You idiots. I wanted to go this season without posting something in-depth. Now look what you&#039;ve done with your limited brain cells.<br /><br />[quote author=nostar link=topic=455.msg4252#msg4252 date=1309859848]<br />Just for clarity I will add that I agree this trade involved two &quot;transactions&quot;. I don&#039;t see much of a difference from the trade made the same evening including Mantis/Marax traded for dewww/MadV. Adding a team to the mix doesn&#039;t make it any different in my head. It&#039;s still two players leaving a team and two players joining.<br /><br />So no Ralph it&#039;s not an illegal trade. It&#039;s just something IDL has never seem before. And before you post some backwater unidoom.org rules here I would ask you to abide by the same rules that everybody in IDL sees on the homepage.<br />[/quote]<br /><br />What you said about it being no different than &quot;Mantis/Marax traded for dewww/MadV&quot; is incorrect, seeing as each team to team trade, [b]regardless of the number of players[/b] is listed as a [b]single trade[/b] in the book as it stands, so the trade in question seems to count as two since EBL is dealing with two separate teams. I&#039;m not sure how you came to the conclusion it&#039;s no different than two teams performing a traditional trade.<br /><br />Every trade has been listed so far as a single entry due to the fact that one team will trade with one other team, number of players being traded notwithstanding. If you go by the [b]entries[/b] in the book by week for a specific team, EBL would have been unable to do this trade as per the IDL rules, which apparently backs up what Ralphis was saying.<br /><br />reference: Section 6 (&quot;Trading&quot;) of the IDL Rules Page (http://www.intldoomleague.org/rules), subsection 2 (&quot;Regular Season&quot;), bulletpoint 2, which reads: &quot;[i]Each team may only trade once a week.[/i]&quot;<br /><br />In the same section (&quot;Trading&quot;) it is made clear through term usage that a trade can involve players to and from teams and the Free Agency. The point of a trade not being defined [u]doesn&#039;t[/u] hold water, unless you desire a truly explicit definition of what a trade is, which in this instance would not help the case in any way, and under such terms is not the basis for a &#039;loophole&#039; as you describe. The argument is not valid. I would also like to note that the rules in a different section also specify that &quot;[i]Draft orders may not be traded.[/i]&quot;, further reinforcing the fact that YOU GET [b]NOTHING[/b], [i][b]YOU LOSE[/b][/i], [u][i][b]GOOD DAY SIR[/b][/i][/u].<br /><br />Wouldn&#039;t this have been nicer if an actual IDL board member did what I did? At least I care! Your interpretation of the rules may be different from mine, but I believe that said interpretation was objective and non-biased enough to stand ground. But who knows because apparently no one in the IDL board cares to clarify.<br /><br />Either way, should such a clarification happen you must also wonder if it would retroactive. Until this point it appears only the commissioner himself has the final word in the absence of the IDL board regarding the rules and what the trade is viewed to be, regardless of interpretations and arguments.