Well-intentioned seasoned GMs bickering about the rules

[seventieslord]

when I have mod powers, I'll do that. also, if moving posts is easy, I'll move all the non-signup posts into a bickering thread.

 

[jarek]

So then we're shortening the clocks, right? Because 12 hours per person with 40 teams is going to take FOREVERRRRRRRRRRRR...

 

[Leafs Forever]

So then we're shortening the clocks, right? Because 12 hours per person with 40 teams is going to take FOREVERRRRRRRRRRRR...

Certainly true.

I'd probably say start with less time but do a more gradual reduction of time.

 

[seventieslord]

absolutely. It will be as usual - longer clocks to start, shorter later on, lists highly encouraged.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

In a 40 team draft, I definitely don't; think GMs should have a guaranteed 4 hour clock no matter how many picks they miss, at least not in the final rounds when we are just all picking spares and itching to get the playoffs started.

 

[seventieslord]

In a 40 team draft, I definitely don't; think GMs should have a guaranteed 4 hour clock no matter how many picks they miss, at least not in the final rounds when we are just all picking spares and itching to get the playoffs started.

i don't think so either. if you've been skipped four times, particularly earlier on in the draft when you had a longer clock, and it's now late in the draft, your clock should be 4 - 4 = 0 hours. Especially when we're getting to the 1000-pick mark here.

I would settle for a one hour minimum though.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

i don't think so either. if you've been skipped four times, particularly earlier on in the draft when you had a longer clock, and it's now late in the draft, your clock should be 4 - 4 = 0 hours. Especially when we're getting to the 1000-pick mark here.

I would settle for a one hour minimum though.

I would be fine with a one hour minimum, as well.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So um... is it time to start talking about trades? Should we make a new thread or just discuss here?

Personally, I'm fine with the rules for trading that we had last time. If we do that, I'll post a few examples early in the draft thread about the kind of trades that GMs generally consider fine and ones that are generally considered lopsided. I've found that every trade anyone has ever had a problem with involves one GM overpaying to move up to grab a specific player, which then of course leaves the other GM with a windfall and a competitive advantage over every other GM. Maybe all we need are guidelines at the beginning of the draft to remind GMs what kind of trades annoy other GMs....

If other GMs want a no-trade draft or trading only in one conference, I'm fine with that too. With 40 teams, the ATD should be more than fresh enough where we don't need trading to shake things up.

I just have 2 big requests when it comes to trading:

1) No completely unlimited trading. Really lopsided trades should be vetoable. But then hopefully that doesn't happen (there have only been 2 vetoed trades in ATD history, right? And both were just re-worked between the two GMs).

2) No 24 hour rule on trades like in ATD12. It was well intentioned, but once GMs found a way around it, it did nothing but hold up the draft.

Also, as funny as the thread title is, perhaps it should be something simpler like "ATD 2011 rules discussion." We don't want to encourage bickering, do we?

 

[Leafs Forever]

I'm starting to really doubt ever being able to find a suitable method of restricting trades. Some sort of uniform standard is very hard to do, and as I said earlier, coming to a consensus on Veto is nearly impossible, it seems.

Making some guidlines would be a good step. I think in general if a trade gets controversial enough and enough people angry, GMs should consider redoing it. (as long as complaints are well intentioned, I suppose).

 

[seventieslord]

how about this:

- same as last time, limit of three trades for all teams.
- if a trade is deemed controversial, a private vote is held and only 1/3 of the vote is needed to veto it (1/3 means that as many as 14 teams could have an issue with it so that should be more than enough)

 

[Leafs Forever]

how about this:

- same as last time, limit of three trades for all teams.
- if a trade is deemed controversial, a private vote is held and only 1/3 of the vote is needed to veto it (1/3 means that as many as 14 teams could have an issue with it so that should be more than enough)

Seems reasonable, though I might allow a slightly higher limit on trades given more teams may mean more trading opportunities.

 

[seventieslord]

Seems reasonable, though I might allow a slightly higher limit on trades given more teams may mean more trading opportunities.

I thought about that too. I'd look at 4 or 5 for sure. I'm a guy whose preference is that it's unlimited and am just trying to find the best solution for all. I'd like to see what others say about the status quo.

 

[hfboardsuser]

I thought about that too. I'd look at 4 or 5 for sure. I'm a guy whose preference is that it's unlimited and am just trying to find the best solution for all. I'd like to see what others say about the status quo.

I know the horse died some time ago and we're still bludgeoning it, but are two conferences with different trade rules still a possibility? I think it makes the most sense; the purists can have their no-trade environment, while everyone else will be able to have their fun.

 

[VanIslander]

Two recommendations:

1. Have a trade committee to review trades. (e.g., only one of the members need to be online to approve a trade, three of them to reject/require restructuring. Have 5 or 6 trade committee members). This way approvals are quick because there's no need to wait for the admin. to log on, and reviewing trades can be done in a focused way by a few reasoning about it without requiring the masses to concern themselves with it (unless they want to join the committee or petition a committee member about a particular trade).

2. Have a ATD 2011 Trade Thread for all offers, discussions, accepting and confirming of trades. It was hard enough finding offers and figuring out trades in a 28 team draft. In a 40 team draft the drafting thread will be busy enough without trade talk noise.

 

[DoMakc]

The biggest problem with trading was IMO the overpayment by GM who trades up. How about following rule: if 5 (3, 7, 10) GMs veto the trade, the one who traded down sticks with the selection until the trade is reworked (and if they can't find a solution that satisfy almost everybody, he gets a player he may not want). This way we don't lose any time for voting and the draft can go on, and both parties share responsibility for the trade and nobody can say: "It way HIS idea, i just accepted it."

 

[seventieslord]

I know the horse died some time ago and we're still bludgeoning it, but are two conferences with different trade rules still a possibility? I think it makes the most sense; the purists can have their no-trade environment, while everyone else will be able to have their fun.

I see downsides to it as well; for example, if you want to trade, the number of teams you can trade with is instantly cut in half.

Anyway, this should be a votable option if we go with trades. Which I'm pretty sure we are. The "absolutely no trades" option is pretty much dead so I should start a poll regarding what direction to take trading.

Two recommendations:

1. Have a trade committee to review trades. (e.g., only one of the members need to be online to approve a trade, three of them to reject/require restructuring. Have 5 or 6 trade committee members). This way approvals are quick because there's no need to wait for the admin. to log on, and reviewing trades can be done in a focused way by a few reasoning about it without requiring the masses to concern themselves with it (unless they want to join the committee or petition a committee member about a particular trade).

I second this. As the admin, I will be part of the committee. I would like some experienced GMs to join. regardless of what trading variant is ultimately decided, I am committed to being much more picky than we've been in the past, about what goes through. I want trading to be painless for everyone who isn't gung-ho about it.

2. Have a ATD 2011 Trade Thread for all offers, discussions, accepting and confirming of trades. It was hard enough finding offers and figuring out trades in a 28 team draft. In a 40 team draft the drafting thread will be busy enough without trade talk noise.

Absolutely. I will enforce this with all the power vested in me.

The biggest problem with trading was IMO the overpayment by GM who trades up. How about following rule: if 5 (3, 7, 10) GMs veto the trade, the one who traded down sticks with the selection until the trade is reworked (and if they can't find a solution that satisfy almost everybody, he gets a player he may not want). This way we don't lose any time for voting and the draft can go on, and both parties share responsibility for the trade and nobody can say: "It way HIS idea, i just accepted it."

This sounds doable, except change to "if the trade committee vetoes the trade..."

also, I would not count it as a trade for the team that got "stuck" with the possibly unwanted player, in the event that they wanted to trade that player.

 

[DoMakc]

I see downsides to it as well; for example, if you want to trade, the number of teams you can trade with is instantly cut in half.

Anyway, this should be a votable option if we go with trades. Which I'm pretty sure we are. The "absolutely no trades" option is pretty much dead so I should start a poll regarding what direction to take trading.



I second this. As the admin, I will be part of the committee. I would like some experienced GMs to join. regardless of what trading variant is ultimately decided, I am committed to being much more picky than we've been in the past, about what goes through. I want trading to be painless for everyone who isn't gung-ho about it.



Absolutely. I will enforce this with all the power vested in me.



This sounds doable, except change to "if the trade committee vetoes the trade..."

also, I would not count it as a trade for the team that got "stuck" with the possibly unwanted player, in the event that they wanted to trade that player.

you seem to enjoy your newfound modpower . (Than it wasn't the smartest post on my part ).

 

[seventieslord]

before I do a draft order and divisional alignment, we need to know if there's going to be a "no trade" conference. I'm going to start a final poll.

Once trades are worked out for sure, there's one more thing I need to know. Do you care if you're in the same division as some of the same GMs as before? OK, all of them would be difficult, but what I could do is make it so that no one is in the same division as anyone they had a playoff series against last draft. I could just run random orders until I get an order that translates to an alignment that ensures no repeat playoff matchups within the division. Is that worth it? It's an idea I like but haven't heard much on it aside from TDMM.

 

[jarek]

I would like to be in a division with GMs I haven't seen in the playoffs before. It's going to be really boring if I have to face BRG for the third time in a row..