Introduce Yourself

[WillyBilly (Tire Fires)]

Aug 13, 2021 22:46:20 GMT -5 Djurgardens said:

Aug 13, 2021 18:48:10 GMT -5 WillyBilly (Tire Fires) said:

Bro chill now you're just being antagonistic. At the time of creation 3/4's of the league knew each other I was one of the few that was new, at this point I don't even know what you're on about, so what if he brought a friend from another league here? The previous WAK GM's a friend of mine no one batted an eye, and we've brought multiple people from prior leagues here now with no one crying foul.

and why wouldn't they defend each other when they are being attacked(for lack of a better word)?

Well, we're in agreement to the what...Which speaks to the why...

...If there's an appearance of peculiarity, it SHOULD be inquired into. There is a pattern. I'm not the only one who has noticed it. Specifically to the example of Red Army's post and CGS's post, there's nothing at all that could be construed as being attacked.

When legitimate inquiry is characterized as attack, that's when red flags go up. Because if there's plainly no attack, but one is being cited, then there's a motive to characterize legitimate concern as "attack". Usually,  in order to prevent further questioning. And if that's the case then you've got to ask yourself the question: why?

IF, (1) new GMs are repeatedly the trade partner of one GM, shortly after joining, and then character of the trade is similar (ie undesirable pieces for value going in the same direction), then I think that's cause/pause for concern. (2) If that trading partner has admitted not knowing the sport to a degree of competitive competency and is ALSO a trade partner of that same "timely" GM, then that's the type of pattern or element that -- I think??? -- is cause/pause for concern and certainly, inquiry. Not that it needs to be spelled out, but if any one joins a league with a number of variables to the scoring system, let alone nuance to the sport and claims they don't understand but would like to...then there's legitimate cause to question, isn't there? And (3) if a GM is bringing in others and he's dealing with them in tentative deals before they're joining the league, then that's worthy of like cause/pause as well. And (4) it...is...absolutely...up to each of us to go out of our way to appear truly competitive. And if that means refraining from repeatedly bringing in new GMs and ham-fisting deals in which our undesirables are moved for better than value assets, then that's what any reasonable GM does because we know the value of assets and how hard it is to move them in and amongst ourselves on a regular typically competitive basis. Once that environment appears suspended, questions should arise.

So again, to the why...Well...Because if one GM has an unfair advantage outside a competitive competency then it's a skewed playing environment for one rather than a level playing environment for all.

Right now, if I say my behavior isn't worthy of questioning, am I right simply because I feel that way? Or is it plain that my behavior has deviated to such a degree that I should answer for it?

I think you're 100% in the right to take me to task and should have 100% expectation that I explain and answer for it, because my behavior is so plainly understood as being deviated from my norm and the norm of the league. It's plainly deviated and I should answer for it in a healthy competitive league where standards are valued.

And so should anyone else.

Frank being the first to trade with the 2 new GM's is coincidence imo, and don't get me wrong the 1st one was egregious but i had no problem with the Bouchard/Jokiharju swap i personally prefer Jokiharju, but that's a different discussion.

Also Frank potentially talking trade with any new GM he might bring into the league before they actually join is speculation, I trust Frank enough that I don't need to suspect that what does either party have to gain there is no monetary value in this league.

I know we've said it a bunch today, but I think this could all be fixed with re adding advisors.

[Golden Seals]

Aug 13, 2021 22:46:20 GMT -5 Djurgardens said:

Aug 13, 2021 18:48:10 GMT -5 WillyBilly (Tire Fires) said:

Bro chill now you're just being antagonistic. At the time of creation 3/4's of the league knew each other I was one of the few that was new, at this point I don't even know what you're on about, so what if he brought a friend from another league here? The previous WAK GM's a friend of mine no one batted an eye, and we've brought multiple people from prior leagues here now with no one crying foul.

and why wouldn't they defend each other when they are being attacked(for lack of a better word)?

Well, we're in agreement to the what...Which speaks to the why...

...If there's an appearance of peculiarity, it SHOULD be inquired into. There is a pattern. I'm not the only one who has noticed it. Specifically to the example of Red Army's post and CGS's post, there's nothing at all that could be construed as being attacked.

When legitimate inquiry is characterized as attack, that's when red flags go up. Because if there's plainly no attack, but one is being cited, then there's a motive to characterize legitimate concern as "attack". Usually,  in order to prevent further questioning. And if that's the case then you've got to ask yourself the question: why?

IF, (1) new GMs are repeatedly the trade partner of one GM, shortly after joining, and then character of the trade is similar (ie undesirable pieces for value going in the same direction), then I think that's cause/pause for concern. (2) If that trading partner has admitted not knowing the sport to a degree of competitive competency and is ALSO a trade partner of that same "timely" GM, then that's the type of pattern or element that -- I think??? -- is cause/pause for concern and certainly, inquiry. Not that it needs to be spelled out, but if any one joins a league with a number of variables to the scoring system, let alone nuance to the sport and claims they don't understand but would like to...then there's legitimate cause to question, isn't there? And (3) if a GM is bringing in others and he's dealing with them in tentative deals before they're joining the league, then that's worthy of like cause/pause as well. And (4) it...is...absolutely...up to each of us to go out of our way to appear truly competitive. And if that means refraining from repeatedly bringing in new GMs and ham-fisting deals in which our undesirables are moved for better than value assets, then that's what any reasonable GM does because we know the value of assets and how hard it is to move them in and amongst ourselves on a regular typically competitive basis. Once that environment appears suspended, questions should arise.

So again, to the why...Well...Because if one GM has an unfair advantage outside a competitive competency then it's a skewed playing environment for one rather than a level playing environment for all.

Right now, if I say my behavior isn't worthy of questioning, am I right simply because I feel that way? Or is it plain that my behavior has deviated to such a degree that I should answer for it?

I think you're 100% in the right to take me to task and should have 100% expectation that I explain and answer for it, because my behavior is so plainly understood as being deviated from my norm and the norm of the league. It's plainly deviated and I should answer for it in a healthy competitive league where standards are valued.

And so should anyone else.

Ham-fisting? What the hell is that and why am I too afraid to look it up?

Seriously, I need that word in my vocabulary 

[johnnybower(SOO)]

In EVERY FHL I've been in a new GM is like a bleeding swimmer in a shark pool. He/she gets swarmed by GM's testing them. Some GM's are more aggressive than others and while I have no issue with Frank, he is an aggressive GM and will usually be the first shark! I have no problem with that but I think that perhaps what we need to be doing is ensuring new GM's have: a) read and understand the rules; b)have someone work with them 1-on-1 to assess their "hockey IQ" (for lack of a better phrase) to see if he/she may need some mentoring on player evaluation and trade strategy; c) stop criticizing them in public threads.

We have the PM function...I think a lot of the discussions when trades are being questioned should be done behind the scenes between the trade committee and the involved GM's.

I'm an admin in another FHL and I encourage every new GM to find another GM they trust to bounce ideas off of. I do it myself and I also have other GM's that use me as a sounding board. If folks are really dedicated to being fair and honest then they should never knowingly give another GM bad or self-serving advice.

Just more of my thoughts...

[Deleted]

Aug 14, 2021 1:20:18 GMT -5 johnnybower(SOO) said:

In EVERY FHL I've been in a new GM is like a bleeding swimmer in a shark pool. He/she gets swarmed by GM's testing them. Some GM's are more aggressive than others and while I have no issue with Frank, he is an aggressive GM and will usually be the first shark! I have no problem with that but I think that perhaps what we need to be doing is ensuring new GM's have: a) read and understand the rules; b)have someone work with them 1-on-1 to assess their "hockey IQ" (for lack of a better phrase) to see if he/she may need some mentoring on player evaluation and trade strategy; c) stop criticizing them in public threads.

We have the PM function...I think a lot of the discussions when trades are being questioned should be done behind the scenes between the trade committee and the involved GM's.

I'm an admin in another FHL and I encourage every new GM to find another GM they trust to bounce ideas off of. I do it myself and I also have other GM's that use me as a sounding board. If folks are really dedicated to being fair and honest then they should never knowingly give another GM bad or self-serving advice.

Just more of my thoughts...

Well said, I agree with everything!! I just think giving the new gm an advisor for a period of time would the best thing for the league.

[Djurgardens]

Aug 14, 2021 1:12:29 GMT -5 Golden Seals said:

Aug 13, 2021 22:46:20 GMT -5 Djurgardens said:

Well, we're in agreement to the what...Which speaks to the why...

...If there's an appearance of peculiarity, it SHOULD be inquired into. There is a pattern. I'm not the only one who has noticed it. Specifically to the example of Red Army's post and CGS's post, there's nothing at all that could be construed as being attacked.

When legitimate inquiry is characterized as attack, that's when red flags go up. Because if there's plainly no attack, but one is being cited, then there's a motive to characterize legitimate concern as "attack". Usually,  in order to prevent further questioning. And if that's the case then you've got to ask yourself the question: why?

IF, (1) new GMs are repeatedly the trade partner of one GM, shortly after joining, and then character of the trade is similar (ie undesirable pieces for value going in the same direction), then I think that's cause/pause for concern. (2) If that trading partner has admitted not knowing the sport to a degree of competitive competency and is ALSO a trade partner of that same "timely" GM, then that's the type of pattern or element that -- I think??? -- is cause/pause for concern and certainly, inquiry. Not that it needs to be spelled out, but if any one joins a league with a number of variables to the scoring system, let alone nuance to the sport and claims they don't understand but would like to...then there's legitimate cause to question, isn't there? And (3) if a GM is bringing in others and he's dealing with them in tentative deals before they're joining the league, then that's worthy of like cause/pause as well. And (4) it...is...absolutely...up to each of us to go out of our way to appear truly competitive. And if that means refraining from repeatedly bringing in new GMs and ham-fisting deals in which our undesirables are moved for better than value assets, then that's what any reasonable GM does because we know the value of assets and how hard it is to move them in and amongst ourselves on a regular typically competitive basis. Once that environment appears suspended, questions should arise.

So again, to the why...Well...Because if one GM has an unfair advantage outside a competitive competency then it's a skewed playing environment for one rather than a level playing environment for all.

Right now, if I say my behavior isn't worthy of questioning, am I right simply because I feel that way? Or is it plain that my behavior has deviated to such a degree that I should answer for it?

I think you're 100% in the right to take me to task and should have 100% expectation that I explain and answer for it, because my behavior is so plainly understood as being deviated from my norm and the norm of the league. It's plainly deviated and I should answer for it in a healthy competitive league where standards are valued.

And so should anyone else.

Ham-fisting? What the hell is that and why am I too afraid to look it up?

Seriously, I need that word in my vocabulary 

Lmao. Now I have to sheepishly self-correct and say, “ham-fisted”...<ouch!>...”ham-fisted”.