Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Leagues and Games > Calgarypuck Hockey League
Ivrnet

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-01-2016, 03:41 PM   #1
JiriHrdina
I believe in the Pony Power
 
JiriHrdina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Exp:
Default Testing a new way to approve new GM deals

Folks,
We want to try a different approach to how we approve deals from new GMs.
This has been something we have been noodling on for a while, in part to take the decision making out of the commissioners alone – and into the hands of the league overall. We hope this drives collective ownership from everyone to make more fair deals with new GMs.

I want to stress, we are going to try this out. We aren’t committed to making this our permanent process.

So basically when a new GM makes a deal, until they are through their probation period (which remains the discretion of the league), the deal will be posted on the forum for league-wide review.

GMs will vote on whether the deal is “fair” or not.

In order for a deal to be approved
- 50% of the league GMs must have voted (but hopefully we get closer to 100%)
- 51% or more must say that it is “fair”
- The GMs involved cannot vote
- The commissioners will vote, but their vote will count for 1, as will everyone elses
- Votes will be transparent – you will be able to see who voted for what

GMs can post their reasoning in the thread as to why they voted, but this isn’t mandatory.
JiriHrdina is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to JiriHrdina For This Useful Post:
Old 11-01-2016, 03:45 PM   #2
MJK
Franchise Player
 
MJK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Baker Lake, Nunavut
Exp:
Default

I like this better than the current way of doing things. Takes the subjectivity off of a select few and puts the decision on the league.

A good move.
MJK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 03:52 PM   #3
Tilley
Retired Aksarben Correspondent
 
Tilley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Exp:
Default

At minimum an interesting method that will generate discussion and activity on the board. At best, a more transparent league with less burden on the commishes.

Worth a shot.
Tilley is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 03:52 PM   #4
dsavillian
First Line Centre
 
dsavillian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: losing CPHL bets
Exp:
Default

Disagree with this change. I'd rather it be a shadow council of GMs picked on a trade by trade basis.

2 commissioners + 2 random GMs. 3 out of 4 votes required to approve.

No need to make it public.
__________________
CPHL - LA Kings

Rule of thumb: If you've never heard of a prospect, that prospect is garbage 100% of the time.
dsavillian is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to dsavillian For This Useful Post:
Old 11-01-2016, 03:53 PM   #5
TurdFerguson
#1 Goaltender
 
TurdFerguson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

As long as new GMs dont get crucified for accepting something they perhaps should not have, I think it could actually help in the learning curve with different asset values.
__________________
All hockey players are bilingual. They know English and profanity - Gordie Howe
TurdFerguson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 03:53 PM   #6
JiriHrdina
I believe in the Pony Power
 
JiriHrdina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Exp:
Default

Having the group change trade by trade would introduce an even higher level of inconsistency to the process.
Why not make it public?
JiriHrdina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 03:55 PM   #7
JiriHrdina
I believe in the Pony Power
 
JiriHrdina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TurdFerguson View Post
As long as new GMs dont get crucified for accepting something they perhaps should not have, I think it could actually help in the learning curve assets value.
That's my thought too.
More discussion about trades and value - should help them learn how the broader league feels about assets.
In my experience, some new GMs get very defensive about trades getting rejected - instead of just accepting that this league has a learning curve (like most things).
The ones that accept that and embrace it - typically turn into great GMs.
The ones that think they know everything and don't accept feedback - flames out pretty quick.
JiriHrdina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 03:57 PM   #8
dsavillian
First Line Centre
 
dsavillian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: losing CPHL bets
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JiriHrdina View Post
Having the group change trade by trade would introduce an even higher level of inconsistency to the process.
Why not make it public?
Grudges, "I would have offered more" drive by posters, "I didn't read the trade" votes, public shaming

Then change it to be a trade council of interested GMs. Have 2 commissioners + a small subset of active, knowledgeable GMs that are interested in helping new players out. If you wanted 4 votes per trade, have 3 GMs that rotate in and out - that way if one of the GMs was involved in the deal you still have 2 on deck to vote.
__________________
CPHL - LA Kings

Rule of thumb: If you've never heard of a prospect, that prospect is garbage 100% of the time.

Last edited by dsavillian; 11-01-2016 at 04:03 PM.
dsavillian is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to dsavillian For This Useful Post:
Old 11-01-2016, 03:58 PM   #9
TurdFerguson
#1 Goaltender
 
TurdFerguson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

i think it also provides an interesting opportunity for the trading parties to comment on their motive - be that team direction, prospect value etc. trade value vs. does this make sense can be 2 different things.
__________________
All hockey players are bilingual. They know English and profanity - Gordie Howe
TurdFerguson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 03:59 PM   #10
Swayze11
something else haha
 
Swayze11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Exp:
Default

__________________

Swayze11 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 04:09 PM   #11
JiriHrdina
I believe in the Pony Power
 
JiriHrdina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsavillian View Post
Grudges, "I would have offered more" drive by posters, "I didn't read the trade" votes, public shaming

Then change it to be a trade council of interested GMs. Have 2 commissioners + a small subset of active, knowledgeable GMs that are interested in helping new players out. If you wanted 4 votes per trade, have 3 GMs that rotate in and out - that way if one of the GMs was involved in the deal you still have 2 on deck to vote.
I don't see how that changes things much from what we have now - it is just a different group of people. Right now we have 4 people voting on this - they just happen to be commissioners.
We are looking to do something that makes the league feel like they have a say in these decisions - spreading the responsibility across far more people to reduce the impact of individual subjectivity.

If there is any public shaming, we will deal with those cases on an individual basis. Our expectation is that all this be done in a respectful way.
JiriHrdina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 04:15 PM   #12
dsavillian
First Line Centre
 
dsavillian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: losing CPHL bets
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JiriHrdina View Post
Our expectation is that all this be done in a respectful way.
I think that if we sampled the "newbie GM trade" threads from the last couple of seasons we would see that the success rate for this is not very good.


I'm for trying it, I'm just skeptical.

Whatever we do, don't make it a poll. You can't change your votes in a poll, and I imagine that there will be debate with the intention of swaying votes.
__________________
CPHL - LA Kings

Rule of thumb: If you've never heard of a prospect, that prospect is garbage 100% of the time.
dsavillian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 07:35 PM   #13
Flickered Flame
Lifetime Suspension
 
Flickered Flame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Red Deer
Exp:
Default

Nevermind, bad tone.
__________________



Flickered Flame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2016, 10:27 AM   #14
Hanna Sniper
Franchise Player
 
Hanna Sniper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Exp:
Default

I have no strong feeling anyway, I have no issues with the current way but understand that it's difficult to be the bad guy in veto duch deals. Anything is worth a try

As for dsavillian concern about changing votes, the trade can be posted without a poll and added a day later, if there's discussion by that time and change of thoughts on the deal would have been nudged enough that if you're still thinking about it you wouldn't finalize your decision yet.
__________________
- Say No to Vertical Video -
Hanna Sniper is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Hanna Sniper For This Useful Post:
Old 11-14-2016, 02:41 PM   #15
JiriHrdina
I believe in the Pony Power
 
JiriHrdina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Exp:
Default

Now that we've tried this a few times - any feedback/thoughts?
JiriHrdina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2016, 02:46 PM   #16
TurdFerguson
#1 Goaltender
 
TurdFerguson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

I have not made any deals that are reviewed but from the "outside", I like it. has participation been ok?
__________________
All hockey players are bilingual. They know English and profanity - Gordie Howe
TurdFerguson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2016, 02:53 PM   #17
JiriHrdina
I believe in the Pony Power
 
JiriHrdina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Exp:
Default

Generally participation has been good. I've ended some early as they have been slam dunks, but those that have run for 1-2 days are getting pretty high participation.

I like it a lot. I think have the league involved in these decisions has been good. And I think it is causing Gms to think carefully about if their deals are fair.

The one aspect I'm not sure about is if 66% as an acceptance bar is too high. Hasn't really come up yet, but for close deals should we lean to rejection or acceptance.
JiriHrdina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2016, 03:54 PM   #18
MJK
Franchise Player
 
MJK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Baker Lake, Nunavut
Exp:
Default

I honestly think 66% is high. IMO at 50/50 it should still be accepted so I would prefer leaning towards acceptance rather than rejection. If anything is really bad it will lose by a slam dunk anyways.
MJK is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to MJK For This Useful Post:
Old 11-14-2016, 04:02 PM   #19
devo22
Franchise Player
 
devo22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Austria, NOT Australia
Exp:
Default

agreed, I think a 50% treshold is high enough. Either way, I like the system.
devo22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2016, 04:10 PM   #20
TurdFerguson
#1 Goaltender
 
TurdFerguson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

as long as its over 50%, I'm fine with it.

also, 15 votes needed for a quorum would be my preference.
__________________
All hockey players are bilingual. They know English and profanity - Gordie Howe
TurdFerguson is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:29 PM.

Calgary Flames
2016-17




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016