AHL- Apolyton Hockey League 07/08: Draft II

[Asher]

I would relish the desperation and gloat endlessly.

No, I would not object nor complain. It's your prerogative to make the trade.

[Sparrowhawk]

I would object and complain if I saw it happen and I hope it is something we have the option of vetoing.

But that's the only case I think a trade should be vetoed.

/me

[snoopy369]

I'd say that if you consider it a fair trade Sparrow you're insane

[Asher]

Originally posted by Sparrowhawk
I would object and complain if I saw it happen and I hope it is something we have the option of vetoing.

But that's the only case I think a trade should be vetoed.

* Sparrowhawk

I strongly disagree. I think if you're not involved in the trade, you are in NO position to protest.

And if you're one of the people giving up on your team to help an "ally", then that's a major problem that you have.

In any case, vetoing trades is stupid. Many trades would be vetoed for similar reasons. Even if the trade in nye's example would have benefitted the "poor" guy who gave up a good winger for a backup goalie more than the other guy.

The point with trades is you never know, and I trust people in this league will do what is in the best interest of their teams. If a pair of Oilers fans choose to conspire to beat the better team, that says a lot about them, but it's not something that we should give a person a veto over.

[snoopy369]

I think it's reasonable to object to a trade that is not made with a desire to win. Asher, let's say NYE is out of it, and Tingkai and you are destined to meet in the finals. Let's say NYE offers his three best players to Tingkai for his three worst players (bench), because he hates the thought of you winning.

You okay with that? I wouldn't be, even as a bystander. I'm not saying either of you would do that mind you, but it's a situation that's come up in the past in other leagues.

That, and the newbie abuse, are the two times i'd say it is okay to object to a trade. Since there's nobody here i'd call a newbie, the latter isn't a real issue - but why tempt fate with the tempers we have in here as it is ...

Giving the league managers as a group veto power rather than one person is generally going to avoid this issue but not veto trades too often (especially if you set the bar high at like 5 or 6 veto votes).

[Asher]

I think if there's a case of collaboration, that can be handled through these forums and not through a veto system in Yahoo.

The veto system in Yahoo is something that can and probably would be abused. Any time in recent history I've made a trade proposal, certain people have jumped up and down screaming how it's unfair and I'd hate for them to be able to dictate who I can and can't add to my team.

[Sparrowhawk]

Snoopy's example is what I was trying to illustrate, but using NYE and Tingkair is probably better yet .

I just want to eliminate the possibility and the potential conflict later. I don't believe it is something that is likely to happen, I just want to eliminate the possibility of it happening.

Asher wants the league to have a no veto rule.
The league is currently set up to have the commissioner have the veto power.

Neither of the two absolutes is acceptable to me and I offer the common middle ground which I believe is the opinion of the majority of the league.

/me

[snoopy369]

I think it's obvious from the posts in the last two pages of this thread that at least four of us wouldn't veto anything that wasn't blatant. From the list of players I can add two more to that list. Therefore, I have no doubt that setting the bar to 7 vetos (half+1) would be more than enough to prevent any vetos of non-blatant trades.

Doing it through the forums is a bad, bad idea. Then you end up with arguments and recriminations, and it's functionally no different than doing it through yahoo - at the end of the day, either X number of people vote against it and quash it, or they don't. At least through yahoo, it's straight up votes.

As long as you don't plan on making any predatory trades, I wouldn't worry about it

[Asher]

Asher wants the league to have a no veto rule.
The league is currently set up to have the commissioner have the veto power.

You misrepresent my stance.

I want to have a no veto rule in Yahoo, but deal with issues like accusing people of conspiring to the forums. What's to prevent people from voting for trades they see as improving the team infront of them in the standings, or gaining on it?

What you're asking to do is put the veto power in the hands of your competitors. That's something that I find to be absurd. But in the case of genuine collaboration or other cheating, we can resolve this through the forums. The group-vote veto system can be used (and has been used in other leagues) to prevent your competitor from getting better.

snoopy: I take it you've never been in a Yahoo league where people abuse the veto system to prevent their competitors from improving their teams. It usually happens towards the end of the season, because the people in the top half tend to be the most active people who tend to be the people who actually log in and veto. And when a majority of them veto a trade (to prevent the other active manager from benefiting their team), no one can make any trades. That's never happened to you in a yahoo league, in any other sport?

And as for making "predatory trades", the example notyoueither is an example of what many consider to be a predatory trade. The reason it's such a brilliant example is that it DID happen here, and people DID vote to block it. And in the end, the person it was predatory against would have benefitted the most from it. I think what many people view to be a predatory trade is not universal, and not that relevant. What's important is preventing collaboration, which has nothing to do with Yahoo's veto system at all.

[snoopy369]

You trust us not to make trades that are disadvantageous, but not to be honest in trade votes? You are not being consistent sir

I will not veto a trade that is not blatantly unfair (ie, bottom rung for top rung) and even then I'd not likely veto it. Sparrow has said the same. You've said the same. Guynemer has implied the same. That's four that will not veto any trades outside of absurd circumstances. My personal experience leads me to believe that Imran and Jonny would do the same, and I suspect but don't know that's the case with several others that I don't know as well.

The only problem I see is when 2 or 3 vetos is all that's necessary. That makes it a lot more open to abuse, and easier to block a trade for non-legit reasons. Set the bar to 6 or 7 vetos and there's no risk of that happening in my opinion.

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
You trust us not to make trades that are disadvantageous, but not to be honest in trade votes? You are not being consistent sir

Trade votes can be anonymous. Why would you trust anyone to do that?

Further, historically I can point to people abusing this in this league, and in others.

I will not veto a trade that is not blatantly unfair (ie, bottom rung for top rung) and even then I'd not likely veto it. Sparrow has said the same. You've said the same. Guynemer has implied the same. That's four that will not veto any trades outside of absurd circumstances. My personal experience leads me to believe that Imran and Jonny would do the same, and I suspect but don't know that's the case with several others that I don't know as well.

Imran was one of the people who did veto in your example. So much for your theory.

Further, people say that now but it's another thing when you're battling hard with the person and you think that the trade will likely benefit them. The veto system is far more likely to be abused than to have someone in this league, in this community, give up all hope and give best players away for scraps. If that does happen, we can deal with it in other ways than the exploitable veto system.

[Sparrowhawk]

Edit: Weird cross delayed double post deleted.

I've said my piece on this topic and believe we are all basically in agreement on the issue, just a matter of determining it's implementation.

/me

[snoopy369]

(The second half of the DanS):

The trade NYE suggested was not a predatory trade in my book, though like I said it probably depends on the goalie. It would also depend on the people involved - but likely i'd not object to it.

And to the yahoo part - perhaps I have more faith in my fellow man than you, or at least more faith in seven of them. I don't know the situations you've had in the past, but in my experience you tend to think that you're right no matter what... If Imran thought it was unfair at the time, i'd probably believe that, not knowing anything else about the trade.

I state again: What's the difference between having 7 votes veto a trade, and 7 people agree to veto the trade in the forum? In the veto system, seven votes vetoes a trade, no question. In the second, how do we determine that enough people agree to veto it, and if seven vote to veto it, how do we cancel the trade?

[snoopy369]

BTW, lost in this is the lack of Flubber... hurry up and take the RW that I want

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
(The second half of the DanS):

The trade NYE suggested was not a predatory trade in my book, though like I said it probably depends on the goalie. It would also depend on the people involved - but likely i'd not object to it.

And to the yahoo part - perhaps I have more faith in my fellow man than you, or at least more faith in seven of them. I don't know the situations you've had in the past, but in my experience you tend to think that you're right no matter what... If Imran thought it was unfair at the time, i'd probably believe that, not knowing anything else about the trade.

The trade was between me and MrBoo. I offered Huet for Kariya. Huet was provably a very strong goalie before, and continued being a VERY strong goalie throughout the remainder of the season.

After the trade was vetoed, I kept Huet and he kept Kariya. He finished last in the league, I finished 3rd (IIRC) and was buoyed by Huet's strong goaltending to that place.

Virtually everyone in the league called it a predatory trade and vetoed it.

I state again: What's the difference between having 7 votes veto a trade, and 7 people agree to veto the trade in the forum? In the veto system, seven votes vetoes a trade, no question. In the second, how do we determine that enough people agree to veto it, and if seven vote to veto it, how do we cancel the trade?

In the veto system, vetoes are anonymous.

Is that not a HUGE difference? Personal accountability.

Not to mention, I don't think if people think it's "predatory" that they should veto it. As has been displayed historically here, what people think is predatory is not always the case.

What I want to prevent is collaboration, not a seemingly predatory trade. The reason I loathe the veto system is most of my trades have historically been deemed "predatory" by many here, when they really aren't.