 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Sim Forums » Baseball Enhancements » Trade protests
tm4559
March 22, 2012 at 02:31PM View BBCode
the only good thing about all of it is, most of the protests come to nothing, most of them don't even get reviewed by jason or bart. i just ignore them, most of them are dumb. perhaps we just put up with the dumb ones by ignoring them, and the ones that are valid, i suppose they will be voted up and reviewed and everyone can be almost happy or something?
dirtdevil
i don't really agree with this interpretation of abstentions. to me an abstention is someone saying "i don't care enough to vote" or "it doesn't matter to me either way", neither of which are an opposition to a trade under protest. to me, if we're positioning trade protests as a kind of referendum on cheating then it should be hard to get trades overturned and only a specific vote that says "yes, i think this trade is evidence of cheating and should be overturned" should be able to work in favour of a veto. abstentions, whatever their motivation, are not that kind of strong statement. right now, by not counting abstentions as votes we are, in effect, allowing them as tacit overturn votes because they lower the threshold required to get that veto. if we're going to allow absentions, they should be counted as do not overturn votes because really, that's what they are. if we aren't going to view them on that basis, then we shouldn't allow them at all, in my opinion.
the point about trial leagues is a good one. i often forget to include them in my thinking. could we not have seperate thresholds for trial and pay leagues though? that might solve both issues.
March 22, 2012 at 02:52PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
Abstentions are just that: a refusal to vote. They only exist to allow someone who chooses not to vote a way to stop the system from reminding them to vote. Personally, I believe that voting to abstain is doing your league a major disservice. More information on the effects of abstaining should probably be on the vote page. I have looked into making abstentions count as half a vote to allow the trade to stand; I am still indecided, because that is not a true abstention, it's more of an "I'm okay with allowing the trade to stand", which isn't really the same thing at all.
i don't really agree with this interpretation of abstentions. to me an abstention is someone saying "i don't care enough to vote" or "it doesn't matter to me either way", neither of which are an opposition to a trade under protest. to me, if we're positioning trade protests as a kind of referendum on cheating then it should be hard to get trades overturned and only a specific vote that says "yes, i think this trade is evidence of cheating and should be overturned" should be able to work in favour of a veto. abstentions, whatever their motivation, are not that kind of strong statement. right now, by not counting abstentions as votes we are, in effect, allowing them as tacit overturn votes because they lower the threshold required to get that veto. if we're going to allow absentions, they should be counted as do not overturn votes because really, that's what they are. if we aren't going to view them on that basis, then we shouldn't allow them at all, in my opinion.
the point about trial leagues is a good one. i often forget to include them in my thinking. could we not have seperate thresholds for trial and pay leagues though? that might solve both issues.
redcped
You have the highest level of inexperience there, so you have the highest likelihood of lopsided trades. I'll grant you that.
But with that comes the highest likelihood of not understanding the protest system.
Besides, they are free leagues with a short lifespan. Half the owners never check in anyway, so you have a small number of potential voters in any protest.
And to repeat: they are free. Taking up Admin time with protests costs money and could be legitimately reserved for paying customers.
March 22, 2012 at 04:05PM View BBCode
Honestly, I'd be in favor of turning the option off entirely in trial leagues.You have the highest level of inexperience there, so you have the highest likelihood of lopsided trades. I'll grant you that.
But with that comes the highest likelihood of not understanding the protest system.
Besides, they are free leagues with a short lifespan. Half the owners never check in anyway, so you have a small number of potential voters in any protest.
And to repeat: they are free. Taking up Admin time with protests costs money and could be legitimately reserved for paying customers.
Leonard
March 22, 2012 at 07:44PM View BBCode
By choice, I'm in a lot of leagues so of course I'm more likely to see trades protested. My main complaint against the protest system is that owners have decided that it's a good way to prevent competitors from improving themselves. It's no longer just a way to prevent cheating, it's become a tool to help owners gain an edge by protesting their competition's trades and hoping that they can get enough owners to go along with them. In the case of my recent trade's reversal, two second-division teams were making a deal involving picks. That didn't seem like something that threatened the stability of the league. Another issue is perception of value. A team that is in contention and feels that it is one player away from getting over the top might very well overpay to get the player that they want. The team on the other side of the deal realizes what the situation is and is looking to maximize his its return. It goes on all the time in the Majors especially around the trade deadline. Some owners would protest these trades as being uneven but that should not be their decision to make. That should not be grounds for a protest.
tm4559
March 23, 2012 at 01:49PM View BBCode
leornard has a point, and, as a customer that is in a lot of leagues, and thus spends a lot of money here, i would expect he should get some traction on it. anyone who uses the trade protest for strategic purposes is, in fact, cheating. and their team should be deleted. cheating is cheating. if they want the dumb code bits they should buy them. if they won't pay for them in trade, they should keep their stupid mouth shut. just my opinion.
dirtdevil
March 23, 2012 at 02:13PM View BBCode
i agree. honestly though, i don't know how much of the protests are "strategic" and how much is just "owner A should have got more in return for player 1". neither is a valid reason to protest, imo.
tworoosters
The automation lead to a massive amount of protests because of the anonymity factor, which lead to howls of complaints about frivolous protests. So the guidelines were tightened to the point where any trade, regardless of the imbalance, could be justified because there was no collusion.
The result is that the trade protest function has no teeth and simply results in bad feelings within the league and, I'm guessing, just as much time wasted time for Admin.
Set up a tribunal of veteran owners, 3, 5, 11...... whatever who review the protests before they even go on the league board.
Require the protestor to state why they think the trade should be reversed then if any of the committee members feel there is merit to the protest let it go to a vote.
March 23, 2012 at 02:18PM View BBCode
The whole thing is impossible, in order to not swamp Admin with a series of foolish trade complaints the system was automated.The automation lead to a massive amount of protests because of the anonymity factor, which lead to howls of complaints about frivolous protests. So the guidelines were tightened to the point where any trade, regardless of the imbalance, could be justified because there was no collusion.
The result is that the trade protest function has no teeth and simply results in bad feelings within the league and, I'm guessing, just as much time wasted time for Admin.
Set up a tribunal of veteran owners, 3, 5, 11...... whatever who review the protests before they even go on the league board.
Require the protestor to state why they think the trade should be reversed then if any of the committee members feel there is merit to the protest let it go to a vote.
sharbrough
It's not a bad situation - getting the customers to referee themselves costs less than paying staff to do it - but it's not easy to manage either.
March 23, 2012 at 02:23PM View BBCode
Actually, the idea that the other owners in my league have the capability to vote down my trades is bothersome. It puts the other guys into a dual role of being competitors and referees. That conflict of interest won't evaporate if we move the functionality to another part of the menu tree, and call it abuse reporting instead of trade protest.It's not a bad situation - getting the customers to referee themselves costs less than paying staff to do it - but it's not easy to manage either.
tm4559
(another answer to all this stuff is to have a non playing commissioner for each league. it could be someone the league members are agreeable with, they could have a little vote. a given person should be able to hold this little job down in several leagues simulataneously, because it would not be a big job at all.)
this commish would only be called in to rule on a protested trade (or on other matters the league couldn't resolve on its own). he would say, yes or no, play ball, shut up (my assumption is, usually it would be shut up) . this does not differ much from roosters' committee, if in fact, that committee is not coming from inside the league. it also doesn't really, i guess, differ much from bart and jason helping out with this thing. but, there are too many protests for them to handle.
i don't know what the answer is really. folks have to stop using this function in a frivilous manner. its shameful. its silly.
March 23, 2012 at 02:32PM View BBCode
yeah, i believe rooster was wanting his committee to come from outside the league.(another answer to all this stuff is to have a non playing commissioner for each league. it could be someone the league members are agreeable with, they could have a little vote. a given person should be able to hold this little job down in several leagues simulataneously, because it would not be a big job at all.)
this commish would only be called in to rule on a protested trade (or on other matters the league couldn't resolve on its own). he would say, yes or no, play ball, shut up (my assumption is, usually it would be shut up) . this does not differ much from roosters' committee, if in fact, that committee is not coming from inside the league. it also doesn't really, i guess, differ much from bart and jason helping out with this thing. but, there are too many protests for them to handle.
i don't know what the answer is really. folks have to stop using this function in a frivilous manner. its shameful. its silly.
Buzzz
As for actually protesting a trade I think there needs to be a means to do that. I actually thought the number of votes to overturns trades should be reduced. One reason for that is theres always a number of owners in each league that don't want to bother voting. I figure if 5 out of 14 vote to overturn then theres somethings behind the protest.
One idea is to form a 'Trade Review Committee'. This site offers reductions or freebies to people that become Commisioners, why not do that for people willing to review trade complaints?
March 25, 2012 at 07:19AM View BBCode
Must admit, thought the 'Protest a Trade' was just as it is titled. Seems like what is trying to be accomplished is labeled under 'Report a Suspected Cheat'. Why even go throu the league to report a cheat? File that directly to admin. Most people use the current 'Protest a Trade' to do that, not report suspicious activity.As for actually protesting a trade I think there needs to be a means to do that. I actually thought the number of votes to overturns trades should be reduced. One reason for that is theres always a number of owners in each league that don't want to bother voting. I figure if 5 out of 14 vote to overturn then theres somethings behind the protest.
One idea is to form a 'Trade Review Committee'. This site offers reductions or freebies to people that become Commisioners, why not do that for people willing to review trade complaints?
Yankees102
I like the idea of an outside committee having a say, but we definitely need more than just barterer2002 and redcped. At the very least until we find a way to get the trade protests to decrease.
As for the wording and placement, I also think it needs to say something like "Report Abuse" and it has to be somewhere other than the news page. Maybe at the Trade Desk or something. I don't know how you would do that, but it's just an idea.
March 25, 2012 at 07:22PM View BBCode
Honestly, I don't like the system. Good intention, looked like it could've been good, but in the end it wasn't.I like the idea of an outside committee having a say, but we definitely need more than just barterer2002 and redcped. At the very least until we find a way to get the trade protests to decrease.
As for the wording and placement, I also think it needs to say something like "Report Abuse" and it has to be somewhere other than the news page. Maybe at the Trade Desk or something. I don't know how you would do that, but it's just an idea.
Yankees102
Most notably, Alex Rodriguez to the Red Sox. Although that was a veto by the MLBPA.
March 25, 2012 at 07:31PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Leonard
This is baseball. How many major league baseball trades have been protested in the last 25 years? SimDynasty existed and ran quite well for a number of years without trade protests. If an owner comes out on the short end of a deal, consider it part of the learning process. There are ample resources on the site for new owners to get the opinions of others before making a deal. If they choose to ignore them, then that's their problem. Maybe there should be a message that goes out to new owners when they sign up for their first team that makes them aware of how to get help.
[Edited on 3-14-2012 by Leonard]
Most notably, Alex Rodriguez to the Red Sox. Although that was a veto by the MLBPA.
barterer2002
Month of march since its almost over here.
This month we have protests in
Trial (9)
Deacon McGuire, Oscar Mellito (2), Greg Riddoch, Billy Southworth, Jimmy Austin, Johnny Oates, Johnny Lipton Nap Lajoie,
Dynasty (11)
Jimmy Wynn, Pete Rose (3) Harold Baines (2), Kirby Puckett (2), Jimmy Ryan (2), Billy Hamilton
Speed (14)
Hank Greenberg, Whitey Ford (2), Dave Winfield, Orlando Cepeda/Majors (3), Bob Feller, Keith Hernandez, Thurman Munson, Dennis Eckersley, Harmon Killebrew, Jimmy Foxx, Hank Aaron
I may have one or two in the wrong category but I apologize for that. The numbers are more than 1 per day and surprisingly are more in the speed leagues than in either dynasty or trial.
The comments coming through are a bit instructive:
A few that should be handled internally IMO
1. i dont have a problem with this trade if the rest of the league dont (dynasty)
2. A player is being traded for nothing in return. There is some dispute about the legitimacy of CP trades in our league.
3. (team 1) owner said (player X) was suppost to be DEMOTED and not TRADED
4. We can't trade until game 2 (twice from the OCL)
5. Pick/player was supposed to be traded to Team X (documented in league pages) and is now in another trade to another team.
Some trades are just either stupid and should be overturned unless something else in involved that should also be discussed in league.
1. Trade a 2nd round pick for a 1st round pick in the same draft.
2. Trade a stud 29Y/O for nothing
Mostly though its a question in valuation. I'm OK looking at it. I'll even tell people that they're overvaluing those 5th round picks.
So without looking through these 34 protests in March and evaluating them on the merits it looks to me like we could throw out about 1/4 of them off the bat as something more internal to the league than the trade process.
Still thats going to leave us with just under 1 per day to look at which is probably more than Jason and I can do on an ongoing basis.
I've seen cases where the protest is used as a tactic but in general I think most of the remaining are legit in terms that the protestor believes its an unfair trade (at least just looking at the reasons given) that at least rises to the level of review.
March 25, 2012 at 10:43PM View BBCode
OK lets look at some data here.Month of march since its almost over here.
This month we have protests in
Trial (9)
Deacon McGuire, Oscar Mellito (2), Greg Riddoch, Billy Southworth, Jimmy Austin, Johnny Oates, Johnny Lipton Nap Lajoie,
Dynasty (11)
Jimmy Wynn, Pete Rose (3) Harold Baines (2), Kirby Puckett (2), Jimmy Ryan (2), Billy Hamilton
Speed (14)
Hank Greenberg, Whitey Ford (2), Dave Winfield, Orlando Cepeda/Majors (3), Bob Feller, Keith Hernandez, Thurman Munson, Dennis Eckersley, Harmon Killebrew, Jimmy Foxx, Hank Aaron
I may have one or two in the wrong category but I apologize for that. The numbers are more than 1 per day and surprisingly are more in the speed leagues than in either dynasty or trial.
The comments coming through are a bit instructive:
A few that should be handled internally IMO
1. i dont have a problem with this trade if the rest of the league dont (dynasty)
2. A player is being traded for nothing in return. There is some dispute about the legitimacy of CP trades in our league.
3. (team 1) owner said (player X) was suppost to be DEMOTED and not TRADED
4. We can't trade until game 2 (twice from the OCL)
5. Pick/player was supposed to be traded to Team X (documented in league pages) and is now in another trade to another team.
Some trades are just either stupid and should be overturned unless something else in involved that should also be discussed in league.
1. Trade a 2nd round pick for a 1st round pick in the same draft.
2. Trade a stud 29Y/O for nothing
Mostly though its a question in valuation. I'm OK looking at it. I'll even tell people that they're overvaluing those 5th round picks.
So without looking through these 34 protests in March and evaluating them on the merits it looks to me like we could throw out about 1/4 of them off the bat as something more internal to the league than the trade process.
Still thats going to leave us with just under 1 per day to look at which is probably more than Jason and I can do on an ongoing basis.
I've seen cases where the protest is used as a tactic but in general I think most of the remaining are legit in terms that the protestor believes its an unfair trade (at least just looking at the reasons given) that at least rises to the level of review.
Leonard
As far as people not voting, I think that it's simply a case of not believing in the system and being tired of having to be bothered with trivial protests.
I repeat, when is the last time in MLB that the owners protested another owner's trade and had it reversed?
March 26, 2012 at 12:07AM View BBCode
But the point is that protests are not supposed to be used to judge whether both sides of the trade are equal. They are supposed to be used when collusion or cheating are suspected and that's not what is happening.As far as people not voting, I think that it's simply a case of not believing in the system and being tired of having to be bothered with trivial protests.
I repeat, when is the last time in MLB that the owners protested another owner's trade and had it reversed?
Buzzz
- Use something similar to the existing "Protest This Trade" for the league to vote on to if they think a trade should be reviewed
- If a reasonable (3 or 5 ?) amount of team owners in that league vote to 'Review a Trade' then it would be put into the Trade Review system
- As part of league commissioners tasks they would review Trades
- Commisioners to review trades would picked by the system so it is spread around evenly. Have 3 or 5 commisioners review and determine outcome, thus all commisoners don't have to review all trades.
- have both team involved in trade submit rationale for the trade
- Commisoners reviewing would beable to look at the details of the trade.
- Leagues can determine if they want to use the "Trade Review System" or not. Just as leagues can determine what injury sytem, or what minor league syestem they use. (Or if its System Admin creates leagues have some using the "Trade Review System")
This would take the task of reviewing trades away from System Admin or using some computer automated review.
March 26, 2012 at 02:35AM View BBCode
To expand on the idea of creating a "Trade Review Board" for questionable trades :- Use something similar to the existing "Protest This Trade" for the league to vote on to if they think a trade should be reviewed
- If a reasonable (3 or 5 ?) amount of team owners in that league vote to 'Review a Trade' then it would be put into the Trade Review system
- As part of league commissioners tasks they would review Trades
- Commisioners to review trades would picked by the system so it is spread around evenly. Have 3 or 5 commisioners review and determine outcome, thus all commisoners don't have to review all trades.
- have both team involved in trade submit rationale for the trade
- Commisoners reviewing would beable to look at the details of the trade.
- Leagues can determine if they want to use the "Trade Review System" or not. Just as leagues can determine what injury sytem, or what minor league syestem they use. (Or if its System Admin creates leagues have some using the "Trade Review System")
This would take the task of reviewing trades away from System Admin or using some computer automated review.
Yankees102
March 26, 2012 at 02:37AM View BBCode
I don't think that it should be the commisioner's job to review the trade only because he could be the one making the trade and then who would review it? I think it needs to be a designated person outside of the league.
Admin
Again, this isn't part of the baseball simulation. This is an administrative function outside of the game.
Chris
March 26, 2012 at 04:21AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Leonard
I repeat, when is the last time in MLB that the owners protested another owner's trade and had it reversed?
Again, this isn't part of the baseball simulation. This is an administrative function outside of the game.
Chris
Buzzz
March 26, 2012 at 04:34AM View BBCode
Commisioners of the league where the trade is being reviewed would not be chosen to be a part of the review process.
Buzzz
April 10, 2012 at 08:23PM View BBCode
People mention how no trades in MLB are disputed. One factor is there is no trading draft picks in MLB. Get rid of trading draft picks on the baseball side of SimDyn and most the trade disputes would go away.
paulcaraccio
April 11, 2012 at 05:20PM View BBCode
well, the less trading that is permitted would surely reduce the number of disputes, but i doubt that disallowing the trading of draft picks would eliminate MOST of them, and i don't think the best solution involves taking things away from us. Should just let the process be automated and if anyone complains, sorry, the process is the process.
sharbrough
The way to address it is not to change some aspect of the game. The way to address it is to change the user interface, the terminology, and the messaging.
And perhaps to also dispense with the voting, but I'm not recommending for or against that. Just clarifying the point of the discussion. It's not about the game. It's not about the balance of trades.
April 11, 2012 at 05:34PM View BBCode
The key point is that the goal of this process is something outside of the game.The way to address it is not to change some aspect of the game. The way to address it is to change the user interface, the terminology, and the messaging.
And perhaps to also dispense with the voting, but I'm not recommending for or against that. Just clarifying the point of the discussion. It's not about the game. It's not about the balance of trades.
tm4559
i don't see how that's in any way true. [/quote]
i suppose it was worth tossing in for fun.
(the draft picks thing. otherwise, i don't know why it had anything to do with anything.)
April 11, 2012 at 05:49PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
[quote][i]Originally posted by dirtdevil[/i]
i don't see how that's in any way true. [/quote]
i suppose it was worth tossing in for fun.
(the draft picks thing. otherwise, i don't know why it had anything to do with anything.)
Pages: 1 2