Roster violations

[Royals]

This seems to have been swept under the rug or simply forgotten.
There's no reason for any GM to be in violation of the roster rules.
I would propose that, going forward, no GM should be given the opportunity to work out a trade in order to get in accord with a rule they should have already been in line with. They should have to immediately drop players until they get in accordance with the rule. Not trades, drops. if they don't within an hour of notification then the players should be dropped by the ExCo.
Blanket emails are not an acceptable notification method. They're easily ignored and too many people will quickly brush it off, thinking "I'm fine". A specific PM through OOPSS tells a GM that they in particular are in violation, what the nature of the violation is, allows us to check to see that they did indeed receive it and received it when they were in a position to act on it through OOPSS.

[Cardinals]

This seems to have been swept under the rug or simply forgotten.
There's no reason for any GM to be in violation of the roster rules.
I would propose that, going forward, no GM should be given the opportunity to work out a trade in order to get in accord with a rule they should have already been in line with. They should have to immediately drop players until they get in accordance with the rule. Not trades, drops. if they don't within an hour of notification then the players should be dropped by the ExCo.
Blanket emails are not an acceptable notification method. They're easily ignored and too many people will quickly brush it off, thinking "I'm fine". A specific PM through OOPSS tells a GM that they in particular are in violation, what the nature of the violation is, allows us to check to see that they did indeed receive it and received it when they were in a position to act on it through OOPSS.

Everybody I've talked to would have preferred a blanket e-mail and thought it was a much better idea. Not talking about members of ExCo but other members, including ones not in violation, thought it was a much better way of going about it.

So I think personalized PM's singling out a person is not an acceptable method at this time etiher.

[Royals]

This seems to have been swept under the rug or simply forgotten.
There's no reason for any GM to be in violation of the roster rules.
I would propose that, going forward, no GM should be given the opportunity to work out a trade in order to get in accord with a rule they should have already been in line with. They should have to immediately drop players until they get in accordance with the rule. Not trades, drops. if they don't within an hour of notification then the players should be dropped by the ExCo.
Blanket emails are not an acceptable notification method. They're easily ignored and too many people will quickly brush it off, thinking "I'm fine". A specific PM through OOPSS tells a GM that they in particular are in violation, what the nature of the violation is, allows us to check to see that they did indeed receive it and received it when they were in a position to act on it through OOPSS.

Everybody I've talked to would have preferred a blanket e-mail and thought it was a much better idea. Not talking about members of ExCo but other members, including ones not in violation, thought it was a much better way of going about it.

So I think personalized PM's singling out a person is not an acceptable method at this time etiher.

If that's true then either a. they're amazingly stupid or b. you presented it in about as unbiased a mode as your little poll earlier.

it doesn't matter what they want, there's much less personal accountability and responsibility in a blanket email. It's an incredibly Lazy method and we have a responsibility to be thorough.

[Cardinals]

Oh ok, I'm sorry, "Please drop somebody ASAP" is stupid as well. It's arbitrary with the ASAP, and it's less effective if the whole league doesn't see the same message. If the league saw the message and the deadline, then it's far more effective.

Again I'm pretty sure if this wasn't JB in violation, but Ken or Nils then you wouldn't have given a shit either way. Additionally, JB's violation only occurred in the past week after Joba pitched for him. Whoopdie do, he has had an illegal roster for what, 3 or 4 days? Plus we have weekly transactions, so he technically should have until the end of the week to have a legal roster. The means shouldn't matter in this case. His trade CERTAINLY shouldn't have been rejected and it's pathetic that it was.

[Royals]

Oh ok, I'm sorry, "Please drop somebody ASAP" is stupid as well. It's arbitrary with the ASAP, and it's less effective if the whole league doesn't see the same message. If the league saw the message and the deadline, then it's far more effective.

Again I'm pretty sure if this wasn't JB in violation, but Ken or Nils then you wouldn't have given a shit either way. Additionally, JB's violation only occurred in the past week after Joba pitched for him. Whoopdie do, he has had an illegal roster for what, 3 or 4 days? Plus we have weekly transactions, so he technically should have until the end of the week to have a legal roster. The means shouldn't matter in this case. His trade CERTAINLY shouldn't have been rejected and it's pathetic that it was.

yeah, only in violation for 3 or 4 days... it's not as though he shouldn't have been in violation AT ALL.

What's the matter JP, are you afraid you might have to hand out a penalty?

[Cardinals]

Again, we have weekly transactions. AT the beginning of the week, JB's roster was legal. Therefore he should have to be legal on a week to week basis when the transactions are updated in the database.

You tend to ignore this point.

What's the matter Bren, logic might prove you wrong and you're scared to admit anything?

[Royals]

There's no logic to giving him a week to correct his roster, you're simply being argumentative. His roster was immediately illegal, he has the ability to correct it immediately and thus should do so.

Oh, and I figured I'd do a little informal poll...

(3:20:18 PM) brendilon: Would you rather have a blanket email telling you to check your roster, or a specific email notifying you that you have a problem with your roster, what it is and what you have to do to fix it?
(3:20:51 PM) Shawn Lape - HOU: not sure it would make a difference either way in my opinion........
(3:22:31 PM) brendilon: Ok, thanks.

(3:20:09 PM) brendilon: Would you rather have a blanket email telling you to check your roster, or a specific email notifying you that you have a problem with your roster, what it is and what you have to do to fix it?
(3:20:26 PM) Jason Gudim - BAL: specific

(3:19:43 PM) brendilon: Would you rather have a blanket email telling you to check your roster, or a specific email notifying you that you have a problem with your roster, what it is and what you have to do to fix it?
(3:20:15 PM) SuddenImpact567: didnt i fix it?
(3:20:26 PM) brendilon: You're fine
(3:20:32 PM) brendilon: This is a hypothetical question
(3:21:02 PM) SuddenImpact567: ok, prolly the specific one then

Those are the three GM's who are currently online. I asked Nils as well and he said 'specific'.

[Dodgers]

Okay boys, enough of this shit. I'll write something into OOPSS that prevents this and the discussion can stop. Fucking annoying...

[Cardinals]

You're a fucking nitwit. You don't seem to care when the violation occurred. You had an illegal roster for awhile over the winter and at points last year, so eat shit. Seriously. You're on one of your power trips. You see JB has a roster violation and you think having his 50th man disappear will put you over the hump and get back at him for being better than you as a GM. Joke.

I vote against specific, singling PM's, and I also vote for having until the end of said transactions week to correct the illegal rosters from here on out. I am done with this thread and if anybody aside from Bren would like to talk to me about this, you know where you can find me.

[Royals]

Yup, I had an illegal roster, and as soon as I was notified, I dropped players. I didn't sit around and try to arrange a trade.

OOPSS management has NOTHING to do with the weekly roster assignments aside from saying who can be on it. It's meaningless otherwise.

As for powertrips... JP, you don't know the first thing about running a league. You're generally a nice kid, but you're a damn fool sometimes and you're entirely too caught up in trying to be popular and well-liked instead of actually doing what's right. You think they're the same thing, and sometimes they are, but often enough, they're not and that's a reality that you can't handle.

[Royals]

For what it's worth, Gabe and John (colorado) prefer the specific messages as well.

[Rangers]

Hey Shawn - I wanted to check with you on one thing. If someone has 40 non-draft players and, say, 8 draft players, will the system allow him to add a draft-classified player? I know that the logic has something to do with whether the roster has less than 40 non-draft players, but I wanted to check on exactly how it works.

[Dodgers]

Good call. Fixed so that it would allow that.