'm not trying to cause anyone grief, but I have the same conversations in other leagues so I come in with my opinion on how things should be. We can come to different conclusions and that be okay, but what frustrates me is when I poke holes in the ruling I get met with "it's black and white" when it clearly isn't. Being told by a CC member that changes can't be made because it would impact previous weeks when the rule was put in place in week 3 is pretty silly. I gave an official source that the NHL won't be releasing positive tests and got a double down of yes they will. It's okay to say you guys made a mistake and thought the NHL would release those details as it wasn't super clear, but that hasn't been the response.

I probably need to voice my criticism in a more constructive manner, but it seems like any criticism gets met with some standoffish answer that I wouldn't want to do in leagues where I'm speaking on behalf of the league as CC/Admin. A few of you have said we're going to discuss this further as clearly there is some confusion which I respect. Probably similarly to Mik I'm tired of getting into pissing matches with him as well.

kyuss wroteCOLONAlso, please tell me you are willing to replace me in the CC.

I would but I'm trying to scale back my involvement in these leagues to prioritize other things. Being CC in 2 other leagues and helping Foof a lot on the spreadsheet work is enough for me at the moment.

The thing as Mik said, changing the rules only a few weeks after implemented, would surely be unprecedented and I can respect that if we were in any particular year other than a Covid year.

If there was any year that might require a pivot a few times during the year, it will be this one. I wholly respect the CC's decisions, but also like to see what other people think. Just like in real life, the gvt (cc) still has to be accountable to its people and properly defending the decisions when challenged is a huge part of that. I think most here are just trying to help find a way that works smoothly.

As an aside, it was noted that it's the same few people that challenge the league decisions. That's a positive thing and a bad thing. Nobody wants a league where choices go unchallenged, but everyone can appreciate that voices can be heard and dialogue can be open. Even if a rule isn't changed, at least we have a process that is very clear. As for the few voices being negative, well it's always the minority of a keeper league that is vocal. In my experience most people don't care and just roll with the punches, which is why you tend to get the same old voices all the time.

Alright. This is what we settled on. Again, not going to make everyone happy but hopefully it is a reasonable common ground.

http://bbkl.ca/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1206 ... 43#p317043

Handsome&FairMike wroteCOLONAlright. This is what we settled on. Again, not going to make everyone happy but hopefully it is a reasonable common ground.

http://bbkl.ca/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1206 ... 43#p317043

Definitively an improvement. Thanks for listening, apologies for headaches caused.

Thanks for the feedback, guys

all good - no way we are always going to get this stuff right.

Too bad something couldn't be done to allow more flexibility. Oh well, glad I'm not trying to win this year.

So why is there no policy to make you post /90 players when making a claim?

Jordan (VGK) wroteCOLONSo why is there no policy to make you post /90 players when making a claim?

That /50 rule was only brought in recently after people were caught going over, maybe we need to change it to post both.

Personally I don't think you should need to post either. We survived for years without it and if you make an illegal claim you get penalized.

Bruyns wroteCOLON

Jordan (VGK) wroteCOLONSo why is there no policy to make you post /90 players when making a claim?

That /50 rule was only brought in recently after people were caught going over, maybe we need to change it to post both.

Personally I don't think you should need to post either. We survived for years without it and if you make an illegal claim you get penalized.

Agreed with this. Claim at your own risk. Do your DD before making a move.

Seems tedious to force someone to preemptively drop to make a waiver claim they may or may not win. Contracts I get it because you’re putting yourself in a position that requires a trade and cannot be easily fixed to become legal once the claim is won.

Jordan (VGK) wroteCOLONSeems tedious to force someone to preemptively drop to make a waiver claim they may or may not win. Contracts I get it because you’re putting yourself in a position that requires a trade and cannot be easily fixed to become legal once the claim is won.

Should be able to include in your post - will drop player x if claim successful. Shows that you have knowledge that you are going over and are prepared to make a move.

Shenanigans

Da_Hawks wroteCOLON

Jordan (VGK) wroteCOLONSeems tedious to force someone to preemptively drop to make a waiver claim they may or may not win. Contracts I get it because you’re putting yourself in a position that requires a trade and cannot be easily fixed to become legal once the claim is won.

Should be able to include in your post - will drop player x if claim successful. Shows that you have knowledge that you are going over and are prepared to make a move.

Agreed. Conditional drop makes sense. But again there’s a difference between having to post /50 and nothing for /90. I assumed this was because you can freeely drop whenever

Then again, it`s impossible that any team has 90 players that they want to keep. People are just hoarders mostly. Should always have some wiggle room.

All the shenanigans over ruhwedel and he's healthy scratched today hehe

Bruyns wroteCOLON

Jordan (VGK) wroteCOLONSo why is there no policy to make you post /90 players when making a claim?

That /50 rule was only brought in recently after people were caught going over, maybe we need to change it to post both.

Personally I don't think you should need to post either. We survived for years without it and if you make an illegal claim you get penalized.

I think we should broaden the rule like you suggested above. It's better if GMs are forced to post the counter cause that way both them and the CC are forced to pay attention to that. That should not only make it more difficult for infractions to go unnoticed, it should also reduce the risk for the GM to make an illegal claim in the first place, saving us from situations like this one, which are never pleasant.

Da_Hawks wroteCOLON

Jordan (VGK) wroteCOLONSeems tedious to force someone to preemptively drop to make a waiver claim they may or may not win. Contracts I get it because you’re putting yourself in a position that requires a trade and cannot be easily fixed to become legal once the claim is won.

Should be able to include in your post - will drop player x if claim successful. Shows that you have knowledge that you are going over and are prepared to make a move.

yes I think this would work and makes sense. That's not the rule we had in place at this time though