NDL Forum

I am posting this to see if we have any interest from anyone to take over this NDL OOTP league.

I am still going to be a part of it and continue playing, but my wife and I just found out that we have a 2nd child on the way, still very early, so I have not announced anything in public, like on facebook yet, till we are in the safe zone, but with that news, I will have even less time than I do now.

I have reached out to a few people and a couple have expressed interest in helping, but not taking over completely.


If you are thinking about it, let me tell you, it consumes you.
Guys think that there is a crystal ball when you become a commissioner, no.
The reason guys get good when you become a commissioner is because you delve into corners of OOTP that you didn't even know existed.
I spend hours, many days of the week, in OOTP, not just the 10-15 minutes that you spend as a player of the game.

Then you spend time out on ootp forums, asking questions, seeing what others are asking, etc.
Then you spend time on the boards. Trying to help/keep everyone moving along.

I probably spend 1 1/2 to 2 hours with every new person that has joined the league since I took over.
I help get their game setup and then I spend time teaching them the basics. Ask wdoupis.

And I can tell you, guys do not remember how involved or how much information is present in OOTP until you have to teach someone else how to play it.


I am not trying to scare anyone away, but for the league to be successful, you have to devote some time.

Things like the All-Star voting have opened my eyes up to why I have failed you as a commissioner recently when it comes to things like that.
I just don't have time to dedicate to things like that or the draft which deserve the time to be successful.

It won't be immediate as I will gladly work with the next person to take over and run things the way Reign taught me to run it.


I do want to mention, when you want to take over as a commissioner....
If you are lackadaisical, it is not a good fit to run the league, you need to be aggressive, for lack of better terms.
You need to have board presence. Guys that rarely ever post, are not a good fit to run the league.

If you are interested, please contact myself or Reign and we will discuss things with you.

It just sounds sooooo appealing...

Congratulations on the 2nd incoming! Prepare yourself, it's a game changer compared to 1 (IMO).

dakshdar wrote:Prepare yourself, it's a game changer compared to 1 (IMO).

Understatement of the year right after "I am not trying to scare anyone away, but for the league to be successful, you have to devote some time"

Cnasty wrote:

dakshdar wrote:Prepare yourself, it's a game changer compared to 1 (IMO).

Understatement of the year right after "I am not trying to scare anyone away, but for the league to be successful, you have to devote some time"

About the most truthful post I've seen on all accounts!

Congrats Jerry.

Throwing out ideas.

Why not run the league as a committee if you will? If you have 2-4 volunteers, it gives more resources for assistance versus reliant on one person to hold the fate of delays or updates in the leagues hands?

Just a suggestion as I do not know the inner workings of behind the scenes, roll over, and other aspects that may or may not work with multiple people involved.

Congrats on the 2nd edition

Cnasty wrote:Throwing out ideas.

Why not run the league as a committee if you will? If you have 2-4 volunteers, it gives more resources for assistance versus reliant on one person to hold the fate of delays or updates in the leagues hands?

Just a suggestion as I do not know the inner workings of behind the scenes, roll over, and other aspects that may or may not work with multiple people involved.

This would appear to be a good idea, the last few commishe's to step down have mentioned that it takes a lot of time to run the OOTP league, having 2 or 3 people involved would help with the process not becoming overwhelming to one person.

This is something I am in favor of Corey.
Multiple guys running sims at least and then you have a "committee" if you will if there is a need for one to make decisions or whatever.

It would work pretty easily actually.
Reign has ran some things for me at times and there have been no issues with it as far as he or I having the wrong info in the game or anything.

steelcitychaos wrote:

Cnasty wrote:Throwing out ideas.

Why not run the league as a committee if you will? If you have 2-4 volunteers, it gives more resources for assistance versus reliant on one person to hold the fate of delays or updates in the leagues hands?

Just a suggestion as I do not know the inner workings of behind the scenes, roll over, and other aspects that may or may not work with multiple people involved.

This would appear to be a good idea, the last few commishe's to step down have mentioned that it takes a lot of time to run the OOTP league, having 2 or 3 people involved would help with the process not becoming overwhelming to one person.

There isn't enough Championships to give to those 2 or 3 people though?

Joking, congrats JD, hopefully someone is able to do it, it would be a shame if we can't. I'm officially taking my name off the list of consideration.

And Dak, you are right, I know how it sounds, but I have to be truthful and let someone know what they are getting into.
I feel it would make them and the league more successful.


As Corey stated though, I am for having multiple people run things.

dakshdar wrote: Prepare yourself, it's a game changer compared to 1 (IMO).

Rookies!!!

I think the 1 thing that is an absolute must is consistent simming. It's going to take 1 person that can provide a set time to sim and consistently hit that window. If we get to the point where 3-4 people are doing it, it's going to get messy. Even having 2 people opens up some issues in terms of ensuring we have the right set of image files, consistently having the right .dat files, etc. The reason JD and I haven't had issues is because I know most of that problems that can happen and how to avoid them. Bringing in 1-2 more people and juggling it exposes us to more problems.

I think it's fine if we have a new "head" guy that handles all of the simming and then leave the access for myself and/or JD as backup options. We wouldn't run into any major issues there as I know what I can/can't touch if I need to go in and run a sim for us. It would be an absolute shitshow if we try to bring in 2 people as joint partners that run sims in a mixed fashion.

I'd love to be the guy that steps up and takes over everything again, but I know that I can't provide the consistency that it needs. My only window to sim is 10p - 1a and I know that I won't be up for doing it every weeknight.

Alright, next idea!

dakshdar wrote:
Congratulations on the 2nd incoming! Prepare yourself, it's a game changer compared to 1 (IMO).

2nd one is 10 times easier.

1st one pacifier falls on the floor we're boiling them to get the germs off
2nd one pacifier falls on the ground you blow it off

shel311 wrote:

dakshdar wrote: Prepare yourself, it's a game changer compared to 1 (IMO).

Rookies!!!

I enjoy talking to my brother-in-law about how he handles having twins. I think it's a totally different ballgame from having kids 1-4yrs apart. With the twins, they are stretched very thin when him and his wife are apart. But the routine of things is consistent. Feed, change, nap, types of activities, and travel. With a 3yr old and an infant, all of those things are different. Taking care of the 1 while the inquisitive 3yr old is there really ties things up. I think, if given the choice, I'd prefer to deal with the complications of year 1-2 with twins over having the kids spread out in age.

Not in ease of anything but being outnumbered now and being flanked from multiple areas.

That's why I have always said it is easier to knock them both out with twins and get through it versus doing it all over again but I am sure Shel would disagree.

ajalves wrote:

dakshdar wrote:
Congratulations on the 2nd incoming! Prepare yourself, it's a game changer compared to 1 (IMO).

2nd one is 10 times easier.

1st one pacifier falls on the floor we're boiling them to get the germs off
2nd one pacifier falls on the ground you blow it off

This is definitely true... you don't care at all about most of the stuff you did with the first one. (it's because the 1st one is tugging on your arm and ain't nobody got time for that!)

ReignOnU wrote:
I enjoy talking to my brother-in-law about how he handles having twins. I think it's a totally different ballgame from having kids 1-4yrs apart. With the twins, they are stretched very thin when him and his wife are apart. But the routine of things is consistent. Feed, change, nap, types of activities, and travel. With a 3yr old and an infant, all of those things are different. Taking care of the 1 while the inquisitive 3yr old is there really ties things up. I think, if given the choice, I'd prefer to deal with the complications of year 1-2 with twins over having the kids spread out in age.

Nailed it. See above too

Cnasty wrote:Not in ease of anything but being outnumbered now and being flanked from multiple areas.

That's why I have always said it is easier to knock them both out with twins and get through it versus doing it all over again but I am sure Shel would disagree.

Depends, if we're talking about year 1, or months 0-6 where you don't have to worry about just 1 baby, but 2 waking you up at all hours and double the diaper changes, yea I'd trade that for a 3 year old and a newborn, no doubt.

But there is an advantage to knocking it all out at once, even if that once is much worse. I couldn't imagine going through the newborn phase twice, years apart.

They each have their pros and cons.