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 /><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 /><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 /><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 /><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 /><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 /><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 /><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 /><br /><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;