Sim League Nirvana

Matt wrote: July 15th, 2025, 10:46 am To GX's point, kinda feel like anything that gets passed should be some kind of rolling average of the last 4 seasons or something - the purpose of the rule is to force people who consistently don't use RPs to use them, not catch GMs in particular circumstances (saving for future camps, don't have movable salary, don't have campable guys, etc.) and penalize them.

Also, a GM may create an "unhoarded" RP surplus one year because they produce a lot of content, then roll that over to the next year when they don't produce much content. If I'm understanding correctly, those RPs would then become "hoarded" because they weren't produced that season and then be taxed, which I think is not the intention of the rule

thoughts off last few comments:

-i think a 2-3 year running average makes sense

-i think 6400 threshold makes sense (tho again, this is post-camp)

this is just meant to disincentivize egregious hoarding + nonspending/activity. i think if this were a rule, it would be quite easy to avoid such that almost no one would reach these thresholds and those who did would only do so by a small amount such that the penalty would be quite trivial

Can you define "Hoarded RPs" as it relates to the third criterion? I don't think I fully understand that one

Matt wrote: July 15th, 2025, 11:08 am Can you define "Hoarded RPs" as it relates to the third criterion? I don't think I fully understand that one

viewtopic.php?p=60509#p60509

Hoarded RPs =

POST-Camp RPS MINUS RPs generated from posts - RPs generated from articles and pods - RPs generated from jobs - RPs sent via trades - RPs used in camps

(it is still theoretically possible to have 10,000+ RPs saved and stockpiled and not have any RPs hoarded, thereby incurring no penalty if you do content, camp players, trade some RPs, etc.)

(league average = -1200, meaning most are using/producing more than they are "needlessly" stockpiling)

I’m generally on board with this concept but also people should just spend their RP. As someone who once had a large stockpile, the main reason I did that was because I was constantly camping, enjoyed making content, and also because it was early in the league when I wasn’t sure how things worked and wanted an RP cushion. Did I waste RP camping randoms? Totally. But was it fun? Also yes. There are plenty of ways to spend and invest in your roster proactively while still saving - and doing nothing does nothing (surprise)

can we name this one the "Hanessian Rule" too?

How do I vote yes 10x? I think I’m a perfect example of what people’s concerns could be. I only had 1 camp, generated a bunch of rp, and still didn’t get taxed. Honestly, the model Jesse proposed here seems quite fair. Maybe I’m crazy but just having rp and not doing anything with it seems certifiably insane. The Grizz and Bullets traded a total of 0 RP this season when one team was fighting for a 1-2 seed and the other was fighting just to stay in the playoffs. Spend some cash and get better, trades are fun! Plus it will incentivize the worse teams to actually sign interesting players because if they perform they’ll get bought.

I don’t really have a preference on the 5k vs 6.4k post camp, primarily because it’s after camps, you’re only going to lose half at worst, and you generate ~2000 rp per season by being mildly engaged.

My actual socialism fix, you’re not entitled to any RP disbursement if you don’t hit 75 posts in a season. GMs who aren’t engaged shouldn’t be rewarded. I like things that incentivize engagement.

I'm voting no for now but willing to reconsider. I think there ARE legitimate reasons to hoard RP and it's each individual GM's prerogative to do whatever they want with the RP that they earn. Lots of the comments in this thread are people on high horses telling GMs that they "should" act a certain way because that's how those GMs enjoy the game, but I think we all enjoy different parts of the game and as long as we're responsive / active members of the community, we should be able to enjoy the game however we want.

Can we increase the trade cap?

Completely meta concern here, but it seems like we often get a reasonable new rule proposal, then a lot of reasonable criticisms / requests for amendment, and I'm not sure this system as designed handles that explicitly

quady wrote: July 15th, 2025, 12:49 pm Completely meta concern here, but it seems like we often get a reasonable new rule proposal, then a lot of reasonable criticisms / requests for amendment, and I'm not sure this system as designed handles that explicitly

In this case, think the proposer of the rule to edits the original proposal, updates the title of the thread to include "UPDATED as of [date]", and post in the thread that the proposal is updated so that people can change their votes as wanted.