Eastside's Hockey Elite Collide

Posted: **Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:10 am**

I know the 30+ players vopatize in the AHL so the point might be moot. But most AHL teams have at least 2 30+ players to offer leadership. Perhaps we sign a guy to a contract in the minors as a 30+ player or two and they are locked there - can't trade them waivers would mean we can't recall them but they get a boost to leadership. they are stuck there till end of their contract which would be limited to a 2 year + a PO. No one year contracts just to get the leadership boost and then pull them.

does a vopatized player retire sooner?

Posted: **Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:35 am**

Oilers_GM wrote:does a vopatized player retire sooner?

I'm pretty sure that as long as you keep dressing them for games, they won't retire. Your team might struggle though with 27OA players in its lineup.

Posted: **Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:12 pm**

Sorry boys. Was on a road trip to Los Angeles and I broke a spring in my car's suspension on some canyon road in Malibu. Not a terrible place to be stranded, but no wifi at the camp site!

1. I have been building my team under the impression that I could use passing plays more than once. For my own sake, I would like at most a three tactic rule, limiting only NZT and H+G. Thinking about the league as a whole, I think there is actually less gamesmanship if you are forced to use four different strategies as after a month the entire league will converge to the "correct" arrangement of these strategies. This is coming from a guy who used R+G multiple times last season.

2. Minimum of 30 seconds seems realistic.

3. As a top-heavy team, it is probably beneficial to allow my top two lines to play as much as possible, but the 70 second rule doesn't bother me too much as that's about all I'd use anyway.

4. I don't think the sliders can do too much about the shot totals. This will probably be taken care of by controlling NZT.

5. A four year ELC sounds good to me.

6. As a bottom five team, I'd gladly take this. I have some overpaid players and would love a bit of breathing room.

7. A lower waiver age sounds fine.

8. My AHL team was set not anticipating this change. If we could postpone it to next season, that would be helpful for my team at least.

9. Yes, one auto means you get autoed the rest of the draft. I even think we should try to fit the entire first round on a Saturday voted on by the GMs, with the people unable to make it sending in a list. The live draft is one of the best days of the year in EHEC, and having one guy hold it up for 12 hours is just deflating.

10. I like this. I'd also recommend reducing the injury slider, there are far to many injuries as is.

Posted: **Tue Sep 04, 2012 11:42 am**

Bump.

Any final thoughts?

Posted: **Tue Sep 04, 2012 11:44 am**

Oilers_GM wrote:I know the 30+ players vopatize in the AHL so the point might be moot. But most AHL teams have at least 2 30+ players to offer leadership. Perhaps we sign a guy to a contract in the minors as a 30+ player or two and they are locked there - can't trade them waivers would mean we can't recall them but they get a boost to leadership. they are stuck there till end of their contract which would be limited to a 2 year + a PO. No one year contracts just to get the leadership boost and then pull them.

does a vopatized player retire sooner?

Vopatized players only retire when I overwrite them for additional draft class room. I usually go in and change everybody's retirement status going all the way back to the guys aged 34. Some slip through the cracks.

Posted: **Tue Sep 04, 2012 12:09 pm**

I'm definitely for a 1 line restriction on H&G & NZT.
However:
-I would allow to use them on the 1st line tho.
-Forwards should be at least 150 (Hitting + Strenght) and at least 70 in Strenght to be able to play on a H&G, if used on the 1st three lines. Otherwise, H&G can be used on 4th line ONLY and shift lenght must be less than the 1st three lines.
-Shift lenght max should be 70s max (on the 4 lines) and 30s min (except 4th line)

Posted: **Tue Sep 04, 2012 2:42 pm**

Guys, I'd love to make restrictions on H&G using HI attributes and strength and whatever else, but that's too hard to enforce. Normally, Tommy, Ryan, and I want sims done as quickly and as accurately as possible.

These have to be easy to enforce practices. Going through each team and seeing that Line 1 doesn't have H&G or NZT isn't that hard to do. That's what makes it convenient.

Posted: **Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:05 pm**

The things I disliked based on last year's season regarding line tactics are:

People playing their first two lines like crazy (90-90) and then having their bottom six guys play shifts of 10-20.
I lost in the playoffs to Colombus basically cause he was playing Nash and Backes' respective lines for 25+ and the bottom six for like 5 minutes.

I also disliked a strategy that I often used myself. The 20-40-30-10 strategie, keeping your top guys away from other teams NZT first line and also allowing them to be on H&G. I would not be against allowing playing H&G on any lines even the first one if we kept the 70sec max rule.

The thing that annoys me with 30-70 limitation is it only leaves the opportunity to play H&G on 2 lines for 40-30 or on only one for 50 as it is ruled now. I personnally liked using either my 2nd or 3rd line for 50 and my 4th line for 20.
2 lines on H&G is realistic but having to play your 4th line the same shift length as your 3rd line would be a set back.
I'd go for 20-70 limitation, personnally.

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2012 6:52 pm**

Alright, so we need to come down to a final consensus on some of these issues.

I'm down with lowering the injury slider. I'm thinking a 70 sec. shift length maximum and a 20 sec shift length minimum seems fair.

A penalty slider increase would up the shot totals. I wonder how much it would impact scoring. EHM seems to keep PP percentages pretty reasonable. The PK percentages are a little low.

AHL max will certainly be lowered for next season, or perhaps some variation of a maximum number of players signed to a contract above the AHL max. We will grandfather in the new salary max so that guys who signed people this offseason won't be penalized for the 2013-14 season. Either that or a hard cap where everybody counts, which might be the easiest thing to do.

Need a concrete suspension policy as well. Some guys (cough Kurt Sauer cough) have a reputation already.

Keep in mind that we already added the exact same H&G restrictions to NZT. No first line for either, max 50 secs, max 70 secs total. Might make a 70 sec shift length maximum a little redundant as I don't think anybody's trotting out a 90 sec passing plays line or an 80 sec R&G line. But, I'll see what you guys have to say about that.

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:04 pm**

As long as I can field two passing play lines, I'm fine with everything else.

Would a suspension comittee be easier than everyone agreeing on a policy?

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:13 pm**

TorontoGM wrote:Would a suspension comittee be easier than everyone agreeing on a policy?

That could certainly be considered. Though, I'd rather have some sort of concrete system of amount of time injured = x amount of games. I want to take the subjectivity out of it because there will be biases. Maybe a 2x provision for repeat offender, then it goes to 3x, then 4x, etc.

Problem being, we'll have to cap it somewhere because I don't think players in EHM realize they did something bad if manually suspended.

Obviously, this would only apply to intent-to-injure penalties. Just want to make that clear.

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:21 pm**

1 game suspension for each week of player injured

4 games per month?

what you guys think

Posted: **Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:57 pm**

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:I'm down with lowering the injury slider. I'm thinking a 70 sec. shift length maximum and a 20 sec shift length minimum seems fair.

A penalty slider increase would up the shot totals. I wonder how much it would impact scoring. EHM seems to keep PP percentages pretty reasonable. The PK percentages are a little low.

AHL max will certainly be lowered for next season, or perhaps some variation of a maximum number of players signed to a contract above the AHL max. We will grandfather in the new salary max so that guys who signed people this offseason won't be penalized for the 2013-14 season. Either that or a hard cap where everybody counts, which might be the easiest thing to do.

I agree with all of the above.

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:Need a concrete suspension policy as well. Some guys (cough Kurt Sauer cough) have a reputation already.

I think for a first time offender, it should be 1/2 game per week. For a second time offender, 1 game per week. For further repeat offenders (cough Kurt Sauer cough), 2 games per week up to a maximum of 10-15-20 games, whatever seems reasonable.

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:Keep in mind that we already added the exact same H&G restrictions to NZT. No first line for either, max 50 secs, max 70 secs total. Might make a 70 sec shift length maximum a little redundant as I don't think anybody's trotting out a 90 sec passing plays line or an 80 sec R&G line. But, I'll see what you guys have to say about that.

I think H&G and NZT should have the same rules, as is.

Posted: **Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:12 pm**

I don't think we can go overboard with suspensions based on injury length. One game per week, a 6 month injury would be a 24 game suspension. That's kind of crazy. At most, should cap it around 10, at least for first-time offenders. We have no way of knowing how egregious a hit was that created a suspension.

My framework would be this for first time offenders:

1-2 weeks = 1 game
2-4 weeks = 2 games
2M = 4 games
3M = 6 games
4M = 8 games
5M+ = 10 games

Of course, if we did a 2x for repeat offenders, this could get ugly. Maybe a 1.5x w/ a rounding up of 1-2 weeks. So, then it goes 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15. Repeat offenders a third time would go full 2x. So, that would be 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20. A fourth time, we could do 3x, though, with longer suspensions, it's hard to see a guy doing something for the fourth time. We would also have to decide if we want to roll offenses over into the next season.

I also have no idea how many intent-to-injure penalties there are. If we drop the injury slider some, this may become somewhat irrelevant. But, it's still good to have in place because EHM's random suspension generator sucks. This would take it out of the equation since I can manually edit suspension length.

Posted: **Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:34 pm**

Maybe to make sure things don't get out of control, say a repeat offender goes a certain amount of time without being suspended, his rap sheet gets cleared?

Posted: **Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:24 pm**

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:I don't think we can go overboard with suspensions based on injury length. One game per week, a 6 month injury would be a 24 game suspension. That's kind of crazy. At most, should cap it around 10, at least for first-time offenders. We have no way of knowing how egregious a hit was that created a suspension.

For Colin Campbell's wheel of justice it is, but I don't think that's outrageous for a 6 month injury. That's usually season-ending.

I guess it's annoying that you can't really do anything to prevent your players getting suspended and causing injuries - most of the guys on my team who've injured other players are 60-70 PE, not <50. But losing your own player for half or 1/3 as long as the guy he injured doesn't sound unreasonable.

Posted: **Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:53 pm**

As someone who lost their best player to a CREI, I'm against injury=suspension policy. Unless it's something dramatic, 6+m with no in-game suspension, I'd say leave it alone.

Posted: **Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:52 pm**

Don't remember if it went up/down all around but cap this season is at?

Thanks

Posted: **Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:55 pm**

Cap 60, floor 45.

Posted: **Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:37 pm**

Looks like there's a good chance that Quinn will be able to work the code in to block illegal lines from being uploaded. We can dissect the .lns files and isolate the tactics and shift lengths to prevent them. Much the same way that the team page used to show the tactics and shift lengths, we should be able to use that to make sure everybody is following the lines. A big weight off mine and Tommy's shoulders with simming.

Posted: **Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:51 pm**

That's cool.
Now will there be a confirmation from your part regarding the new rules to be applied this year, mostly regarding tactics and shift length?
Were the decreasing shift length from one line to the other, 70-20 and NZT rulings were approved and enforced?

Might need to start a new thread with all the official rule changes to make sure everybody sees it.
Thanks.

Posted: **Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:01 pm**

Calgary.Flames wrote:Might need to start a new thread with all the official rule changes to make sure everybody sees it.
Thanks.

Good idea. I know I can't remember most things from one day to the next, let alone EHEC rule changes.

Posted: **Sat Sep 29, 2012 4:28 pm**

Quinn got the code to work. Currently, the NZT and H&G restrictions are included, so lines that are in violation of any of those restrictions will not upload. If further restrictions (max/min shift length) are added, that should be no problem to include.

Posted: **Sat Sep 29, 2012 4:58 pm**

witchcraft.

Posted: **Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:11 pm**

Posted: **Sat Sep 29, 2012 7:32 pm**

The code is now implemented for all 30 teams. The days of unlimited NZT are over! Try it, I dare ya!

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2012 6:23 pm**

Suspension policy will go as follows:

2 weeks = 1 game
1M = 2 games
2M = 4 games
3M = 6 games
4M = 8 games
Over 4M = 10 games.

Repeat offenders on 1.5x, 2x, 3x scale. Repeat offenders will be able to slide down scale based on good behavior.

I've made most of the edits to the Rulebook. Have yet to post. Still looking for obscure rule changes. I'm sure there are some.

Posted: **Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:29 pm**

Is the rulebook updated with the new rules regarding the lines ? I'm a bit confused on this, this thread doesnt conclude on anything (or I'm to dumb to find the conclusion), and the rulebook seems unchanged.

Help !

Posted: **Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:33 pm**

NashvilleGM wrote:Is the rulebook updated with the new rules regarding the lines ? I'm a bit confused on this, this thread doesnt conclude on anything (or I'm to dumb to find the conclusion), and the rulebook seems unchanged.

Help !

Just keep uploading lines until my code stops rejecting it.

The rules I have implemented based on what Adam told me:

- First line can't be H+G or NZT
- H+G or NZT can only be used twice in lines 2, 3, 4
- No single H+G or NZT line can be on the ice longer than 50 seconds
- The total amount of H+G or NZT cannot exceed 70 seconds between the two lines

However, as I've interpreted these rules, there is no rule against using H+G for 50 seconds e.g. on line 2 and NZT for 50 seconds e.g. on line 3.

Posted: **Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:05 pm**

AvsGM wrote:- The total amount of H+G or NZT cannot exceed 70 seconds between the two lines

However, as I've interpreted these rules, there is no rule against using H+G for 50 seconds e.g. on line 2 and NZT for 50 seconds e.g. on line 3.

Except that's 100 seconds total, which seems to contradict the last rule you listed.

Posted: **Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:14 pm**

You only add those shift lengths when it's the same line tactic.

Posted: **Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:22 pm**

AvsGM wrote:
NashvilleGM wrote:Is the rulebook updated with the new rules regarding the lines ? I'm a bit confused on this, this thread doesnt conclude on anything (or I'm to dumb to find the conclusion), and the rulebook seems unchanged.

Help !
Just keep uploading lines until my code stops rejecting it.

The rules I have implemented based on what Adam told me:

- First line can't be H+G or NZT
- H+G or NZT can only be used twice in lines 2, 3, 4
- No single H+G or NZT line can be on the ice longer than 50 seconds
- The total amount of H+G or NZT cannot exceed 70 seconds between the two lines

However, as I've interpreted these rules, there is no rule against using H+G for 50 seconds e.g. on line 2 and NZT for 50 seconds e.g. on line 3.

Each tactic has 70 second restrictions. It's not a collective restriction, though, if one needs to be made because every 2nd-3rd-4th line goes H&G 50, NZT 50, H&G 20, it's something I'll have to consider.

For now, it's no first line. No more than 50 seconds on one line. No more than 70 seconds total. That's on an individual basis.

So, like the last line says, you could, hypothetically, use H&G for 50 and NZT for 50 on two separate lines.

Posted: **Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:22 pm**

NashvilleGM wrote:Is the rulebook updated with the new rules regarding the lines ? I'm a bit confused on this, this thread doesnt conclude on anything (or I'm to dumb to find the conclusion), and the rulebook seems unchanged.

Help !

I have made most Rulebook edits. I'm still scanning through the forums to find other rule changes that I may have missed.

The updated Rulebook has not yet been posted.

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:23 pm**

Late to the party so here goes my take

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:Just a thread to discuss some possible thoughts, both from me and from you guys.

Few things I had running through my head:

1. The "Four Tactics Rule":

You know my feelings on this one from prior discussions, but I definitely prefer the use of offensive tactics on the first line as a requirement, and a limitation of H&G. The one suggestion I would make, which would make people really re-consider their team tactics but would still bring fair balance, is instead of an 80 second H&G rule, 100 or 110 seconds to distribute between H&G and NZT, with a restriction on either on the first line. Some won't like this, but if we want more offense it makes sense.

2. Shift length:

30-70 or even 30-60 sounds like a good split. Mind you there's always that Joni Pitkanen 90 second type shift that does happen every once in a while in real life, but it doesn't happen very often. Either of those options makes sense.

4. The game sliders:

No recommendations with this.

5. ELC slot contracts:

I like 4 year ELCs as just simply rolling back the contracts of juniors based contract players just isn't a realistic alternative. FAR too much leg work to put in for you guys that run this league taking that route.

6. Competitive balance revenue sharing:

Don't like it. I understand the purpose of this, but I've taken the slow-rebuild route in other leagues before myself. What matters more then having money to spend on FAs is a manager being smart in how they do it. They might spend a season or three lost in the wilderness when they need to rebuild but if they develop a plan and actually stick to it, it's unnecessary to alter much. Of course, projecting whether or not the 2015 draft turns out to be another 2003/2009 or another 1999/2007 type draft this far out is a fools errand.

7. Lower the waiver age:

I'd be OK with this. The other alternative I'd have is once a player is off their ELC (assuming the 4 year ELC) but 23 is probably the more fair of the two options. A 23 year old worth claiming shouldn't be in the AHL at this point in this league unless they're a goalie or an absolute tweener anyway.

8. Lower the AHL max:

Agree and disagree. Exceptions would need to be made for prospects and goalies. As is I think the rookie salaries are too high for prospects drafted in the first round and early 2nd, but this would absolutely preclude first round prospects from playing in the AHL which is just unrealistic. That said, I agree entirely. Players shouldn't be able to be hidden in the AHL.

9. Draft adjustments: If you get auto'd in the first round, you're auto'd for the rest of the draft.

Agreed. Of course, stuff happens, such as PCs crashing, and exceptions can be made in that case. But aside from that, can't draft? you're SOL. Of course, if the draft goes faster then expected and the GM that picks prior to your selection neglects to contact you that shouldn't be held against you either.

10. Injury suspensions:

Why you gotta hate on Eric Staal like that? No seriously though, can't say I like this that much, but of course the game does a rather mediocre job of handing out suspensions as well.

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:51 pm**

We're handing out suspensions like Halloween candy.

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:31 pm**

Montreal Canadiens wrote:We're handing out suspensions like Halloween candy.

As we should. The injuries are out of control.

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:39 pm**

AvsGM wrote:
Montreal Canadiens wrote:We're handing out suspensions like Halloween candy.
As we should. The injuries are out of control.

I dropped the injury slider too. I don't get it. Seem to be more frequent this year.

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:43 pm**

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:
AvsGM wrote:
Montreal Canadiens wrote:We're handing out suspensions like Halloween candy.
As we should. The injuries are out of control.
I dropped the injury slider too. I don't get it. Seem to be more frequent this year.

The only thing I can think of is did Tommy drop his injury slider too? I can't remember if this is transferred via the league file.

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:44 pm**

AvsGM wrote:
Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:
AvsGM wrote:
Montreal Canadiens wrote:We're handing out suspensions like Halloween candy.
As we should. The injuries are out of control.
I dropped the injury slider too. I don't get it. Seem to be more frequent this year.
The only thing I can think of is did Tommy drop his injury slider too? I can't remember if this is transferred via the league file.

I believe it's kept in league.ehm which is in the EHEC folder.

Posted: **Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:00 pm**

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:
AvsGM wrote:
Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:
AvsGM wrote:
Montreal Canadiens wrote:We're handing out suspensions like Halloween candy.
As we should. The injuries are out of control.
I dropped the injury slider too. I don't get it. Seem to be more frequent this year.
The only thing I can think of is did Tommy drop his injury slider too? I can't remember if this is transferred via the league file.
I believe it's kept in league.ehm which is in the EHEC folder.

Yep, the sliders are league to league. So if you were to open one game in this league it would be our sliders, but open up a personal file and they'll be completely different... well unless you really REALLY like these sliders.

Posted: **Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:21 pm**

How about the new buyout rule? Redden and Gomez are gone. When do I get to throw away Vermette?

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:11 pm**

Will the EHEC draft lottery method be changing this off-season to match the NHL changes?

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:23 pm**

I don't like the idea of rewarding teams for barely missing the playoffs.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:46 pm**

Bruins_GM wrote:Will the EHEC draft lottery method be changing this off-season to match the NHL changes?

I don't see why it wouldn't, since we use the NHL Draft Lottery as our lottery.

TorontoGM wrote:I don't like the idea of rewarding teams for barely missing the playoffs.

Their percentages are incredibly small. The four "best" teams in the lottery all have a less than one percent chance.

Posted: **Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:10 pm**

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:
Bruins_GM wrote:Will the EHEC draft lottery method be changing this off-season to match the NHL changes?
I don't see why it wouldn't, since we use the NHL Draft Lottery as our lottery.

I probably could have got more in return trading my first rounder if I knew I'd still have a shot at the #1 pick by finishing out of the bottom 5.

Posted: **Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:33 pm**

AvsGM wrote:I probably could have got more in return trading my first rounder if I knew I'd still have a shot at the #1 pick by finishing out of the bottom 5.

Sorry. I don't really know what to tell you. I could wait a year to implement the NHL draft lottery, but I don't particularly want to do that.

Posted: **Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:36 pm**

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:
AvsGM wrote:I probably could have got more in return trading my first rounder if I knew I'd still have a shot at the #1 pick by finishing out of the bottom 5.
Sorry. I don't really know what to tell you. I could wait a year to implement the NHL draft lottery, but I don't particularly want to do that.

Couldn't we just use a random number generator with the same odds and rules as usual?

Posted: **Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:16 pm**

The NHL Draft Lottery will not be changing this year.

According to TSN Hockey analyst Bob McKenzie, the league discussed making odds for the 14 non-playoff teams more balanced, but it won't happen this year.

The only difference in this year's draft lottery will remain that the team that wins the lottery will be awarded the first overall pick. In previous years, winning the lottery only allowed a team to move up a maximum of four places in the draft order.

Posted: **Mon May 27, 2013 10:55 am**

What are we doing as far as compliance buyouts? Is this going to be an option, like real-life?

Posted: **Mon May 27, 2013 11:12 am**

Bruins_GM wrote:What are we doing as far as compliance buyouts? Is this going to be an option, like real-life?

Nothing. We didn't have a lockout or a major rollback of the salary cap.

Eastside's Hockey Elite Collide

EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion

Re: EHEC CBA Discussion