Counter Strike Confederation

6:35 PM

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

 As an active community member, serving as Admin, Arbiter and Media Head I am experienced with the ins and outs of CSC's rules. I also know that there are many places that the rulebook falls short. Here are some of my goals for RC.

- Clarifying the rulebook. There are many rules that as they exist confuse new and old players alike. It is constantly RC's job to continue to clarify these rules.

- Record processes. Some of what we do in CSC is just assumed to be that way, but sometimes it isn't written in the rulebook. I'd hope to change this so we have a strong foundation we can lean upon.

- Moderation. Yes, I know this is more contentious and my goal is to start a discussion with RC. Moderators should not create behavior guidelines. I am overall satisfied with what our mod team has done in past seasons, but them being the creators and enforcers is not good. Both mods and admins should be part of this discussion, which is why I think RC is the perfect place to bring this up. The discord server and it's moderation is key to CSC's success, so enshrining this in the rules is a big benefit.

- Player contracts. As it stands when a player signs with a team they have a 2 season contract. GMs can cut them at any time, but they are stuck for both of these seasons. I think this unfairly favors the GMs, especially for players who are coming from free agency. I'd like to open discussions in RC around contract length, and possibly giving options to shorten it.

@AVI | Fuffy 🏆

How would your involvement in RC be "different" than previous seasons of involvement? You have a lot of ideas - how come none of these were ever addressed during your previous seasons within the same position (or higher positions)? Lastly, which of the items listed would you like to attack first?

Hi scraps, As someone who has been part of upper staff for about the same length of me, I think you'll understand when I say I've accomplished a lot of things within CSC. I've never actually run on player contracts or moderation, as these are new changes/ideas that I more recently realized should be prioritized. But in the past I have worked to improve communication (admin newsletter), provide more information to players (match day help book, combines explainer), and even worked with TNoodle to completely re-organize the discord (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-io1qLt-hnkDeJsiGx3LTYCUzdkp3Eh1KQ9CzhfLvNs/edit?usp=sharing). As for RC specifically there are a lot of changes I contributed to, but I can outline one below: One of my main goals that hasn't changed since I was last on rules is Clarifying the rulebook., and saying I "never addressed" it is disappointing. For example, when players were confused about the difference between tactical and technical timeouts (the moment referred to as "piss-gate" lol) I was one of the people on RC working to re-write the rule and make it more clear. Together RC was able to change things for the better, and I take pride in knowing I helped with that. No individual in RC or otherwise can singlehandedly push through change, but I know I can continue to contribute as I have already done in the past while also bringing new ideas to help represent players.

Lastly, which of the items listed would you like to attack first?

Besides clarifying the rulebook and recording processes, which I believe should be continually worked on by RC, my main priority would be to focus on moderation. It is a sore spot brought up by members of the community. I do not believe that mods have done a bad job, and I actually like a lot of aspects of the system already. However, as I stated in my application, I do not believe that mods should be the one writing behavior guidelines, as it leaves open too much potential for misuse. (edited)

Yeah I do apologize I dont think I necessarily worded the one part correctly. I think clarifying is a never ending process, i was more asking about your specific changes, but as you answered those more or less came up after your time in RC - so I understand.

Yeah, I've changed a lot from when I first became Media Head (and was on RC), and even changed a lot since I was last admin. During this season's admin discussions I actually started to realize some of the changes that I put in my RC application (like about mods, and about contracts tho the contracts thing was more due to some gm-hub discussions). I know I do not have the time to commit to being an admin, but I still want to put forward some of these ideas which is why I ran for RC in the first place. (edited)

To follow up after your last answer on the first message - how do you intend on getting the rest of RC "on board" for behavior guidelines changes since that always defaults to RC agreeing that it "is not a RC decision" and that RC doesnt want to have to worry about it. Do you think there is a potential "happy medium" where hypothetically moderation makes a change but then RC approves/denies it - or do you think RC should be in total control of moderation?

Honestly I think that the middle-ground of moderation making a change then RC voting is how it will work. Mod head is already part of rules, and can propose rules. They can work with the other mods to come up with an idea, then just a simple discussion + vote is required from RC. This is like how transaction head could propose a beneficial transaction related rule that their committee wants, then RC can approve it. That being said, if most of RC agrees on a change I think they should also be able to propose something for the behavior guidelines, not just the mod head. Basically what I mean is that mod head will mostly be the one proposing things in practicality, but others should be able to propose as well if the need arises.

I just mentioned this question for Gm rep but feel it may be good here as well. Keepers were given a large share of the blame when discussing mid-season drop outs for players. I always felt that there were more reasons to that and to point our fingers at one felt a bit rushed. However, I concede that while I still disagree with the rule and hasn't really changed how things are done, I see a positive being the new playerbase is more happy. That being said- what were your thoughts on the rule change? Have those thoughts changed? --------- I also want to ask about promotions. Numbers committee decides the tier lines and where players land. Players that are promoted are taking away a roster spot from someone assigned to that tier. Too much of that and suddenly you have 5%-10% of a tier's rostered players come from a different tier. Should there be a limit on the amount of players a franchise can promote in a tier?

For keepers: Honestly I think limiting the amount of keepers is good to avoid teams just signing FAs to their teams as a way to avoid the draft. However I do not like the way it forces GMs to cut their own players if they have good retention between seasons. I'd much rather the rule not allow GMs to sign new FAs if they have a specific amount of keepers, but still allow them to keep a full team if those players want to return. This way we continue to promote the culture of franchises while also limiting "super teams". For promotions: Honestly I'd be fine with limiting promotions in a tier for franchises so they aren't just promoting half of their team, however I don't see promotions as a huge issue. For me the FA/team ratio is what is most important. I know in the past Homer and others weren't sure how player retnetion would look with our massive influx of people from xboxlasagne's tiktok, and therefore estimated more people would drop. When those people didn't we ended up having huge drafts with lots of FAs. Now that we've been able to learn from this I see the FA/team ratio improving, and helping alleviate the problem of too many people sitting not on teams.