So our tourban for team cancer policy has existed since SSD1 without complaints. And we announced the new SPL sellback policy that we would only allow sellbacks in cases of cancering and that selling back a player meant you'd have to prove they were banworthy back on November 3, and this is the first time anyone has brought up issues with it:
Regarding sellbacks, we have raised the standards to match that of our team cancer policy. If you want to sell back a player, you have to prove they are a team cancer and get them banned. Teams wanting to submit cases of team cancers must do so during week 4, no earlier and no later.
(Emphasis mine.)
Now granted, that's from a tour policy thread back in the beginning of November. I'd hope that any potential manager would read all those SPL policy threads, but I guess it's easy to miss. I mean it's entirely possible that the Raiders management skipped that one, and therefore didn't understand the implications of selling menci back when they...
...oh.
So to me, there are really only two ways to look at this: either menci was a team cancer, and therefore should be tourbanned, or he wasn't, and so he shouldn't be sold back. So was he a team cancer? Hell, I don't know. I can't actually answer that question. I don't have access to the Raiders chat or the PMs between menci and his managers. That said, I do trust Hikari's judgment, and Raiders did have to invite Hikari into their chat and provide evidence to support their claim. From how the hosts have described the situation, menci wasn't just quiet; he was actively asked to participate, both in the tiers he agreed to play and in tiers he does not, and outright refused. If menci has evidence that contradicts that, he's more than welcome to provide it, and should send it directly to Hikari.
So yeah, ultimately the only question that matters to me here is whether or not menci qualifies as a team cancer. If you sign up to be on a team tour you're expected to meaningfully contribute in SOME way. I don't think a manager should be able to force you to play a tier you didn't sign up for (lol sorry
Mana), and if that's the only basis for the Raiders claim that menci is cancering, then yeah it's probably unjustified. But from what I've been told (and again, I don't have access to logs and so I don't know everything about the situation), there was more going on than just that.
What I DON'T think should be an option is the mealy-mouthed in-between option of letting him be sold back but otherwise face no consequences for cancering. That's how you go back to the days of players trying to dictate what teams they land on, or getting butthurt that they didn't get to start and spending the whole season sulking instead of helping. And if he didn't actually cancer... well, why should the Raiders get a free pick off the undrafted list because they screwed up and drafted a BW sub instead of an RBY sub or whatever? Should we just let teams ditch all the players that didn't meet expectations at mids and start fresh? Should there be zero consequences for managers making risky draft choices? Why should teams hold money in reserve to shore up weak spots in their roster at mids, like the Tigers did, when they can instead just shuffle out anyone who isn't as useful as they'd hoped?
For what it's worth, I WOULD be OK with eliminating sellbacks entirely next year. As a manager, you make your bed and you lie in it—I'm 100% OK with that idea. This way there's no "advantage" to trying to prove a player is banworthy (though any manager who would actively try to get one of their players banned unjustly in exchange for a 3k undrafted pick is, um, not a nice person). You can still report players for cancering to have them officially removed from the team roster next year, and so there are still consequences for cancering, but there won't be an incentive for managers to report less clear-cut cases. We kept sellbacks in its current form because from talking to people, folks did want teams to have some recourse from active bad behavior by their players. But we could also eliminate them entirely and not have to worry about this, or use the existing policy but move the sellback deadline to week one (so that you can still use it for people who just like refuse to join the chat or throw a fit because they didn't get on their buddy's team, but can't try to use it for people who just didn't fit on the team in the way you'd hoped). If that's a direction people want to go, I'd support that.