Sim League Nirvana

Matt wrote: February 5th, 2025, 9:32 am Voted no - I just think that at this point there's a decent amount of learned knowledge / process for how these jobs operate and would prefer to not shake that up. Also don't really agree that all the jobs mentioned should be thought of in the same breath - imo there's a huge difference between the RFA tracker and content grader roles, e.g., and don't think they should be governed by the same process.

I also am not sure what problem this is aiming to solve - in my mind there are two possibilities: 1. people who don't have jobs are at an RP disadvantage and 2. the people in the jobs aren't doing a satisfactory job. If it's #1, I get it, it's unfair, and maybe there are ways to help out (could decrease the RP bonuses for jobs - I bet everyone would still do the job and if they didn't I'm sure people would step up and do the job. If it's #2 (which is kind of my suspicion given that two specific jobs were excluded from the list), I disagree that anyone in those jobs are doing a bad job and need to be replaced. Maybe i just have my conspiracy theory hat / have recency bias based on what's been said on the boards recently but this seems like an elaborate way to fire the content graders and I don't think they deserve to be fired.

definitely not two. only reason i didnt include treasurer was i suspected it was a job everyone would want to ensure is maintained to the highest ability and jesse has it down to a science. And for weston, he has done the most work of anyone, consistently does fun pickems and texts everyone and individuals on almost every pickem to not forget to answer. If anyone can rise to his standard, then sure replace wes, but id rather exclude him due to the bar he set in terms of pickem quality as that is the most intensive job as far as overal GM engagement goes.

regarding content grading, the rubric should be so concise that it doesnt really matter whose grading it since the rubric stays the same and is used by every grader...

The problem i aimed to solve was that about 90% of the GMs with jobs have had so for over 2 years and will never give up their position. they have been grandfathered in from a time long ago. Congressmen might also ask what is the point of term limits, to be fair.

This is aiming to both promote league engagement, and give every gm the chance to participate in the leagues job and running of this community.

I don't want to get randomly assigned a job. I also think there are efficiencies to repeating the same job.

To Matt's point, I'd be willing to do RFA admin for less if people think it's unfair, or give it up if it's really a problem for people. The comp is not very high as it is, it's equivalent to one article (even under legacy grading schemes).

Very surprised by the voting so far. I don't think this is a major problem and think the solution will have unintended consequences.

Josh wrote: February 5th, 2025, 9:53 am
To Matt's point, I'd be willing to do RFA admin for less if people think it's unfair, or give it up if it's really a problem for people.

think the solution will have unintended consequences.

Regarding the unintended consequences 100% with you there. one of the things i considered before posting this. But i honestly think this is a league of driven and intelligent people who can all of us handle every single job there. and as we go along and people rotate in and out of jobs, familiarity will become prevalent and this issue will disappear.

i think lowering the RP will also have unintended consequences as these jobs do take a lot of effort and if its lowered, that again will incentivize lower quality as it might not be worth the RP to spend hours on it.

also i really dont think the people who want a job are actually gonna go up to you and say "give me your job". that is pretty unrealistic to expect people to risk causing strife for an SLN job.

I’m happy to give up my draft modding position. I don’t think people realize how much of a time suck it is to check the boards every 5 minutes for 48 hours to see if the last guy you texted has posted so you can text another guy.

I signed up for the role before I even knew what RP was, I did it to serve the league, not for compensation. I think that’s what’s being forgotten in this proposal. The people who signed up for these roles at the inception of the league are dedicated to their position and the league. They choose to help, many before knowing how the RP system works. I guarantee you a randomly assigned person will not do as good of a job as someone who willingly volunteered. I do think a draft could go 5 days if a random person who is not normally very active in the league is randomly assigned.

With that being said, if someone wants the role, I’ll take my two days back a month and ship you my portable phone charger!

I voted NO after being a heavy proponent of this for a long time. I used to reach out to a few of the jobs and ask if i could be an assistant(which i received no response lol). This was all before i started doing articles and pods though. I believe there is a way to get RP if you really want some.

Separately though, i think that there should be assistants(unpaid interns? Lol, jk). If people in this league want to do a job and are interested in aspects of one, why not include more of the league if the idea is that certain jobs are uber difficult.

Ive just been numbed out on it since my front loaded idea just got wrapped into Jesse’s job. So yea vote how you will but if you aren’t regularly yearning for a job or create activity in this league in other ways, why do you want this change? Idk i vote yes for assistants and more inclusion and understanding of each job but i dont believe everyone in this league really could step in and take time to do certain jobs.

100% TPain and as a historian which gets like no visibility i 100% understand that these jobs are a service, not an easy path to RP. My job is really quite annoying and takes at least 8 hrs of my time per seaosn.

perhaps making rolls compulsory for every GM is not the right idea.

Maybe have a grand GM in waiting list for each role and each GM can chose what jobs he wants to be apart of. If they do the role and suck or hate it, they can adjust what list they are on. I really dont think any GM who wants a job is going to A think its a cake walk, and B do a shitty job. Theyll get called out in this league.

Im just trying to provide a pathway for people to rotate in and out of jobs and make sure that no GM has the right to hold their position in purpituity. Josh mentioned he is suprised by the voting and i think thats because there is half the league who wants the opportunity to get a job. i think its very unrealistic for someone to go out there and demand someone steps down too. I think 30 people in this league will agree that it is a bit of a soft move to demand someone steps down so you can have a job.

SoNicks wrote: February 5th, 2025, 9:59 am

Josh wrote: February 5th, 2025, 9:53 am
To Matt's point, I'd be willing to do RFA admin for less if people think it's unfair, or give it up if it's really a problem for people.

think the solution will have unintended consequences.

Regarding the unintended consequences 100% with you there. one of the things i considered before posting this. But i honestly think this is a league of driven and intelligent people who can all of us handle every single job there. and as we go along and people rotate in and out of jobs, familiarity will become prevalent and this issue will disappear.

i think lowering the RP will also have unintended consequences as these jobs do take a lot of effort and if its lowered, that again will incentivize lower quality as it might not be worth the RP to spend hours on it.

also i really dont think the people who want a job are actually gonna go up to you and say "give me your job". that is pretty unrealistic to expect people to risk causing strife for an SLN job.

silly sonicks *intentional condescension*

if lowering the rp results in people quitting their job or shirking their responsibilities, then others would take over! isnt that what you want? If the key issue is that jobs are overcompensated and it is unfair for those that have them, the simplest fix is to lower the rewards. If it's solving other problem, your proposal probably isn't the cleanest solution.

i don't expect anyone to reach out to me directly. but if there's a subsequent democracy inaction proposal that were simplified (without penalties), or created a waitlist for jobs, or another idea i haven't thought of, i may be into it!

your analogy to congressmen term limits, while funny, doesn't apply to sln. unlike the us federal government, i think the SLN jobs are performed well and cheaply, with the interest of the league in mind rather than self-interest fueled by legal corruption (lobbying)

<3

i think its a wild notion that just because we job holding GMs who have gotten their roles down to a science, we are the only ones capable of doing the job right.

not what I (or I think anyone else) said!

Voted no.

I think randomly assigning jobs results in quality dilution / disincentivized GMs in roles they don’t care about. Candidly, I wouldn’t want to be pickem czar or historian at all, and I’d guess many GMs will ultimately “donate” their RPs to the title-winner most years (allowing the rich to get richer). A lot of these jobs are fairly time intensive and, in reality, I don’t imagine folks will be able to dedicate that time as (and when) needed.

Inconsistency in application is another potential danger of turning jobs over frequently. If we had a new pickem czar, historians, or graders every five seasons, then we run the risk of moving the goalposts across those same vectors really often, and that’s pretty frustrating for GMs who aren’t in those roles. For example, if the grading rubric drastically changed every five seasons based on individual tastes, I think that would be a net negative.

Also, GMs in certain roles have existing systems / institutional knowledge that streamline processes (e.g., pickem, historians, grading, etc). Naturally, there will be friction for a few seasons when managing a potential transition and added onboarding work for GMs transitioning on / off certain roles, which compounds the time commitment issue from my first point and creates gaps in coverage / effectiveness.

I think there are obvious fundamental issues with this proposal, but I also recognize that I’m biased from the perspective of someone with one of these jobs.