I just remembered that I did have a trade in the ORFFA that had an undisclosed condition attached. It involved draft picks, and the condition was that one of us was not allowed to draft a certain player with a certain pick that was traded. But there was no condition that the other party then had to draft that player...I hope that makes sense. I would give more details, but I haven't checked with the other party if its ok for me to name them. What are people's thoughts on that sort of condition. Almost everyone in this thread that has indicated conditions attached to a trade are ok, also voted that it must be made public at the time. But I certainly wouldn't have wanted to make this one public, because if someone else was targeting the same player, they would have known when to draft him.
anthak wrote: I just remembered that I did have a trade in the ORFFA that had an undisclosed condition attached. It involved draft picks, and the condition was that one of us was not allowed to draft a certain player with a certain pick that was traded. But there was no condition that the other party then had to draft that player...I hope that makes sense. I would give more details, but I haven't checked with the other party if its ok for me to name them. What are people's thoughts on that sort of condition. Almost everyone in this thread that has indicated conditions attached to a trade are ok, also voted that it must be made public at the time. But I certainly wouldn't have wanted to make this one public, because if someone else was targeting the same player, they would have known when to draft him. Not sure I agree with this ant, the question Terry asked was quite specific; (b) should any conditions attached to trades be publicly disclosed at the time the trade is announced. Those that answered yes could not be deemed to be sanctioning conditions, only that they should be disclosed of they existed Those that actually added their comment specifically about conditions being attached were nearly all to the negative. FWIW I personally wouldn't mind if they were always possible, but they are not, and if as a condition it is potentially impossible to enact than logically it shouldn't exist in the first place. Again I refer to J-Mac, suppose there had been a trade for him post season for Ryder, the condition being that if Ryder didn't get RF status the trade would be reversed at the preseason trade, and further suppose that Ryder didn't, but the J-Mac tragedy still did. You give Ryder back for nothing? the other person can't honour the trade so the condition is cancelled? The variables that could occur just make the concept unworkable practically and no doubt it's why AFL clubs don't trade conditionally.
Lenh191 wrote: anthak wrote:I just remembered that I did have a trade in the ORFFA that had an undisclosed condition attached. It involved draft picks, and the condition was that one of us was not allowed to draft a certain player with a certain pick that was traded. But there was no condition that the other party then had to draft that player...I hope that makes sense. I would give more details, but I haven't checked with the other party if its ok for me to name them. What are people's thoughts on that sort of condition. Almost everyone in this thread that has indicated conditions attached to a trade are ok, also voted that it must be made public at the time. But I certainly wouldn't have wanted to make this one public, because if someone else was targeting the same player, they would have known when to draft him. Not sure I agree with this ant, the question Terry asked was quite specific; (b) should any conditions attached to trades be publicly disclosed at the time the trade is announced. Those that answered yes could not be deemed to be sanctioning conditions, only that they should be disclosed of they existed Those that actually added their comment specifically about conditions being attached were nearly all to the negative. FWIW I personally wouldn't mind if they were always possible, but they are not, and if as a condition it is potentially impossible to enact than logically it shouldn't exist in the first place. Again I refer to J-Mac, suppose there had been a trade for him post season for Ryder, the condition being that if Ryder didn't get RF status the trade would be reversed at the preseason trade, and further suppose that Ryder didn't, but the J-Mac tragedy still did. You give Ryder back for nothing? the other person can't honour the trade so the condition is cancelled? The variables that could occur just make the concept unworkable practically and no doubt it's why AFL clubs don't trade conditionally. I dunno Len. See, I originally thought most people seemed against the idea of conditions at all, when I posted a comment up above, that I later deleted because I'd read TiB's question properly. I still may not have interpreted the question as intended, but it reads as though allowing conditions is a given. I could speculate that could maybe be because it is hard to police it, maybe because it would be arbitrary to not allow them,unnecessarily limiting our freedom in negotiating trade deals, or because it is simply bemusing to think that a rule like that could exist... Anyway, given the way it reads, how could you not consider answers to it that do not mention dissent to conditions, to be anything other than fine with conditions being allowable - why would someone comment on whether conditions should be publicly disclosed or not if they are not already ok with, or even resigned to, them being allowable. Unless of course the question was not understood or was misinterpreted, which is clearly plausible given this very discussion. And, on the part of my comment that you made bold. I think you may have misunderstood me. Maybe you missed the 'that.' I did not say that almost everyone in this thread have said conditions are ok. I actually wrote '[span style='font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;]Almost everyone in this thread<strong style='font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px;] that [/b][span style='font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;]has indicated conditions attached to a trade are ok, also voted that it must be made public at the time.' I realise that there were people that voiced their concerns with conditions; but, I have presumed (for reasons explained above) that those that did not, indicatedconditions attached to a trade are ok. A fair presumption, I believe (even though, in reality it may not be a true reflection of actual opinions). And almost every one of them (and I actually havent bothered to tally exact vote results, but it seems accurate) did vote that conditions must be made public. [span style='font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;] [span style='font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;] Anyways, not sure that you had to agree with that part of my comment or not anyway. You have chosen to focus on a part of my comment that was only there to give further context to my question. Further context being that this is a different type of scenario/condition to what has already been discussed earlier and probably should beconsidered equally, and that it may influence the past votes. I explained/demonstrated an example of a condition that was actually part of a real ORFFA trade (2013 Mid Season) and then asked: 'What are people's thoughts on that sort of condition' With this type of condition, I personally cannot see why we would set a rule in place to stop people from doing it, and I do not think it is appropriate to force people to make it public knowledge either. I am very curious to hear others' thoughts too. Even yours Len
I have 2 points that I feel you are missing, or at least not tackling. 1.) The original question was of a yes or no type, many people answered yes or no, some people ignored the phrasing of the question and commented on the conditional aspect. The question itself was presumptive by definition, 'Have you beaten your wife lately?' is another example of that type of question. Personally when I answer a question I like my response to clearly indicate my thought, regardless of phrasing, thus I elaborated. To that, if you feel that those answering yes without comment were knowingly sanctioning trade conditions would those who answered no have been deemed to be knowingly against conditions, or just against them being made public, which is what the question asked? 2) I can see significant potential for instances where the trade condition could not be met, and the trade could not be reversed.IF I were the Trade Commissioner I would have come out and banned it, simply because I would not want to have to make rulings based on someone else's stupidity, but I am not so all good Essentially I don't care unless it stuffs up my drafts, I wont enter into a conditional trade so for me the point is moot. One the stated vs unstated, unstated is sailing way too close to collusion in my opinion, so I am glad it has received almost no support..
I'm not interested in getting into an online message war over this, when it was secondary to the main point of my comment. It is likely that most people are against conditions altogether, but (apart from trades being reversible) we cannot be sure, unless people actually state that - and some have. I still believe that if people are voting for conditions to be publicly disclosed, without stating dissent against conditions, then it seems they are at least resigned to having conditions being allowed. Like I said earlier, it may not be that way in reality. My question is interesting though and I'm not sure why you have persisted in dodging it. On another matter, I've come across another scenario today. A trade was offered today in a fantasy NBA comp I'm involved in that proposed a condition of one party getting to select two players from the other party's team that would be dropped during the round that the two play each other. I was asked if this is allowable and I've said yes. If they want to strike a deal of that type, that is up to them, but I certainly wouldn't be accepting a trade with such conditions attached. But still good for thought for us in ORFFA.
anthak wrote: I'm not interested in getting into an online message war over this, when it was secondary to the main point of my comment. It is likely that most people are against conditions altogether, but (apart from trades being reversible) we cannot be sure, unless people actually state that - and some have. I still believe that if people are voting for conditions to be publicly disclosed, without stating dissent against conditions, then it seems they are at least resigned to having conditions being allowed. Like I said earlier, it may not be that way in reality. My question is interesting though and I'm not sure why you have persisted in dodging it. On another matter, I've come across another scenario today. A trade was offered today in a fantasy NBA comp I'm involved in that proposed a condition of one party getting to select two players from the other party's team that would be dropped during the round that the two play each other. I was asked if this is allowable and I've said yes. If they want to strike a deal of that type, that is up to them, but I certainly wouldn't be accepting a trade with such conditions attached. But still good for thought for us in ORFFA. I had no idea I was about to participate in a war, I assumed we were still exchanging opinions I'm sorry mate, I am not deliberately dodging anything, I am against conditions, thus your example, being a condition, was not something I saw as relevant to me as I did clearing up what I felt to be a misconception. FWIW, if conditions are to be allowed I wouldn't see anything wrong with that scenario, collusion is a nasty word that can be levelled against any agreement people see fault with, doesn't make it real. For mine in order for it to be so the intention has to be there to cheat someone out of something that they should be entitled to. Re: The NBA example, I would not be comfortable with that at all in the ORFFA.
Lenh191 wrote: anthak wrote: I'm not interested in getting into an online message war over this, when it was secondary to the main point of my comment. It is likely that most people are against conditions altogether, but (apart from trades being reversible) we cannot be sure, unless people actually state that - and some have. I still believe that if people are voting for conditions to be publicly disclosed, without stating dissent against conditions, then it seems they are at least resigned to having conditions being allowed. Like I said earlier, it may not be that way in reality. My question is interesting though and I'm not sure why you have persisted in dodging it. On another matter, I've come across another scenario today. A trade was offered today in a fantasy NBA comp I'm involved in that proposed a condition of one party getting to select two players from the other party's team that would be dropped during the round that the two play each other. I was asked if this is allowable and I've said yes. If they want to strike a deal of that type, that is up to them, but I certainly wouldn't be accepting a trade with such conditions attached. But still good for thought for us in ORFFA. I had no idea I was about to participate in a war, I assumed we were still exchanging opinions I'm sorry mate, I am not deliberately dodging anything, I am against conditions, thus your example, being a condition, was not something I saw as relevant to me as I did clearing up what I felt to be a misconception. FWIW, if conditions are to be allowed I wouldn't see anything wrong with that scenario, collusion is a nasty word that can be levelled against any agreement people see fault with, doesn't make it real. For mine in order for it to be so the intention has to be there to cheat someone out of something that they should be entitled to. Re: The NBA example, I would not be comfortable with that at all in the ORFFA. Well, envisioning a war may have been a bit premature, but Snoz was bound to join in at some stage and then it would have been inevitable
I am starting to think we need Nelson Mandela to assist our Trade Commissioner in a review of all trades that had or have a condition(s) attached. Perhaps an amnesty on all conditional trades (those with a condition(s) attached irrespective of whether the condition is yet to be determined / satisfied (e.g., playing position in SC) or not? That might be too wide but, you know, truth and reconciliation ..... I was surprised that an agreement whereby one party agreed to not select a specific player in the draft was a condition of a trade. IMO, that is close (very bloody close) to collusion. Further, I hope it is in no way related to asuggestion that has been made for a brief post draft trading period. I sincerely hope that I will be shown to be no more than an old cynic with too much time on his hands who loves a conspiracy theory. That outcome is far preferable to the prospect of slipping into waters that are more murky than I had envisaged. 'Sunlight, the best disinfectant.' If you are not familiar with the quote may I suggest Google?
chels wrote: I am starting to think we need Nelson Mandela to assist our Trade Commissioner in a review of all trades that had or have a condition(s) attached. Perhaps an amnesty on all conditional trades (those with a condition(s) attached irrespective of whether the condition is yet to be determined / satisfied (e.g., playing position in SC) or not? That might be too wide but, you know, truth and reconciliation ..... I was surprised that an agreement whereby one party agreed to not select a specific player in the draft was a condition of a trade. IMO, that is close (very bloody close) to collusion. Further, I hope it is in no way related to asuggestion that has been made for a brief post draft trading period. I sincerely hope that I will be shown to be no more than an old cynic with too much time on his hands who loves a conspiracy theory. That outcome is far preferable to the prospect of slipping into waters that are more murky than I had envisaged. 'Sunlight, the best disinfectant.' If you are not familiar with the quote may I suggest Google? You are not the only one who has expressed that thought. I guess time will out, but how would you know, we have seen blatantly unbalanced trade outcomes already, how we be able to genuinely judge whether a trade is misguided or cheating? Maybe we need Jim's Commission
I dunno Len. See, I originally thought most people seemed against the idea of conditions at all, when I posted a comment up above, [span style='color: #ff0000;]that I later deleted because I'd read TiB's question properly. I still may not have interpreted the question as intended, but it reads as though allowing conditions is a given. I could speculate [span style='color: #ff0000;]that could maybe be because it is hard to police it, maybe because it would be arbitrary to not allow them,unnecessarily limiting our freedom in negotiating trade deals, or because it is simply bemusing to think that a rule like [span style='color: #ff0000;]that could exist... Anyway, given the way it reads, how could you not consider answers to it [span style='color: #ff0000;]that do not mention dissent to conditions, to be anything other than fine with conditions being allowable - why would someone comment on whether conditions should be publicly disclosed or not if they are not already ok with, or even resigned to, them being allowable. Unless of course the question was not understood or was misinterpreted, which is clearly plausible given this very discussion. And, on the part of my comment that you made bold. I think you may have misunderstood me. Maybe you missed the '[span style='color: #ff0000;]that.' I did not say that almost everyone in this thread have said conditions are ok. I actually wrote '[span style='font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;]Almost everyone in this thread<strong style='font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px;] that [/b][span style='font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;]has indicated conditions attached to a trade are ok, also voted that it must be made public at the time.' I realise [span style='color: #ff0000;]that there were people [span style='color: #ff0000;]that voiced their concerns with conditions; but, I have presumed (for reasons explained above) [span style='color: #ff0000;]that those [span style='color: #ff0000;]that did not, indicatedconditions attached to a trade are ok. A fair presumption, I believe (even though, in reality it may not be a true reflection of actual opinions). And almost every one of them (and I actually havent bothered to tally exact vote results, but it seems accurate) did vote [span style='color: #ff0000;]that conditions must be made public. [span style='font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;] [span style='font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;] Anyways, not sure [span style='color: #ff0000;]that you had to agree with [span style='color: #ff0000;]that part of my comment or not anyway. You have chosen to focus on a part of my comment [span style='color: #ff0000;]that was only there to give further context to my question. Further context being [span style='color: #ff0000;]that this is a different type of scenario/condition to what has already been discussed earlier and probably should beconsidered equally, and [span style='color: #ff0000;]that it may influence the past votes. I explained/demonstrated an example of a condition [span style='color: #ff0000;]that was actually part of a real ORFFA trade (2013 Mid Season) and then asked: 'What are people's thoughts on [span style='color: #ff0000;]that sort of condition' With this type of condition, I personally cannot see why we would set a rule in place to stop people from doing it, and I do not think it is appropriate to force people to make it public knowledge either. I am very curious to hear others' thoughts too. Even yours Len Next time Mr. Misfit, make sure you read that. /Portals/0/User%20Images/garbage%20can.jpg[span style='color: #7030a0;]Wither the English language? @chels, while your thoughts are most pertinent, no retrospective analysis was anticipated. Pretty sure I stated in the discussion that what's done is done (for better or worse) and we are setting new rules (should the vote go that way) for the next trade period. Should one of the players involved in a disclosed or undisclosed trade from the recently concluded period decide to jump off a tall building in a single bound, it is up to the two parties involved to sort it out themselves. There will be no arbitration, even if we could find the Trade Commissioner. Buyer beware is the over-riding principle.
Fair enough TiB; let's move on. Notwithstanding, and to state the bleeding obvious, I suspect some trades next year will elicit some wide eyed responses.
bgt2110 posted this article in another spot on TS, and I thought y'all might like to read it. It's really good I reckon http://espn.go.com/fantasy/football/s...
anthak wrote: bgt2110 posted this article in another spot on TS, and I thought y'all might like to read it. It's really good I reckon http://espn.go.com/fantasy/football/s... Nice.
anthak wrote: bgt2110 posted this article in another spot on TS, and I thought y'all might like to read it. It's really good I reckon http://espn.go.com/fantasy/football/s... Love it! We should adopt these pearls.
anthak wrote: bgt2110 posted this article in another spot on TS, and I thought y'all might like to read it. It's really good I reckon http://espn.go.com/fantasy/football/s... Yep, that might be about the best things I've read on fantasy sport trading etiquette. Should we circulate this to all coaches here in the ORFFA? I'd be keen to have everyone see that to be honest. On a side note - I'm looking at the possible players up for trade from my mob before the next draft period and that first point really hit home. I'm going to have to make sure that it is really clear how I'm offering players up, and if it is on a league wide basis (as it usually is) before it progresses into a 1-1 trade with another coach. Thanks for posting this/linking this Ant.
C88, happy 1000th post. Ant's thing on trading etiquette really applies in a keeper league because if someone gets the wrong end of a deal, they remember it. Diplomacy is the key.
Simonoz wrote: Um.......so is there a war going on here or not dammit? /Portals/0/User%20Images/war.png Yeah, you guys did well in Grenada.