VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

7/10/25 9:26am [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 31/05/21 6:01pm
Author: D9
Subject: It appears that way to a couple of coach
In reply to: GTD 's message, "Mods discussed this via email - i posted it" on 31/05/21 4:55pm

And it didn't start from you. I was feeling that way when Brendan had his oversight.

I ask the mods about a reasonable balance issue my side had, and it was deleted and the score deducted.

I seen this happen in real time, because I was on sheets when it happened.

I stuck up for these balance rules to coaches that were talking with me on sheets chat at the time they were first implemented, who were very hesitant of it coming in at all.

I argued that it is needed, and put some of the for arguements across. The coaches I was speaking with felt it would probably be good for the game, so long as it wasn't harsh, and I put that to the vote discussion.

Mods agreed it would come in, but common sense would be applied as well as flexibility. I believed that would happen. I stepped away from being a mod, and those promises appear to be fading away.

The way coaches are asking sensible requests, and them being denied on a formula that has not ever been discussed, seems like the mods are ruling with an iron fist.

Brendan's action to my request appeared like ruling with an iron fist.

No one wants that stigma, and it might be offensive, but even take me out of the equation, at least two coaches feel balance rules are being amended on the run, and at times harsh.

As a mod, perhaps you should be saying, "It is not our intention to come across like it is, "ruling with an iron fist, or dictating terms of the game by ourselves, but here is what we will do to fix this".

We will put this rule up right away, for vote amongst coaches. Have a quick vote and put it in correctly, and put it on the rule sheet. That was all I was asking.

To go along with that, I would have suggested that it is stipulated in the rule, that players can't simply play a 3+ HO player from CHB like Balta, because he happened to be killing it in defence, along with Roughead and say Doedee and say Gardner as a third tall defender, making Balta a perfect option to REPLACE a poor scoring Witts or Stanley if they were playing and scoring low.

I would have suggest a blocking of that loophole in the wording, so coaches couldn't use it all the time. But absolutely for a couple of weeks as their actual ruckman are out injured.

Also, I would have suggested that things not be looked at by mods for consideration in the offseason or six months away from the request. Surely you could have a formula like the 3 HO average over two season, that can be activated by the coach themselves. We are not kids, we can work our own side.

For example, discussion about Daniher or Dixon. If a player gets to a threshold he can be used in ruck straight away if needed. Say two seasons means 36 games, two seasons of 18 rounds, to allow for a couple of injuries etc. 36 x 3 = 108. So a coach can use a player once they get to 108 taps for the past two seasons.

It could be extended to say a player like Laverde, once he plays x amount of games in half back flank or back pocket, he BECOMES eligible.

Let us watch that. Let us understand the changing landscape of how our OWN players are being used. Put up what is fair for balance activation, and let coaches act accordingly.

If there are issues, then those issues be dealt with by mods. Perhaps three coaches are a panel that does this job, and solves the disputes with vote. Eg; 2-1 carried.

One thing a mod said throughout this, is "We don't have time for this". Maybe that is true, so I suggested a evening out of tasks. That is a better idea than having a couple of mods, just implementing things like what has happened.

I was not trying to be personal GTD. Perhaps my frustration with it, still raw from conversations with at least two other coaches than myself, that have had frustrations, made my wording less than ideal. I am sorry if this come across as a personal attack. However, I was asking for an email snip, or even two other mods to comment and say, "Yeah, we discussed this, and we agreed". There was nothing coming back in terms of proof that this was put in correctly. And then I got, "You had your chance, but didn't participate".

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Forum timezone: GMT+11
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.