Fantasy Hockey - The Reckoning

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
It's OK by the rules of Yahoo. What about that is hard to understand?

It's also OK by the rules of Yahoo for me to offer a Huet <-> Kariya trade. Clearly that is stellar logic on your behalf. Consistent...

My desire is fair play. The Huet/Kariya trade was fair play, and using your excessive amount of time online as a way for you to squeak in more skater/goalie games a week is not fair play. That's the bottom line, compadre.

And it was discussed last year, and I explicitly brought it up in the formation of the league this year. It is not our problem if you did not pay attention.

1) It doesn't matter if it was discussed last year, and you know damn well it was discussed when I was not in the threads or the league.
2) You did not explicitly discuss the validity of this tactic. You discussed a desire to add more bench spots to the team.

Nice try...

[notyoueither]

and I explicitly brought it up in the formation of the league this year.

I'm out here.

Already given too much time to it.

[joncha]

Originally posted by Asher

It's too late for such sweeping changes as maximum player moves, and a gentleman's agreement is only possible, by definition, by gentleman. Clearly those won't happen.

It's not too late for a league policy banning player whoring explicitly for the purpose of 1-game plays.

I've written Yahoo asking for a new feature next year that allows leagues to set a minimum amount of time a player spends on a team.

So basically you want to change the rules without saying that you're changing the rules.

What you're writing to Yahoo about is all very fascinating, but not terribly relevant to our league this year.

Can we cut the crap and have a show of hands for who wants a rule change now?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher

Huh?

You're correct in that comparison, actually. The Mac Forum was being exploited and used as an unmoderated off-topic forum, and it was shutdown.

Very apt comparison, really. Here's hoping for a similar conclusion, including the dramatics afterwards.

Quoted for posterity.

[joncha]

/me votes no, btw.

[Asher]

Proposal to add new bench spots != Explicitly discussing the fairness of constantly adding players for the duration of one game the night before, then dropping them immediately after they start playing...

If this was explicitly discussed, there'd be no point to this. Some people have issue with it, and the best argument in favour of that tactic seems to be "but we may have briefly touched on the issue when discussing another issue earlier!" -- not that it matters anyway.

[notyoueither]

/me votes no

[Asher]

No more discussion then.

Let's do the poll thing.

In favour of permitting adding/dropping players daily for the explicit purpose of playing one game:
notyoueither, joncha, dejon, Jaguar

Against:
Asher, Ninot

Other people, please vote.

[Jaguar]

I believe Guynemer voted to permit it, sir.

[joncha]

Nice work on the wording, making it look like I'm voting in favour of a change, btw. Very classy of you.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Jaguar
I believe Guynemer voted to permit it, sir.

That's not counting for obvious reasons...

He didn't give a **** either way, which counts as an abstain. Counting spite votes isn't indicative of the desire of the league.

[Sparrowhawk]

I will vote against (to cancel out Guynemer's vote, I believe we both have stated previously that neither of us care what the final decision and both only expressed an opinion after being specifically requested to by Asher so it only seems logical that our two votes should cancel ).

at the entire (how many page? discussion)

/me

[Asher]

Originally posted by joncha
Nice work on the wording, making it look like I'm voting in favour of a change, btw. Very classy of you.

I'm not sure why you guys care so much about "change".

What would you have done differently before now that this "change" screws up?

I can understand changing point categories, or changing required goalie games, or changing anything that would affect your draft choices.

But a change like this? It seems like an awfully lame excuse that "awww boo hoo it's a change" when it doesn't invalidate anything you've done previously.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Also, given these conditions, is it possible that someone could have the objective of triggering your punishment of getting the league banned?

Originally posted by Asher

It would be acceptable if he doesn't agree with me. For instance, Dejon does not agree with me and that's perfectly acceptable.

What's not acceptable is Guy does not agree or disagree with me, he voted "out of spite". You knew that, of course, and you posted that in an attempt to provoke me.

You guys should know it's not going to work this season. This league isn't my primary one anymore, I spend far more time on my others. This one is more for ****s and giggles, so I don't take it very seriously. I do hope to see it played fairly, but clearly (judging by the huge amount of ad hominems and strawmen here), you have absolutely no interest in that.

And that's fine. Here I go, waiver-spamming. There are apparently no rules, and the commish's job, according to you, is to merely input the rosters... Keep trying to wind me up, it only adds to the classy repertoire you two accumulated last season.

Combined to highlight what I was suspecting.

Ming, I would ask that this be brought to Mark and Dan before you make any summary judgement.

It's pretty obvious, to me, what is happening here.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Combined to highlight what I was suspecting.

Ming, I would ask that this be brought to Mark and Dan before you make any summary judgement.

It's pretty obvious, to me, what is happening here.

Yes.

Asher advocating fair play, joncha/nye (again) trying to provoke Asher.

I can see what's happening here, too. You're manipulating and exploiting the league for a second season, and you're at it again in this post.

I care about this league, obviously. That's why I keep posting here and I'm adamant about fixing the rules to permit fair play.

I'd be more concerned with the people who don't care as much about the league -- the people who, instead of contributing to the rules-based discussion I have repeatedly tried to have, have posted things like "SHUT THE **** UP" or made blatant references to events from last season as a way to provoke me. Those individuals are the ones who need to be watched, and, judging from Ming's wording, are being watched.

I'm the one who gets in trouble for responding to your provocations, and upon advice from Ming and others, I'm choosing not to respond to them. Don't think this the wrong way -- when you "reported" this thread, you were the one who provoked this. The administration are sure to keep that in mind, despite your further manipulative attempts to the contrary to think the whole reason I joined this league and discuss it is to sabotage it.

Very republican, actually.