Rules are rules Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I didn't say you did.  I said I don't comment on everything because the guy who screams about everything gets ignored.  If you think rules are a good idea, suggest some.  If you don't care, then don't.  
8/2/2010 1:23 PM
stitch01
Posts: 23 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 63 5 111
Prospect

I was in one of these worlds.  The trade should have been vetoed, as rules are rules.  

To be perfectly honest though, I might have gotten tripped up by the salaries decreasing over the cycle prior to that incident. 

Wouldnt happen to be now, but I do think the trade in question was a genuine accident and wouldnt have led to any further adverse incidents. 

Understood your frustration wth the lack of a veto and the precendent it set, but I do think you were a little hard on the owners actually involved in the trade in that particular case.

8/6/2010 1:29 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
In that world, it was less about the trade and more about the attitude of the dozen owners who commented about it.   And the comments were overwhelmingly "Meh.  It's only a 100k.  No big deal."   When a world has 10-15 openings every season and you're trying to rectify that problem, owner indifference to rules that were made VERY clear beforehand is a problem.
8/6/2010 7:07 AM
stitch01
Posts: 23 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 63 5 111
Prospect
I hear you, and I cant blame you for getting angry at the world not following the rules and vetoing the trade.  

Id just suggest posting about the salary decrese issue when you post the league rules as I bet you more people don't know about it than you think. That's the main point I want to make, not trying to defend the non-veto. 
8/6/2010 11:55 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by stitch01 on 8/6/2010 11:55:00 AM (view original):
I hear you, and I cant blame you for getting angry at the world not following the rules and vetoing the trade.  

Id just suggest posting about the salary decrese issue when you post the league rules as I bet you more people don't know about it than you think. That's the main point I want to make, not trying to defend the non-veto. 
If people are cutting the cash so close that the salary decrease during the 24 hour approval period crosses the line, then they knew they were walking right on the edge of the world rules.  They really have no leg to stand on if they get bent out of shape by a veto in that case.
8/6/2010 12:04 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I suppose it's possible that people don't know that salary decreases each cycle.   I'm not sure why they wouldn't know that as it's basic math but I guess it's possible.   Nonetheless, when it's pointed out and seemingly half of the troubled world goes "Meh.  No big deal", there's a problem.   And, IMO, the problem is that the owners in the world are largely indifferent to anything that extends beyond their team.  Thus you end up with a world with high turnover season after season while the few longtime owners continue to build their powerhouses. 
8/6/2010 12:39 PM
nfet
Posts: 204 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 1 44 52
Prospect
I only read the first post, but here's my 2 cents.  Unbending Rules and laws help to manage large groups of people.  Situational considerations are more ideal, but usually less practical.   HBD worlds are small groups of people and could probably handle a high percentage of situational, case by case decision making...depending on the commish.
8/6/2010 4:49 PM
stitch01
Posts: 23 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 63 5 111
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/6/2010 12:39:00 PM (view original):
I suppose it's possible that people don't know that salary decreases each cycle.   I'm not sure why they wouldn't know that as it's basic math but I guess it's possible.   Nonetheless, when it's pointed out and seemingly half of the troubled world goes "Meh.  No big deal", there's a problem.   And, IMO, the problem is that the owners in the world are largely indifferent to anything that extends beyond their team.  Thus you end up with a world with high turnover season after season while the few longtime owners continue to build their powerhouses. 

It not that people don't know math.  tts just something that might slip people's mind.  Everything else you are saying I basically agree with.  I just thought you were a little harsh on the owners involved in the trade over a basically honest mistake that should be easily fixable through ten vetos.

Both owners apologized and said to veto, admittedly along with a little bit of "what's a big deal it was an accident", but some of that was just getting defensive as it became a major issue. 

Anyways, not a huge deal, just wanted to give my perspective given I was involved in that world.

8/7/2010 12:18 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
A little bit?  C'mon, be honest. 

Anyway, this is the internet.   There's no way to know what's intentional and what's an accident.  Believe it or not, people lie.  In real life and even on the internet.   All one can really know is what they see.  That's why rules are made. 
8/7/2010 8:00 AM
stitch01
Posts: 23 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 63 5 111
Prospect
I am being honest.  Both owners did say they were OK with vetos.  You were pretty aggressive in attacking them.  Now, they did both unquestionably break the rule even if it was by a slight amount. But, in that case, I didnt see what advantage was gained by breaking the rule.  As far as I could tell neither of them were super close to the cap, trying to free up money for picks, etc. There certainly are cases where a small amount would create a meaningful advantage, so rigid rules are fine, but the evidence was pretty clear in that specific case it was an honest mistake.

I dont think it mattered because it didnt get vetoed anyways, which was the bigger issue, and I understand not wanting to have to go into the circumstances of every case.
8/8/2010 5:07 PM
silentpadna
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
148
Prospect
Sorry to repeat this, but for clarity sake, and because the title is a little misleading, there is no rule in play on the trade in question.

Also, for clarity's sake, the owners involved (of which I am one), despite debating the issue vehemently in the league chat, accepted the veto and reworked the trade. 

There are now two precedents in this league regarding cash in trades.  It's pretty clear that although there is no rule in place officially, unofficially trades with cash in them won't fly.  I'm sure owners will follow the precedent.  I'm fine with it.  The world has spoken.

But please stop painting a picture of two owners breaking, or attempting to break any rules.  That did not occur.
8/9/2010 2:05 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
No, you're not.  You're saying "a little bit" when it was 10 pages or "Why does it matter? It's only 100k?"   And both owners went on the offensive immediately.  Had they said "That's right.  I realize the mistake" immediately, there wouldn't have been a page of chat.

stitch and I are not talking about Hamilton.  But, as I said, I'm pretty sure I was told there would be no selling of players before I joined Hamilton.  If not directly, it was implied.  A similar deal was vetoed last season.  tropicana was told he couldn't sell a prospect the season before I joined.  Call it "unofficial" if it helps you sleep at night but I think it's pretty clear, from recent history, that something is in place somewhere.
8/9/2010 5:32 AM
silentpadna
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
148
Prospect

If you're not talking about Hamilton, I stand corrected.  My bad.  You can have the last word (as always).

8/9/2010 12:25 PM
stitch01
Posts: 23 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 63 5 111
Prospect
No they didnt, but agree to disagree.  Good luck, and thank you for what you tried to do in our world.  
8/9/2010 2:08 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Seriously, the first post from philly was "What's the big deal?  It's only 100k."   After about 7 pages, SMX chimed in with an almost identical response.  In between there were about a half dozen "Yeah, it's a minor amount."   I actually remember it pretty well. 
8/9/2010 2:25 PM
◂ Prev 123456 Next ▸
Rules are rules Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.