Posted by contrarian23 on 8/7/2019 2:43:00 PM (view original):
Not sure I agree justinlee. I - and apparently most other owners in this tournament - interpreted the rule the way ozomatli intended it. I only looked at 3 possible parks. If now the interpretation is that other parks are available, then every owner should go and explore if switching parks makes sense. And if it does, then do we have the right to change our rosters as well?

Seems to me this is a tradeoff between asking a very small number of owners to definitely make a change, or asking a large number of owners to potentially make a change. To me, the former option makes a lot more sense than the latter.

to be clear, I read the rule the same way you and most of the other owners did. However, I can't find anything wrong with how they interpreted the rule, and in my opinion it is ozomatli's responsiblity as the theme creator to make sure everything is clear (and to clear up misconceptions before all the rosters are due).

Also, I'm not sure I agree with your premise. Suppose some owners misinterpreted the rules for the WISC $70M and thought their entire roster had to consist of players in their first WIS eligible season or players in their final WIS eligible season. It is suddenly made clear to them after the roster deadline that they could have had a mix of first and last player seasons on their roster. Should they be allowed to redo their roster? Or was it up to them to read what is written (and ask questions if they were unsure) and build their roster?

Posted by contrarian23 on 8/7/2019 2:43:00 PM (view original):
Not sure I agree justinlee. I - and apparently most other owners in this tournament - interpreted the rule the way ozomatli intended it. I only looked at 3 possible parks. If now the interpretation is that other parks are available, then every owner should go and explore if switching parks makes sense. And if it does, then do we have the right to change our rosters as well?

Seems to me this is a tradeoff between asking a very small number of owners to definitely make a change, or asking a large number of owners to potentially make a change. To me, the former option makes a lot more sense than the latter.

For what it's worth, I agree with contrarian's summation. I interpreted the park selection as ozo intended and, honestly, didn't choose a player based on the parks he played in during the selected seasons. I chose my guy, took a look at the 3 eligible fields, and then built around that selection best I could.

The issue here is some people are talking about interpretation, while some simply took the description at face value, which made sense given that other themes used clearly defined wording.

I appreciate the passionate discussion here. Lots to weigh but don't want to let this sit too long. The way I see it, there are three constraints to this problem:

1. Can't allow some / the majority of owners to play under rules and others not.
2. Can't unreasonably impact anyone's chances to do well in the tournament.
3. Can't delay the tournament much.

Given those three constraints, what we'll do is implement the rule as intended (ballpark must be from a season you choose) but anyone who is impacted can make changes to their team (or pick new players) from now through Saturday. Then we will get schedules generated on Sunday and games will begin on Tuesday. This pushes us back 1-2 days but not much. I will also check in with the impacted owners to see if they plan to make changes. If they do not, we will be able to start sooner.

If anyone does make changes, they'll need to let me know so that I can re-check their roster.

Posted by ozomatli on 8/7/2019 3:28:00 PM (view original):
I appreciate the passionate discussion here. Lots to weigh but don't want to let this sit too long. The way I see it, there are three constraints to this problem:

1. Can't allow some / the majority of owners to play under rules and others not.
2. Can't unreasonably impact anyone's chances to do well in the tournament.
3. Can't delay the tournament much.

Given those three constraints, what we'll do is implement the rule as intended (ballpark must be from a season you choose) but anyone who is impacted can make changes to their team (or pick new players) from now through Saturday. Then we will get schedules generated on Sunday and games will begin on Tuesday. This pushes us back 1-2 days but not much. I will also check in with the impacted owners to see if they plan to make changes. If they do not, we will be able to start sooner.

If anyone does make changes, they'll need to let me know so that I can re-check their roster.

King Solomon couldn't have done a better job in assessing and solving the issue. I think it's fair to all concerned.

I think what interests me most about this tournament is that I've been playing progressives exclusively for years.Playing interesting themes like this takes me into a slightly different zone.Even if I take a serious whipping,I'm going to expand my knowledge base of the nuances of team building strategies and day to day game play.I figure it's best to learn from the best.That's worth the price the price of admission.Can't believe how pumped I am for this to start.

I found it much easier compiling my teams this year than in years past, so I'm not sure if that's a good sign or not. The themes certainly aren't easy, so I'm not sure if I just found a sweet spot quickly, or didn't tinker as much as I should have.

In almost every theme, when I got down to the last 4-5 players to complete my team, I would forget about the theme and just try to fill holes. I would find my mistake and have to correct it later. It just felt like I was trying to fill a bunch of square blocks in round holes at the end.

Posted by ozomatli on 8/7/2019 3:28:00 PM (view original):
I appreciate the passionate discussion here. Lots to weigh but don't want to let this sit too long. The way I see it, there are three constraints to this problem:

1. Can't allow some / the majority of owners to play under rules and others not.
2. Can't unreasonably impact anyone's chances to do well in the tournament.
3. Can't delay the tournament much.

Given those three constraints, what we'll do is implement the rule as intended (ballpark must be from a season you choose) but anyone who is impacted can make changes to their team (or pick new players) from now through Saturday. Then we will get schedules generated on Sunday and games will begin on Tuesday. This pushes us back 1-2 days but not much. I will also check in with the impacted owners to see if they plan to make changes. If they do not, we will be able to start sooner.

If anyone does make changes, they'll need to let me know so that I can re-check their roster.

bump

milest, with all due respect I would encourage you to relax, play ball and have fun with this game.

Could've fooled me :)

Posted by milest on 8/16/2019 2:59:00 AM (view original):
The rule was written very clearly. It stated that an owner can use any ballpark that his team captain played in while playing with 1 of the teams drafted. VERY clear. You can't 'interpret' it any other way than it is written. It blows my mind that people think differently, tbh.

Where have you been? This issue was addressed and dealt with already. And for the record, I agreed with your position. But the ruling was made, I was given time to do more research, I changed my ballpark and moved on. I can't fathom why so many people wait until after everything has started before they complain.