VOTE ... what trading rules to have

[VanIslander]

Any and all past and current all-time draft GMs, please vote on this thread for one of these three options:

OPTION ONE: SAME ROUND TRADING ONLY. This, in effect, minimizes trading, letting a GM trade up or down in a round, sacrificing or gaining position in subsequent rounds, but not trading out of rounds. No limit on the number of such minor trades.

OPTION TWO: THE THREE TRADE, THREE OBJECTOR RULE. Make whatever trade you want but if three GMs object to a trade then it is vetoed. And a team maximum of three trades.

OPTION THREE: SAME AS LAST DRAFT. Basically trade as often as you want, and as you want, but if there's an objection to a particular trade, then we vote on whether to accept a trade or veto it, where majority opinion wins, minority opinion sucks eggs.

Click to read more...

 

[Rzeznik]

Option 2 makes the most sense, IMO. It monitors the trading, without letting it get too out of hand, but it also keeps things interesting.

 

[VanIslander]

I vote for Option 1

(but option two is not bad)

 

[Dwight]

I like Option 2 also

 

[Jungosi]

I like Option 2.

 

[Heat McManus]

option 3

 

[Reds4Life]

option 1

 

[Leafs Forever]

I to think Option 2 makes the most sense.

 

[chaosrevolver]

OPTION THREE: SAME AS LAST DRAFT. Basically trade as often as you want, and as you want, but if there's an objection to a particular trade, then we vote on whether to accept a trade or veto it, where majority opinion wins, minority opinion sucks eggs.

Option 2 could really screw around with the clock waiting for more than a few people to veto it.

 

[Hedberg]

Option 2

 

[pappyline]

Option 2

 

[vancityluongo]

OPTION THREE: SAME AS LAST DRAFT. Basically trade as often as you want, and as you want, but if there's an objection to a particular trade, then we vote on whether to accept a trade or veto it, where majority opinion wins, minority opinion sucks eggs.

Option 2 could really screw around with the clock waiting for more than a few people to veto it.

3 would be worse. Do you remember how long it took to settle the papershoes-EB trade?

I vote Option 2.

 

[chaosrevolver]

3 would be worse. Do you remember how long it took to settle the papershoes-EB trade?

I vote Option 2.

Id rather have GM's just do what they want. We are allowed to pick any player we want..why not trade whatever we want. It's our responsibility to make great picks...just like it would be to make great trades. You make a mistake, it's your fault.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Option 3.

Only once in the 11 ATDs has a stink been brought up over a trade.

The only trade rule I want to see is no trading while you are on the clock.

 

[seventieslord]

I prefer option 3. We just have to be more vigilant. But obviously I'd settle for option 2.

 

[vancityluongo]

Just thought about this a bit more, and I apologize in advance for making it even more complicated but...

Can I propose a Option 4, combining options 1 and 2? You get the three veto three trade, and once that's expired for you team, you're still allowed in round trades? Makes it more complex to monitor and understand, but we're all smart people, I'm sure we could handle it just fine, right?

 

[VanIslander]

Option 2

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I've never done an ATD before, but out of curiosity, with 28 or 32 teams, why just 3 objectors (for option 2)? Obviously GMs here are much more serious than normal fantasy hockey GMs, but in the fantasy hockey I've played, there are guys who will veto just about every trade. Or are you so confident of the quality of ATD GMs that it won't be an issue that it only requires a couple of jerks to basically negate every trade?

 

[arrbez]

Option 1

 

[hfboardsuser]

Option 3, although I would be a proponent for an Option 4, IE no trades (although I was the greatest offender last time).

 

[seventieslord]

Just thought about this a bit more, and I apologize in advance for making it even more complicated but...

Can I propose a Option 4, combining options 1 and 2? You get the three veto three trade, and once that's expired for you team, you're still allowed in round trades? Makes it more complex to monitor and understand, but we're all smart people, I'm sure we could handle it just fine, right?

I think we could handle it. That's not bad at all.

I've never done an ATD before, but out of curiosity, with 28 or 32 teams, why just 3 objectors (for option 2)? Obviously GMs here are much more serious than normal fantasy hockey GMs, but in the fantasy hockey I've played, there are guys who will veto just about every trade. Or are you so confident of the quality of ATD GMs that it won't be an issue that it only requires a couple of jerks to basically negate every trade?

I trust my fellow GMs on this.

The danger is them being too lenient like they were last time. I'm not worried about them being too strict. And I have never seen any hints of someone doing anything underhanded to give themselves a competitive advantage (like, for example, trading ahead of a guy who gave you a list because he wants your guy)

 

[DoMakc]

ugh, i really don't care. the only option I don't like is the second - i think everybody has made his ultimate veto experience with fantasy hockey, i'm open to all other options, no-trade one inclusive.

 

[papershoes]

either of options one or two are fine with me

 

[EagleBelfour]

Option 2 - But IMO it would have to be 5 or 6 GM to vetoed a trade. In my opinion, these trades rules are only there to prevent very lopsided trade to happen, not vetoing a trade some GM feel one team won over another.

 

[pitseleh]

I prefer option 1.