AHL- Apolyton Hockey League 07/08: Draft II

[snoopy369]

If the majority of people here think most of your trades are actually predatory, perhaps your opinion is the one in error... I don't know, as I didn't really follow this league prior to this, so I can't speak to that. I can only speak to the fact that you ignore others opinions when they differ from yours.

That said - again, I probably wouldn't veto Huet for Kariya, and don't particularly want to bring up that discussion again. However, vetos either are through yahoo or not at all, and I think the majority of the people in this league are going to vote that way

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
If the majority of people here think most of your trades are actually predatory, perhaps your opinion is the one in error...

The majority of people don't like me and don't like me to do well. The trades I've done were provably non-predatory afterwards, in any case. Certain people here just don't like losing to me, and they use all the tools in their disposal to prevent it. Whether it's constantly rotating players to maximize schedules or vetoing and starting PR campaigns against my trades, it's all been done and I'm wary to give them the tools to do it.

[Ninot]

A predatory trade SHOULD be allowed though. If you can con a guy, good for you.

It's when you're trading with a guy who is out of the playoffs, has no hopes, and stealing all his talent at a bargain. That collusion should not happen.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by snoopy369
If the majority of people here think most of your trades are actually predatory, perhaps your opinion is the one in error... I don't know, as I didn't really follow this league prior to this, so I can't speak to that. I can only speak to the fact that you ignore others opinions when they differ from yours.

That said - again, I probably wouldn't veto Huet for Kariya, and don't particularly want to bring up that discussion again. However, vetos either are through yahoo or not at all, and I think the majority of the people in this league are going to vote that way

There've been 2 major controversies.

One was the goalie situation.

The other was a player agreeing to a trade late in the season with an accompanying 'I'm going to lose anyway, might as well help a winner' or something along those lines.

I can't recall which may have had votes on Yahoo. Both caused a ****-storm here, the second one being more severe IIRC.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ninot
A predatory trade SHOULD be allowed though. If you can con a guy, good for you.

It's when you're trading with a guy who is out of the playoffs, has no hopes, and stealing all his talent at a bargain. That collusion should not happen.

And the vetoes prevent the first one, but not the second. As I said, I think it's despicable that people can vetoe trades THEY think are one-sided (the whole point of trades is to think it's one-sided and you're getting the better part of the bargain, eg Smid and Lupul for Pronger...). If the person you're trading with is stupid enough to do it (eg, Lowe), then that's just part of the game! You're a GM of the team, it's your responsibility -- what the rest of the league thinks should NOT matter.

However, if two teams collude to improve one at the expense at the other, this should NOT go on and the commish can then step in and correct the situation.

The whole veto situation is prone to abuse and is not conducive to anything but fighting.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither


There've been 2 major controversies.

One was the goalie situation.

The other was a player agreeing to a trade late in the season with an accompanying 'I'm going to lose anyway, might as well help a winner' or something along those lines.

I can't recall which may have had votes on Yahoo. Both caused a ****-storm here, the second one being more severe IIRC.

And I fully agree that the last one you listed is unacceptable. Mind you, that was NOT collusion and it was a misguided reason by one of our players (who will remain nameless). When I found out this reason (I was commish at the time), I DID undo the trade as it was not within the rules of the game. This is the kind of activity that does not require trade vetoes.

The first situation was a perfectly valid, and FAIR, trade that many people here vetoed out of their own misguided understanding of the game. That is what I want to prevent this year.

The veto system only encourages the first situation's controversies and does nothing to guard against the second.

[notyoueither]

Did we actually finish a vote for the Huet trade?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The other was a player agreeing to a trade late in the season with an accompanying 'I'm going to lose anyway, might as well help a winner' or something along those lines.

For the record, that's the reason I voted against it. If it wasn't for that statement, I probably would have let it go through.

[Asher]

No, because the two situations were the same.

But the veto would have gone through when I undid the trade.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


For the record, that's the reason I voted against it. If it wasn't for that statement, I probably would have let it go through.

So is notyoueither the only person who would actually vote against that trade on "unfairness"? If that's true, then that's very encouraging.

As I've said, I agree the trade should not happen given the comment that came out. But the trade was fine on its own. notyoueither disagrees, and will continue to veto it in any case. The fact that it was a fair trade in the end goes back to cement my opinion that vetoing based on perceived "fairness" is severely misguided.

[snoopy369]

"Predatory" does not mean one person's getting a better deal. Predatory means that a good player is taking advantage of a player who is not aware he's being badly taken advantage of, to the point that it substantially affects the balance of the league.

Predatory means trading a guy who's near the waiver wire for a star. It means trading Mike Maddux for Josh Beckett. That trade i'd veto, because there's no way that's a fair trade by any standard, and it is a big enough trade that it could unbalance the league.

I think majority vote should rule, so 7 vetoes a trade. Do you oppose democracy, Asher? If you do, then perhaps you should make more of an effort to be friendly to the players in the league, if that's the problem

[Asher]

I oppose democracy in a system where the other voters have something to gain by voting against someone.

[snoopy369]

Other voters always have something to gain in any voting system.

Unless you're in eighth place, there are not seven people with something to gain from you making a trade. If you're in 3rd, then three or four people at the most do Add to that the fact that most of us (I'd hope) won't veto trades unless they're absurd, and I think voting will be just fine in this league.

And again I say... if you think people vote because they don't want you to win, perhaps try being nicer to people

[notyoueither]

There was a debate over the rules and interference with other managers (Yahoo's posted rules). I can't recall who may have agreed with me that Asher was crossing a line, but I doubt it was a majority.

IIRC, Asher backed off due to controversy rather than any vote.

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Other voters always have something to gain in any voting system.

Unless you're in eighth place, there are not seven people with something to gain from you making a trade. If you're in 3rd, then three or four people at the most do

If you're in third and gaining, you still have about 7 people to worry about. The people ahead of you are concerned you are gaining on them, and people behind you want to pass you...

Add to that the fact that most of us (I'd hope) won't veto trades unless they're absurd, and I think voting will be just fine in this league.

It's been a problem in a past, I'm not convinced on your say-so it won't be a problem again.