The WIP Fantasy Charter Discussion Thread

CoachTO · 03-08-2012 5:36pm

The biggest problem with bringing in any system that isnt straight forward is the mess created by people who bail or lose interest or just dont bother. The way I see it right now there is incentive banter or not to move up. Its a straight forward promotion relegation and in 4 seasons now the top 3 divisions have cemented themselves fairly well with the odd few drop outs. But for the most part most members stick around.

Yes its a mess at times but if you move to a more complicated solution or bring in ranking systems to try make it more competitive or put someone in on merits people who were used to the old system and in a higher position will get p1ssed off or lose interest then you will get guys leaving because they are getting dumped into a non competitive league and even though they were competitive they werent good enough to get into the top 2. 4 up 4 down gives everyone a fair shot of moving up.

Im in a league in the US and we have 3 divisions and every year there is someone trying new ideas and honestly the promotion/relegation ends up being the easier method. I started in their div 3 went to the top division and now back in 2nd and the system works.

The problem is with the league in the US is that some guys think they are better than they are or feel they have the right to stay in a top division or earned some merit and to be honest this boards league was set up for the banter and to give everyone a fair shot. When we first started there was 1 division and now there is 7. Trying to reward merit wont work and will end up becoming an exclusive club. I consider myself very good at fantasy but have no problem being relegated if I finish bottom 4.

poldebruin · 03-08-2012 5:46pm

CoachTO wrote: »

Yes its a mess at times but if you move to a more complicated solution or bring in ranking systems to try make it more competitive or put someone in on merits people who were used to the old system and in a higher position will get p1ssed off or lose interest then you will get guys leaving because they are getting dumped into a non competitive league and even though they were competitive they werent good enough to get into the top 2. 4 up 4 down gives everyone a fair shot of moving up.

I have nothing against the promotion/relegation itself, just the admin mess it seems to create in it's wake. Perhaps as JohnmcD (was it?) mentioned in the above post, it is a matter of timing that needs to be sorted out.

CoachTO · 03-08-2012 5:48pm

poldebruin wrote: »

I have nothing against the promotion/relegation itself, just the admin mess it seems to create in it's wake. Perhaps as JohnmcD (was it?) mentioned in the above post, it is a matter of timing that needs to be sorted out.

I agree. One thing we can do is not sign or kick any players from the previous season until after the closing date. Then after the closing date the GMs kick the old and send out invites to the new and set a time limit on that also say 7 or 14 days.

By doing this after the closing date all the promotions and relegations are set and Old GMs if promoted can hand over the reigns smoother.

Benimar · 04-08-2012 12:43pm

CoachTO wrote: »

I agree. One thing we can do is not sign or kick any players from the previous season until after the closing date. Then after the closing date the GMs kick the old and send out invites to the new and set a time limit on that also say 7 or 14 days.

By doing this after the closing date all the promotions and relegations are set and Old GMs if promoted can hand over the reigns smoother.

Due to the number of 'promotions' (me being one of them) I think it should be a 14 day cut off.

This gives time for a GM to be appointed (if needs be - as it is in Div 4 for example) and for the new GM to get emails etc. This could take a week in itself and this gives players a further week to sign up.

Blured · 04-09-2012 2:27pm

Not sure if there was anything agreed in relation to vetoing trades - just saw there was discussion on it in the Division 3 thread. Some owners want to veto a trade because they see it as being one sided (Peyton Manning for Helu).

In my opinion, a veto should only take place if there is clear collusion. People can argue that this is a very one-sided trade ( I disagree) but I think we can say for certain that there is no collusion. The owner clearly stated after the draft that P Manning was on the block. He got what he thought was value.

I think we should clear this up in the next charter revision, Vetos should be made by League Managers only when they are sure of collusion.

CoachTO · 04-09-2012 2:42pm

Why do people think the veto is there only to stop collusion. I have been playing a long time and the veto does more than that.

There are such a thing as stupid trades and extremely lobsided trades that regardless of what one owner thinks he is getting the trade is stupid and brings down the overall competition level of the league not just the one team.

The veto also helps stop 1 owner taking advantage of the inexperience or the stupidity of others where the trade will clearly bring down the competition level of said person and team.

Not only that there is owners who dont give a fook and trade blindly without care giving others clear advantage with nonsense trades whether collusion has ever taken place in the first place.

In this case Manning is coming back from injury and Helu is fighting for the starting spot at the Redskins. This one is tough to call in the sense that people will see Manning superior because of the past and Helu still fighting to be named starter. If 1 owner needs a QB and the other a RB this is a alright trade.

Blured · 04-09-2012 2:52pm

CoachTO wrote: »

Why do people think the veto is there only to stop collusion. I have been playing a long time and the veto does more than that.

There are such a thing as stupid trades and extremely lobsided trades that regardless of what one owner thinks he is getting the trade is stupid and brings down the overall competition level of the league not just the one team.

The veto also helps stop 1 owner taking advantage of the inexperience or the stupidity of others where the trade will clearly bring down the competition level of said person and team.

Not only that there is owners who dont give a fook and trade blindly without care giving others clear advantage with nonsense trades whether collusion has ever taken place in the first place.

In this case Manning is coming back from injury and Helu is fighting for the starting spot at the Redskins. This one is tough to call in the sense that people will see Manning superior because of the past and Helu still fighting to be named starter. If 1 owner needs a QB and the other a RB this is a alright trade.

Could veto power not be abused as well then? Both teams getting a good deal, but the other owners dont want to see it going through as it helps both teams (their competition).

Heres a decent article arguing against vetoing trades

http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/football/ffl/story?id=3074110

CoachTO · 04-09-2012 3:01pm

Blured wrote: »

Could veto power not be abused as well then? Both teams getting a good deal, but the other owners dont want to see it going through as it helps both teams (their competition).

Heres a decent article arguing against vetoing trades

http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/football/ffl/story?id=3074110

It can but its down to owners using their cop on and not vetoing it just to be a dick or to help yourself. The veto is one of these things that will be controversial no matter what way its explained or used. People will never agree.

What we do in the 3 big leagues im in the US is let all trades go through unless they are clearly taking the piss. As in Collusion, 100% lobsided, Stupid owner, Owner not caring anymore and trading for the sh1ts. Any trade that weakens competition on 1 hand and strengthens it clearly on the other is not a fair trade. That system has worked well for us for the most part for the best of 10 years.

One thing we also do is if someone is interested in a trade a discussion goes up on the discussion board on the site talking about it. This leaves open discussion and weeds out the bias opinion and those who are vetoing for the sake of it.

Tristram · 22-11-2012 5:53am

Hey folks, apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere but I couldn't find a mention in this thread.

With regards to league settings and rules was there any discussion about the trade time-frames? In the Division 5 league there is quite a long wait between a trade being agreed and the transaction going through. For example, yesterday myself and another player agreed a trade but it won't go through until Saturday. Is there a reason for the lag or is it a game default? I wonder if such a delay acts to discourage trades as players might not be able to use a player they are seeking to acquire until the following gameweek. I know it's possible to change this in ESPN leagues but I'm not sure about NFL ones?

Maybe something to think about for next year!

eagle eye · 23-11-2012 12:58am

Tristram wrote: »

Hey folks, apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere but I couldn't find a mention in this thread.

With regards to league settings and rules was there any discussion about the trade time-frames? In the Division 5 league there is quite a long wait between a trade being agreed and the transaction going through. For example, yesterday myself and another player agreed a trade but it won't go through until Saturday. Is there a reason for the lag or is it a game default? I wonder if such a delay acts to discourage trades as players might not be able to use a player they are seeking to acquire until the following gameweek. I know it's possible to change this in ESPN leagues but I'm not sure about NFL ones?

Maybe something to think about for next year!

All players have the option to vote against a trade, its only fair to give them a couple of days. You cannot expect them to be on everyday.

Tristram · 23-11-2012 3:48am

eagle eye wrote: »

All players have the option to vote against a trade, its only fair to give them a couple of days. You cannot expect them to be on everyday.

Absolutely! I totally agree with you that it's vital that a league has the opportunity to veto trades. However, I do think trades should count for that gameweek.

If there is a way to do both it would be great. I think it's a worthwhile topic for discussion.

(also, I wish everyone did check everyday

)

justice4lava · 15-12-2012 2:41pm

Can people participate in multiple boards.ie leagues?
If so...
Newbie users in the lowest division are at a disadvantage if more seasoned users enter a team. And seeing as the draft has a significant impact on the league outcome it's difficult for the newbies to make-up the initial slack.
Newbies are then unlikely to win promotion. The newbies become disinterested. end result is the same pool of players.

Dodge · 17-12-2012 2:06am

But no, users can't enter more than one league in the boards standard structure. So yeah, its usually all 'newbies' in that division (set up this year for the first time)

Did you register just to say that?

Johnny_Fontane · 26-11-2013 1:54pm

as we come to the playoffs, I keep on thinking that next year we should move towards 8 teams making the playoffs. with the top 4 being promoted.

6 teams is very very tight and it would get more people involved in the 'knockout' round.

Thoughts?

JaMarcus Hustle · 26-11-2013 2:01pm

I dunno, I like how it replicates a conference playoff in the real world. 4 Division winners and 2 Wildcards. I think half the league making the playoffs is a bit much.

D3PO · 26-11-2013 4:07pm

JaMarcus Hustle wrote: »

I dunno, I like how it replicates a conference playoff in the real world. 4 Division winners and 2 Wildcards. I think half the league making the playoffs is a bit much.

This.

It also means there is a real reward for getting the 1st or second seed and a bye.

8 teams getting in is too much it would also mean that a lot of games become dead rubbers. I,e in Div 1 this year all the playoff spots would be decided with a week still to go.

Dodge · 26-11-2013 6:26pm

Defo agree with only 6 making the play offs.

adrian522 · 26-11-2013 6:48pm

Looking at the Prem league table I reckon top 14 should make the playoffs with positions 15 and 16 relegated. My opinion may change after this weeks games though.

But yeah, leave it as it is.

matthew8 · 26-11-2013 6:51pm

One little thing I was thinking of is the tiebreak rule. As it stands it's head-to-head record (although I can't see the official league settings picture anymore, or it's just gone) and I just think total points makes way more sense.

TO. · 26-11-2013 9:58pm

matthew8 wrote: »

One little thing I was thinking of is the tiebreak rule. As it stands it's head-to-head record (although I can't see the official league settings picture anymore, or it's just gone) and I just think total points makes way more sense.

The original image was done in imageshack or one of them and for some reason the links go dead after a while. anyone can see it in their own leagues though. I will get one of the mods to re add it though.

Defo something to discuss though im on the fence with it. On one hand head to head cuts out the problem of teams giving up mid season and going from scoring at least decent points to getting fook all. Screwing up anyones against points who played them before the disappearance. Head to head in some ways guarantees the wins are counted. On the other hand some low scoring teams scrape in on the head to head. I guesd the question is which is valuable wins or points for/against

D3PO · 27-11-2013 10:21am

I wouldn't do points difference for sure but points for as the tiebreaker at least warrants a discussion although Id be against it.

The argument for is that there should be some reward for being a high scoring team. I mean if I look at my own position this season Im the 2nd highest scoring team in my league but going into the final week I either win my division or Im out as head to head means I cannot possibly make the wildcard spots.

That despite teams with 200 points fewer scored than me over the season being able to secure a wildcard. You can argue its the luck of the draw or that perhaps there should be some move towards having the best teams at least having some benefit.

on the flip however it could mean wildcard spots become out of reach of some teams only 1 game back with 1 week to go as they will enver overcome the points scored difference.

Even though it impacts me negatively this season id still be against the change. H2H is how the NFL does it so I don't see why if we are following a similar NFL position in terms of playoff / wildcard spots that we would then go change this form a different way than the NFL handles tied records.

Im open to a discussion on it in the off season though.

DBIreland · 27-11-2013 11:51am

I have an even more extreme situation than you D3PO.
I'm in Div 8,
I have the highest scoring team in the league,
I lead the Breakdown table by 3 games,
I lead the Coach table by 22 points
Yet I am 10th out of 16 in Div 8 and been out of the playoff picture for maybe 2 or 3 weeks!
I have conceded the most points too, 150 point more than the next highest team! Sounds like all my games were shootouts!
There is almost 400 points difference between the total i conceded and the team that conceded the fewest after 12 weeks.

Luck of the draw plays a huge part in the game and i don't know if that should be taken out of it. There is luck in the draft order and luck in the teams you play.

One change that i thought might be worth thinking about is allowing a TE in the WR/RB flex position. Not sure if it is possible but since TE's are becoming a bigger and bigger part of teams offence it might add further options to peoples selections. (Of course this suggestion may be because i had J. Thomas and J. Witten on my team all year!)

D3PO · 27-11-2013 11:55am

DBIreland wrote: »

I One change that i thought might be worth thinking about is allowing a TE in the WR/RB flex position. Not sure if it is possible but since TE's are becoming a bigger and bigger part of teams offence it might add further options to peoples selections. (Of course this suggestion may be because i had J. Thomas and J. Witten on my team all year!)

THERE SHOULDNT BE A FLEX POSITION IN THE BOARDS LEAGUES !!!!

DIV8 needs to be fixed for next year as its clearly setup wrong.

JaMarcus Hustle · 27-11-2013 11:55am

DBIreland wrote: »

One change that i thought might be worth thinking about is allowing a TE in the WR/RB flex position. Not sure if it is possible but since TE's are becoming a bigger and bigger part of teams offence it might add further options to peoples selections. (Of course this suggestion may be because i had J. Thomas and J. Witten on my team all year!)

Wait, I thought we didn't have any flex positions in the Boards leagues? Division 2 doesn't have any?

As for the tiebreaker, I'd be for Points For being the decider. I think it's better reward someone for having built a better team rather than having a better gameweek once-off. A bye-week could really screw over someone going by the current system.

If it's up for discussion, I vote change it. But I'm not fussed overall. If you want to qualify, then finish top

DBIreland · 27-11-2013 2:34pm

Div 8 must be setup wrong so. We have 1 x QB, 2 x RB, 2 x WR, 1 x TE, 1 x W/R, 1 x K and 1 x DEF and 6 on the bench.
How do the other leagues look?

D3PO · 27-11-2013 2:39pm

DBIreland wrote: »

Div 8 must be setup wrong so. We have 1 x QB, 2 x RB, 2 x WR, 1 x TE, 1 x W/R, 1 x K and 1 x DEF and 6 on the bench.
How do the other leagues look?

the settings on how the league should be setup are in the sticky. Needs to be changed for next season and Id suggest the league manager review all settings as god knows whatever is setup wrong.

EDIT the settings pic no longer showing as visible In the sticky. No wonder Div8 is setup wrong. Can this be fixed and then the LM can identify and resolve any issues in Div8 settings

BizzyC · 27-11-2013 4:25pm

I prefer the head to head tie break, the NFL isn't done by points.
I think we should move to a 2x8 team div setup though.

In our league (Div 5) we have 5 teams fighting for the 2 non-div-winner wildcard spots. All 5 of these teams have a better record than one of the div-winning teams.

Cutting down on the number of divs would reduce the chances of teams with better records losing out to teams who had a worse record.
In our case, there's still a small chance that the winner of that div will have a losing record and make the playoff over a 9-4 team....

D3PO · 27-11-2013 4:32pm

BizzyC wrote: »

I prefer the head to head tie break, the NFL isn't done by points.
I think we should move to a 2x8 team div setup though.

In our league (Div 5) we have 5 teams fighting for the 2 non-div-winner wildcard spots. All 5 of these teams have a better record than one of the div-winning teams.

Cutting down on the number of divs would reduce the chances of teams with better records losing out to teams who had a worse record.
In our case, there's still a small chance that the winner of that div will have a losing record and make the playoff over a 9-4 team....

But that happens in the NFL. I remember a 7-9 Seattle team getting into the playoffs not so long ago.

I also remember an 11-5 Patriots team missing out.

Sometimes things fall in your favour sometimes they don't just like in the NFL.

BizzyC · 27-11-2013 6:35pm

True, but there was discussion at the time because of that too...

D3PO · 05-12-2013 12:47pm

is it possible we can actually put a more specific definition of inactive in the charter ?

I say this as there are guys who don't show as "inactive" if you check the last login date but then you find they have a guy on IR for 3-4 weeks plus in their team. As it stands they cant be considered inactive but as far as I can see they are as good as.

Id like the inactivity description to say that a player whos last login is over 3 weeks ago or who over the course of the season starts players on byes or who are on IR for more than 3 weeks is deemed to be inactive.

Inactive players ruin the game and if it means kicking more guys and having 6-7 quality boards divisions rather than 9 with a few guys inactive in each then that's much better.

open to comments on this. But would like propose it as a change to the charter for next season

Dodge · 05-12-2013 4:01pm

I'd second that. Putting in something to say for 3/4 weeks (as you suggest) allows for mistakes/holidays etc

TO. · 05-12-2013 4:06pm

Dodge wrote: »

I'd second that. Putting in something to say for 3/4 weeks (as you suggest) allows for mistakes/holidays etc

I would agree also.

Tristram · 06-12-2013 6:30am

Fully support stricter rules/enforcement with regard to inactives. They ruin leagues.

JCTO · 06-09-2015 9:24pm

I would like to propose the following to the Charter:

Rule Changes and Voting

- Rules are proposed at the start of the a new season to come into affect the following season leaving a full year to vote on the rule change. So example : Propose a Rule change from June - August 2015 and then in September 2015 the voting poll gets put into place and then closes July 31st 2016. (Only an example)

- Once you cast your vote there is no changing the vote. You have practically a year to make a decision on your vote.

- All current members can vote. This includes any new member who joins and votes before the closing date of said poll. If anyone has not come back to the league and confirmed their re-entry and are removed from the leagues their vote is removed.

BigBadRob83 · 07-09-2015 8:25am

JCTO wrote: »

Rule Changes and Voting

- Rules are proposed at the start of the a new season to come into affect the following season leaving a full year to vote on the rule change. So example : Propose a Rule change from June - August 2015 and then in September 2015 the voting poll gets put into place and then closes July 31st 2016. (Only an example)

Don't think a full year is needed.
Fantasy season ends 3 January this year. If proposals made right after after season (when still in people's minds rather than the summer when not thinking about football) that still leaves 6-8 months before the new season starts. That should be plenty of time really

Agree with other two points

BigBadRob83 · 10-09-2015 2:35pm

Would like to propose that we do away with voting on a trade.
Only reason to reject a trade IMO is collusion, and the commish should be empowered to handle that

Don't think the current review period of 2 days serves any purpose.
Trade currently agreed in Div 3 (not involving me) and Big Ben is part of it, because of the Thursday game he can't play for his new team and trade won' go through until week 2.
Have seen similar issues in the past too, a trade needs to be agreed on Thursday to be in place before Sunday games. Or Monday for a Thursday game.

For consideration.

Tristram · 10-09-2015 2:49pm

Good post Rob. This has been a pet hate of mine since I started playing boards leagues. I believe the length of time it takes for trades to go through actively discourages one of the funnest parts of the game: trading. I would love to see a vote on this topic and hear all the pros and cons regarding such a rules change.

JCTO · 10-09-2015 4:55pm

BigBadRob83 wrote: »

Would like to propose that we do away with voting on a trade.
Only reason to reject a trade IMO is collusion, and the commish should be empowered to handle that

Don't think the current review period of 2 days serves any purpose.
Trade currently agreed in Div 3 (not involving me) and Big Ben is part of it, because of the Thursday game he can't play for his new team and trade won' go through until week 2.
Have seen similar issues in the past too, a trade needs to be agreed on Thursday to be in place before Sunday games. Or Monday for a Thursday game.

For consideration.

Problem is with letting the GM do it is this:

To play devils advocate on this. The GMs actively play in the league and can hardly be impartial to a trade. Also what happens if a trade directly affects the GM. Then you have the problem of using Thursday games as an example what happens if the GM is not readily available that day anyways? You are still back to square 1.

I don't agree with the collusion part about rejecting trades. People have their reasons for not wanting someone to be traded to another team. Unfair to say it is collusion to be fair. I have rejected trades in the past and collusion never had anything to do with it. And I am sure the same can be said for many others.

eagle eye · 10-09-2015 5:25pm

JCTO wrote: »

I would like to propose the following to the Charter:

Rule Changes and Voting

- Rules are proposed at the start of the a new season to come into affect the following season leaving a full year to vote on the rule change. So example : Propose a Rule change from June - August 2015 and then in September 2015 the voting poll gets put into place and then closes July 31st 2016. (Only an example)

- Once you cast your vote there is no changing the vote. You have practically a year to make a decision on your vote.

- All current members can vote. This includes any new member who joins and votes before the closing date of said poll. If anyone has not come back to the league and confirmed their re-entry and are removed from the leagues their vote is removed.

I think I have to agree with BigBadRob on this one. I think proposals should be made before the season begins and the voting should be done during the season and end when it finishes.

eagle eye · 10-09-2015 5:27pm

JCTO wrote: »

Problem is with letting the GM do it is this:

To play devils advocate on this. The GMs actively play in the league and can hardly be impartial to a trade. Also what happens if a trade directly affects the GM. Then you have the problem of using Thursday games as an example what happens if the GM is not readily available that day anyways? You are still back to square 1.

I don't agree with the collusion part about rejecting trades. People have their reasons for not wanting someone to be traded to another team. Unfair to say it is collusion to be fair. I have rejected trades in the past and collusion never had anything to do with it. And I am sure the same can be said for many others.

Fully in agreement with you here. I've also voted against trades in the past and hoped they didn't happen purely so I could offer a trade for one of the players involved in that trade.

Tristram · 10-09-2015 8:58pm

That's interesting JCTO and eagle eye. I've never even considered that as a way to use the voting. Always seemed like such a redundant feature to me.

Anyway, I'm firmly pro changes that promote an environment conducive to trading. It's one of the thing I love most about fantasy.

BigBadRob83 · 11-09-2015 8:32am

JCTO wrote: »

I have rejected trades in the past and collusion never had anything to do with it. And I am sure the same can be said for many others.

eagle eye wrote: »

I've also voted against trades in the past and hoped they didn't happen purely so I could offer a trade for one of the players involved in that trade.

Honestly quite surprised at those comments.

They seem like incredibly petty reasons to vote against a trade. If the two team owners make a trade that they both think improves their team I don't think anyone else should have the ability to stop that because of their own selfish reasons. But I guess this is for the actual debate when it comes to a vote.

Dodge · 11-09-2015 11:08am

I'm generally of the view that all trades should be allowed happen and I don't think I've vetoed any but I don't like the GM having that power either. None of us know anything about collusion but if something is ridiculous (say a starting WR for a kicker), then we should all be allowed veto it

The 2 day grace period isn't that big a hindrance either. Thursday games only effect 2 teams so it just means that trades have to be offered for 2 teams by Tueday. every one else is still in play

JCTO · 11-09-2015 2:22pm

BigBadRob83 wrote: »

Honestly quite surprised at those comments.

They seem like incredibly petty reasons to vote against a trade. If the two team owners make a trade that they both think improves their team I don't think anyone else should have the ability to stop that because of their own selfish reasons. But I guess this is for the actual debate when it comes to a vote.

Petty comments how? Selfish? Are you for real? Madness really but I actually never gave you any of the reasons I have had in the past to reject trades. I have had many reasons for it in the past and honestly if you want to call it petty I am not going to even bother getting into anymore of a discussion with you over trade rejection if you are going to say my comment is petty and bang the collusion drum.

But great way to get your debate going by saying people are colluding and then calling them petty and selfish.

BigBadRob83 · 11-09-2015 2:31pm

JCTO wrote: »

Petty comments how? Selfish? Are you for real? Madness really but I actually never gave you any of the reasons I have had in the past to reject trades. I have had many reasons for it in the past and honestly if you want to call it petty I am not going to even bother getting into anymore of a discussion with you over trade rejection if you are going to say my comment is petty and bang the collusion drum.

But great way to get your debate going by saying people are colluding and then calling them petty and selfish.

All I ever said about collusion was it's the only good reason IMO to reject a trade. Never accused anyone of it

Apologies about the petty comment, that was not meant for both of you, more towards eagle eye's explanation. Didn't re read my sentence structure properly.

Raoul · 19-10-2016 12:12pm

Never really read this thread before. I think that Rob is right about rejecting trades based on the fact that you could offer a better one, that doesn't seem right at all.

We are having problem in our division (premier division). The guy accepted a trade Monday to take John Brown for the Vikings D. Then after John Brown plays, a day after accepting the trade he puts up a message saying that it was a mistake and that he didn't mean to accept to the trade. Also he has messaged the owners to try and get them to veto it.

I have no idea if the guy is being genuine or not or if he had second thoughts about the trade after seeing John Brown. Now I am in a sh*tty position. Anyway...putting this situation in here so that we have a rule whereby if it happens again, we know what to do.

My view is, if you accept the trade by accident and don't realise for a whole day (in particular after a player has played), then you should just have to bite the bullet. If the person accepted the trade by accident and immediately messaged the other person or the group, then you could say "ok fair enough". So...can we get a rule for next year for this situation?

poldebruin · 25-10-2016 3:30am

Raoul wrote: »

We are having problem in our division (premier division). The guy accepted a trade Monday to take John Brown for the Vikings D. Then after John Brown plays, a day after accepting the trade he puts up a message saying that it was a mistake and that he didn't mean to accept to the trade. Also he has messaged the owners to try and get them to veto it.

Shouldn't really need a rule to explicitly apply to the situation you have described. A trade accepted is a trade accepted. ....my view is that you just own the mistake and carry on.....but that one of the players involved has subsequently played? No way....that trade should stay the way it is.

Raoul · 25-10-2016 3:57pm

poldebruin wrote: »

Shouldn't really need a rule to explicitly apply to the situation you have described. A trade accepted is a trade accepted. ....my view is that you just own the mistake and carry on.....but that one of the players involved has subsequently played? No way....that trade should stay the way it is.

Well obviously we do. As I traded the vikings D back cos I was put in an awkward situation.

adrian522 · 25-10-2016 4:11pm

poldebruin wrote: »

Shouldn't really need a rule to explicitly apply to the situation you have described. A trade accepted is a trade accepted. ....my view is that you just own the mistake and carry on.....but that one of the players involved has subsequently played? No way....that trade should stay the way it is.

The player involved played before the trade went through but after the trade was accepted.

The rule as I understand it is that the trade would stand unless both players agree to reverse it.

I think in this case a genuine error was made but according to the rules the trade would have to stand.

The WIP Fantasy Charter Discussion Thread

Comments