Or are they suggestions?

In a couple of my worlds, we've had blow-ups concerning cash in trade.  The rule is "No more cash than salary being received".  To me, that's in place to prevent the sale of players.   Which is good because I'm not going to play in a world where the selling of little fake people is allowed.   The slave days are over.  They have rights!

In both instances, the cash was close but, because salary decrease with each cycle, it was more than the salary.   To me, that's an instant veto.   I don't care why it happened, I just know that it did.  I don't care if it's one dollar or one million dollars.   I don't care if the amount doesn't allow you to do anything with it.  I don't care what your intentions are or were.  The rule is what it is.

To be fair, I had full salary coverage and, in general, excessive cash in trade.   So maybe my reaction is triggered somewhat by that.  However, because it's the internet, I am a bit of stickler for rules.

Am I OCD about the rules?   Or should they be enforced as they're written?

fair is fair!

stick to you friggin guns. you doing that is the reason i and others join and stay in worlds that you commish.

i agree that rules are rules, but i think you should clarify in the rules how you expect salary coverage to be calculated.  if different people look at the trade at different times, the remaining salary could display differently-- i'm not sure how that works.  also, i think it's unreasonable to expect people to calculate what the salaries will be when the last person looks at the trade.

if the rule is "No more cash than salary being received", does that mean at the time the trade is accepted?  owners would have to withdraw and re-propose after every cycle.

In my opinion, OCD.  Others will feel otherwise.  If the difference in cash is the amount that was owed to the player in the 3 games he played while waiting for the trade to be approved, that's a little overboard.  The nature of the rule was followed, and the desired outcome the rule was going for was achieved.  It's like rolling through that stop sign in the middle of nowhere at 3:00 in the morning.  The stop sign is there to prevent car accidents.  The necessary precautions were taken to prevent one, thus the rule did it's job.  Was it followed to the exact specification of the law...no.

But had there been a cop sitting at the intersection, would he/she have given you a ticket?  Maybe...

here's my take on it:

there are lots of hbd worlds. if you don't already know what you're getting with mike as commish, you'll find out soon. if you can't deal with what he puts in place, leave.
stick to the rules that are in place for each world you're in. what may fly in one world won't necessarily in another.

schedule, if you're making a trade, it's your responsibility to take into account the rules and the changing salaries(yes, they change each full cycle).   If you're going to be lazy and say "I don't know how much a player makes each game" or "I can't figure out how much the salary will change", I don't care.  I don't reward lazy or stupid.   If you need EXACT salary, you've dug yourself a hole.  Don't wait for me to throw you a rope.

mhul, I'm less concerned about the nature of the rule than I am about the rule.   If 100k is OK today, is 200k OK tomorrow?  How about 2m?  4m?  It's a slipperly slope that can be avoided by simply following the rule.   And, yes, the cop will likely give you a ticket.  I've gotten one after midnight less than 100 yards from my house.  He pulled into my driveway to give it to me.

Yep, that's the other side of it.  One side will say, "I'm only $100,000 over," while the commish says, "Yes, it's only $100,000, so decrease your cash and it won't change the deal," to which the other side comes back with, "If it won't change the deal, then why does it matter?" to which the commish comes back with, "Because it's my rule."  That's where it stops, which is I assume where it stopped in your world.

And that cop must have been bored.

It has to stop somewhere.   If you're saying 2m would be too much, you're also setting a figure just like I do.   Or, possibly, you have no issue with the sale of players.  That's OK, too.   It just doesn't float with me and I won't play in worlds where it does.

I'm assuming the cop was shooting for a DUI.   He was probably ****** because he didn't get it and wrote me a "rolling thru the sign" ticket.

hey, if the rule is clear as "salary at the time the trade will be executed", then fine.  i would just tack that on to the rule so everyone knows.  it's a pain to figure out how much a player makes per game and subtract 3x that, but if people know they need to do it, then they'll do it.

i agree with you about the slippery slope nature of exceptions.

lol

And, nope, I don't like the sale of players.  I don't have an issue with whatever side you come down on.  I just don't mind looking at individual situations and realizing that the money worked out at the beginning of the deal.  But it's much cleaner and easier to stick to the rule with no exceptions.

Rules are rules.

Unless the rules say "maybe", enforce it to the letter.

If you don't, you've set the precident. "Well you let Jimmy stay in the league at 53 wins, so what's wrong with 52?"

I dare say, the owner of this thread knows I believe that even to the deteriment of myself.

sched, I do think there's some interpretation involved.  If the rule is "No more cash than salary", it leaves room for interpretation.  But, as you know, sometimes trades will sit for days.   So, a deal today might not cover full salary but, if the owner waits 4 days to accept it might be 2m more than salary.   Do the two participants say "Hey, when it was proposed it was fine"?  And do you accept that?  To me, it's the responsibility of the traders to make sure the cash works.   If half a dozen owners don't check the deal until the cycle before approval, they have every reason to veto if the cash doesn't work.