 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Sim Forums » Baseball Enhancements » Revise Trade Protest Policies
cdunn3
Publish the name of the original protester,
those who add on, and the names of those
who vote to overturn or stand or abstain.
If a trade is protested, the protestor
should be identified and not hide
behind anonymity. Transparency
is always a good policy.
2. Remove the ban on discussion.
Comment
Admin already has policy to ban for
personal attacks. A non confrontational
discussion would be beneficial.
3. Let the league members decide protest criteria.
Rather than have Admin continue to define
what constitutes protestable trades, let the
league work this out for itself. Full disclosure
and discussion will settle this on a case by
case basis.
Revise Trade Protest Policies
April 14, 2012 at 10:44AM View BBCode
1. Remove the cloak of anonymity.Publish the name of the original protester,
those who add on, and the names of those
who vote to overturn or stand or abstain.
If a trade is protested, the protestor
should be identified and not hide
behind anonymity. Transparency
is always a good policy.
2. Remove the ban on discussion.
Comment
Admin already has policy to ban for
personal attacks. A non confrontational
discussion would be beneficial.
3. Let the league members decide protest criteria.
Rather than have Admin continue to define
what constitutes protestable trades, let the
league work this out for itself. Full disclosure
and discussion will settle this on a case by
case basis.
dirtdevil
i agree wholeheartedly with number 2. i am generally in favour of number 1 although i do worry that it opens the door to people being bullied out of bringing legitimate issues to attention. i think that number 3 makes great sense in theory but would be extrememly difficult to work in practice. the system needs to be automated to run and i don't know how you'd go about automated something different for every league (or even several different auto options to pick from) or if it would really be worth all the effort it would probably take.
April 14, 2012 at 01:54PM View BBCode
i think that most people would agree that the trade protest system is broken.i agree wholeheartedly with number 2. i am generally in favour of number 1 although i do worry that it opens the door to people being bullied out of bringing legitimate issues to attention. i think that number 3 makes great sense in theory but would be extrememly difficult to work in practice. the system needs to be automated to run and i don't know how you'd go about automated something different for every league (or even several different auto options to pick from) or if it would really be worth all the effort it would probably take.
cdunn3
Rather than having Admin restrict protests to cheating or
collusion, let the votes of the league owners decide. If the
first 2 suggestions are implemented, it will be up to the
consensus decisions of the owners in the league to
establish their definition of valid protests. No action by
Admin would be required.
I would add that if this was adopted, it would work itself
out, league by league. Admin would continue to take
action if there were personal attacks.
April 14, 2012 at 02:38PM View BBCode
I was not clear on point 3. Let me try to explain better.Rather than having Admin restrict protests to cheating or
collusion, let the votes of the league owners decide. If the
first 2 suggestions are implemented, it will be up to the
consensus decisions of the owners in the league to
establish their definition of valid protests. No action by
Admin would be required.
I would add that if this was adopted, it would work itself
out, league by league. Admin would continue to take
action if there were personal attacks.
tworoosters
The current trade dispute wording is so laughable that's it's hard to believe any protests are actually made, except of course that most of the time the protesters don't actually read the criteria.
Owners will stand there all day and say "Well there's no collusion and it's my team, I paid my money for it and so I can do what I like" ignoring the fact that their actions affect 14 other people who also paid to have teams in the league.
Some of the most unbalanced, ridiculous trades I've ever seen have been perpetrated since the trade protest wording was changed. The trade page in each league specifically states that attempts to make lopsided trades is against site policy, yet that seems to be forgotten by some owners who stand firmly and shout about personal freedom every time a suspect trade occurs.
Personally I now simply vote for every protested trade to be left alone because otherwise the champions of individual rights will simply lash out in the league forum about subjective analysis, when generally anyone can see the imbalances, and the right to destroy league balance because owner X is a veteran who paid his money, ignoring the fact that owner X is either delusional or simply a poor judge of talent .
April 14, 2012 at 04:22PM View BBCode
I agree with all of these, especially #3.The current trade dispute wording is so laughable that's it's hard to believe any protests are actually made, except of course that most of the time the protesters don't actually read the criteria.
Owners will stand there all day and say "Well there's no collusion and it's my team, I paid my money for it and so I can do what I like" ignoring the fact that their actions affect 14 other people who also paid to have teams in the league.
Some of the most unbalanced, ridiculous trades I've ever seen have been perpetrated since the trade protest wording was changed. The trade page in each league specifically states that attempts to make lopsided trades is against site policy, yet that seems to be forgotten by some owners who stand firmly and shout about personal freedom every time a suspect trade occurs.
Personally I now simply vote for every protested trade to be left alone because otherwise the champions of individual rights will simply lash out in the league forum about subjective analysis, when generally anyone can see the imbalances, and the right to destroy league balance because owner X is a veteran who paid his money, ignoring the fact that owner X is either delusional or simply a poor judge of talent .
dirtdevil
it's not that we ignore it. it that we don't think it's relevant. there is (in my opinion anyway) a significant difference. poor judges of talent, purveyors of poor strategy and the impatient all have as much right to enjoy their teams in their own way as do those who value players and run their teams "properly". owners who have superior negotiating skills have as much right to prosper as do those with superior drafting skills or those who excel at finding strategies to maximize IC accumulation.
[Edited on 4-14-2012 by dirtdevil]
April 14, 2012 at 05:16PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tworoosters
Personally I now simply vote for every protested trade to be left alone because otherwise the champions of individual rights will simply lash out in the league forum about subjective analysis, when generally anyone can see the imbalances, and the right to destroy league balance because owner X is a veteran who paid his money, ignoring the fact that owner X is either delusional or simply a poor judge of talent .
it's not that we ignore it. it that we don't think it's relevant. there is (in my opinion anyway) a significant difference. poor judges of talent, purveyors of poor strategy and the impatient all have as much right to enjoy their teams in their own way as do those who value players and run their teams "properly". owners who have superior negotiating skills have as much right to prosper as do those with superior drafting skills or those who excel at finding strategies to maximize IC accumulation.
[Edited on 4-14-2012 by dirtdevil]
Wildcat
thank you for that!
and I thought my league was the only one having these problems with these kind of owners, its-my-team-so-leave-me-alone and very-poor-judge-of-talent-or-ratings-or-stats-or-anything types...
April 14, 2012 at 05:19PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tworoosters
I agree with all of these, especially #3.
The current trade dispute wording is so laughable that's it's hard to believe any protests are actually made, except of course that most of the time the protesters don't actually read the criteria.
Owners will stand there all day and say "Well there's no collusion and it's my team, I paid my money for it and so I can do what I like" ignoring the fact that their actions affect 14 other people who also paid to have teams in the league.
Some of the most unbalanced, ridiculous trades I've ever seen have been perpetrated since the trade protest wording was changed. The trade page in each league specifically states that attempts to make lopsided trades is against site policy, yet that seems to be forgotten by some owners who stand firmly and shout about personal freedom every time a suspect trade occurs.
Personally I now simply vote for every protested trade to be left alone because otherwise the champions of individual rights will simply lash out in the league forum about subjective analysis, when generally anyone can see the imbalances, and the right to destroy league balance because owner X is a veteran who paid his money, ignoring the fact that owner X is either delusional or simply a poor judge of talent .
thank you for that!
and I thought my league was the only one having these problems with these kind of owners, its-my-team-so-leave-me-alone and very-poor-judge-of-talent-or-ratings-or-stats-or-anything types...
dirtdevil
ah, i see. that is more clear, thank you. i think in genreal that's a good idea. my only suggestion would be that you might then want to raise the bar required for overturning trades and/or start counting abstentions as let stand votes. as is i think it might be too easy for a small(er) group of owners to dominate trade protests and votes.
April 14, 2012 at 05:40PM View BBCode
Originally posted by cdunn3
I was not clear on point 3. Let me try to explain better.
Rather than having Admin restrict protests to cheating or
collusion, let the votes of the league owners decide. If the
first 2 suggestions are implemented, it will be up to the
consensus decisions of the owners in the league to
establish their definition of valid protests. No action by
Admin would be required.
ah, i see. that is more clear, thank you. i think in genreal that's a good idea. my only suggestion would be that you might then want to raise the bar required for overturning trades and/or start counting abstentions as let stand votes. as is i think it might be too easy for a small(er) group of owners to dominate trade protests and votes.
tworoosters
We'll agree to disagree on this one, personally I don't think that one or two individuals have the right to screw things up for the other 13-14 people who also paid money to be in the league.
I am down to two leagues in the sim and one reason, not the only one, is the fact that I no longer wish to pay money to have other people hold leagues hostage.
Prior to the implementation of the automated trade process there were, at least in my leagues, far fewer egregious trades because owners knew they would be called out publicly. Now that Admin have defined collusion, almost impossible to prove, as the only viable reason to overturn a trade people make far more BS trades than ever before and then stand behind the veneer of personal liberty .
April 14, 2012 at 06:02PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
poor judges of talent, purveyors of poor strategy and the impatient all have as much right to enjoy their teams in their own way as do those who value players and run their teams "properly".
We'll agree to disagree on this one, personally I don't think that one or two individuals have the right to screw things up for the other 13-14 people who also paid money to be in the league.
I am down to two leagues in the sim and one reason, not the only one, is the fact that I no longer wish to pay money to have other people hold leagues hostage.
Prior to the implementation of the automated trade process there were, at least in my leagues, far fewer egregious trades because owners knew they would be called out publicly. Now that Admin have defined collusion, almost impossible to prove, as the only viable reason to overturn a trade people make far more BS trades than ever before and then stand behind the veneer of personal liberty .
dirtdevil
i guess i just feel that the fact that it may impact other owners does not remove someone's right to be an idiot and that owners who have a better understanding of player value should be able to benefit from it. i have also yet to see a situation where i think someone is purposely making an egregious trade because they know they "can't" be called on it. i have a really, really hard time projecting my own personal asset valuations onto someone else just because i think they're wrong or dumb. to me, that's really what a (non-colusive) trade protest is.
April 14, 2012 at 06:15PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
i'm fine with agreeing to disagree. i admit that i haven't seen the number or degree of horrible trades that you seem to have. maybe that colours both of our viewpoints to some extent. for me bad trades, bad owners, bad GMs, however you want to frame it, are part of baseball and sports in general. there are bad or questionable trades in professional sports every year. no matter how bad they are, you don't really see leagues step in and and overturn them. the two examples i can think of of the top of my head where it has happened have both been as much for political reasons as competitive ones.
i guess i just feel that the fact that it may impact other owners does not remove someone's right to be an idiot and that owners who have a better understanding of player value should be able to benefit from it. i have also yet to see a situation where i think someone is purposely making an egregious trade because they know they "can't" be called on it. i have a really, really hard time projecting my own personal asset valuations onto someone else just because i think they're wrong or dumb. to me, that's really what a (non-colusive) trade protest is.
dirtdevil
April 14, 2012 at 06:19PM View BBCode
one other thing is suggestion number 3 goes ahead. i wonder if in that case it might not be a good idea to track the number of trade protests and overturns for each league so that they could be posted publically. maybe even individually to owners as well. then owners coming into a league might have a better idea what they're getting into. some owners may look at a league with a high trade protest figure and think "that's crazy, i don't want any part of that" and stay away while others might see the same thing and think "oh good, there's an effort to police that nonsense going on here" and jump right in. if the first guy doesn't know ahead of time the kind of league he's joining he's not going to be a good fit and that's going to have consequnces for everyone. the same thing if the second guy joins a league with an "anything goes" vibe.
CaseyStengel
Remove the cloak of anonymity. I disagree because of personality conflicts that will arise.
So and so is an ass because they protested my trade, so I am going to protest any trade he makes as revenge.
Remove the ban on discussion. I strongly agree because there must be a reason for protesting a trade. In fact, I would go one step further -- when a trade is protested and/or voted on the one doing the protesting and/or voting MUST state a reason.
I am voting to reverse the trade because the trade is very lopsided. Player A is much superior to the 4th place pick being traded. -- Yes, allow protests for lopsided trades (see #3).
I am abstaining because I don't care either way.
This reason is posted ANONYMOUSLY so all can read the reason for the vote. One vote = one comment. The comment cannot be changed except if the original owner changes his vote. An owner cannot vote unless they comment -- consider this a discussion.
Let the league members decide protest criteria. I agree, see #2. Each voting owner MUST put down their criteria for voting. In this way the criteria for the protest is decided.
The result of the votes will determine if the trade stands or is reversed.
April 14, 2012 at 07:33PM View BBCode
I agree and at the same time disagree with the original proposal. Here is my 2¢:[list=1]So and so is an ass because they protested my trade, so I am going to protest any trade he makes as revenge.
I am voting to reverse the trade because the trade is very lopsided. Player A is much superior to the 4th place pick being traded. -- Yes, allow protests for lopsided trades (see #3).
I am abstaining because I don't care either way.
This reason is posted ANONYMOUSLY so all can read the reason for the vote. One vote = one comment. The comment cannot be changed except if the original owner changes his vote. An owner cannot vote unless they comment -- consider this a discussion.
The result of the votes will determine if the trade stands or is reversed.
Admin
#3 is already true to some extent. Admin does not overturn the results of a vote, so if a league were to choose to base their voting on a different criteria there is little Admin could do to stop them. Remember, any league can choose to effectively disable the voting system by requiring 100% (which will probably never happen) to overturn and/or setting a short window for votes. The fact that no league has chosen to do so I think proves that although everyone hates the system, everyone agrees it is necessary. (Note that if a league does effectively disable the system, Admin is not going to handle protests manually for that league; there just won't be a way to protest at all.)
I plan to continue to work on this system, probably after this week is over.
Chris
April 16, 2012 at 02:43AM View BBCode
The anonymity and discussion bans are in place because of hard experience. Believe me, if these are removed, the first protest or two will immediately blow up the league.#3 is already true to some extent. Admin does not overturn the results of a vote, so if a league were to choose to base their voting on a different criteria there is little Admin could do to stop them. Remember, any league can choose to effectively disable the voting system by requiring 100% (which will probably never happen) to overturn and/or setting a short window for votes. The fact that no league has chosen to do so I think proves that although everyone hates the system, everyone agrees it is necessary. (Note that if a league does effectively disable the system, Admin is not going to handle protests manually for that league; there just won't be a way to protest at all.)
I plan to continue to work on this system, probably after this week is over.
Chris
Pages: 1