Post by BK Dodgers GM (Man) on Mar 26, 2011 9:32:14 GMT -5
In light of the logistical problem encountered during the MiLB Draft, the LO has decided to amend the Special Waiver Pool rule w/ the team protection ideas proposed at the following link in the big discussion thread on the subject:
mlbknowitalls.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=general&thread=5314&post=19667
These additional, explicit protection measures will hopefully help us avoid anymore retroactive LO intervention in the future.
1. There will now be provision for a team-wide Special Waiver Pool Exemption Tag. The LO will clearly tag a team for exemption protection from the SWP once the LO determines that a GM has become too inactive to properly run his/her team, regardless of whether the GM will actually be replaced in the near future -- we will allow enough leniency for the GM to return to activity in case of temporary problems, etc.
We will set up an official SWP Exemption Tag thread to handle this. Also, please note that there already exists an official thread for submitting requests to roster CBS unlisted players (for those who are unaware), which can also offer protection for such specific players.
NOTE: The LO may also tag a team for exemption protection under other "extenuating circumstances" (although inactivity would likely be the main cause), but since protection would not happen until the team is clearly tagged, we at least avoid the problem where we do it retroactively.
NOTE 2: If The LO does miss tagging a team sooner, then the first time someone uses the SWP rule to force a player drop would at least help signal us to do something to stop the bleeding, if the team indeed needs that protection.
2. Once the LO determines that a team no longer needs that exemption protection -- whether after the GM legitimately returns to activity or is replaced by a new GM (w/ time to acclimate) -- we will then remove the SWP Exemption Tag from that team.
3. Each team's player losses via the SWP will be limited to just 1 per 72-hour period.
This should give the LO enough time to stop the bleeding where needed -- we usually won't need quite that long, but probably better to play it a bit safer for this. And if the GM is not actually inactive (but just overlooked something), he'd probably stop the bleeding himself and make sure all his players are rostered properly.
4. The LO will no longer intervene retroactively wrt the SWP rule and its amendment(s).
NOTE: This does *NOT* mean the LO won't need to step in to clarify matters as they happen. It only means the LO will not retroactively reverse legal application of the whole of the SWP rule and its amendment(s).
DISCLAIMER: Despite attempts to more clearly spell out the SWP rule and its amendment(s) (and any other rules for this league), under the circumstance and given the context, the LO feels compelled to remind *everyone* that the rules for this league can and will *never* be bulletproof in their explicitly written form.
Everyone needs to remember that the LO will need to make rulings on gray areas as we move forward though the LO has every intention to make rulings that are both consistent w/ the spirit and wording of written rules *and* the overall setup of this league along w/ whatever apparent precedents that the league has been operating under. If there will be substantial departures from such aspects of LO rulings, then actual new rules/amendments will be required (and almost certainly involve a league poll or similar league-wide feedback along w/ giving everyone enough time to prepare and adjust).
Also, the LO intends to make rulings w/ the long term health of the league in mind, which may at times *seem* a little bit unfair to a particular team, but that's bound to happen once in a while though we do expect to make good faithful efforts (as usual) to minimize the frequency, potential and impact of that happening.
Finally, please do not hesitate to ask questions to have any gray areas or unclear rules clarified *before* you attempt to make moves based on them. Otherwise, you will subject yourself to the potential of having subsequent rulings/clarifications that work against your assumptions/expectations. All this should really go w/out saying, but there you have it.
mlbknowitalls.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=general&thread=5314&post=19667
These additional, explicit protection measures will hopefully help us avoid anymore retroactive LO intervention in the future.
1. There will now be provision for a team-wide Special Waiver Pool Exemption Tag. The LO will clearly tag a team for exemption protection from the SWP once the LO determines that a GM has become too inactive to properly run his/her team, regardless of whether the GM will actually be replaced in the near future -- we will allow enough leniency for the GM to return to activity in case of temporary problems, etc.
We will set up an official SWP Exemption Tag thread to handle this. Also, please note that there already exists an official thread for submitting requests to roster CBS unlisted players (for those who are unaware), which can also offer protection for such specific players.
NOTE: The LO may also tag a team for exemption protection under other "extenuating circumstances" (although inactivity would likely be the main cause), but since protection would not happen until the team is clearly tagged, we at least avoid the problem where we do it retroactively.
NOTE 2: If The LO does miss tagging a team sooner, then the first time someone uses the SWP rule to force a player drop would at least help signal us to do something to stop the bleeding, if the team indeed needs that protection.
2. Once the LO determines that a team no longer needs that exemption protection -- whether after the GM legitimately returns to activity or is replaced by a new GM (w/ time to acclimate) -- we will then remove the SWP Exemption Tag from that team.
3. Each team's player losses via the SWP will be limited to just 1 per 72-hour period.
This should give the LO enough time to stop the bleeding where needed -- we usually won't need quite that long, but probably better to play it a bit safer for this. And if the GM is not actually inactive (but just overlooked something), he'd probably stop the bleeding himself and make sure all his players are rostered properly.
4. The LO will no longer intervene retroactively wrt the SWP rule and its amendment(s).
NOTE: This does *NOT* mean the LO won't need to step in to clarify matters as they happen. It only means the LO will not retroactively reverse legal application of the whole of the SWP rule and its amendment(s).
DISCLAIMER: Despite attempts to more clearly spell out the SWP rule and its amendment(s) (and any other rules for this league), under the circumstance and given the context, the LO feels compelled to remind *everyone* that the rules for this league can and will *never* be bulletproof in their explicitly written form.
Everyone needs to remember that the LO will need to make rulings on gray areas as we move forward though the LO has every intention to make rulings that are both consistent w/ the spirit and wording of written rules *and* the overall setup of this league along w/ whatever apparent precedents that the league has been operating under. If there will be substantial departures from such aspects of LO rulings, then actual new rules/amendments will be required (and almost certainly involve a league poll or similar league-wide feedback along w/ giving everyone enough time to prepare and adjust).
Also, the LO intends to make rulings w/ the long term health of the league in mind, which may at times *seem* a little bit unfair to a particular team, but that's bound to happen once in a while though we do expect to make good faithful efforts (as usual) to minimize the frequency, potential and impact of that happening.
Finally, please do not hesitate to ask questions to have any gray areas or unclear rules clarified *before* you attempt to make moves based on them. Otherwise, you will subject yourself to the potential of having subsequent rulings/clarifications that work against your assumptions/expectations. All this should really go w/out saying, but there you have it.