2013 RULES: GM Accountability

[Strategist]

If you read more of the topic your answers will be answered.

[whteshark]

Did we ever come to a set in stone decision on this?

[Goodell]

I think it's just something still up for conversation (with much strong opinion on both sides) and thinking about the overall setup ahead. If expansion becomes a more realistic thing, I could see some new leagues with that condition built in from the start for those volunteering to join that. Imposing it on existing leagues brings a lot of disagreement. It's possible that more and more will support that ahead or it structured in a way that has widespread agreement, but at least for now it's probably an idea that has some merit and could be implemented in some ways ahead but still to be fully ironed out pending further discussion.

But when I write up more formal league rules might incorporate some of the spirit of that into conditions of being a participant here and what conditions might constitute finding a replacement GM. Inactivity being part of that, bad behavior, intentionally wrecking franchise, cheating, not showing up for free agency and draft key team building activities, and amongst others adding some general conditions about demonstrating an inability to understand or have any success in the game could also be generally listed in the requirements ahead that wouldn't necessarily make it automatic but trigger the typical process where I consider GM replacements (which is partially dependent upon the wait list candidates also and how many new guys we want to find a spot for). So that might be some common ground for the moment where it's part of the consideration before GM replacement along with other factors, keeping it more subjective in my examination of that and if finding a new GM would be best overall, while we all still discuss other more defined rules about measurable success requirements there ahead possibly still.

[tino38]

Probably my most curious question about all of this is, are we going to go so far as to kick a guy out for a year if that GM is unable to build a winning roster at all in a 3 year time period?

[Royce R]

Not trying to stir the pot but 51 to 8 isn't really a lot on both sides.

[chiefbrody]

Play the game, Harding.

[whteshark]

Not trying to stir the pot but 51 to 8 isn't really a lot on both sides.

Royce, you rabble-rouser, you....you community organizer.

[Royce R]

[Goodell]

Not trying to stir the pot but 51 to 8 isn't really a lot on both sides.

But seemed like a lot of vocal disagreement when this has come up. Was once thinking trial in one league to try this perhaps but I thought at one point most disagreement amongst people in that league.

For those who want more performance requirement, some of that will be implemented as part of the reasons why we will replace gms potentially if other reasons as well. While many may want something more defined, that gm replacement process has a lot of variables and we're not in a place right now to remove active gms just for loss totals or have set rules on that when our gm wait list can be long at times and short at others. It's more grey area than black/white right now. More of this type of requirement could be gradually integrated into the overall system (especially new leagues where gm have that known from the start) but for now it'll just be part of the overall evaluation on whether a gm should be replaced or not on the whole, but don't think things are ready to say x losses and you're out but things could move in more of that direction as wait lists grow and given positive support along with some strong vocal dissension as the topic will continue to be discussed.

[tino38]

If your looking to start up a test league for this season ill gladly run one of them haha