With pretty much every rules debate, the issue of sticking to or departing from MLB and the way they do things has come up. Whether it's "Let's stick to MLB's schedule" or "We're not MLB, we don't have a salary system" it always comes up.
in the past, i've tried to stick to a general philosophy in that regard. One mistake, i think when I set up the league, was not formalizing that philosophy and having it written down somewhere as a guide.
Perhaps that's something we should do now.
Thoughts?
League Philosophy
Moderator: Executive Committee
-
Dodgers
- Site Admin
- Posts: 5783
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 1:00 am
- Location: Fort Lauderdale
- Name: Shawn Walsh
My thoughts echo JP's, in fact I was thinking of this before you even posted Bren. The precedent of starting as MLB was great, but as we find things that just don't fit with IBC or things that we think need changing, I think we need to think about what's best for IBC, rather than whether it does or doesn't conform to MLB. I will say that I used to be a proponent of being an MLB offshoot, but my view has drastically changed over time, in fact I think that JP's idea to change the schedule is something which is both feasible and makes sense to do.
-
Padres
- Site Admin
- Posts: 4822
- Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 1:00 am
- Location: Wells, Maine
- Name: Jim Berger
Our suggested rules start out as follows:
I.IBC Foundation
1. Rules of the IBC will adhere to those of MLB except where indicated below.
2. Rules listed below are subject to change at the discretion of the Executive Committee as we acclimate to the Diamond Mind Baseball system. All GM's will be notified of any and all changes and the topic will be open for discussion and debate, however by joining the IBC all GM's agree to accept the final decisions of the Executive Committee. While the rules and procedures of the IBC are ever evolving due to technological advances, changes in MLB and inspired suggestions from member GM's, no rules change are immediately foreseen and under no circumstances will a rule be initiated to benefit or favor one team over another.
This is the basis of the whole "following the MLB except when we think it is the best interests of the IBC" philosophy is found, I believe. Does anyone see any change that will occur in this language as a result of a league-wide discussion? I don't ...
I also understand that there is a subtle difference between rules and procedures with rules being a broad category spelled out in this document, but the procedures necessary to carry out the rules not necessarily spelled out. In fact the procedures can change as technology improves (a recent example being the automation of the waiver process).
I guess I am missing something but I am not sure I understand what the issue is here. In truth and in practice, we follow the MLB unless we decide not ... or we recognize that we can't (for example have six or seven minor league teams per IBC team).
I.IBC Foundation
1. Rules of the IBC will adhere to those of MLB except where indicated below.
2. Rules listed below are subject to change at the discretion of the Executive Committee as we acclimate to the Diamond Mind Baseball system. All GM's will be notified of any and all changes and the topic will be open for discussion and debate, however by joining the IBC all GM's agree to accept the final decisions of the Executive Committee. While the rules and procedures of the IBC are ever evolving due to technological advances, changes in MLB and inspired suggestions from member GM's, no rules change are immediately foreseen and under no circumstances will a rule be initiated to benefit or favor one team over another.
This is the basis of the whole "following the MLB except when we think it is the best interests of the IBC" philosophy is found, I believe. Does anyone see any change that will occur in this language as a result of a league-wide discussion? I don't ...
I also understand that there is a subtle difference between rules and procedures with rules being a broad category spelled out in this document, but the procedures necessary to carry out the rules not necessarily spelled out. In fact the procedures can change as technology improves (a recent example being the automation of the waiver process).
I guess I am missing something but I am not sure I understand what the issue is here. In truth and in practice, we follow the MLB unless we decide not ... or we recognize that we can't (for example have six or seven minor league teams per IBC team).
-
Rangers
- Site Admin
- Posts: 4048
- Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 1:00 am
- Location: Prosper, TX
- Name: Brett Perryman
I'm a little like Jim on this.
I think I've told both JP and JB this before, and I've never decided the reason for this, but when I joined the league I was taken aback by the fact that I'd never been in a forum where so many seemingly smart guys came up with such weird (compared to the way I'd conclude) conclusions on things. I don't know if this had to do with background or what, and it has changed some as GMs have turned over (seems like I find most of the newer GMs more similar minded), but It's just something that's struck me as curious.
Anyway, I mention that as a caveat to the way I feel on this, and that's that we don't have to be robots. We don't have to set these "philosophies" on our approach to things in a lot of cases. Just like Jim said, our rules state it just fine. When it makes sense to go by MLB rules, we do. When it doesn't, we don't. I think that I've seen some really weird attachments of MLB processes to suggestions for ours, but geez, seems like we could use our noggins and address whether it makes sense to copy MLB or not as issues come up, rather than backing ourselves into making dumb conclusions just because we did or didn't encase ourselves by MLB rules. I mean seriously, that's just reasonable.
And I'd use the contrived "below AA" trade, umm, trade "consideration?" that I think that Bren is well aware that Jim and I hate. Evaluate the fucking trade. If it is acceptable return for both teams, pass it. If it's not, don't. Because the suggestion, of course, is that TRC members are too dumb to properly take into account the hit-and-miss nature of lower level minor leaguers.
We don't need this kind of stupidity. We are not dumb guys. We should be able to determine whether rules are good for our league with direct logic, not confusing, illogical back door stuff.
I think I've told both JP and JB this before, and I've never decided the reason for this, but when I joined the league I was taken aback by the fact that I'd never been in a forum where so many seemingly smart guys came up with such weird (compared to the way I'd conclude) conclusions on things. I don't know if this had to do with background or what, and it has changed some as GMs have turned over (seems like I find most of the newer GMs more similar minded), but It's just something that's struck me as curious.
Anyway, I mention that as a caveat to the way I feel on this, and that's that we don't have to be robots. We don't have to set these "philosophies" on our approach to things in a lot of cases. Just like Jim said, our rules state it just fine. When it makes sense to go by MLB rules, we do. When it doesn't, we don't. I think that I've seen some really weird attachments of MLB processes to suggestions for ours, but geez, seems like we could use our noggins and address whether it makes sense to copy MLB or not as issues come up, rather than backing ourselves into making dumb conclusions just because we did or didn't encase ourselves by MLB rules. I mean seriously, that's just reasonable.
And I'd use the contrived "below AA" trade, umm, trade "consideration?" that I think that Bren is well aware that Jim and I hate. Evaluate the fucking trade. If it is acceptable return for both teams, pass it. If it's not, don't. Because the suggestion, of course, is that TRC members are too dumb to properly take into account the hit-and-miss nature of lower level minor leaguers.
We don't need this kind of stupidity. We are not dumb guys. We should be able to determine whether rules are good for our league with direct logic, not confusing, illogical back door stuff.
