Constitutional Amendments : Current or Retroactive? (Player's Vote)

That would still be retroactive in a sense, so like i said there's no use in calling off the vote or changing it. He asked if it should, not in what extent. That can also be voted on.

And if your gonna use an example, you use something that can ACTUALLY happen.

 

In theory it could because an Amendment can change anything, including voiding out the fact we won't rule on goals. Unlikely sure but still could ACTUALLY happen. I'm against blanket Retroactive changes it just potentially screws up so many things.

 

When people signed in for the season They all agreed the ligue's law and ruling so why change it now wait till next season. This is the rules and that is it. It's sad but it's the way it is for This season.

 

So they call for a second vote for the extent of the retroactive changes lol

 

Yes, he did post an explanation, but it was at the bottom of the first page. Are you so naive that you expect a majority of voters to actually read this entire discussion? The common user will come to this page, select whichever option they think is right, and go along with their day and not give this another thought. Welcome to the Internet, you must be new.

My point is not that this vote should be shut down, but should be taken with a grain of salt as @MCDONALD l19l said himself he will take this vote into consideration.

More importantly, the role of the staff is to enforce the constitution and amend when necessary, not to decide when to enforce the constitution to when they believe it is right.

I do, however, appreciate your response. It perfectly demonstrates the bias I mentioned earlier, as I see you are the GM of the team my observations go against.

 

Okay long story short, you have two rules which are in direct conflict with one another. One has to go, or you then use the precedent set by staff in which there is no forfeits allowed in the playoffs. This is ultimately the lesser of two evils takes the "blame" off the staff's shoulders alone and lets the league decide how it proceeds.

 

Do you now know how amendments work? They find a rule that's broken, then call a vote to remove it. One vote for staff, one for owners, one for players. This is literally 1/3 of the vote. Staff is unsure how to go forward with the current rule-set and way they handled it because have you seen the forums today?

 

Politics, loopholing and chain of command. Milwaukee went to the AHL commissioner who said they can call a forfeit by reversing that the AHL commissioner becomes a joke.

Every team in the NHL & AHL knows you look for an ECU if your guy doesn't show up especially in the playoffs, Crass does too. Need to stop rewarding messageboard politicians and rewarding loopholes. The constitution will never be perfect but one guy constantly exploiting it is stupid but what do you expect from @OTPDHJ Connor 's protege.

TLDR: Reversing the forfeit is something Rammer would do.

 

Do you know how amendments work? They don't affect stuff that has already happened. When the 26th amendment was passed they didn't redo past elections and allow people older than 18 but younger than 21 vote just because the amendment was added haha. It affected the future, not the past. Obviously that example has no relevance to this, but it's an example that amendments aren't supposed to affect stuff that has already happened they are just added to help prevent it in the future...

 

This isn't the US, LG has different rules, and thats what this WHOLE thing is about. He is asking what we want going forward if a ruling results in rule change. People can't be in here complaining other people aren't voting how they want. Everyone can click.

Also, amendment means a change or addition to a motion, bill, or other. Nothing about it only affecting a certain time.

 

The thing is people are voting biased on the situation...

 

Can you prove it's bias and not just people thinking it's whats best for the league? Just because it screws Crass doesn't mean it's bias.

 

Where is the preamble?

 

I mean there is really no way to not have bias anymore now that the situation already happened... Plenty of people in the AHL have been saying they're all just happy crass is out. Also, let's be real, players on your team and people who don't like crass are campaigning in the chat box to "#VoteRetro". That influences bias resulting in this vote not being an actual representation of what people feel is best for the league but just for what they want to happen in this situation.

 

That's like saying the campaign ads on people's lawns or telling you Trump is the worst thing to happen to America is influencing bias. Retroactive is simply the best option for the league as a whole imo. If someone gets fucked by a rule but someone comes in a week later and shows why that rule is contradictory or needs to be removed, why should a team That got fucked by the same situation get a loss or whatever the ruling is if the next person gets a W because they skimmed the rule book looking for a way out?