Sim League Nirvana

also love the opportunity for more jobs, as i am jobless and wanna work.

I appreciate how much thought you put into this Matt.

If we go to this system, a couple thoughts — I think by nature the fact that it's a public ballot to begin with is problematic and contributes to the bias in voting. I think keeping it simple and private will go a long way.

I would also point the to very inconsistent timing of WHEN we vote (something I think ought to be nailed down no matter what if we keep the award) as one of the problems with it, playoff performance isn't supposed to be a factor but often we just never post the vote until mid-playoffs and that has an effect based on people's various explanations in their commentary.

I would also add that if we go to this system, any GMs who are on the final ballot should probably abstain from voting. I think also a good change to nerf the actual reward for winning, as others have said (awards should matter, but prob not to a point where there's such a golden goose of a reward like the contract extension thing).

I can only speak from my personal experience but I think some of my worst moments as a GM had to do with GMOTY in some of the years where I was in the running (being needlessly competitive about it, etc.) and that's one of my biggest regrets with SLN so far (sorry guys). Considering the periodic controversy the award seems to create, the general arguments we are always having about what the criteria actually are, and how difficult it is to actually eliminate bias in voting, I'd be just as happy to nuke it completely, which I know some people have called for. Or just make it a purely for fun awards thing like others have floated.

Having said all that, I'm fine with whatever we decide as a group and I trust everyone - I haven't voted yet but think this is pointing in a better direction than what the system is now

I voted no for a really simple reason. I dont disagree with any of the cons of this award, and completely agree, its got major faults. I think the real solution (in my opinion) is just reducing the RP to 1,000 and taking away the contract add a year or take off a year ability, which is just absolutely broken and let's some of the best GMs stay on top. I'm pro more jobs and RP sharing. I just think there will be less controversy if the reward is smaller

mantypas/CavsCzar wrote: February 26th, 2025, 1:25 pm I voted no for a really simple reason. I dont disagree with any of the cons of this award, and completely agree, its got major faults. I think the real solution (in my opinion) is just reducing the RP to 1,000 and taking away the contract add a year or take off a year ability, which is just absolutely broken and let's some of the best GMs stay on top. I'm pro more jobs and RP sharing. I just think there will be less controversy if the reward is smaller

Seems like this should still be a vote for yes, then, unless I'm misunderstanding? Totally think there's still room for another rule change to nerf the actual GMOTY award, which I'm in favor of, but just felt like lumping those two together is bad form (i.e., since these are two different meaningful changes that don't really affect one another, I think they should be evaluated separately - wouldn't want someone who agrees with the process change but wants to keep the reward the same to vote no, or someone who disagrees with the process change but wants the reward to be nerfed to vote yes

Thanks for all the thoughts - some responses:

To Jesse's point, agreed, only GMs without jobs should be allowed to be committee members until all jobless committee members from their tree who want to serve have served.

To Hoff's / Mantypas's point about nerfing the actual reward, I agree, but think this vote should be about structure rather than the reward itself. Think that's good fodder for another rule change proposal.

To Jwoo's point about consistent timing, wholeheartedly agree - I'm going to edit the original post to include a "timing" paragraph. I think it makes sense for the committee to determine nominees after sim 14 (trade deadline sim, days 100-110) because no more moves are able to be made then. Ideally, writeups should be done as soon as possible after that time, and vote should close before the end of the first round of the playoffs. Open to suggestions on this of course.

To Jwoo's point about GM's on the final ballot abstaining from voting, the only issue i see with this is the RPs GMs get from voting (which are small but non-negligible). Maybe getting nominated earns you an RP reward equal to the amount you currently get for voting and justifying?

Matt wrote: February 26th, 2025, 2:14 pm Thanks for all the thoughts - some responses:

To Jesse's point, agreed, only GMs without jobs should be allowed to be committee members until all jobless committee members from their tree who want to serve have served.

To Hoff's / Mantypas's point about nerfing the actual reward, I agree, but think this vote should be about structure rather than the reward itself. Think that's good fodder for another rule change proposal.

To Jwoo's point about consistent timing, wholeheartedly agree - I'm going to edit the original post to include a "timing" paragraph. I think it makes sense for the committee to determine nominees after sim 14 (trade deadline sim, days 100-110) because no more moves are able to be made then. Ideally, writeups should be done as soon as possible after that time, and vote should close before the end of the first round of the playoffs. Open to suggestions on this of course.

To Jwoo's point about GM's on the final ballot abstaining from voting, the only issue i see with this is the RPs GMs get from voting (which are small but non-negligible). Maybe getting nominated earns you an RP reward equal to the amount you currently get for voting and justifying?

I voted yes because I like the structure you proposed... similar to what we have in place for SLN HoF! I was just wondering if the proposal was supposed to include GMOTY compensation changes to clarify. I actually do not think it should have any compensation changes especially if winning the award becomes more rigorous.

Hoff wrote: February 26th, 2025, 2:18 pm

Matt wrote: February 26th, 2025, 2:14 pm Thanks for all the thoughts - some responses:

To Jesse's point, agreed, only GMs without jobs should be allowed to be committee members until all jobless committee members from their tree who want to serve have served.

To Hoff's / Mantypas's point about nerfing the actual reward, I agree, but think this vote should be about structure rather than the reward itself. Think that's good fodder for another rule change proposal.

To Jwoo's point about consistent timing, wholeheartedly agree - I'm going to edit the original post to include a "timing" paragraph. I think it makes sense for the committee to determine nominees after sim 14 (trade deadline sim, days 100-110) because no more moves are able to be made then. Ideally, writeups should be done as soon as possible after that time, and vote should close before the end of the first round of the playoffs. Open to suggestions on this of course.

To Jwoo's point about GM's on the final ballot abstaining from voting, the only issue i see with this is the RPs GMs get from voting (which are small but non-negligible). Maybe getting nominated earns you an RP reward equal to the amount you currently get for voting and justifying?

I voted yes because I like the structure you proposed... similar to what we have in place for SLN HoF! I was just wondering if the proposal was supposed to include GMOTY compensation changes to clarify. I actually do not think it should have any compensation changes especially if winning the award becomes more rigorous.

I think exactly why that rule change belongs in a different post!

Can I propose a rule that for every rule change that is created and posted in this forum, the league must make 50 new trades?

JFC i feel like we all squabble about the fucking rules 24/7 (on the boards but mostly on texts, like passive aggressive ladies) and let's just trade with each other and post about our beautiful players instead.

(and yeah, this rule change is nice, let's do it...whatever)

ok byeeeeeee

Jesse wrote: February 26th, 2025, 2:21 pm Can I propose a rule that for every rule change that is created and posted in this forum, the league must make 50 new trades?

JFC i feel like we all squabble about the fucking rules 24/7 (on the boards but mostly on texts, like passive aggressive ladies) and let's just trade with each other and post about our beautiful players instead.

(and yeah, this rule change is nice, let's do it...whatever)

ok byeeeeeee

Let’s trade!!!

Matt wrote: February 26th, 2025, 2:03 pm

mantypas/CavsCzar wrote: February 26th, 2025, 1:25 pm I voted no for a really simple reason. I dont disagree with any of the cons of this award, and completely agree, its got major faults. I think the real solution (in my opinion) is just reducing the RP to 1,000 and taking away the contract add a year or take off a year ability, which is just absolutely broken and let's some of the best GMs stay on top. I'm pro more jobs and RP sharing. I just think there will be less controversy if the reward is smaller

Seems like this should still be a vote for yes, then, unless I'm misunderstanding? Totally think there's still room for another rule change to nerf the actual GMOTY award, which I'm in favor of, but just felt like lumping those two together is bad form (i.e., since these are two different meaningful changes that don't really affect one another, I think they should be evaluated separately - wouldn't want someone who agrees with the process change but wants to keep the reward the same to vote no, or someone who disagrees with the process change but wants the reward to be nerfed to vote yes

Understand your point, I left this part out. Personally I like simplicity and the committee thing seems like unnecessary complication. That being said, I’m obviously ok with anything everyone decides on and appreciate this being an open topic.