 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Sim Forums » Baseball Enhancements » Automatic trade protest
cdunn3
has 3 choices -
Overturn, let it stand, not voting
This is misleading. Initially there is no complaint, so
the the first choice should be either "I protest" or
"I do not protest".
If 3 protests are lodged, then the choice to overturn or
let it stand can appear.
A better solution in my opinion would be to scrub the
automation and return to the prior system.
Automatic trade protest
September 16, 2011 at 12:05PM View BBCode
When a trade is made, the initial messagehas 3 choices -
Overturn, let it stand, not voting
This is misleading. Initially there is no complaint, so
the the first choice should be either "I protest" or
"I do not protest".
If 3 protests are lodged, then the choice to overturn or
let it stand can appear.
A better solution in my opinion would be to scrub the
automation and return to the prior system.
barterer2002
September 16, 2011 at 01:47PM View BBCode
I tend to agree with CDunn here that the initial message should be I protest or I do not protest.
Admin
Tyson
September 16, 2011 at 02:34PM View BBCode
The problem with the old system is that I was spending 1-2 hours per day working on these things instead of writing code :)Tyson
barterer2002
September 16, 2011 at 02:54PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
I wasn't saying to go back, I was suggesting to change the wording as it currently comes up.
cdunn3
Understand,
Under the prior system, it took some extra effort to
lodge a complaint. The protestor had to look up the
link for the trade, create and send a message.
Now, it just takes a simple click - no effort, no thought
Having a trade protested will almost always cause
dissension or hard feelings even though not discussed.
The two owners can not help but feel their judgment
and/or competence is being questioned.
My point is that the auto system itself is ok, but
it is far too easy to inititiate the complaint process.
(this also gives Bart extra work).
:)
September 16, 2011 at 03:02PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
The problem with the old system is that I was spending 1-2 hours per day working on these things instead of writing code :)
Tyson
Understand,
Under the prior system, it took some extra effort to
lodge a complaint. The protestor had to look up the
link for the trade, create and send a message.
Now, it just takes a simple click - no effort, no thought
Having a trade protested will almost always cause
dissension or hard feelings even though not discussed.
The two owners can not help but feel their judgment
and/or competence is being questioned.
My point is that the auto system itself is ok, but
it is far too easy to inititiate the complaint process.
(this also gives Bart extra work).
:)
CaseyStengel
One could also add details by including code from the Trade Desk.
September 16, 2011 at 03:10PM View BBCode
Maybe devoting a few hours more adding code the the complaint procedure is a good idea.One could also add details by including code from the Trade Desk.
CaseyStengel has attached this image:
barterer2002
September 16, 2011 at 03:19PM View BBCode
Casey, I don't see how that solves any of the issues involved with what cdunn is stating.
Jeety
September 16, 2011 at 03:29PM View BBCode
I just think its a wording issue, also there should be some clarification that protesting a trade is not for situations where you don't like the trade, but instead where its grossly unfair... just b/c you wouldn't do it, doesn't mean its a bad trade.
CaseyStengel
cdunn raises very valid pints... when I first stumbled upon the automated trade complaint, I thought someone had lodged a complaint and the system was asking for my response... afterwards I searched the message boards only to find that the automatic trade complaint code was added.
I would bet that many owners (not doing any research before voting) see the "Vote on Trade" in the News and vote... initiating the complaint process that creates work for you, Bart.
September 16, 2011 at 03:40PM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002I agree... I was writing my response and making up my picture as cdunn added his comments.
Casey, I don't see how that solves any of the issues involved with what cdunn is stating.
cdunn raises very valid pints... when I first stumbled upon the automated trade complaint, I thought someone had lodged a complaint and the system was asking for my response... afterwards I searched the message boards only to find that the automatic trade complaint code was added.
I would bet that many owners (not doing any research before voting) see the "Vote on Trade" in the News and vote... initiating the complaint process that creates work for you, Bart.
barterer2002
Tyson, currently the wording in the Completed Trade section reads "VOTE ON TRADE"
I think this is misleading any number of owners who think that a vote is being called on the trade.
Instead of VOTE ON TRADE it seems to me that the verbage there should be CHALLENGE TRADE
Once the Challenge Trade is clicked, instead of voting yes or no I would propose some verbage that reads something along the lines of:
You are initiating a challenge on this trade. The standard here is not whether or not you would have done a trade but whether the trade is one that should be overturned.
Are you challenging because
X Team A took advantage of Team B in this trade
Team B took advantage of Team A in this trade
I would then suggest that you need 3 votes on the same side of the issue to send it to a full vote (on the theory that if 2 people think that Team A did better and 2 others think Team B did better that there is probably not a valid challenge)
September 16, 2011 at 04:16PM View BBCode
Yeah, I'd like to change that wording as well.Tyson, currently the wording in the Completed Trade section reads "VOTE ON TRADE"
I think this is misleading any number of owners who think that a vote is being called on the trade.
Instead of VOTE ON TRADE it seems to me that the verbage there should be CHALLENGE TRADE
Once the Challenge Trade is clicked, instead of voting yes or no I would propose some verbage that reads something along the lines of:
You are initiating a challenge on this trade. The standard here is not whether or not you would have done a trade but whether the trade is one that should be overturned.
Are you challenging because
X Team A took advantage of Team B in this trade
Team B took advantage of Team A in this trade
I would then suggest that you need 3 votes on the same side of the issue to send it to a full vote (on the theory that if 2 people think that Team A did better and 2 others think Team B did better that there is probably not a valid challenge)
Admin
Another thought is whether it makes sense to post to the message boards when there has only been 1 complaint. Maybe we should do away with that part of the process and only post something when there are 3 negative votes.
Thanks for all your feedback, keep it coming.
Tyson
September 16, 2011 at 04:30PM View BBCode
I might just change it to say Protest this Trade all the time. Ideally, it would say different things at different times, but that's a bit complex given how the news info is stored and presented.Another thought is whether it makes sense to post to the message boards when there has only been 1 complaint. Maybe we should do away with that part of the process and only post something when there are 3 negative votes.
Thanks for all your feedback, keep it coming.
Tyson
cdunn3
This (or something similiar) would address my concern.
September 16, 2011 at 04:32PM View BBCode
good suggestion Bart.This (or something similiar) would address my concern.
barterer2002
September 16, 2011 at 05:55PM View BBCode
Yeah I think at this point posting to the league message boards isn't necessary and only serves to stir up resentment.
Admin
I agree with this (although I'd up it to 4, 25% of the league); it keeps the system from getting out of hand when someone has an axe to grind and protests all of a particular owner's trades.
--Chris
September 16, 2011 at 05:56PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
Another thought is whether it makes sense to post to the message boards when there has only been 1 complaint. Maybe we should do away with that part of the process and only post something when there are 3 negative votes.
I agree with this (although I'd up it to 4, 25% of the league); it keeps the system from getting out of hand when someone has an axe to grind and protests all of a particular owner's trades.
--Chris
Admin
Tyson
September 16, 2011 at 06:17PM View BBCode
Ok, any trades completed going forward will have the text changed to Protest This Trade. I'm going to see if that helps with things, I'm going to leave the rest alone for the time-being and re-evaluate it next week.Tyson
dirtdevil
September 16, 2011 at 06:56PM View BBCode
i think that's the best first step. hopefully it helps.
blumer5
you could use that same forum where red and barterer give their opinion, and each person on the counsel would post their vote to overturn or stand and why.
[Edited on 9-17-2011 by blumer5]
September 17, 2011 at 07:49PM View BBCode
What if there was a trade counsel or 5 or 6 veteran owners on the site, and if a trade is protested, the counsel would review the trade and determine if it should be overturned or not. This would still give owners in the league to express concern over trades, but would stop trade that people just dont like getting overturned.you could use that same forum where red and barterer give their opinion, and each person on the counsel would post their vote to overturn or stand and why.
[Edited on 9-17-2011 by blumer5]
redcped
But for now, let's see if the process works.
September 17, 2011 at 08:21PM View BBCode
If we did use a council, I would not want to make votes public for the simple reason that it will result in people who voted against a deal getting harassed.But for now, let's see if the process works.
blumer5
September 17, 2011 at 09:47PM View BBCode
yeah i didnt think about it in that context. The only reason i thought about having the analysis and voting public, is so that those that do get overturned, people would know why and maybe what they can do in the future to have more fair trades.
jchoopz
I think the potential problem with this is that there are a lot of owners who don't normally go and review the trades or even know they happened sometimes. The post to the message board encourages more people to go evaluate the trade.
September 19, 2011 at 02:58PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
Originally posted by Admin
Another thought is whether it makes sense to post to the message boards when there has only been 1 complaint. Maybe we should do away with that part of the process and only post something when there are 3 negative votes.
I agree with this (although I'd up it to 4, 25% of the league); it keeps the system from getting out of hand when someone has an axe to grind and protests all of a particular owner's trades.
--Chris
I think the potential problem with this is that there are a lot of owners who don't normally go and review the trades or even know they happened sometimes. The post to the message board encourages more people to go evaluate the trade.
Admin
Active protests that you have not voted on will now show up on your home page until you vote. Hopefully this will increase the number of participants.
--Chris
September 26, 2011 at 06:39PM View BBCode
Originally posted by jchoopz
Originally posted by Admin
Originally posted by Admin
Another thought is whether it makes sense to post to the message boards when there has only been 1 complaint. Maybe we should do away with that part of the process and only post something when there are 3 negative votes.
I agree with this (although I'd up it to 4, 25% of the league); it keeps the system from getting out of hand when someone has an axe to grind and protests all of a particular owner's trades.
--Chris
I think the potential problem with this is that there are a lot of owners who don't normally go and review the trades or even know they happened sometimes. The post to the message board encourages more people to go evaluate the trade.
Active protests that you have not voted on will now show up on your home page until you vote. Hopefully this will increase the number of participants.
--Chris
CaseyStengel
I almost never view my home page unless I am on the road and log on from a "foreign" computer... I have bookmarks for the "Results" page, "Schedule" page, and "Standings" page. (I wonder how many owners seldom visit the home page). When I want to check on my team I go to each page in that order.
Therefore I suggest a highlighted note on the Standings page stating that there is a protest for me to vote on with a link to the vote (or home page). This could be located either above or below the list of League Messages.
September 26, 2011 at 07:18PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
Active protests that you have not voted on will now show up on your home page until you vote. Hopefully this will increase the number of participants.
--Chris
I almost never view my home page unless I am on the road and log on from a "foreign" computer... I have bookmarks for the "Results" page, "Schedule" page, and "Standings" page. (I wonder how many owners seldom visit the home page). When I want to check on my team I go to each page in that order.
Therefore I suggest a highlighted note on the Standings page stating that there is a protest for me to vote on with a link to the vote (or home page). This could be located either above or below the list of League Messages.
ruggs26
Our league... 9 in one month. At least three of them IMO were blatantly made to prevent a team from taking the next step forward.
Also to overturn a trade it should take 10 owners voting to overturn. Not 2/3 of those who either vote yes or no. We have just had a trade in our league overturned because 6 or 13 (46.2% - NOT 66.6%) voted to overturn. So why was it overturned? 6 voted to overturn, 3 to have it stand, 4 chose not to take a position, and 1 did not vote. The current system says 6 of 9 voted to overturn the trade so it was done. The reality is 6 of 13 voted to overturn, not 6 of 9. So the message in our league is that those 6 owner control what players are allowed to be traded.
My solution:
If an owner has a complaint about a trade he should PM the league commishioner. If the commish has a complaint they should PM the co-commish. The commish should then consult the owners involved and ask them to explain what they were thinking and give them the opportunity to correct the trade then if needed. If they do not respond or refuse to accept the advice of the commish then step 2. The commish or co-commish then posts a message to the league about the trade. If 10 of the 16 vote the trade may not be appropriate then it should be sent to a panel of SD veteran owners who would then vote yes or no.
Or we could just do what this current system pretty much has allowed to come into place:
Trades can only be proposed and cannot be completed until 10 owners deem it OK.
Notice the key number here is 10 which would account for the 2 involved and then another 1/2 of the league. Not allowing involved owners have a vote in decisions that involve them is outrageous to say the least.
The current system is a joke. If no one is paying close attention or most everyone doesn't have an opinion about a trade one way or the other then it can take a very small group of owners to dictate the direction of an entire league, and from what I can see that is happening. The majority of owners run THEIR teams and mind THEIR own business and don't cast a vote either way which allows those more concerned with what others might be doing or worse yet, opposing trades in order to maintain an advantage the ability to dictate player movement and team development within an entire league.
2/3 to overturn should not mean 6 of 9, it should mean at least 10 of the 14 not involved voting to overturn.
October 15, 2011 at 04:29AM View BBCode
Well I was away from the game for a while and returned to find this very interesting and completely self serving trade complaint system. This system is open to and ripe with abuse from what I have seen.Our league... 9 in one month. At least three of them IMO were blatantly made to prevent a team from taking the next step forward.
Also to overturn a trade it should take 10 owners voting to overturn. Not 2/3 of those who either vote yes or no. We have just had a trade in our league overturned because 6 or 13 (46.2% - NOT 66.6%) voted to overturn. So why was it overturned? 6 voted to overturn, 3 to have it stand, 4 chose not to take a position, and 1 did not vote. The current system says 6 of 9 voted to overturn the trade so it was done. The reality is 6 of 13 voted to overturn, not 6 of 9. So the message in our league is that those 6 owner control what players are allowed to be traded.
My solution:
If an owner has a complaint about a trade he should PM the league commishioner. If the commish has a complaint they should PM the co-commish. The commish should then consult the owners involved and ask them to explain what they were thinking and give them the opportunity to correct the trade then if needed. If they do not respond or refuse to accept the advice of the commish then step 2. The commish or co-commish then posts a message to the league about the trade. If 10 of the 16 vote the trade may not be appropriate then it should be sent to a panel of SD veteran owners who would then vote yes or no.
Or we could just do what this current system pretty much has allowed to come into place:
Trades can only be proposed and cannot be completed until 10 owners deem it OK.
Notice the key number here is 10 which would account for the 2 involved and then another 1/2 of the league. Not allowing involved owners have a vote in decisions that involve them is outrageous to say the least.
The current system is a joke. If no one is paying close attention or most everyone doesn't have an opinion about a trade one way or the other then it can take a very small group of owners to dictate the direction of an entire league, and from what I can see that is happening. The majority of owners run THEIR teams and mind THEIR own business and don't cast a vote either way which allows those more concerned with what others might be doing or worse yet, opposing trades in order to maintain an advantage the ability to dictate player movement and team development within an entire league.
2/3 to overturn should not mean 6 of 9, it should mean at least 10 of the 14 not involved voting to overturn.
Pages: 1