VOTE ... what trading rules to have

[seventieslord]

4-9-5 at the moment.

 

[Sturminator]

If option 1 was slightly more relaxed (like - can't jump or fall more than 60 slots - essentially two rounds - in any piece of a trade instead of having to stay within the same round), I would probably vote for it, but as it stands now, option 1 is overly restrictive. The problem with the questionable deal in ATD#11 was that a couple parts had one side bailing out from the mid rounds (6th - 8th) to the 23rd-24th, which is unacceptable.

Anyway, I vote option 2.

 

[nik jr]

option 2

 

[Leaf Lander]

Option Two: The Three Trade, Three Objector Rule.

 

[Dreakmur]

Option 3 -- whatever you want.

As someone else already brought up, there should be a rule against trading while you're on the clock.

 

[raleh]

Option three but no trading while you're on the clock.

Also, we play by the DBAD rule (don't be a dick).

 

[seventieslord]

4-12-8.

 

[camperjr]

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.

What he said

Option 3

 

[God Bless Canada]

I'm not a fan of vetos. Period. If we're going to have vetos, then appoint a three-person committee to vote on "suspect" trades.

I like the idea of a no-trade draft. Failing that, the option in which GMs can only move up and down in rounds.

 

[VanIslander]

I like the idea of a no-trade draft. Failing that, the option in which GMs can only move up and down in rounds.

option one then

5-12-9 so far

(by the way, a "veto" protest is nothing more than "a call to re-work a deal" and under that option if one or two GMs protest a trade it still goes through, needs three who think it's not a fair trade)

 

[EagleBelfour]

option one then

5-12-9 so far

(by the way, a "veto" protest is nothing more than "a call to re-work a deal" and under that option if one or two GMs protest a trade it still goes through, needs three who think it's not a fair trade)

There is a difference between a trade we do not think is ''fair'' and a ''veto-worthy'' trade.

 

[VanIslander]

There is a difference between a trade we do not think is ''fair'' and a ''veto-worthy'' trade.

Look, if three GMs think a trade is unfair then it shoud be re-worked, period. That's option 2.

 

[Leafs Forever]

A big part in supporting option 2 is the integrity of ATD GM's: if you think it's good, I don't see a problem. I think most people have enough common sense to not try to veto an unfair trade, but save their vetoing for extremely one-sided ones, a-la that 1st round trade you guys had much controvery over last time.

 

[VanIslander]

24 more hours to vote, but option 2 appears to be the winner