Counter Strike Confederation

1:24 AM

Why do you want to be a player representative for Rules Committee?

I'd bring an interesting perspective to rules committee. 
I have been in various leagues over the years, serving as founder and president of a collegiate esports club and franchise, which fielded 3+ divisions and in-person events. Our club even was recognized by one of the leagues we participated in, and invited to the Obama White House for an event. 
For two seasons I have been an AGM for AVI, and a captain for AVI's Elite team, helping me understand the responsibilities and pain points regarding rules and issues as a leader within CSC.
I'm also familiar, at design/conceptual level, with CSC's technical setup, being a software engineer and admittedly lurky member of the tech committee.
My main objective would be to comb through the rulebook, and promote discussion regarding ambiguous rules which could have multiple interpretations.
I believe myself to be a considerate person, detail oriented, and compromising. I want rules to be the most common sense, and promote the regular player to have the smoothest experience as possible.
Thank you for your consideration.

(edited)

HG | andrew 🏆 changed the channel name: kSalty 1/1/2023 1:33 AM

@kSalty 🏆

Big vouch for Ksalty, big level mind in my management team always go to him for advice I’d trust his opinion in Rules

1

Any rules that you specifically disagree with? Think are too vague or too specific?

Hi Salty

Looking forward to reading the answers you provide!

PFA | drummerboy

Any rules that you specifically disagree with? Think are too vague or too specific?

An example that I wanted discussed in the past (gonna just copy and paste from my old post in serious-suggestions): Rule 5.4.4.1 states

A GM or AGM that asks for a commitment from a player to sub or sign for/by a given match day must field that player if the player is able.

Recently this was interpreted to mean that if you ask a player to sub, and they say yes, then teams are obligated to sub them. This is even if you let them know that they may not be needed, and agreed to conditions that they may be asked not to sub. This can be abused by teams, hoping to pocket an FA until the last minute to prevent other teams from picking them up. But at the same time, a sub should be able to switch out if a more certain opportunity to sub arises. At this point, my understanding of the interpretation of the rule is that if you ask someone to sub, and they say yes, under no circumstances other than a sub no-show or IR can they not sub for the person they were put in to replace. To me, this seems inflexible, and the rules should be amended to allow for such flexibility.

1

6:57 PM

I thought the follow-up discussion was eye-opening, seeing the few distinct ways people interpreted the rule. I would like to help ensure that rules require the least amount of interpretation within reason, but to strike a balance to maintain readability while also eliminating ambiguity as much as possible. (edited)

kSalty 🏆

An example that I wanted discussed in the past (gonna just copy and paste from my old post in serious-suggestions): Rule 5.4.4.1 states

A GM or AGM that asks for a commitment from a player to sub or sign for/by a given match day must field that player if the player is able.

Recently this was interpreted to mean that if you ask a player to sub, and they say yes, then teams are obligated to sub them. This is even if you let them know that they may not be needed, and agreed to conditions that they may be asked not to sub. This can be abused by teams, hoping to pocket an FA until the last minute to prevent other teams from picking them up. But at the same time, a sub should be able to switch out if a more certain opportunity to sub arises. At this point, my understanding of the interpretation of the rule is that if you ask someone to sub, and they say yes, under no circumstances other than a sub no-show or IR can they not sub for the person they were put in to replace. To me, this seems inflexible, and the rules should be amended to allow for such flexibility.

how exactly would you fix the issues you see with this rule?

ATO | Assass1n

how exactly would you fix the issues you see with this rule?

I believe my response at the time was this: @Yetif something like this (thanks Chasing, stealing a bit):

A GM or AGM that asks for a commitment from a player to sub or sign for/by a given match day must field that player if the player is able.
A submitted transaction is considered a commitment. Without a submitted transaction, then anyone can pick up the player until a transaction is submitted. 
Any conversations between a GM/AGM and FA is unofficial and not considered a commitment by either party until a transaction is submitted.

Are there any specific "sections" of rules you see as having issues, or types of changes you want to make in rules? If not: what role do you see yourself as taking within RC discussions?

just wanna say +rep to kSalty. they've done so much as a player and AGM for AVI. Very level headed & perfect fit for rules.

TFR | 42Firehawk

Are there any specific "sections" of rules you see as having issues, or types of changes you want to make in rules? If not: what role do you see yourself as taking within RC discussions?

No specific sections at this time. If elected, I'll re-read the rulebook with a more discerning & critical eye, list a number of rules requiring clarification, and perhaps suggest amendments or additions to the rulebook if any come to me. In other cases not prompted by my comb through, I will be an active voice on the committee, adding my opinions and try and create solutions to problems that other RC members want discussed.