Would this still be considered collusion in a total points league? If both sides think they're helping their team and getting a great deal, and no opponents "lose their game" because team A or B had a player on their roster just for that week, are the teams conspiring against the rest of the league?
I always thought that if two teams both genuinely think they're getting a good deal and helping their team, it's not collusion. But I can see the argument that some opponents could lose their game as a result of the timing of such a trade.
I don't need the "it's collusion just because it is" arguments that have nothing behind it. We get enough of that during the election season. I just want to know if anyone thinks the format of the league could make it a different scenario.
It isn't about whether it's "collusion", it's about whether it is unethical. As a commish I can go change my lineup to my optimum one. It isn't collusion, but it's unethical by most people's beliefs of what constitutes fair play and the spirit of a game, and should still be stopped.No different here. People spend half the thread debating if it's "collusion" and never bother to focus on the real question that should be asked, is it unethical to pool your roster space. There's plenty of ways to commit acts that others would generally consider cheating, where everyone involved benefits in some way.
BINGO! We need to stop dissecting the word collusion. Just simply ask yourself, "If
I wasn't the one doing this - would I feel cheated? Actually I take that back - after some of the posts I've read here, not everyone is able to muster that level of self honesty.
This makes no sense. The thread title reads, "Is this collusion"? In order to discuss that topic, you necessarily have to understand what the word means. Under the common understanding of that word, the trade listed here is quite plainly not collusive in any respect, as there is no secrecy, fraud or deceit involved. Such things can't possibly be present when all essential terms of the deal are publicly announced in advance for the whole league to see and consider. Whether someone not party to the deal "feels cheated" is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. OF COURSE THIS DOESN'T MEAN THE TRADE IS LEGAL, ETHICAL OR GENERALLY A GOOD IDEA.We all agree that trades of this nature may be illegal in some leagues, but to have that discussion we have to have the league rules in question, or the discussion is entirely meaningless. If we want to discuss ethics, that seems to be an entirely different discussion. For example, in some leagues we can trade players for draft picks the following year. In other leagues that is not allowed. Does that mean this is an ethical issue? Of course not, it all depends on what the league rules say.
In understanding what the word means, shouldn't we realize that many people use "collusion" as a very general term for a range of unethical actions, not all of which fit the more specific dictionary definition? And recognizing this, then answer the question it seems the OP was trying to ask (or should have asked) which is, "is this action unethical?"
ETA: To use a wording that MT uses which seems appropriate... "I'm going to answer the question I think you meant to ask..."
I would not assume the OP was trying to ask a different question than he asked, but I understand the desire to do so. Not to be cute or trite at all, just noting that in many cases a given trade does suggest collusion (meaning, a trade that on its face suggests fraud or deceit). In those cases, the opinions of a large group of disinterested people can be helpful. In this case, I think the answer is clearly no - there is no collusion here - and I think being precise with terminology is helpful in these discussions because some trades are offensive specifically because they are collusive, while others may be non-collusive but nonetheless offensive because they are illegal or unethical. Therefore, I think it is misleading and confusing to say this trade should not be allowed because it amounts to collusion. The reason it is important is because, if you are in a league where this type of thing might happen, it is important to have written rules that set forth was is and is not allowed in clear terms.
On the contrary, since we're nitpicking semantics here, here's a definition of collusion in financial markets
efinition
In the study of economics and market competition, collusion takes place within an industry when rival companies cooperate for their mutual benefit. Collusion most often takes place within the market form of oligopoly, where the decision of a few firms to collude can significantly impact the market as a whole. Cartels are a special case of explicit collusion. Collusion which is not overt, on the other hand, is known as tacit collusion.
Seems if we're speaking metaphorically,
the definition above describes the situation in this thread to a tee.
