I know a policy thread hates to see me coming.
*What I want to flag is that my signup wasn’t an attempt to game prices, manipulate an auction, or mislead anyone about availability. I'm being transparent: I don’t have the time/energy to start, and I don’t want to play games this year. At the same time, I still want to be involved in SPL in the way I can be involved: prep, building, scouting, and being active in team chats. That kind of support role has existed informally forever; plenty of people have effectively been drafted primarily for behind-the-scenes value, even if nobody said it out loud. See: Will of Fire, BluBird, et al.
*The problem is that the current rule treats “support-only” the same as bad-faith benching, even when 1) everyone involved knows the intent upfront, and 2) teams are explicitly willing to spend for that value. In my case, there’s also an awkward asymmetry: because I’m competent across tiers, there’s no “quiet” way to list a tier for subbing without it being read as potential playing intent, so full transparency becomes the thing that gets punished. I am quite literally being punished for historical competence when I just want to participate in the tournament as a bystander, like tens of people do every year. There are managers who are more than willing to buy me knowing that I do not wish to play.
*If the stance is “no support-only signups, period,” then okay, at least that’s consistent. But if we’re going to be consistent, it’s also hard to ignore that every year teams spend on bench slots that never touch the field. The difference is just whether the intent is stated plainly. Almost every team drafts their own jester. Vibes are important. And managers certainly do not trust or want a lot of these people to play even if they are signed up to do so.
*My proposal isn’t “let me break the rule.” It’s: create an explicit mechanism for support-only participation that doesn’t involve tier signups at all. Call it an advisor/consultant designation, make it clear they can’t be fielded, and let managers opt into that openly. That solves the “poisoning the well” concern while acknowledging the reality that SPL teams value prep and activity.
*If that’s not something TDs want, I’ll take the ruling and move on. Honestly, I think you should consider an exception for this year and rework sign-ups moving forward. I’m just asking that we recognize the actual gap here: the policy currently discourages honest communication and doesn’t really address the bench-value behavior it’s trying to target. This website already has retention issues, and this would help allow aging players like myself to participate in a way that feels decent. IMO JJ0LIE saying something to the effect of "I'm not available during the weekdays" while signing up to play is far more egregious of a price-fixing issue/case than me stating: hey I want to participate but I don't want to play at all.
*If you don't want to make a mechanism for this, at least let me participate, like this is actually really weird to me IMO and a misstep by the TDs. FYI no TD reached out to me prior to this decision being made to talk this out normally. I should have articulated this prior to my attempts but I did not think it would blow up like this. Eager to hear thoughts. I have played this tournament since SPL 4, and I am an honest actor here, like wtf? Thx.
*What I want to flag is that my signup wasn’t an attempt to game prices, manipulate an auction, or mislead anyone about availability. I'm being transparent: I don’t have the time/energy to start, and I don’t want to play games this year. At the same time, I still want to be involved in SPL in the way I can be involved: prep, building, scouting, and being active in team chats. That kind of support role has existed informally forever; plenty of people have effectively been drafted primarily for behind-the-scenes value, even if nobody said it out loud. See: Will of Fire, BluBird, et al.
*The problem is that the current rule treats “support-only” the same as bad-faith benching, even when 1) everyone involved knows the intent upfront, and 2) teams are explicitly willing to spend for that value. In my case, there’s also an awkward asymmetry: because I’m competent across tiers, there’s no “quiet” way to list a tier for subbing without it being read as potential playing intent, so full transparency becomes the thing that gets punished. I am quite literally being punished for historical competence when I just want to participate in the tournament as a bystander, like tens of people do every year. There are managers who are more than willing to buy me knowing that I do not wish to play.
*If the stance is “no support-only signups, period,” then okay, at least that’s consistent. But if we’re going to be consistent, it’s also hard to ignore that every year teams spend on bench slots that never touch the field. The difference is just whether the intent is stated plainly. Almost every team drafts their own jester. Vibes are important. And managers certainly do not trust or want a lot of these people to play even if they are signed up to do so.
*My proposal isn’t “let me break the rule.” It’s: create an explicit mechanism for support-only participation that doesn’t involve tier signups at all. Call it an advisor/consultant designation, make it clear they can’t be fielded, and let managers opt into that openly. That solves the “poisoning the well” concern while acknowledging the reality that SPL teams value prep and activity.
*If that’s not something TDs want, I’ll take the ruling and move on. Honestly, I think you should consider an exception for this year and rework sign-ups moving forward. I’m just asking that we recognize the actual gap here: the policy currently discourages honest communication and doesn’t really address the bench-value behavior it’s trying to target. This website already has retention issues, and this would help allow aging players like myself to participate in a way that feels decent. IMO JJ0LIE saying something to the effect of "I'm not available during the weekdays" while signing up to play is far more egregious of a price-fixing issue/case than me stating: hey I want to participate but I don't want to play at all.
*If you don't want to make a mechanism for this, at least let me participate, like this is actually really weird to me IMO and a misstep by the TDs. FYI no TD reached out to me prior to this decision being made to talk this out normally. I should have articulated this prior to my attempts but I did not think it would blow up like this. Eager to hear thoughts. I have played this tournament since SPL 4, and I am an honest actor here, like wtf? Thx.
Last edited:
