J-Foppa

No I just replied that if we would get a couple of extra days we would make it work.

None of the tgma today was tgma when I was. I don't know them any better then anyone else. We couldnt play between 22nd and 1st of january. We did not go to sleep, in fact we have been very actively trying to avoid a situation like this, even as early as dec 13. I don't see any reason why you of all people have the conversation. Im sure admins will make an official statement anyway explaining the situation. But you like the drama.

Okay I think i have to comment on this. First of all this goes to SSG: We have respectfully refrained from commenting this whole situation and you give the conversation to the community's biggest troll isvamp to try to lever people's opinion? Shame on you! To the community: On December 13 I wrote to admins about our christmas situation! In the email I wrote that we had people going away on trips and wouldnt be back until 2nd of january. I said our latest day to play in dec would probably be 19th or 20th december. I asked if it was possible to get a couple of extra days to play since we would hate to have to leave w.o. I said that if we can't get extra days I have to make sure we have people on the 19th of december to get games played. Admins replied "we talked about prolonging the playoffs with 3 days (3-5 january) do you think that will help?" Then the group stage was delayed and playoffs didnt start until Dec 20. Luckily we had a team on the 20th dec and agreed with SSG to play. They never showed up. Prominx explained they had an argument between their RW and G. On dec 21 we still had 6 players, although not a regular lineup. We used our C on RD etc. Not a good situation for us but we wanted to at least get a couple of games played. We told SSG we wouldnt be available until january 2nd, which seemed fine with them. They had 10 days to tell us january 2nd was their last playing day. Then on january 2nd we asked if 3 games was good? Now if they know that january 2nd is their last day they should tell us...not say "yes something like that". After the third game they told us at 10pm that they wanted to continue which at that point wasnt possible for us. There were several players that couldnt play any longer, myself included. If I had known...I could have slept in the afternoon and stayed up after the games until I start work...but now I needed at least 3 hours of sleep. Prominx told us they had sub-optimal team on january 3rd. That is why we went to DR yesterday, in case they would show up with suboptimal team. We didnt want to get suckerpunched by them claiming we were not available. They had 10 days to tell us january 2nd was their last day they could play, instead they say we can play something like 3 games, and first after those games they tell us they are unavailable. We can't do anything about people leaving for christmas vacation. On all other days we have been available and communicating. SSG's only valid argument is that they have been available during christmas. They did not show up on the first agreed playing date and they did not communicate they could only play on the 2nd of jan.

That is not the truth. The mess didnt start because we were unavailable to play during Christmas. Im not going to elaborerate more until admins had the chance to say their piece.

I wanna change my prediction to Finnish Roosters - Alliance 4-0

A fun read! Nicely done!

This is a situation that would need a specific rule. Thankfully I've yet to seen this scenario but I guess it's just a matter of time before it happens. I dont think there's been a great need for in-game rules in the past. I remember a dive-glitch -rule back in NHL12 or 13, but mostly teams have showed a great deal of sportsmanship. Maybe It's just a coincidence for this tournament but I've seen a few instances where winning is more important than playing "fair". Is there a shift in people's attitude towards each other or is it perhaps coincidence? Maybe there is a greater need for admins to create stricter rules regarding in-game situations? I much prefer when people/teams solve stuff without the need of a rule book but obviously you can't count on that. Which is why the rule book is important. Regarding goalie disconnect I wouldn't mind viewing it as a penalty. 2 min for a dc. Penalty shot if it was a breakaway. Or perhaps maybe not an automatic penalty but a rule saying something like - if the dc happened when the puck was in your own zone, the opposing team had a scoring chance or whatever it would result in a penalty. Hopefully a rule that would never have to be enforced...but the same could be said about SSG - Roosters Regarding glitches, I think a fairly general rule would cover that. EA glitches that causes a clear disadvantage to one team should not impact the result of the game. Then it's up to admins to interpret those glitches.

I was hoping I didn't have to go into a deeper explanation but here we go. The rules are not vague. The one I just took as an example is a non exhaustive general rule to adress the issue that EA glitches that have a serious impact on a teams ability to defend themselves, should not be responsible for goals. Now this is the aim of the rule. As with any rule there needs to be an aim, or a goal so to speak. So once the aim is established you need to decide what type of rule would suit the need. Sometimes the rule needs to be specific to exclude other similar situations or behaviour, but sometimes the rule needs to be non exhaustive so it doesn't exclude similar situations that still falls within the aim of the rule. This does not make the rule vague. Admins will always play a key roll because they are the ones interpreting the situations according with the rules. But to say for example - your behaviour is bad even if it is not in the rules, lets have admins decided what to do - is not very appropriate. In that case we might as well just have a vote in such instances (where people will vote what is in their team's best interest). Or we just go back to the old "tgma decides" and no one knows what is right or wrong until admins made their decision.

What are you disagreeing with? I said things need to be covered by the rulebook to be applicable. Rules and law is essentially the same thing. The difference is rules applies to certain people for certain things where law applies to everybody within its reach. Rules can cover everything if they are smart enough. For example name a possible glitch similar to SSGs that would counter a rule that said "any goal occured through a glitch not triggered by any of the participating members, shall not count" Just an example

Definitely no! "Nulla poena sine lege (Latin for "no penalty without a law") is a legal principle, requiring that one cannot be punished for doing something that is not prohibited by law. This principle is accepted and codified in modern democratic states as a basic requirement of the rule of law.[1]" There can't be actions taken without the support of rules. This does not mean that rules need to be exhaustive. They can be specific or general, including excluding, exhaustive non exhaustive, its about writing the right type of rule for a certain situation.

Northern Stars - Free From Rodents 4 - 0Written In The Stars - Nordic Nosebleed 4 - 0X Factor - Kattiautomatti 4 - 2Finnish Roosters - Alliance HT 4 - 1Nordic Blizzard - murohoki 4 - 1Dynasty - Knight Aces HC 4 - 2Refuse To Lose - TIKI TALK 3 - 4Fat Cats - Inter Iceland 4 - 2White Trash - Northern Ascendancy 3 - 4Warriors of Kongo - Nordic Nightmare 2 - 4HC Checkmate - MUKIMIEHET 0 - 4Sjukstugan - Nordic Lightning 3 - 4Rynnäkköviikset - SIKA 0 - 4Silver Sword Griffins - Synergy Hockey 1 - 4Falun Coal Miners - Aapon Taikasauva 2 - 4No Guts No Glory - Laser HT 0 - 4

I really wished OxtreeLATs post was written by someone else (billy?) cause even if I agree to some points there is no way of getting around the fact that a lot of members will only view it as whining. I don't know if it was removed or perhaps never implemented in the first place but I have a vague memory of a pretty general prohibition of exploiting the game mechanics (such as he hidden stance for face offs). I'm not entirely sure your situation would be covered since FR didn't really exploit the game, they just didn't care that EA gave you the finger. However...seeing recent discussions in other matters like keep playing against a bot etc I think most people would agree that it's not fair play to keep playing against a bot and certainly not when a player freezes. I don't see any reason not to implement a rule that would include such situations. Although it's not as clear cut perhaps which type of situations should be included. For example I'm an expert at the chop-glitch where after I tried a chop my guy turns into a severely handicapped person with no ability to move other than just gliding. Would that be a glitch? I'd say yes...but if opponent used that to to their advantage would it be an infraction? Probably not. I think the discussion could be good...if we leave SSG and FR out of it

Yeah but it would be fun to see playoff table etc

Spot on

Finns ju några lag ändå Northern Stars Sjukstugan Falun Coal Miners La Suede Sektion K Synergy Nordic Lighting Nordic Nosebleed Plus lite andra lag som inte spelar ECL för tillfället typ Unknown, Showtime m.fl I webhallens regi eller dylikt hade man säkert kunnat skrapa ihop en 12 lag. Men frågan är väl hur stort intresset är och hur turneringen spelas. Personligen kan jag känna att ett SM blir ganska meningslöst om det inte skiljer sig lite från ECL.

*sigh* I did not say it was on the way of becoming an e-sport. Your rant was a waste of time. Im saying it has the potential in the future and creating a base for competitive gaming is one step among a thousand others...like the game itself getting better. The game or tournaments for that matter doesnt get better by just stating everything is shit. Send EA a pm instead...

Hmm, earlier you said that div 1 and 2 players wont play in division 3, but now they will? Saying OK teams will give up if they fail to reach division 2 in their first try is imo just speculation. it sounds to me like division 3 will be pretty competitive, so thats nice for those teams that fail to make the playoffs this ECL. Everyone can't be successful in a competition but you make it sound like if teams are not successful they will quit. Im sure this rings true for some ppl/teams and not for others. I think I've exempted my pool of arguments and I think we could go on and on back and forth, but it all comes down to in which direction you want to take this community. If you want to offer a more competitive experience for those who want it and still offer a tournament for newer or more laid back teams then I think the admins proposition is good. If you want to keep things as they have always been then I think divisions altogether is a bad idea. Some people like change, some people want things as they are, its human nature. I think NHL has the potential to become a serious e-sport and not just the hobby it is today. It's a long way, but I believe the first step towards that is offering more competitive leagues. Something is not right when your average eashl game is way tougher then ECL. Edit: Again, just to be clear. Im not saying 16/16/infinity is the correct cutoff. Personally If I could do my own picking it would be be 12 (8 to playoffs) in Elite then 2x12 (16 to playoffs) in Pro and the rest in Div 3.

Its not a problem if the groups are set. But if they are uneven...or even considered uneven then it will be a problem because then you have to switch up teams Assuming no more teams quit this ECL we have 16/16/19. Ofc if there are 80 teams in the future then the cutoffs need amendments. So the 2nd division would not have a limit of teams? Anybody can join? So a top team thats regulated will go from fierce competition to playing these 15-0 games again. Not very good imo. I really dont see the problem, sorry Jesus. If you get placed in division 3 where you "don't belong" its 2 months before you are up a division. Having 32 teams in div 2 pretty much includes all the remaining teams in this tournament. If that is the case then div 1 should be bigger but then again, no real point in divisions at all.

Im not sure Im following you completely. You want the casual league to be separated from the elite and pro divisions? Who wants to play in the casual league? Maybe 5-8 teams? Eashl is the casual league imo. And new teams who wants to play competitive will automatically be placed in division 2? Which is gonna make that division pretty huge and uncompetitive. Sure you can make a pro division A and B. It's not a bad idea except there are lot of complications bound to arise such as what if 3 teams from elite gets relegated, in which division (group) will they play? Do you switch the teams up after each season because some ppl will definitely consider one group tougher? Billy deserved that message since he know me and my views and yet called me biased It's a manipulative argument.

I think the cutoff is fine, because keeping both elite and pro divisions fairly small will make them both competitive. Looking at the teams now Elite division will be fierce, which is fun but as I said, if you get relegated you still have a competitive fun tournament ahead of you with a clear goal of making it back to the elite division. That was my perspective for the elite team player (of which I'm not part of yet). For the pro division clubs you will play in a very good league with several great teams. You have the opportunity to build a great team and charge for the top. I think a lot of pro players would prefer a chance to win that championship with a reward to the elite league instead of trying to get to the playoffs with a small chance of surviving the first round. The third division will hopefully be a great introduction to newer teams or teams that perhaps would do better with some practise. The ones who would be unhappy about this are teams that miss this tournament's playoffs and consider themselves a division 2 team, and yeah I can understand the feeling but then again...the whole argument falls on the fact that it's 2 months you spend there if you are good enough. Im a bit surprised Billy you are using arguments like I'm a D1 biased guy since you should remember our lengthy discussions back in NHL14 when we played on Xbox360 and my opinions about divisions at that time. It has not changed. On the contrary the same can be said about those who argue against the divisions. I bet Peacerich is playing for a team that's barely missing the playoffs. It's not a wild guess, but a fact that people argue their own cause. I wouldn't mind starting in a lower division myself, maybe that's why I find it hard to hear people (not you Billy) who's team we dominated talk about the chance to win championships. Edit: And no matter who's point of view you take its all just speculation. We don't know for sure a 3 or 2 division system works best and if one fail, you can switch to the other.

Huh...interesting. You are pretty much dismissing the arguments based on what teams we belong to. We know we are not representing the whole community and we know Jesus is not either. But it's up to anyone to discuss the matter no one here can force other members to voice their opinions although I also would like to hear them. We are also mostly discussing your point of view. We have barely discussed the fact that it is boring for those of us who keep spending a lot of time with this game to be faced with newly started teams (veterans or newcomers) every tournament. In my opinion I think the Pro division will be competitive...this is important to make teams stick. If you fail to reach the elite or gets relegated you will still have a very competitive tournament/season ahead of you. I would like to hear your proposition for the two division system though

Dont you think divisions is a good incentive for teams to stick together? If what you are saying is true then a two division system would be fatal since ALL the top players would play in division 1 and it would be even more impossible for a division 2 club to attract players. ECL is a competitive tournament but with 3 divisions hopefully new clubs will find it easier to approach the tournament and doesn't get discouraged so easily and teams that don't "belong" there needs 2 months. I don't get why you say a year. I know every club is different and maybe our problem is specific to Synergy but we have huge problems playing these tournaments with 30 teams in the group. I'm not even sure we would be able to continue playing ECL if the group stage was this long every tournament. It kills the activity for regular eash-nights.

Or practise. If you are a division 3 club then maybe you are right that it will exclude some players from joining...but will also open up spots for newcomers. Teach them, practise, get better. I don't like subjective opinions at all when it comes to placing teams in divisions, seeding groups or whatever so I agree with you. I didn't mean to patronize but you guys sound like its an eternity to be placed in division 3. When the fact is that neither you or Jesus have been very active for a long time. So 2 months is nothing. And we are still just debating your side of it as one of the better division 3 teams. When creating divisions someone will feel they deserve to be higher up in the rank. And in that case they get to prove it during 2 months

This is a bit ridiculous. People who havent been playing the game are now saying -No I cant do two months in division 3, I'll retire. Its not the end of the world if you are placed in a lower division. Play for 2 months and move up. Anyone who are not willing to build their franchise for more than 2 months don't really get what Kenu and the straff is trying to build. And those of you who end up in division 3 and feel you don't deserve to be there. Im sure the problem is not that you cant recruit players but the fact that you havent played the game enough...which luckily has a quick fix