just tried it in a world where I am in preseason.  You cannot DFA below 20 on the big league roster. 

I against going lower the 20 at any point. Even if we can systematically. As logman says,  I think we're going to have to pretty much go on the honor system with some sort of couple of warnings first type thing. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/7/2015 9:36:00 AM (view original):
Giving away free teams won't be a problem. 

The main objective, and I mentioned this to death many moons ago, is to get 32 owners who fully intend to adhere to the rules.   Then you won't have owners seeking loopholes in order to cheat the object of the game.   

If you have an inkling that someone is only 98% in, you probably have 100% chance of having an issue.

Giving away free teams won't be a problem.  The problem is getting those guys who are taking over those free teams to stay beyond the current season, and committing to the rules.

Having a world where you're potentially expelling multiple players per season seems like a bad model for stability and commitment.

My biggest concern would not be owners trying to intentionally game or cheat the system (though there will be some).  It would be those guys who violate the rule by accident or for some other circumstances (they're sick, they're away for a few days, they lost power or internet the day before the R5 freeze, etc.).

Correct but I think you have a waitlist.   It should be easy enough early on to replace owners.

You're too trusting.    Someone who plans to game the system will say they were sick, in a car wreck, lost power, their dog ate their homework, etc, etc.

I agree that removal cannot be the punishment.  Too harsh especially if someone "wins" a FA bid while being away and just has not made a corresponding move before the freeze (I cannot remember if there is any time between the end of the FA signing period and the R5 roster freeze.)

All the options I am thinking of have flaws (1: not allowed to draft enough R5 to fill 40 man (if you have 22 you only get to pick 17/18 - bad because it reduces picks at the end of the draft not the front, 2: give back first pick - too many flaws: 3: reduced salary cap - no mechanism for enforcement:)

Maybe it's just a two strike rule - second time you are out. I could see myself screwing up unintentionally and not removing someone after a FA signing before the freeze (believe me I have lost many good players because I forgot to protect them before the  R5 draft).

If the league gets the assumed benefit of this rule, which is parity in the league, there should be owners willing to step in and take almost any team as there should not be an issue with talent.

Maybe a rule where they have to DFA how many ever players they were over within two days of the R5 draft.  If they don't they're gone, if they do, all is good.  Although it should still be tracked to make sure it's not the same owner every season who 'accidentally' keeps more than allowed by the rules.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/7/2015 9:50:00 AM (view original):
Correct but I think you have a waitlist.   It should be easy enough early on to replace owners.

You're too trusting.    Someone who plans to game the system will say they were sick, in a car wreck, lost power, their dog ate their homework, etc, etc.

I don't think there's a waitlist.  I think currently there's barely enough new owners to fill the world.  Shobob can verify.

Yeah, I understand that those who plan to game the system will use those excuses.  But I think there also will be a number of owners who will inadvertently break the rules because they either didn't understand something and thought they were in compliance when they really were not, or real-life got in the way and they could make the required moves to get in compliance.

Well, if you don't have a waitlist, I suggest getting one. 

And, though I'm not involved, the "2nd chance rule" might be the best option.     But it could blow up if an owner isn't on board and decides to be "one and done".    He protects 40, plays the season, bails.     He only violated the rule once.     Of course, you could counter that by using the other suggestion of requiring him to dump players.   But then you've got a problem with the redistribution of those players.

Anytime you play a game of some sort on the internet against people you don't even know you run the risk of someone figuring their way around a rule. We set up a policy (3 strikes and you are out for example) and go on. There's no way to create the perfect situation outside of getting WIS to modify the code of the game to enforce the policy. 

I've been gooning this thread since its freezing out and i'm bored. Anyhow, here's an idea i had a while back to inflict punishments without having to boot people (since kicking owners out of worlds is not optimal in this day and age) First i thought a ban on signing IFA's and draft picks for a year or two, but that doesn't affect everybody since not all want in on the prospects. You need to hit the salary cap. Preferably in the same season, but it may not always be possible if the money is already spent. So it may have to take effect the next season. But what you would do is force the naughty party to transfer funds back in forth until it disappears. I.E. they have $20 mil in prospect and your penalty for breaking the law is a reduction of $10 mil. So they'd have to transfer funds until prospect is at $10 mil. Say payroll is $80 mil and prospect budget is $20 mil for a total of $100 mil between the two. Transfer $12 mil from prospect to payroll ($6 mil transaction cost) to payroll so you got $86 mil payroll and $8 mil prospect. ($94 mil total between the two) Transfer $6 mil from payroll to prospect ($3 mil cost) so you got $80 mil payroll and $11 mil prospect. Then transfer $2 mil ($1 mil transaction cost) from prospect to payroll and you're left with $81 mil in payroll and $9 mil in prospect. A total of $90 mil in budget between the two and $10 mil in transaction cost paid as the penalty. Now naturally, some more thought/math could be put into this and maybe a different penalty number is needed to dissuade breaking the law yet be more amicable then expulsion. Hopefully some seeds of thought have been sown.

Not bad. I suggested immediate removal because I couldn't think up anything else, but this could work.

Can't pour cement in this weather?

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/7/2015 10:08:00 AM (view original):
Well, if you don't have a waitlist, I suggest getting one. 

And, though I'm not involved, the "2nd chance rule" might be the best option.     But it could blow up if an owner isn't on board and decides to be "one and done".    He protects 40, plays the season, bails.     He only violated the rule once.     Of course, you could counter that by using the other suggestion of requiring him to dump players.   But then you've got a problem with the redistribution of those players.

If we need to remove the two absentee owners, we'll have 4 holes to fill.  I have a feeling that it shouldn't be too hard to find takers, because this is a unique idea.  HBD might have become a little bit stale, but something like this breathes a bit of life into it by adding a different type of challenge.  I just wanted to hammer out the details a bit more before starting any sort of marketing campaign.

Ok, so 20 is the min we can ask people to go down to.  Fine.  That leaves us with needing a rule to enforce.  Tecwrg has laid out the means for monitoring compliance, and foulballz has given us a means of punishing without kicking people out.  Next item on the agenda:  How EXACTLY is this rule going to be worded?

only problem with foulballz idea is that depending on your salary situation, the penalty could be inconsequential to the point where owners would take the penalty and gladly transfer away the excess unneeded budget.  Also, as foulballz mentioned himself, it's not necessarily enforceable immediately if the money is already spent.  don't think a penalty where some are asked to take it immediately while others can defer to another season is necessarily good for the world.