|
|
Post by Giants-of-Jazz on Jan 9, 2017 22:24:48 GMT -5
I propse a rule that trade explanations must be made in order for a trade to be granted and processed. Dynasty Empire mentioned it in an earlier post that this needed to be done and I agree whole heartedly with him. A simple "confirmed" will not be considered a valid explanation. Since the beginning, this has always been a requirement and as we moved forward and replaced owners it kind of got kicked to the wayside. I am not trying to call anyone out on this as I have used the simple "confirmed" tag many times myself. I'm not propsing that it has to be a big, long narrative on why a trade was made, but something simple, precise and to the point. Not sure that this is really a rule proposal, but more of an already existing rule that needs to be enforced.
|
|
|
|
Post by Green & Gold on Jan 9, 2017 22:30:45 GMT -5
Sorry, I am guilty of this. It's a good idea. I went back and explained my last few trades.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lake Michigan Whales on Jan 12, 2017 0:03:50 GMT -5
While I understand the want for this I just don't understand the practical purpose for it as it doesn't really matter why someone wants to do something.
Dynasty Empire: This is why i don't miss this guy
|
|
|
|
Post by Hitmen on Jan 12, 2017 2:14:12 GMT -5
I agree with whales. It's a no veto league, if we don't like the reason why is it going to change anything?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lake Michigan Whales on Jan 12, 2017 4:53:22 GMT -5
Exactly Hitmen
|
|
|
|
Post by CFL Rejects on Jan 12, 2017 9:50:42 GMT -5
I actually agree with the explanation rule. It allows others to see a managers mindset for future deals. It also helps to keep managers involved in the forums. If we all just post deal and confirmed it removes the point of having the forums. We could just post the trade via yahoo and confirm. I personally enjoy seeing the forums active and following other managers teams and logic. Great oportunity to learn how to manage a team properly
|
|
|
|
Post by Giants-of-Jazz on Jan 12, 2017 17:07:08 GMT -5
Actually Hitmen and Whales, trades can be vetoed by the commissioner if he feels that they hit 1 of 2 scenarios. (I have posted below straight from the rulebook) I agree that this is both rare and in almost all cases shouldn't happen. But the explanation rule was put into place as a checks and balances system to prevent these 2 instances from happening. I understand why you would feel the way you do, but I will tell you as a member of the initial contract league when we used to be able to have almost 75% of the league on the chats at any given time to discuss trades, drafts, or just baseball in general (BSB, Quahogs, Dynasty Empire, Ellsworth Hearts can all attest to this) that the more ownership a manager has to put into their team, the more active the league will be. Much like CFL stated in his previous post. So while I see where you guys are coming from, I will respectfully disagree.
8.5 Vetoing a Trade
8.5.1 Trades will only be vetoed for the following reasons:
8.5.1.1 Collusion
8.5.1.2 Intentionally tanking your team
|
|
|
|
Post by Moorestown Big Dogs on Jan 12, 2017 19:42:05 GMT -5
I'm new here, so take this for what it's worth, but I think explanations do serve a purpose beyond proving no collusion. I think they can help everyone step into the other owners shoes and see why a deal makes sense. Not that they were going to "Veto", because in general we can't, but owners can get the feeling that others are making deals that look uneven and resent them. Even if you disagree with the reasoning, at least it can alleviate some of the resentment. I know that I often will explain my reasoning when I make a trade offer, trying to show the other owner why I think it makes sense for them, and so posting my reasoning seems like a good idea. Although I have failed to do it up til now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hitmen on Jan 12, 2017 23:25:57 GMT -5
I think it would great to get a chat room like we did before.
|
|
|
|
Post by S-Man Fanatics on Jan 13, 2017 8:53:58 GMT -5
I don't mind it either way. If it gets people involved in the chat I am all for it. If it is a fear of tanking or collusion I believe if a person wants to tank he will not do it via trade he just won't set his roster. This is just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ellsworth Hearts on Jan 14, 2017 12:06:14 GMT -5
@ S-Man - I can see how managers can see tanking as not setting your line-up. I think there is more to it than that. For me this has been a tough year getting to my roster and setting them on a weekly basis. Esp in Hockey. Football is an easy once a week quick plug. Basketball and Hockey have been issues for me. Not for wanting to tank that is for sure! I picked up a new job and have been out straight. Not the kind of place that I can jump on Yahoo and set my line-ups on a break. The kind of place that limits websites you can visit on their systems. I've gotten to the point where my off work time doesn't involve coaching a football team. It is certainly not an excuse but just because someone doesn't make it to their line-ups doesn't mean they are tanking. It is another thing for there to be no communication to anyone in the network and just disappear and not setting your line-up.
On the topic at hand...I always provide justification on why I agree to a trade. It doesn't hurt anyone to provide their thoughts on the trade.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dynasty Empire on Mar 19, 2017 8:54:41 GMT -5
Jazz is correct that there are rare situations where a trade can be vetoed. This has been a practise since the beginning of the network that you state why you made a trade. I don't think this needs much discussion. If you don't put a reason for a trade in the forum(this is more of a contract thing but you could be asked in standard also)then you could be asked for a reason anyway. It is just something that could prevent someone who looks at the trade from starting a chat session on how bad the deal is. Sometimes a simple explination will make someone say"hey i see why they did that now"
|
|
|
|
Post by Dynasty Empire on Mar 19, 2017 9:04:52 GMT -5
Rule 8.2 in baseball contract has been updated to reflect this statement
|
|
