S86 Town Hall 4

[Mike Lowry]

What does relegation look like?
As the prospect looms over SLOE, and the campaign trails are being drawn, how will GM's on the bubble respond?
Also, why is this a good idea? What is this idea? And who's idea is this anyway?

Rules: 1 point if you give thoughtful answers, which I will award after the timer ends for responses. The timer ends for responses at the moment the corresponding week's Sim is run.

Note: Use approximately 5 sentences as your bare minimum for 1 point. If you write 3 long, complex sentences, you'll still get a point. If you write 5, 3 word sentences, you will not get a point. Don't @ me.

Due: Deadline for Sim 4

[greepleairport]

What does relegation look like?
As the prospect looms over SLOE, and the campaign trails are being drawn, how will GM's on the bubble respond?
Also, why is this a good idea? What is this idea? And who's idea is this anyway?

There are some GMs worth relegating, and others I'd rather not relegate despite their inactivity. I know this is not a popular opinion grazing through the discord chats, but I can't imagine sim league without digiskunk or 78. I dunno if digiskunk is an OG GM, but I know 78 is. I know an active league is a healthy league, but a league that doesn't buy into these guys' seniority and wanting to stay, albeit in a reduced capacity, feels... icky? I don't have a better word for it.

I'm not going to stand in anyone's way of booting inactive GMs at the end of the day, but if it were up to me I'd put up with these guys' absenteeism more easily than Super Dog, who no one missed. And I'm pissed that JLM has squandered the careers of sidney moncrief and jim paxson, and I can't say that his activity level is defensible.

I don't know for sure, but I'd reckon it's the idea of the commish to do this, and I'm not mad at him for it even if some GMs I like are forced out. I think the current commish has set a clear agenda with seasonal check ins, that if you're not even able to do THAT? You're out. And if that's practically all you've done for 7 seasons now? And he decides as a result of that, you're out? Well, I don't love it, but won't fight it this time.

I think it sets a slippery precedent to start relegating GM's who are a bit checked out for whatever reason. I will likely feel differently on a case by case basis for each and every GM getting relegated.

And, again, I don't love this idea, but if it's the will of the league at large, so be it.

[K-100]

I'm personally not in favor of relegation but as long as the relagation standards are applied equally, go for it. The people that want it to happen get it, and the people it affects probably wont be bothered at all to realize it even happened.

But if you start cherrypicking folks for exemption because of seniority or "vibes", it makes the whole conversation around relegation pointless. People are busy and interest in the game ebbs and flows with the seasons. And personally, I'm okay with that. I have felt pretty checked out since the reboot but I know once the 90s hit, my interest in the draft classes will start to perk up and hopefully my activity will too. And if it doesnt, that is ok. The league does not have some long waitlist of folks itching to join so I really dont see the point in all this relegation talk. We have a group of people that at least check-in once during a season and nobody has had a team die because of inactivity. It is the bare minimum and I think those thresholds are being met.

[IamQuailman]

What does relegation look like?
As the prospect looms over SLOE, and the campaign trails are being drawn, how will GM's on the bubble respond?
Also, why is this a good idea? What is this idea? And who's idea is this anyway?

I don't know if we can really call this relegation. We aren't moving teams to a lower-tier league. It's just GM replacement, which has been done before. The choice to do so is never easy, because as greeple said, some of the people probably in question have been here a while. But overall for me, it's all about responsiveness. It's about communication. The chatter only really heats up when people get frustrated they cannot get a hold of you. But I can also see this being subjective, and not something that can evenly be applied across.

For example... some of the GMs already named:

- If you NEED to get in touch with certain GMs (naming digiskunk & 78 since they've been mentioned already), there are ways to do it in addition to forum DMs (discord for 78 or instagram for Gary). I've always offered to nudge @digiskunk if needed, as I (among a few other GMs) frequently interact with him on IG. Happy to do so.. and usually that nudge will get you a response in one way or another... for 78, he's wait more likely to respond to Discord DMs if you message than forum DMs.

- But then there are others (naming JLM because he was also brought up), forum DMs are the only way to contact. Never in a Skype/FB/Discord.... and when you send a DM, good luck having it read (and even moreso getting a response). In his instance, the only way to sometimes initiate contact is by asking AB or K-100, and even then theres 98% chance you'll get left on read. 2 other GMs we ousted at the reboot were essentially the same level of communication (SuperDog & cashcab).

I think for the aforementioned GMs (and any future ones who could dance on the bubble), if they could just improve availability to communicate, that would go a long way in all this talk of GM removal. No one wants to kick anyone out; they just want people to be accessible and communicate.

[AngryBanana]

Ok, so both Quail and K100 make great points. This isn’t regulation, as they are not being kept on and moved to a lower tier until they are better. They are expelled from their position. I think that’s a little harsh, given that we don’t exactly have several people in the wings, nor do we know how active people we would bring on would be once here, or if they would last at all.

I think we’re currently in a position where people that are waiting are fine to wait. We have expansions currently in wait that will allow for about six(?) GMs to come on in the future, without removing anyone. We don’t even have half of that in the queue for joining. So it’s not like people are chomping at the bit to join.

Also, it seems like it would be bound not as much to an objective lens as it would from a subjective one. I don’t blame anyone (except qual and his agenda) for this. I am not, nor have in other recent conversations, argued for anyone particular, but more so that it is viewed impartially.

With all that said, I think it’s not as much about removing poor GMs as it is them just being more active. I have joked a lot recently about Digi and 78 not being active and the whole draft thing, but it does suck seeing them have guys that are great and can be really good, just be one man shows (or die) on their respective teams. I find that the GM situation in this league is closer to MLB. Where some are very inactive and the disparity between those try and don’t are clearly evident.

Also, it shouldn’t necessarily be held against the GM that it is hard to reach them outside of the forum. This is a doubled edged sword after all too. This game is held on the forum, so… if that’s how GMs only want to be reached then I don’t see a problem with that, privacy is a thing after all. Equally, it should be made a point that if you have more ways of reaching out to GMs, then shouldn’t they be held to a higher expectation that they are active and making deals? I’ve messaged GMs before multiple ways for it not to be answered at all or for long periods of times. Equally, I agree that GMs should give the decency to respond to messages of trades that they get, even if it is an outright no. Like, at least tell me so I can move on with my life.

Sorry, slight tangent. I think ultimately that the argument should be more focused on how to improve activity, or just be fine with inactivity, than it is about expelling GMs. Like K-100 said it’s a sliding scale of activity that we all have, as it varies with life in sim and real life dealings, so it’s not a one size fits all answer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BigDaddyd8720]

I won't name names but this idea was brought up to me during last season when talks of expansion first came around. My stance on this is pretty simple: I am not trying to kick people out just because I feel like it (I know nobody is accusing me of that), I just want this league to be as active and fun as possible. This is just a game that means absolutely nothing in the real world. I understand everyone has their own lives. Hell, I'm having a kid in about 6 months so I'm sure some things will change on my end. My only request is to have some kind of communication from everyone. There are multiple ways for everyone to stay in touch with the league. We all know that everything happens through the forum, so it really shouldn't be that difficult for a GM to check their messages when they log into submit a DC or something. And if they don't check the forum often, it seems like everyone has at least one contact within the league. So at the end of the day, everyone should be able to communicate one way or the other.

Ultimately, I'm less worried about overall activity than I am with communication. SuperDog and Cashcab were both removed because they failed to communicate with me for multiple seasons after I sent them both multiple messages as well as asking other GMs to reach out to them. We all have a lot going on and nobody should have to babysit anyone. We're all adults just trying to find something to get away from the real world for a few minutes 3 times a week.

If you're inactive at times but stay in constant communication or at least give a heads up that you're stepping away, I'm cool with that. It's the lack of communication that gets to me. I'd rather switch out GMs who don't communicate for ones that do, should it come down to that. I've had multiple GMs over the seasons let me know if they have to step away from the game for a bit and that's perfectly fine. Just don't step away without saying anything.

[Mike Lowry]

For starters, I want to say that the hardest thing to look at is the super-star talent wasting away season after season, draft after draft.
Few teams have been in the lottery every year since the creation draft, and just had top end players rotting on their rosters.
And I'm looking at a couple of powerhouses that were built through the draft, and a couple of dumpster fires that could have been put out with just a little engagement and strategy.
So, it doesn't feel good to be held hostage as the team with access to the top five picks show up for the draft, stash the top talent, and then dip, leaving GMs who are highly engaged to work with y/b prospects that need a ton of development.
I do understand the frustration, but more so, I find it valid to consider the waiting list.
I guess the only reason I would have an opinion is if there are people who are waiting to participate and be active.
And I guess active would mean more responsive rather than more trades.
If people be in and out of investment, I actually think it's good for us to have a space for GMs to cool out while still having access to the game for contact.
I think Nick is a great example of responsibly stepping away when he didn't have the time, and waiting patiently to reengage when his opportunity comes.
I mostly asked because the idea seems to have steam, but the details haven't been fleshed, and I think they should be well before an action is taken.

[tbone963]

Agree on the stance that it's not really regulation, but removal. I'll start by qualifying that I'm the second newest GM here so maybe I'm coming at this with naivety and less jadedness than other GMs. I do think before any talk of replacing someone is had, we should for sure make sure we have a replacement for them. As far as I know at the moment, we have 1-3 GMs in waiting.

My stance is to kick the inactive players. Like everyone said and agrees with, life gets busy and sometimes you miss a few dcs or forget about your presser. That's all fine. It's when you can't be bothered to even read a pm (on a forum where 100% of all league actions are conducted). Or when you can't participate in the draft once every 2 months. The schedule is usually posted the week before and you can always submit a list of prospects if you think you'll be too busy that day.

No one wants to call anyone out, but we don't need to. Everyone knows who the offenders are. "That's just the way it is" or "That's just him" is not an excuse for complacency. I know this is a just a game, but no one wants to play with a bunch of npcs while watching talent erode away from inactivity.

If the offending parties truly care and want to participate, they'll make it known and put forth effort to solidify their spot. If not, they won't mind being replaced by someone more active.