Commissioner Collusion - what say you? - Update - I’m playing the sketchy commish in the semi’s and Thomas is out (1 Viewer)

[Babooya]

. 

No, I’m calling out illogical arguments and projection. If that upsets you, stop being illogical and projecting. 

You believe your personal sense of ethics should be judge and jury in the absence of rules. Which is perfectly fine in the off-season to discuss and implement. Once the season starts rules are rules. They are followed or broken, and everyone should be competing as hard as possible under that same set of rules until they are changed

 

[davearm]

Maybe you just didn't know it happened.  It was done in secret and only brought to the forefront when the guy was questioned about it and he begrudgingly confessed.

I agree though.  I doubt this has happened much because it is unethical and fairly easy to spot (not starting an obvious starter that you just traded for as an example).  As a commish I do allow conditional trades however all of the conditions must be in the comments of the acceptance on the website.  Also, conditions cannot involve "players to be named later" or getting players back if conditions are not met.  The only conditions we allow are change in draft pick rounds if certain conditions are met.  For example, the pick becomes a first rounder if I win the league.  It stays a 3rd rounder if I don't type of thing.  

Bottom line everything has to be out in the open.  Once you hide something then it becomes shady.  If the trading partners would have made this condition public I am sure the league would have spoke up and it would never have gone through and the fact they kept it hidden leads me to believe they didn't think it was right either.  

Yep.  These two guys' actions of keeping the condition secret, then lying about it, reveals quite obviously their state of mind about the rightness/wrongness of what they were doing.

 

[Gally]

Then why even make decisions? Everyone should just be mandated to submit a lineup based on projections. 
 

If you want to start Kallen Ballage over David Montgomery, to bad, you can’t because of projections. 
 

The irony is MT had a bad week and the complainer is probably really upset because the sub WR had a better day than MT. 

This is why you just let people run their team their way. 

That is not the point at all.  If the new owner of Mike Thomas felt he had a bad matchup and thought someone else was a better play then that is his prerogative.   That is not the case here.  In this case Team A and B combined teams for one week to give Team B the better chance to win on paper and kept that secret from the rest of the league.  This is the issue.  Not the actual lineup, outcome, or anything else. 

 

[I Am the Stig]

That's what the OP told us.

Really? The league put pressure? I’m sure a couple busy bodies, like the poster raised the issue but I doubt THE LEAGUE PRESSURED the owners. 
 

And who cares, it is my team to manage and I would have had no problem stating so if asked. 
 

The league can pressure all they want but in my opinion they are not entitled to the details. I’m entitled to run my team in my best interest as not the leagues best interest within the rules. There is no rule stating who I have to start just that I have a “legitimate” roster. I can’t start players on bye, or leave roster spots empty. 
 

And frankly, this is about the only way a deal can be made between two players facing each other that week and was likely necessary due to a looming trade deadline. 
 

One player was playing for this week and the other for the rest of the season. You’re not entitled to their priorities because they conflict with yours. BOTH parties felt the the trade was beneficial to each other or they would not have agreed. They both did what they felt made their teams competitive. This wasn’t a last place player who traded Dalvin Cook to the league leader with the stipulation to split the prize money. 

 

[Manster]

That is not the point at all.  If the new owner of Mike Thomas felt he had a bad matchup and thought someone else was a better play then that is his prerogative.   That is not the case here.  In this case Team A and B combined teams for one week to give Team B the better chance to win on paper and kept that secret from the rest of the league.  This is the issue.  Not the actual lineup, outcome, or anything else. 

This 1000%!!!

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Fair point, counter point is that commish thinks MT side won the trade (but trade is considered ‘fair’ outside of the condition being argued), so is colluding to tank or improving his team?

I’m not sure what that’s relevant. It came after the trade. 

but now you aren’t arguing the condition, you are arguing the entire trade negotiation was done in bad faith, really can’t understand how you Intend to prove it given my above point. But if it was done in bad faith obv agree kick out the owners

I’m not saying that. I’m saying we don’t know. 

All we really know is that they did a shady thing as a side condition to the trade. 

the side condition appears to be in bad faith against the league. The evidence to draw this conclusion is that they subsequently lied about it. 

we can only go by the information we have.

1. they colluded to make a conditional side deal.

2. they lied to the league about #1

that seems unethical to me. You may draw your own conclusion. 

 

[Gally]

I admit not reading all 5 pages of comments...

My thoughts are "Conditional trades" are not permitted.  They create situations were ethics are being challenged.  This is a slippery slope and once on the hill, there is no real chance of stopping the slide to the dispersion of the league, especially if the commission is involved in the initial effort.  

If the conditions are made public and completely transparent then ethics shouldn't be challenged in most cases.  Obviously there are situations where it can be over the top but if it is transparent then the Commish can make adjustments accordingly.  We allow conditional trades as long as all conditions are included in the comments of the trade accetpance.  They cannot include players to be named later or the return of players.  It can include improvement of draft pick compensation if certain criteria are met (I win the title the pick increases from 3rd to 1st round)

The questionable ethics comes when secret conditions are instituted like in the OP's situations.  That is why this situation is the definition of collusion.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

By posting your own false equivalence?

It wasn’t a false equivalence. 

it was an analogy. 

unethical behavior is unethical behavior. Colluding with a trade partner is unethical.

stealing from charity is unethical.

it was suggested that explicit rules must be posted for this. My assertion is that people should know right from wrong.

and since the owners later lied about it, it seems they did understand that, which is why they lied to cover up their malfeasance. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

The questionable ethics comes when secret conditions are instituted like in the OP's situations.  That is why this situation is the definition of collusion.

Succinctly put and 100% correct. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

You believe your personal sense of ethics should be judge and jury in the absence of rules. Which is perfectly fine in the off-season to discuss and implement. Once the season starts rules are rules. They are followed or broken, and everyone should be competing as hard as possible under that same set of rules until they are changed

It has nothing to do with “my” sense of ethics. Ethics are ethics - they are universally applied.

thus my charity analogy. Ethical people wouldn’t engage in collusion. Unethical people would. 

ethical people don’t steal from charity. Unethical people would.

Society defines these things, I do not. I adhere to them. 

 

[I Am the Stig]

That is not the point at all.  If the new owner of Mike Thomas felt he had a bad matchup and thought someone else was a better play then that is his prerogative.   That is not the case here.  In this case Team A and B combined teams for one week to give Team B the better chance to win on paper and kept that secret from the rest of the league.  This is the issue.  Not the actual lineup, outcome, or anything else. 

And yet someone was obviously upset at the roster decision so they poked and prodded which sounds like some sour grapes. 
 

I would not have batted an eye at someone benching MT this season until he shows. And frankly, I would have easily agreed to the terms because, as stated already, I almost benched him myself. The MT owner doesn’t know this but my agreeing to those terms may not necessarily be incongruent with my intent. 
 

I want to get MT but for the future but I also need to SELL my cooperation to the owner to seal the deal. 
 

The league isn’t entitled to any of these personal tactical decisions. 
 

If the trade is fair on its face and to the league then who cares. The league can’t legislate player usage beyond legal rostering. 

 

[Gally]

Thats called negotiations. 

My point is from the outrage of others. The guy didnt want that stipulation, u dont take the trade.

The outside outrage of the collusion is interfering in how teams negotiate, who they start and how they run their teams.

If you want my player and I dont want you to play him against me and we are at trade deadline and its how to get a trade done, do it....then like evrything else cry about it after it costs you a win. lol

but that was part of the negotiation between two owners to get a deal done.

Collusion is handing a team a player to beat another team, it seems this is not the case. They played each other, thats not collusion. 

That is not the only form of collusion.  Collusion is a secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.  That is exactly what happened in the OP's case.

There are different levels of collusion but it doesn't change the fact that secret deal was made to cheat others (giving Team B a better chance to win the game which affects playoff implications of the entire league).  That is collusion.

 

[davearm]

Really? The league put pressure? I’m sure a couple busy bodies, like the poster raised the issue but I doubt THE LEAGUE PRESSURED the owners. 
 

And who cares, it is my team to manage and I would have had no problem stating so if asked. 
 

The league can pressure all they want but in my opinion they are not entitled to the details. I’m entitled to run my team in my best interest as not the leagues best interest within the rules. There is no rule stating who I have to start just that I have a “legitimate” roster. I can’t start players on bye, or leave roster spots empty. 
 

And frankly, this is about the only way a deal can be made between two players facing each other that week and was likely necessary due to a looming trade deadline. 
 

One player was playing for this week and the other for the rest of the season. You’re not entitled to their priorities because they conflict with yours. BOTH parties felt the the trade was beneficial to each other or they would not have agreed. They both did what they felt made their teams competitive. This wasn’t a last place player who traded Dalvin Cook to the league leader with the stipulation to split the prize money. 

The OP also explained that this situation sparked a few hundred messages to the league's chat site, so it seems a bit more widespread than "a couple busy bodies".

"I won't start my best lineup this week so you have a better chance to win" is not a legitimate "asset" to be traded, since every owner is under an obligation to start what he/she believes is his/her strongest lineup each and every week. 

Simply put, you can't offer to tank for a week to push a deal across the finish line.  Should be obvious, but here we are.

 

[Gally]

What rule was broken? The MT owner was not going to play against MT one way or the other. 
 

And what keeps being overlooked is that playing MT would likely have been a bad decision. 
 

I know I should have played Justin Jefferson over MT this week. If I had should my league condemn me for not playing my “strongest lineup”?  
 

The receiving player accepted the terms likely on the basis that MT has been a dud so far but traded for him in the hopes of a emergence to form. But considering his poor performance thus far it would have been reasonable to stash him until he returns to form. 
 

The owner simply wanted to make sure that he was not a victim of that return to form game, which didn’t happen anyway. 
 

If I was trading for MT I would have easily accepted those terms. 

That is completely irrelevant to the discussion.  The outcome isn't the issue.  It is the secret deals to try and make Team B stronger against Team A in an attempt to affect the outcome which has consequences to the rest of the league.  What actually happens is irrelevant.  The intent is the issue.  

The MT owner was not playing against MT either way?  That may be correct but the original MT owner also now had to play against the players he gave to Team B where Team B did not have to play against the players he gave to Team A.  That is making one stronger team out of two for the intent to allow Team B a better chance to win.  This was done in secret.  This is collusion.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Maybe you just didn't know it happened.  It was done in secret and only brought to the forefront when the guy was questioned about it and he begrudgingly confessed.

fair point. I choose to believe that those I’ve played with are better than that though, morally speaking.  

I agree though.  I doubt this has happened much because it is unethical and fairly easy to spot (not starting an obvious starter that you just traded for as an example).  As a commish I do allow conditional trades however all of the conditions must be in the comments of the acceptance on the website. 

bingo. That’s above board. A trade went down where one owner paid the other owners transaction fees. It was above board & in the notes and though one owner didn’t like it, it passed league vote. 

that’s another example of a conditional deal that passes the sniff test. 

had that same thing happened in secret, and the owners lied about it, it becomes less so. 

Also, conditions cannot involve "players to be named later" or getting players back if conditions are not met.  The only conditions we allow are change in draft pick rounds if certain conditions are met.  For example, the pick becomes a first rounder if I win the league.  It stays a 3rd rounder if I don't type of thing.  

Bottom line everything has to be out in the open.  Once you hide something then it becomes shady.  If the trading partners would have made this condition public I am sure the league would have spoke up and it would never have gone through and the fact they kept it hidden leads me to believe they didn't think it was right either.  

Agreed 100%

 

[Manster]

Really? The league put pressure? I’m sure a couple busy bodies, like the poster raised the issue but I doubt THE LEAGUE PRESSURED the owners. 
 

And who cares, it is my team to manage and I would have had no problem stating so if asked. 
 

The league can pressure all they want but in my opinion they are not entitled to the details. I’m entitled to run my team in my best interest as not the leagues best interest within the rules. There is no rule stating who I have to start just that I have a “legitimate” roster. I can’t start players on bye, or leave roster spots empty. 
 

And frankly, this is about the only way a deal can be made between two players facing each other that week and was likely necessary due to a looming trade deadline. 
 

One player was playing for this week and the other for the rest of the season. You’re not entitled to their priorities because they conflict with yours. BOTH parties felt the the trade was beneficial to each other or they would not have agreed. They both did what they felt made their teams competitive. This wasn’t a last place player who traded Dalvin Cook to the league leader with the stipulation to split the prize money. 

What you are leaving out though is there are X number of other owners that this can affect.

Let's say there are 12 teams in the league and two divisions.  Let's say owner A is in div 1 owner B is in div 2.....let's say top two in each div get in playoffs.....let's say owner B gets the win, based on owner A sitting MT.....let's say first tie breaker is total points, and owner B gets #2 seed in his div over another owner because he has one more win, and the owner left out has more total points.....see what I'm saying?  

 

[ghostguy123]

It's not.  The one guy agreed to bench the better player and start a worse player.  You don't do that if you're trying to win.

But you might if it is the only way the other person will make the trade, and you are trying to win in the longrun

 

[I Am the Stig]

It wasn’t a false equivalence. 

it was an analogy. 

unethical behavior is unethical behavior. Colluding with a trade partner is unethical.

stealing from charity is unethical.

it was suggested that explicit rules must be posted for this. My assertion is that people should know right from wrong.

and since the owners later lied about it, it seems they did understand that, which is why they lied to cover up their malfeasance. 

Stealing is illegal. Something can be unethical and still be legal. 

 

[davearm]

A trade went down where one owner paid the other owners transaction fees. It was above board & in the notes and though one owner didn’t like it, it passed league vote. 

Unless this is explicitly allowed by the league rules, I wouldn't like it either.  One side included cash in the deal.  Obvious slippery slope situation there.

/hijack

 

[ghostguy123]

Bottom line, it would have been completely fine if the condition was announced when the trade was made.  

So just because they didnt state those terms now it becomes a big thing?  Nah.   Move on.  Define in the rules any future types of deals with ANY conditions must be made public at the time of the deal or there will be some sort of consequence, and let this one go.  

 

[habsfan]

That is not the only form of collusion.  Collusion is a secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.  That is exactly what happened in the OP's case.

There are different levels of collusion but it doesn't change the fact that secret deal was made to cheat others (giving Team B a better chance to win the game which affects playoff implications of the entire league).  That is collusion.

You could argue the rest of the league was cheated because they probably didn't know you could negotiate with sit/start decisions or free car wash coupons. Had I known that, I could have offered to sit two of my players instead of just one.

 

[Gally]

Why not just do the trade after the week is over?

However, if the league trade deadline was a factor maybe you cant do that.

I say it was a condition of the trade and is allowable, however that condition should be made public to the league.  

Right, so what ended up happening is that Team B got players from Team A and played them.  Team A on the other hand was not allowed to play the players he got from Team B.  This allowed Team A & Team B to combine teams to make one superior team for this week giving the edge to Team B to win.  This was all done in secret.  This is the definition of collusion. 

 

[ghostguy123]

Unless this is explicitly allowed by the league rules, I wouldn't like it either.  One side included cash in the deal.  Obvious slippery slope situation there.

/hijack

I would only entertain that being ok if half the money paid went into the league prizes.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Stealing is illegal. Something can be unethical and still be legal. 

glad you agree the deal was unethical.

while a true statement; and one I never disagreed with, the larger point, and the one that matters for this topic here, is that something unethical shouldn’t be allowed in a fantasy football league. 

 

[Gally]

And yet the point difference was just 1 point. Did it end up THAT unreasonable? I mean, sitting MT with a bad ankle, hamstring, interpersonal team strife and a noodle arm Drew Brees is “unreasonable”?  
 

I wish I had benched MT last week. Stop worry about how other managers run their teams. 
 

The game is to unpredictable to say anything with certainty. 
 

Here is a list of unreasonable starts for last week:

Boston Scott

MVS

Alex Collins

Ahmed

Ballage

Keelan Cole

Pittman

The reality is MT did not come close to meeting his projections last week. He has not done a thing this season to even consider him a “top 5” WR. It is week 11 and in .5 PPR MT has 14.5 points on the season. Stop acting like this was a crime against FF. Antonio Brown has 14.7 points on the season after not playing football for a year. Stop with what is “reasonable”. 

All of this irrelevant to the situation.  The after the fact results have nothing to do with the collusion that occurred.  

 

[Manster]

imo, this says a lot about the culture of the league.  If you have a commish who is making unethical moves how can you trust him?  And like I said above, these kinds of things set a dangerous precedent on what's acceptable......if there is money involved, this could all turn out ugly......is this a league where everyone knows each other?

 

[I Am the Stig]

What you are leaving out though is there are X number of other owners that this can affect.

Let's say there are 12 teams in the league and two divisions.  Let's say owner A is in div 1 owner B is in div 2.....let's say top two in each div get in playoffs.....let's say owner B gets the win, based on owner A sitting MT.....let's say first tie breaker is total points, and owner B gets #2 seed in his div over another owner because he has one more win, and the owner left out has more total points.....see what I'm saying?  

As an owner my obligation is to manage my team as best I can within the league rules. I am not required to manage my team to the benefit of others. 
 

If gaining a potential league winning player costs the risk of being short handed one week, mind, you I don’t have the player without meeting the conditions anyway, then I’ll do the deal for me. If sitting a player I have current doubts about seals the deal that is a no brainer for my team to win down the road. 
 

And after last week, I may not start MT this week even if it is “obvious” to do so.  My motives are mine and not the leagues. 
 

Im not playing for other players. If you need points for a tie breaker that’s on you. I’m under no obligation to do what YOU feel I need to do to help you get into the playoffs. 

 

[ghostguy123]

Right, so what ended up happening is that Team B got players from Team A and played them.  Team A on the other hand was not allowed to play the players he got from Team B.  This allowed Team A & Team B to combine teams to make one superior team for this week giving the edge to Team B to win.  This was all done in secret.  This is the definition of collusion. 

Did they really do it "in secret" or did they just not tell anyone else and figure it was fine?

The latter, by definition, is NOT collusion

 

[davearm]

Bottom line, it would have been completely fine if the condition was announced when the trade was made.  

I definitely disagree with that premise.

 

[I Am the Stig]

glad you agree the deal was unethical.

while a true statement; and one I never disagreed with, the larger point, and the one that matters for this topic here, is that something unethical shouldn’t be allowed in a fantasy football league. 

No, I don’t agree that it was unethical at all. The analogy is just completely wrong, that is what I’m saying. You’re equating legality with ethics. That is where the analogy breaks down and is not relevant to this situation  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Bottom line, it would have been completely fine if the condition was announced when the trade was made.  

So just because they didnt state those terms now it becomes a big thing?  Nah.   Move on.  Define in the rules any future types of deals with ANY conditions must be made public at the time of the deal or there will be some sort of consequence, and let this one go.  

I’m trying to anticipate how my league would react to such a condition.
 

I’m not certain being above board would make this 100% acceptable to the guys in my league. I suspect some might have an issue with a lineup condition being attached, simply because it could effect the standings for 10 teams not involved. 

it would be better, ethically speaking, but it might not be be acceptable to other managers. 

I’m speculating here based on other things that have come up in the past. As I mentioned above, we had a “I’ll sweeten the deal by paying your side of the transaction fees” once and a couple of managers didn’t like it: But that didn’t have any impact on the gameplay. 

A condition that impacts potential W/L walks a pretty fine line there, regardless of whether it’s secret or not. 

that it’s secret just makes this so much worse. 

 

[Gally]

If you have to conflate, straw man, and assign unsupported bad faith motives, it’s not really a debate. Just tyranny of the majority, which is why you don’t veto trades without collusion

are both teams trying to improve with this deal (yes/no answer)? If No => Collusion

if yes, than it isn’t collusion, it’s a determination of league rules concerning allowable compensation/conditional trades 

this is simple

You can have collusion that affects just one week and still have both teams trying for the end prize.  A deal was made in secret dictating one team play an inferior player (admitted by the guy that sat Thomas) to help the other team win that week.  That is collusion..........even if the following week both teams go back to putting what each believe is their best lineup the following week.  

 

[Manster]

Bottom line, it would have been completely fine if the condition was announced when the trade was made.  

So just because they didnt state those terms now it becomes a big thing?  Nah.   Move on.  Define in the rules any future types of deals with ANY conditions must be made public at the time of the deal or there will be some sort of consequence, and let this one go.  

What kind of leagues are you guys playing in? There are no stipulations like this to be made!  If two owners in my leagues presented this, they would be tarred and feathered!   

 

[davearm]

Did they really do it "in secret" or did they just not tell anyone else and figure it was fine?

The latter, by definition, is NOT collusion

If they figured it was fine, then why did they lie about it and deny it at first?

 

[Babooya]

It has nothing to do with “my” sense of ethics. Ethics are ethics - they are universally applied.

thus my charity analogy. Ethical people wouldn’t engage in collusion. Unethical people would. 

ethical people don’t steal from charity. Unethical people would.

Society defines these things, I do not. I adhere to them. 

This is BS. Leagues may have rules to allow conditional trades or not. They can have their reasons for allowing or not. But to presume there is some universal ‘ethics’ concerning good faith negotiation. Or implying a good faith negotiation is the same as stealing from a charity is off the reservation

It could be either depending on the league. See what you want to see. That’s why there are league bylaws that define this stuff 

 

[Manster]

As an owner my obligation is to manage my team as best I can within the league rules. I am not required to manage my team to the benefit of others. 
 

If gaining a potential league winning player costs the risk of being short handed one week, mind, you I don’t have the player without meeting the conditions anyway, then I’ll do the deal for me. If sitting a player I have current doubts about seals the deal that is a no brainer for my team to win down the road. 
 

And after last week, I may not start MT this week even if it is “obvious” to do so.  My motives are mine and not the leagues. 
 

Im not playing for other players. If you need points for a tie breaker that’s on you. I’m under no obligation to do what YOU feel I need to do to help you get into the playoffs. 

You a politician?.....a defense lawyer, maybe?

Unbelievable....

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

If they figured it was fine, then why did they lie about it and deny it at first?

for the same reason a murderer dissolves a corpse with lye. 

Consciousness of guilt. 

 

[Gally]

If only you got to set everyones lineups, if only people didnt pay to runt heir own teams.

Also, guy didnt have to make the deal.

Exactly.  The guy did not have to make the deal but once he did he was colluding with the other owner.  That is the issue here.  By deciding to agree to the secret condition both owners colluded.  It is the definition of collusion:  secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

If the guy doesn't accept the secret terms then no collusion would have occurred.  

 

[Manster]

This thread really makes me appreciate my commissioners, and leaguemates. I'm almost positive this scenario would never come up, as it's unethical, and like I said, we don't keep unethical owners in our leagues.

 

[Babooya]

Exactly.  The guy did not have to make the deal but once he did he was colluding with the other owner.  That is the issue here.  By deciding to agree to the secret condition both owners colluded.  It is the definition of collusion:  secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

If the guy doesn't accept the secret terms then no collusion would have occurred.  

Who got cheated?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

This is BS. Leagues may have rules to allow conditional trades or not. They can have their reasons for allowing or not. But to presume there is some universal ‘ethics’ concerning good faith negotiation. Or implying a good faith negotiation is the same as stealing from a charity is off the reservation

no, it’s an accurate analogy. It’s actually a very old concept, literally dating back to the Ten Commandments. 

They broke one of them by lying about having colluded

that alone should tell you this was unethical. 

It could be either depending on the league. See what you want to see. That’s why there are league bylaws that define this stuff 

Again: knowing right from wrong doesn’t need to be stipulated in the league bylaws. Ethical behavior should be a universal concept. 

Any secret conditional deal that can impact league standings by imposing a subsequent roster decision is 2 teams making a shady deal that impacts all 12 teams.

This isn’t some esoteric interpretation of my ethics vs your ethics. It’s knowing right from wrong.

and again, because they lied about their conditional deal, they showed pretty clearly that they knew it was wrong. 

I've written league constitutions for 5 leagues over the decades I’ve played fantasy sports. I include some very specific things like “roster churning” to lock up players, or “using the IR as free parking” - I’ve never written a “thou shalt not collude to make secretive conditional deals impacting lineup decisions” because everyone I play with knows this is collusion. 

Again: it’s not *my* ethics, nor is it *my* definition of collusion.  

Collusion is ethically wrong. League members are expected to behave ethically in the leagues I participate in. 

I concede that this may not be be the case in some leagues. There are a lot of shady people in the world. Maybe they need those rules spelled out in their league constitution. But that doesn’t negate the fact that it’s wrong. Ignorance of the law does not equal innocence, as the expression goes. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

This thread really makes me appreciate my commissioners, and leaguemates. I'm almost positive this scenario would never come up, as it's unethical, and like I said, we don't keep unethical owners in our leagues.

Yeah; I just said about the same. I’m very fortunate that the leagues I’ve played in had and have ethical owners who would never try to pull off something like this. 

 

[davearm]

As an owner my obligation is to manage my team as best I can within the league rules.

Do your league rules allow teams to tank?  They shouldn't.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Who got cheated?

The other X # of teams.

because outcome of their matchup is irrelevant to the collusion that occurred the second the shady deal was struck.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Do your league rules allow teams to tank?  They shouldn't.

Good point. And I’ll add that I’ve never seen that explicitly stated in league rules, because people should know this. It’s not a rules issue; it’s an ethics issue. 

especially relevant in dynasty where standing determines draft position. I’ve seen teams trade away top assets & have crummy teams as a result.  But those crummy teams are still expected to field their best lineups in attempt to win.

I’ve never seen a team throw a game by benching their top assets to “tank for Tua” or whatever: Because they know someone else’s playoff chances might be impacted by handing a competing team a free win.

Folks are generally expected to understand the ethics of this long before they join a FF league - it shouldn’t have to be spelled out in a league constitution. 

It’s funny - you and I have more often than not been on opposite sides of debates here. Glad to see we’re both on the same side of this one.   

 

[Babooya]

no, it’s an accurate analogy. It’s actually a very old concept, literally dating back to the Ten Commandments. 

They broke one of them by lying about having colluded

that alone should tell you this was unethical. 

Again: knowing right from wrong doesn’t need to be stipulated in the league bylaws. Ethical behavior should be a universal concept. 

Any secret conditional deal that can impact league standings by imposing a subsequent roster decision is 2 teams making a shady deal that impacts all 12 teams.

This isn’t some esoteric interpretation of my ethics vs your ethics. It’s knowing right from wrong.

and again, because they lied about their conditional deal, they showed pretty clearly that they knew it was wrong. 

I've written league constitutions for 5 leagues over the decades I’ve played fantasy sports. I include some very specific things like “roster churning” to lock up players, or “using the IR as free parking” - I’ve never written a “thou shalt not collude to make secretive conditional deals impacting lineup decisions” because everyone I play with knows this is collusion. 

Again: it’s not *my* ethics, nor is it *my* definition of collusion.  

Collusion is ethically wrong. League members are expected to behave ethically in the leagues I participate in. 

I concede that this may not be be the case in some leagues. There are a lot of shady people in the world. Maybe they need those rules spelled out in their league constitution. But that doesn’t negate the fact that it’s wrong. Ignorance of the law does not equal innocence, as the expression goes. 

Of course it’s your ‘ethics’, and it’s not even ethics it’s just an opinion shrouded in your sense of superiority.

im not arguing leagues should allow conditional trades. Mine doesn’t. I’m arguing it’s simply a rule you allow or don’t allow. And administrating conditional trades can be a nightmare beyond this stuff. 

and every trade impacts league results and seeding. Saying that an element of a trade is the only impact 

the sanctimoniousness provides a good chuckle though and is why we define rules in the bylaws

 

[Gally]

And yet someone was obviously upset at the roster decision so they poked and prodded which sounds like some sour grapes. 
 

I would not have batted an eye at someone benching MT this season until he shows. And frankly, I would have easily agreed to the terms because, as stated already, I almost benched him myself. The MT owner doesn’t know this but my agreeing to those terms may not necessarily be incongruent with my intent. 
 

I want to get MT but for the future but I also need to SELL my cooperation to the owner to seal the deal. 
 

The league isn’t entitled to any of these personal tactical decisions. 
 

If the trade is fair on its face and to the league then who cares. The league can’t legislate player usage beyond legal rostering. 

And that is all well and good for you but it is not what happened here.  The owner that received MT specifically said he only sat him because of the secret condition.  That means he did not think like you and would have played him without the stipulation.  That is the crux of the collusion.  A secret agreement that made Team A sit a player that he would have normally played (as admitted by the owner of Team A).  That is collusion.

You are trying to add facts no in play for this situation.  You are trying to give reasons why this was not collusion when the actual owner involved admitted it was collusion (he only sat the player because of the secret deal).  

This is a simple case because generally you don't get someone admitting to the collusion.  

 

[SayWhat?]

no, it’s an accurate analogy. It’s actually a very old concept, literally dating back to the Ten Commandments. 

They broke one of them by lying about having colluded

that alone should tell you this was unethical. 

Again: knowing right from wrong doesn’t need to be stipulated in the league bylaws. Ethical behavior should be a universal concept. 

Any secret conditional deal that can impact league standings by imposing a subsequent roster decision is 2 teams making a shady deal that impacts all 12 teams.

This isn’t some esoteric interpretation of my ethics vs your ethics. It’s knowing right from wrong.

and again, because they lied about their conditional deal, they showed pretty clearly that they knew it was wrong. 

I've written league constitutions for 5 leagues over the decades I’ve played fantasy sports. I include some very specific things like “roster churning” to lock up players, or “using the IR as free parking” - I’ve never written a “thou shalt not collude to make secretive conditional deals impacting lineup decisions” because everyone I play with knows this is collusion. 

Again: it’s not *my* ethics, nor is it *my* definition of collusion.  

Collusion is ethically wrong. League members are expected to behave ethically in the leagues I participate in. 

I concede that this may not be be the case in some leagues. There are a lot of shady people in the world. Maybe they need those rules spelled out in their league constitution. But that doesn’t negate the fact that it’s wrong. Ignorance of the law does not equal innocence, as the expression goes. 

Of course it’s your ‘ethics’, and it’s not even ethics it’s just an opinion shrouded in your sense of superiority.

/thread

 

[Gally]

Bottom line, it would have been completely fine if the condition was announced when the trade was made.  

So just because they didnt state those terms now it becomes a big thing?  Nah.   Move on.  Define in the rules any future types of deals with ANY conditions must be made public at the time of the deal or there will be some sort of consequence, and let this one go.  

It would probably have lead to the deal not being allowed.  Which is the reason it should have been out in the open.  If the entire league sees no problem with that condition then good on them.  However, based on the cover up and the reaction from the league this type of deal is not thought to be acceptable in that league.  

 

[Gally]

Did they really do it "in secret" or did they just not tell anyone else and figure it was fine?

The latter, by definition, is NOT collusion

Considering the owner lied initially and then later came clean about it (according to the OP) I would say it was collusion.  

And if it was not shady why not include that in the terms of the acceptance on the site to give the owner of Team B recourse of the guy did play MT anyway?  Seems like if I thought it was on the up and up I would want everyone to know about it so that the other guy had incentive to sit MT.