Trading rules discussion (see post 50)

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Here's my idea: 8 trade max, vetoed trades count towards the max. No more than 5 assets per team can be traded at a time.

Simple, easy to administer, and would stop the excessive trading (and attempts at pushing through lopsided trades) that pissed people off last time without affecting team building strategies for the large majority of GMs.

Other ideas are welcome, so long as they fit the intention of the option that won.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

We also need to decide if we are going to allow trading on the clock. My opinion: There is no way to completely stop it if GMs are sneaky, sometimes trading on the clock actually speeds things up rather than slowing things down, and if we're giving GMs a certain length of time to pick, they should be able to do whatever they want with it.

So we should just give up the well-intentioned penalties for trading on the clock and allow it completely.

 

[overpass]

We also need to decide if we are going to allow trading on the clock. My opinion: There is no way to completely stop it if GMs are sneaky, sometimes trading on the clock actually speeds things up rather than slowing things down, and if we're giving GMs a certain length of time to pick, they should be able to do whatever they want with it.

So we should just give up the well-intentioned penalties for trading on the clock and allow it completely.

I agree that there are cases where trading on the clock is fine. But I'd rather not see someone taking their full clock all the time because they're taking and making trade offers. Allowing trading on the clock with a penalty could be a compromise in that it allows trading on the clock when necessary, but discourages the practice.

In any case, whether there is a penalty or not, the main deterrent against trading on the clock should be consideration for your fellow GMs. If someone wants to be a rules lawyer there's only so much we can do to prevent that.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I agree that there are cases where trading on the clock is fine. But I'd rather not see someone taking their full clock all the time because they're taking and making trade offers. Allowing trading on the clock with a penalty could be a compromise in that it allows trading on the clock when necessary, but discourages the practice.

In any case, whether there is a penalty or not, the main deterrent against trading on the clock should be consideration for your fellow GMs. If someone wants to be a rules lawyer there's only so much we can do to prevent that.

In ATD 2012, we had a 1 hour clock penalty for trading on the clock and it didn't seem to stop anyone.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Here's my idea: 8 trade max, vetoed trades count towards the max. No more than 5 assets per team can be traded at a time.

Simple, easy to administer, and would stop the excessive trading (and attempts at pushing through lopsided trades) that pissed people off last time without affecting team building strategies for the large majority of GMs.

Other ideas are welcome, so long as they fit the intention of the option that won.

Agree with this.

A minor penalty for trading on the clock is fine. I get it when it's pending availability trades. But when teams are actively shopping their pick on the clock it can be irritating.

May I suggest that if a team has two trades vetoed, then they can no longer make trades. This would help prevent teams that just start trying to game the system.

 

[Sturminator]

For the penalty against trading on the clock, may I suggest that such deals count as 2 trades against the 8 maximum? That is a meaningful penalty (especially for LF-style traders, which is pretty much what we're trying to prevent) without being draconian.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

May I suggest that if a team has two trades vetoed, then they can no longer make trades. This would help prevent teams that just start trying to game the system.

I would be quite happy with this, but it could run into strong opposition.

For the penalty against trading on the clock, may I suggest that such deals count as 2 trades against the 8 maximum? That is a meaningful penalty (especially for LF-style traders, which is pretty much what we're trying to prevent) without being draconian.

If we're going to have a penalty against trading on the clock at all, I really like this one. Addresses the issue much more directly than taking an hour from the clock.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

For the penalty against trading on the clock, may I suggest that such deals count as 2 trades against the 8 maximum? That is a meaningful penalty (especially for LF-style traders, which is pretty much what we're trying to prevent) without being draconian.

I support this. With 8 trades, being knocked down to 6 or 7 won't hurt anyone, but it means teams have a 4 trade cap if on the clock trading only. Which is still reasonable. (For whatever reason, I find 4-5 trades are usually a nice level.

 

[VanIslander]

God help the administrator(s)! It's a lot of work to keep track of the trades. Surely the MODs will help out.

 

[BenchBrawl]

5 assets is too much in my opinion , 4 assets sounds better.

 

[BenchBrawl]

For the penalty against trading on the clock, may I suggest that such deals count as 2 trades against the 8 maximum? That is a meaningful penalty (especially for LF-style traders, which is pretty much what we're trying to prevent) without being draconian.

Really good idea , but I also suggest that a GM won't be penalize if his trade happens in the first hour of his clock.This is in case the GM was waiting for the GM picking before him to see who he was going to pick.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

God help the administrator(s)! It's a lot of work to keep track of the trades. Surely the MODs will help out.

What we did last time worked pretty well - a non-mod makes the threads - it could be the same person every time or different people - and mods help edit the OP.

With the worst excesses in trading prohibited, it should be significantly easier than last time to keep up. The biggest reason I preferred loosely restricted trading to unrestricted trading myself is because it should significantly reduce the workload of the administrators from what it was last time, without affecting the large majority of GMs.

 

[ck26]

So loose restrictions wins. Hopefully, we can have a civil (and short) discussion about what that exactly means.

This sounds like the United Nations.

100% agreement that we condemn terrorist groups. 0% agreement about whether Israel or HAMAS is the terrorist group.

 

[BenchBrawl]

This sounds like the United Nations.

100% agreement that we condemn terrorist groups. 0% agreement about whether Israel or HAMAS is the terrorist group.

The terrorists aren't in the draft thankfully

But they still had enough impact on our nerves that we just had to talk over these issues before beginning.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

But they still had enough impact on our nerves that we just had to talk over these issues before beginning.

To add to this, there hasn't been a board-wide discussion on draft rules in years. ATD2011 was a gong show leading up to the draft (everyone who was there knows what happened), and ATD2012 was rushed to start a week early without any real discussion of the rules. I don't remember how the rules were set before then (I've been around since ATD12, which was in 2009), but I don't feel like I was ever part of a serious discussion.

And every single draft there are problems and GMs complain either about the rules, or about things that could have easily been prevented if we talked about the rules.

Hopefully, this upcoming draft runs smoothly and we can use the same rules (or only make minor tweaks) in future drafts. And hopefully, there will be much less complaining during the actual draft because everyone who wants to has had input into the rules.

 

[BenchBrawl]

To add to this, there hasn't been a board-wide discussion on draft rules in years, if there ever was. ATD2011 was a gong show leading up to the draft (everyone who was there knows what happened), and ATD2012 was rushed to start a week early without any real discussion of the rules. I don't remember how the rules were set before then, but I don't remember any real discussion ever.

And every single draft there are problems and GMs complain either about the rules, or about things that could have easily been prevented if we talked about the rules.

Hopefully, this upcoming draft runs smoothly and we can use the same rules (or only make minor tweaks) in future drafts. And hopefully, there will be much less complaining during the actual draft because everyone who wants to has had input into the rules.

I feel like the ATD is something that is enjoyable and important enough that we should try to do it in a professionnal matter.A community/society that is structured and organized is always a superior one and things tend to run more smoothly because of it.Of course , every community/society that ever existed took time to evolve.I feel like we're getting there.The voting process was quite messy this year , but I feel like we did a giant step towards a more structured system.

We now have voted on a couple of things , and we'll see the results in the next few months.I hope the draft will run smoothly , but even a smooth draft will probably have a couple of problems and we'll try to fix them next year and so on...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I feel like the ATD is something that is enjoyable and important enough that we should try to do it in a professionnal matter.A community/society that is structured and organized is always a superior one and things tend to run more smoothly because of it.Of course , every community/society that ever existed took time to evolve.I feel like we're getting there.The voting process was quite messy this year , but I feel like we did a giant step towards a more structured system.

We now have voted on a couple of things , and we'll see the results in the next few months.I hope the draft will run smoothly , but even a smooth draft will probably have a couple of problems and we'll try to fix them next year and so on...

If the tradeoff is more bickering in the 2 weeks before the draft in exchange for less bickering during the 3 or so months that the draft takes, it's a tradeoff I would make every time.

 

[BenchBrawl]

If the tradeoff is more bickering in the 2 weeks before the draft in exchange for less bickering during the 3 or so months that the draft takes, it's a tradeoff I would make every time.

My point was that one day we might have set dates for everything consistantly every year.Beginning of the draft , pre-draft discussions and votings , etc...

I agree with you though.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

5 assets is too much in my opinion , 4 assets sounds better.

After re-skimming the first few pages of the planning thread and finding this:

Number of Trades Made Sorted By Assets Per Team
2 Assets/Team - 28 trades
3 - 16
4 - 5
5 - 1
6 - 1

Average Number of Assets Per Team = 2.65


*Note, these numbers are for approved trades only, they do not account for vetoed trades

I tend to agree with you.

 

[BenchBrawl]

no point in 5 assets trades , even 4 assets trades are rare and only needed when you really have to give a lot more later in order to boost a higher pick.

not to mention 5 assets trades is more difficult to judge for the veto committee.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

no point in 5 assets trades , even 4 assets trades are rare and only needed when you really have to give a lot more later in order to boost a higher pick.

not to mention 5 assets trades is more difficult to judge for the veto committee.

Much more difficult

 

[Sturminator]

Yeah...I think four is a more rational upper boundary.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Four is an actual boundary. But not an unreasonable one.

 

[EagleBelfour]

I'll 4th the proposition of a 4 assets per team.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I don't like the penalty for trading on the clock at all. If we are giving GMs a certain amount of time each pick then they should be allowed to use that time however they see fit. There's absolutely no difference between someone using their entire clock to try to make a trade and using the clock to do research or to do some other non-ATD activity. Why is the person that's trading punished, but not the guy who waits till the last minute to do his player research or the guy who doesn't log on all day to see if it's his turn? There is a wide array of activities that hold up the draft...only one of them comes with a penalty. There's no solution, we just have to put trust in our fellow GMs to make their picks in a timely manner.


As a compromise, their should at least be a window in which trading is allowed. If someone is able to get a deal done without using an excessive amount of their clock then who cares? Either put a set time limit on it (within the first two hours), or base it on the total clock length (no penalty if the trade is made before 25% of your clock has elapsed).