[quote author=MassVC link=topic=460.msg4302#msg4302 date=1310247707]<br />Hi kids!&nbsp; I am not concerned with any trade in particular here (especially not any involving my team!), but it seems that the rules of our beloved league regarding trades may need to be updated, clarified, and/or revised.&nbsp; <br /><br />To facilitate discussion about this multifarious issue, I have divided it into separate topics:<br />[/quote]<br />First of all, this owns.&nbsp; This level of organization needs to be present in all parts of the IDL, a large portion of problems are currently the result of poor structure or unclear roles and as a separate issue I think the board needs to look at this in general and find ways to maximize impact and clarity.&nbsp; I think this would also inspire additional board motivation and input, by making it so clear and easy to express different views without rehashing old arguments.&nbsp; This would also allow for more easy community involvement in heavily debated topics.<br /><br />[quote author=MassVC link=topic=460.msg4302#msg4302 date=1310247707]<br />[b][size=5]1. Trade Definition[/size][/b]<br /><br />What [i]should[/i] constitute a trade?&nbsp; (Note that the question is NOT, &quot;What [i]currently[/i] constitutes a trade?&quot;!)<br /><br />This is only an issue because there has been so much discussion about it, but we should nail down what exactly constitutes a trade and then include that definition in the rules.&nbsp; Two teams trading one player for one player must be a trade.&nbsp; Should two teams trading two players for two players be a trade, or two trades?&nbsp; Should one team trading two players to two different teams be considered one trade or two?&nbsp; Should there be such a thing as a 3-way trade of 1, 2, or 3 players?<br /><br />I am partial to the definition that a trade is one team trading one player to one other team for one other player because all trades can be expressed in terms of this sort of trade.<br />[/quote]<br />I can&#039;t agree with this, at least without some further clarification.&nbsp; I am not sure I have a problem with this definition if we are willing to accept that contracts are going to be essential to trading in the future.&nbsp; This can range from extremely simplistic to quite complex, depending upon the quantities being traded between teams (2+).&nbsp; As long as this is included and the contract is simply used as the execution of the previously agreed upon terms approved by the commissioner, then I can see no problem with defining a trade as any 1 quantity for any 1 other quantity, but concessions would also need to be discussed and defined (and currently are in use, captains have previously traded homefield picks as incentives in deals).<br /><br />[quote author=MassVC link=topic=460.msg4302#msg4302 date=1310247707]<br />[b][size=5]2. Trade Limiting by Quantity[/size][/b]<br /><br />This is the biggest issue at hand, in my opinion.&nbsp; Should teams only be allowed one trade per week?&nbsp; (This, of course, depends on the solution to Issue 1.)&nbsp; What is the benefit of this rule?<br /><br />At this point I do not see any benefit of this rule that could not be achieved by simpler and less restrictive rules.&nbsp; Many of the following are just such rules.<br />[/quote]<br />I see no reason that teams should be making multiple roster moves within a single week, this adds a huge amount of confusion and chaos to the team itself and is likely counterproductive (as seen throughout the season so far).&nbsp; To me it comes down to whether more freedom is good or bad and while I think more freedom is generally better, I am not certain such a scenario should ever arise where multiple trades are needed if captains are cautious and well informed.&nbsp; Of course, the argument could be made that circumstances arise which require action that are largely unpredictable, but I might respond that a captain would accept this risk by trading earlier in the week.&nbsp; Also, by utilizing contracts we could largely circumvent this need for multiple trades per week.<br /><br />[quote author=MassVC link=topic=460.msg4302#msg4302 date=1310247707]<br />[b][size=5]3. Trade Limiting by Type[/size][/b]<br /><br />Besides a given number of trades per week or season, what other restrictions should be put on trading?<br /><br />At this point, two captains could feasibly trade their entire teams back and forth every week.&nbsp; I&#039;m certain that if this were to happen, there would be a sense of outrage from IDL players who detect something wrong.&nbsp; Is there something wrong with it?&nbsp; We are trying to promote team-strengthening through trading while preventing a slimy brand of wheeling-and-dealing.<br /><br />I think that if Captain 1 trades Player A to Captain 2 for Player B, then Captain 1 should not be able to make a trade for Player A the following week.&nbsp; In fact, I don&#039;t think he should be able to trade for Player A for the rest of the season.&nbsp; This prevents two things:<br /><br />It prevents player-borrowing, which is not restricted by any current rules or any other rules mentioned here.&nbsp; This is where Prime trades me Stallion for Reckless for a week so I can easily beat FLS and help out BBC&#039;s division standing (and he is not worried about winning without Stallion), on the condition that I trade him back the next week.<br /><br />It prevents tricky dealing.&nbsp; If Captain 1 trades Players A and B to Captain 2 for players B and C, and later in the season trades players B and C to Captain 2 for players A and D, all that really happened was that Captain 1 traded Player B to Captain 2 for Player D.&nbsp; But this might not be a trade that either Captain 1 or 2 would agree to.&nbsp; One of them may have been swindled by the other, and we are trying to promote fair and honest trading.<br />[/quote]<br />This is a pretty interesting idea and something that probably should have been implemented many seasons back.&nbsp; I can&#039;t think of many arguments against this, perhaps the only one being if two captains got players that were unavailable to practice for a few weeks at an ideal time, it may be beneficial to switch players for a few weeks until they are once again available.&nbsp; This seems pretty what iffy though and player borrowing seems pretty slimy all around and easily rejected as not promoting a healthy league.&nbsp; In a slightly related but mostly unrelated issue, I was highly in favor of teams being required to give their 4th 1 or 2 games to play per regular season, if nothing else than to reward those dedicated 4ths who always show up and would love to play.<br /><br />Not sure if I am against tricky dealing or not, ultimately it is up to each captain to decide what is best for their team unless the league determines they are unfit for captaincy at which point they should be removed.<br /><br />[quote author=MassVC link=topic=460.msg4302#msg4302 date=1310247707]<br />[b][size=5]4.&nbsp; Trade Limiting by Quality[/size][/b]<br /><br />It has been suggested many times that some trades are so one-sided that the administration (whether the commissioner or the board) should intervene and veto because one captain is clearly taking advantage of another.&nbsp; Most trades (like Collision for Gyrossman, Sabertooth for Dr_Noob, Mantis-X for MadV) are not clearly of this type.&nbsp; If there is any [i]reasonable doubt[/i] as to whether the trade is unfair, it should not be prevented.&nbsp; Some trades (Potent for Godlike, Whiteboy for Asgar, Chaindude for Goatface) are clearly of this type, and there is no reasonable doubt that they are unfair.&nbsp; These trades lead the league away from parity, they stack one team and leave another bare, and they hinder competition.<br /><br />One way of doing this is by a board vote or a commisioner decision.&nbsp; Another way of doing this is to prevent trades of a one-level pick for an another-level pick.&nbsp; For example, you can&#039;t trade a 2nd for a 3rd or a 2nd for a 4th.&nbsp; Because of the variability of captains&#039; ability to draft and player skill level, this could be problematic and would prevent trades like Saber/Noob, MadV/Mantis, and Gyrossman/Coll, which may or may not be a good thing.<br />[/quote]<br />I have said it before, I just don&#039;t know that uneven teams is bad for the IDL.&nbsp; Yes everybody should have a 100% equal chance to win the Masterbowl and yes I should be eating roast unicorn horn right now covered with fried dodo eggs.&nbsp; Both are probably possible, but is it willing the work required to achieve? I would also argue that besides being unfair to more skilled players, babying players and lesser captains in fact hurts the league by reducing competition between teams and muting the overall skill level of the league.&nbsp; If no one team can be better off than another team, the players and league as a whole may stagnate.&nbsp; While perhaps less than fair (or maybe the most fair method as it involves the least league intervention) I feel the benefits of differing skill levels brings more to the table than simple parity ever can.&nbsp; There are benefits to both sides, but I feel the current player base would agree more with me than with overadministration and complete league regulation to promote fairness.<br /><br />[quote author=MassVC link=topic=460.msg4302#msg4302 date=1310247707]<br />[b][size=5]5. Free Agent Cold Period[/size][/b]<br /><br />When a player is traded to the FA, and a free agent is picked up, the traded player suddenly becomes available to other captains.&nbsp; Currently, the captains who are at liberty to take the player are the captains who happen to be online at the time, be it 3 PM or 3 AM EST or GMT.&nbsp; After that, it is whichever captain PMs bones first by typing the fastest or being the most brief.&nbsp; This is an unhelpful thing to reward.&nbsp; Specifically, I am thinking of Strangle dropping Nosturi in an emergency and Bones picking him up 15 seconds later.&nbsp; Other captains wanted to pick up Nosturi (Clim for one), and other teams would have benefited more from having him as a player.<br /><br />Instead, when players enter the FA, there should be a period of time (24 hours or 48 hours) where all captains are given the opportunity to become aware of the free agent and decide whether they want the player or not.&nbsp; During that time, any captain can make a claim for the player, and to whom the player is awarded can be determined by some means other than the order in which the claims were made.&nbsp; This order could have something to do with current team standings or the draft order.&nbsp; It is up to us to discuss and decide.<br /><br />The next two are ideas raised by the trade discussion.<br />[/quote]<br />I am not sure how much I like this idea, simply because strangle could have easily traded nosturi earlier in the week and instead was punished for being stupid.&nbsp; This is how poor captaining decisions should be rewarded, the only good way I could see this working was similar to waiver wire rules to prevent possible team stacking where teams that have picked up a &quot;cold&quot; free agent would be moved to the top of the picking order.&nbsp; Basically this refers to the earlier argument of fairness vs unfairness and the costs/benefits of each side and I think I already disclosed how I felt about that.&nbsp; Basically this would just reward inactive, crappy captains and help them become more crappy captains instead of being weeded out of the league.<br /><br />[quote author=MassVC link=topic=460.msg4302#msg4302 date=1310247707]<br />[b][size=5]6. Player Game Limit[/size][/b]<br /><br />A player should not be able to play more than one game per week.&nbsp; (Is this a rule?&nbsp; I skimmed but did not see.)<br /><br />Even with a 1-trade limit, one player could play 18 games in a season by playing before and after each week&#039;s trade.&nbsp; Without a trade limit, one player could play 54 games in a season (on 6 different teams a week).&nbsp; 42 of these would be preventions of other players from playing their games.&nbsp; There is no reason why this should be allowed to happen.<br />[/quote]<br />There is already a rule which restricts this.<br /><br />[quote author=RULES]<br />If two teams trade and neither has played their game, that trade becomes effective immediately for both teams. Otherwise the trade is not effective until Monday 12:00:00am of the next week.<br />[/quote]<br /><br />[quote author=MassVC link=topic=460.msg4302#msg4302 date=1310247707]<br />[b][size=5]7. Instantaneous Free-Agent Substitutions[/size][/b]<br /><br />The number of forfeits this season is outrageous, and we would all like to see more games getting played.&nbsp; I would like to propose that if a team is short a player, they may use a player from the free agency for their game.&nbsp; I am not talking about a trade.&nbsp; The team roster would remain the same.&nbsp; The free agent would merely act as a substitute for the absent player for those 20 or 30 minutes.&nbsp; This would serve many of the same purposes as IDLR without all the hassle.&nbsp; The team using the substitution could be penalized in some other way such a power play, although the use of a free agent may be punishment enough.<br />[/quote]<br />I think this is an excellent idea, however while I agree with the powerplay idea or some similar penalty (woo penalties) I think another piece should be added, namely that if captains use a free agent for some number of games (lets say 2 or more) they must then trade for that player, sort of like how doing job responsibilities beyond your own for long enough results in an automatic promotion.<br /><br />[quote author=MassVC link=topic=460.msg4302#msg4302 date=1310247707]<br />[b][size=4]Guidelines for Having a Discussion:[/size][/b]<br /><br />Although I expressed many opinions above in order to begin discussions, and everyone may do the same, please try not to respond with &quot;I like that,&quot; or, &quot;I don&#039;t like that.&quot;&nbsp; The IDL is not democratic and we are not voting.&nbsp; Try instead to provide arguments to support your views, such as &quot;This would promote competition because...&quot; or, &quot;This would be unfair because...&quot;<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Make me some spicy salsa.