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

[Gally]

Nobody would've bat an eye if the owner started anyone that had even the slimmest possibility of outscoring MT (which, for this season at least, is a large group of players). If the owners agreement involved the losing owner voluntarily taking a 0, rather than just not starting MT, everything changes, but as it stands I find it hard to get too mad over this. Is it collusion in a literal sense? Yeah, and for a lot of people that is enough to kick the owners out of the league. Did the agreement ruin the integrity of the league? Probably not, unless the two teams are attempting to buoy a single team's chances of winning against everyone else. Maybe I missed it in the thread, but unless this game has massive implications for the playoffs I think the two owners should be spoken to and suffer a penalty (game loss for both teams?) while still continuing their seasons. 

Doesn't every game of the season have implication for the playoffs?  The degree of implication (massive, moderate, minor) really doesn't matter.   Every game matters for playoff implications.

 

[I Am the Stig]

You must be a big fan of the “anything goes” episode of It’s Always Sunny in  Philadelphia.

it’s all good until Danny DeVito is playing high stakes Russian roulette with the Vietnamese compulsive gamblers in the basement. 

No, I’m for playing within the rules. This was within the rules. Sometimes rules are bad and need to be amended. This may be a case for some change but that is for the end of the season. 
 

My kids got pissed at me for not buying Hotels in Monopoly. They wanted to improve their properties with houses but there were not many left. They felt I was playing against the spirit of the game. I simply reminded them what the name of the game was.  They mistakenly felt the object of Monopoly is to make the most money when in fact the object is to drive others bankrupt. I was under no obligation to play as they expected or hoped for me to play  I am only expected to play within the rules  

These two did what they had to with the rules to improve even if it went against the spirit or the norms. 
 

You’ll need a rule change to clarify the league expected parameters moving forward. 
 

 

[acarey50]

I still say if a pass is thrown, it's an offensive play regardless of the personnel.    

 

[Gally]

No, I’m for playing within the rules. This was within the rules. Sometimes rules are bad and need to be amended. This may be a case for some change but that is for the end of the season. 
 

My kids got pissed at me for not buying Hotels in Monopoly. They wanted to improve their properties with houses but there were not many left. They felt I was playing against the spirit of the game. I simply reminded them what the name of the game was.  They mistakenly felt the object of Monopoly is to make the most money when in fact the object is to drive others bankrupt. I was under no obligation to play as they expected  hoped for me to play  I am only expected to play within the rules  

These two did what they had to with the rules to improve if it went against the spirit or the norms. 
 

You’ll need a rule change to clarify the league expected parameters moving forward. 
 

Every league I have ever been in (or heard about) does not allow collusion.  This was collusion.......so they did break the rules. 

 

[Absolutely Nothing]

Doesn't every game of the season have implication for the playoffs?  The degree of implication (massive, moderate, minor) really doesn't matter.   Every game matters for playoff implications.

I guess to clarify, I mean: if the game's results directly harm an uninvolved team's playoff chances based on the method of deciding the playoff teams, my feelings on the situation change greatly. If, say, the team receiving MT is a playoff lock and dominating, while the team trading away MT is in the pack hunting for a spot, I would be furious. But I just don't think this is a diabolical or malicious move, and from what I can glean from the information provided, it doesn't seem like the two owners intended to give each other an advantage. I do THINK that this is an example of collusion, but I FEEL that the area is too grey to punish with an insta-ban from the league.

 

[I Am the Stig]

Every league I have ever been in does not allow collusion.  This was collusion.......so they did break the rules. 

It was a condition of the trade that did not break any rules. 
 

Collusion would be a secret agreement to break the rules. 
 

Trades are legal. One must negotiate a trade in private. The results of the trade were not secret and directly observed. 
 

The league has no rule regarding voting on or disclosure of a trade parameters. The league has no rule stipulating requiring the starting of “obvious starts” based on projections. 
 

None of what they discussed broke any rules. 
 

Collusion requires that the rules are being purposely avoided by and for the benefit of both parties. They were not working around any known rules. 

 

[davearm]

No, I’m for playing within the rules. This was within the rules. Sometimes rules are bad and need to be amended. This may be a case for some change but that is for the end of the season. 
 

My kids got pissed at me for not buying Hotels in Monopoly. They wanted to improve their properties with houses but there were not many left. They felt I was playing against the spirit of the game. I simply reminded them what the name of the game was.  They mistakenly felt the object of Monopoly is to make the most money when in fact the object is to drive others bankrupt. I was under no obligation to play as they expected  hoped for me to play  I am only expected to play within the rules  

These two did what they had to with the rules to improve if it went against the spirit or the norms. 
 

You’ll need a rule change to clarify the league expected parameters moving forward. 
 

You have no knowledge of this league's rules.

If tanking is explicitly prohibited by this league's rules, then this was not within the rules.

If this league's rules has language that stipulates that every team must field their best lineup every week, then this was not within the rules.

And to the extent either of these things is not explicitly addressed in writing, it would be because folks should know and understand these things implicitly, and agree to be bound by these basic tenets of fair play and sportsmanship.

 

[Gally]

It was a condition of the trade that did not break any rules. 
 

Collusion would be a secret agreement to break the rules. 
 

Trades are legal. One must negotiate a trade in private. The results of the trade were not secret and directly observed. 
 

The league has no rule regarding voting on or disclosure of a trade parameters. The league has no rule stipulating requiring the starting of “obvious starts” based on projections. 
 

None of what they discussed broke any rules. 
 

Collusion requires that the rules are being purposely avoided by and for the benefit of both parties. They were not working around any known rules. 

Collusion:  Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

This was a secret deal that deceived other's in the league.  It is the definition of collusion

Just because you want to avoid the definition of collusion doesn't mean it did not happen.  This meets the exact definition of collusion

 

[Judge Smails]

They negotiated the terms of a trade. A trade that they both felt benefited themselves. 
 

Most everyone has agreed that the terms seem fine, their issue is the knowledge of the terms. 
 

How I roster my team is and never will be any of the leagues business. I will do what I need to do to win within the rules. And this is within the rules. Team B didn’t determine my roster I AGREED TO THE TERMS. That was the price I needed to pay to get the player I wanted. 
 

That isn’t collusion, that is a trade. 

I don't think most everyone has agreed the terms seem fine at all.  As others pointed out if knowledge was out in the open the trade wouldn't have been allowed.  Just like knowing "I'll trade you Mahomes this week for your bye, you trade him back to me in week 12, then you can't play Cook against me in week 13, I'll buy you beers on Thursday and $100" wouldn't be allowed either.  Disclosed or not.

Everyone is fighting for their playoff lives.  This is not just about the 2 teams in question.  I don't see how people don't understand that.  8-9 other teams are affected as their mathematically still alive.

 

[Gally]

I guess to clarify, I mean: if the game's results directly harm an uninvolved team's playoff chances based on the method of deciding the playoff teams, my feelings on the situation change greatly. If, say, the team receiving MT is a playoff lock and dominating, while the team trading away MT is in the pack hunting for a spot, I would be furious. But I just don't think this is a diabolical or malicious move, and from what I can glean from the information provided, it doesn't seem like the two owners intended to give each other an advantage. I do THINK that this is an example of collusion, but I FEEL that the area is too grey to punish with an insta-ban from the league.

So your decision if the act was bad is only if the game results after the fact affected another team adversely?  So it's ok to do unless the results cause an issue after the fact?

I agree that a ban isn't required necessarily (I don't know the guys involved and  if this was a one off situation or if they are always trying shady things for example) but it is definitely a bad deal regardless of the actual results of the ensuing game.  However, the game results did change based on the collusion so the results were also affected.  

 

[Judge Smails]

I guess to clarify, I mean: if the game's results directly harm an uninvolved team's playoff chances based on the method of deciding the playoff teams, my feelings on the situation change greatly. If, say, the team receiving MT is a playoff lock and dominating, while the team trading away MT is in the pack hunting for a spot, I would be furious. But I just don't think this is a diabolical or malicious move, and from what I can glean from the information provided, it doesn't seem like the two owners intended to give each other an advantage. I do THINK that this is an example of collusion, but I FEEL that the area is too grey to punish with an insta-ban from the league.

This is exactly the case.  

 

[Judge Smails]

And the league will determine on their own whether or not this cool. That is the beauty of leagues running things how they like to run them. 
 

Frankly, for a 6k prize every loophole will be exploited. The rules are relative and league specific. 
 

I asked if the league can vote on trades and that hasn’t been answered probably because there are no votes. 
 

Sorry, but if the league can’t vote on a trade then what is the honest expectation that terms need to be disclosed beforehand?  
 

If no votes, you don’t have to like it but you have to eat it. 

This has nothing to do with money.  It keeps it interesting but it's not the motivation for any of us.  We want to be in the playoffs and have a shot at a ring.  And we don't want to come in last and wear a skirt at next year's draft.  It's all about bragging rights and pride.  If this were a $100 league it would operate the same way with this group.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Nobody would've bat an eye if the owner started anyone that had even the slimmest possibility of outscoring MT (which, for this season at least, is a large group of players). If the owners agreement involved the losing owner voluntarily taking a 0, rather than just not starting MT, everything changes, but as it stands I find it hard to get too mad over this. Is it collusion in a literal sense? Yeah, and for a lot of people that is enough to kick the owners out of the league. Did the agreement ruin the integrity of the league? Probably not, unless the two teams are attempting to buoy a single team's chances of winning against everyone else. Maybe I missed it in the thread, but unless this game has massive implications for the playoffs I think the two owners should be spoken to and suffer a penalty (game loss for both teams?) while still continuing their seasons. 

This was basically what I said in my original reply. 

The problem though, the more I consider it, is precedent. 

It sets a dangerous precedent for what could happen down the road. 

This deal, on its face, has a condition where a player (the target of the acquisition) must be benched for the week these teams play each other. 

I dsregard whether it had playoff implications for either team, because that’s after the fact. 

what it the condition were similar. What if the team giving Michael Thomas said, “ok, but I need you to bench him in 2 weeks when you face so & so, because so & so team is playing a team I need to win for me to make the playoffs.”

would that condition also be ok? 

I see potential for significant, league-impacting shenanigans with this sort of collusion.

so as a general statement I’d say collusion is bad, and owners should face penalty/scrutiny. I wouldn’t want that commish involved in the trade to continue commissioning the league, as he engaged in what I see as unethical dealing by colluding with another owner.

That this collusion may not have risen to that level is sort of besides the point. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I still say if a pass is thrown, it's an offensive play regardless of the personnel.    

I love this site &  I love you, man.   

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I do THINK that this is an example of collusion, but I FEEL that the area is too grey to punish with an insta-ban from the league.

I can get with this. I still believe the commish should be replaced. He failed his ethics test here, and not at all subtly in my opinion. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

And to the extent either of these things is not explicitly addressed in writing, it would be because folks should know and understand these things implicitly, and agree to be bound by these basic tenets of fair play and sportsmanship.

That’s really the bottom line. I don’t think you’re acting morally superior or imposing your unique set of ethics in sayin this.

fair play is expected. And fair or not, the standard is higher for a league commissioner. 

 

[Gally]

It sets a dangerous precedent for what could happen down the road.

This is the biggest issue from the Commish perspective.  There are many things in the gray area (this situation is not gray in my opinion) that really aren't a big deal but if you let them go then it sets a precedent for future manipulation.  

For instance, we have a deadline for contract awards.  We had a guy get called away for business and was flying at the deadline so he didn't get his contracts listed on the message board by the deadline.  We (as the Commish office) weren't going to let him get away with it because he missed the deadline) but he asked everyone if they minded if he was late and nobody had any issues because the players he were contracting were no big deal.  So we let it go.  A year later someone missed the deadline due to some other reason so we let him do the same.  This time it was Watson (which was a bigger deal because everyone wanted a shot at him the following year).  People #####ed and moaned that we let it go through.  We had the precedent from the year before but that didn't matter because of the player involved.  Commish's damned if you do damned if you don't.  

From that point on we have gone letter of the law so that people can't complain (yet they still do).   All this to say that setting a precedent is a big deal and could cause bigger issues in the future.  You have to really be aware of the consequences of letting something like this slide and what it could lead to down the road.  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

From that point on we have gone letter of the law so that people can't complain (yet they still do).   All this to say that setting a precedent is a big deal and could cause bigger issues in the future.  You have to really be aware of the consequences of letting something like this slide and what it could lead to down the road.  

and for the nature of this trade specifically, it is especially problematic.

It sets the precedent that conditional side-deals involving how others set rosters and against whom are ok, which opens up a huge can of worms with potential to create havoc with other teams fighting for playoff spots.

there’s a legit, above board way to do some of these things, but that involves risk. Like, for hypothetical example, trade deadline approaches, I’m stacked at WR. I know you’re about to play my division rival, so I offer you my 4th WR for a TE of fair value that I can use. I didn’t *need* to make the trade, but it improves you before that big game.

that’s my decision, and my risk. I get thinner at WR, exposing my team to risk, and I improve your team - so while maybe it helps me get to the playoffs, it also might bite me if I then face your team when I get there.

there’s nothing wrong with this deal because it is all above board. Anyone who sees the deal likely understands the implications,  but I haven’t weaseled some shady back room no-risk deal that creates a win-win for myself.

and you; as the recipient of the WR, improved your starting team at the cost of a backup TE. 

The intent to impact the standings is clearly there, but it’s approached in an ethically correct manner.

 

[I Am the Stig]

You have no knowledge of this league's rules.

If tanking is explicitly prohibited by this league's rules, then this was not within the rules.

If this league's rules has language that stipulates that every team must field their best lineup every week, then this was not within the rules.

And to the extent either of these things is not explicitly addressed in writing, it would be because folks should know and understand these things implicitly, and agree to be bound by these basic tenets of fair play and sportsmanship.

I asked specifically about those rules and they have gone unanswered. 
 

Usually people don’t post a poll about a league rule that was broken if in fact a rule was broken. 
 

There are three obvious rules that this trade could have circumvented if they existed in the league. It is clear that those rules don’t exist or this thread wouldn’t exist other than a “hey, we are kicking these two lunkheads out of the league because...”

 

[Babooya]

and for the nature of this trade specifically, it is especially problematic.

It sets the precedent that conditional side-deals involving how others set rosters and against whom are ok, which opens up a huge can of worms with potential to create havoc with other teams fighting for playoff spots.

there’s a legit, above board way to do some of these things, but that involves risk. Like, for hypothetical example, trade deadline approaches, I’m stacked at WR. I know you’re about to play my division rival, so I offer you my 4th WR for a TE of fair value that I can use. I didn’t *need* to make the trade, but it improves you before that big game.

that’s my decision, and my risk. I get thinner at WR, exposing my team to risk, and I improve your team - so while maybe it helps me get to the playoffs, it also might bite me if I then face your team when I get there.

there’s nothing wrong with this deal because it is all above board. Anyone who sees the deal likely understands the implications,  but I haven’t weaseled some shady back room no-risk deal that creates a win-win for myself.

and you; as the recipient of the WR, improved your starting team at the cost of a backup TE. 

The intent to impact the standings is clearly there, but it’s approached in an ethically correct manner.

You literally just described doing a deal for the express purpose of helping another team knock down your competition. That’s collusion, whether you create a plausible backstory as an alibi or not. 
 

you sure that is ethical?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I asked specifically about those rules and they have gone unanswered. 
 

Usually people don’t post a poll about a league rule that was broken if in fact a rule was broken. 
 

There are three obvious rules that this trade could have circumvented if they existed in the league. It is clear that those rules don’t exist or this thread wouldn’t exist other than a “hey, we are kicking these two lunkheads out of the league because...”

Ethical behavior is generally assumed, and collusion is against the rules of every fantasy league I’ve ever been in regardless of whether it is explicitly stated in the rules or not.

we’re getting back to the Salvation Army bucket. Does the Santa ringing the bell need to post a sign asking people not to steal from the bucket?

per your logic above, his failure to do so is merely a loophole that someone might exploit if they really needed a sammich.

And if the Salvation Army doesn’t want people exploiting that loophole, then every Santa’s bucket needs to have a sign with that exact verbiage on it. 

Because scruples are somehow optional, or something.  

 

[I Am the Stig]

Collusion:  Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

This was a secret deal that deceived other's in the league.  It is the definition of collusion

Just because you want to avoid the definition of collusion doesn't mean it did not happen.  This meets the exact definition of collusion

No it doesn’t because they didn’t agree to circumvent the rules of the league. 
 

How was anyone deceived? Such deceit maintains that people are going to play the way that you hope or expect them to play. 
 

Calvin Ridley is coming off a injury. Most people would still expect, based on projections that I should play him. But that may depend on how my matchups look. If I need a home run I play him. If I need a safe floor I look elsewhere. 
 

If I’m trading for him this week and the only way I get him is to bench him against his previous owner this week I’m basing my odds and needs. 
 

If I need the home run then I can’t honor the cost and no trade. I’m not doing something I’m not willing to do if the price is to high. 
 

In either event, whether I already owned him or traded for him my use of him is my business and not the leagues. 

 

[I Am the Stig]

This has nothing to do with money.  It keeps it interesting but it's not the motivation for any of us.  We want to be in the playoffs and have a shot at a ring.  And we don't want to come in last and wear a skirt at next year's draft.  It's all about bragging rights and pride.  If this were a $100 league it would operate the same way with this group.

It has nothing to do with the money but the prize was certainly thrown out there. Ok. 

 

[Babooya]

The impass here is Stig arguing that the trade partners were acting in good faith that they were following the rules as the exist on paper. That seems to be in question here 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

You literally just described doing a deal for the express purpose of helping another team knock down your competition. That’s collusion, whether you create a plausible backstory as an alibi or not. 
 

you sure that is ethical?

100% Positive. I described a means to a similar end while not acting unethically. 

I described a trade offer made in good faith that

1. is above board with every factor visible to the league.

2. Doesn’t involve any external or conditional terms

3. is of benefit to both teams

4. Does not involve any discussion between the two teams of motive.

Re-read my post. it’s all very clearly spelled out. 

it’s not at all collusion. It is my team hypothetically offering another team a trade, with the added benefit that it could improve my playoff chances by improving that team. 

There’s no collusion in that scenario. And it is at risk that I hurt myself by becoming thin at WR, and moreover, I might get beat by the player I dealt away if I made the playoffs.

I’m mystified by your interpretation of this as “collusion” when literally no element of collusion is met. 

what I described is a morally acceptable means to improve someone else’s team that might improve my chances of making the playoffs.  The other team isn’t accepting the trade with that motivation known, they’re accepting the trade to help themselves and dealing from strength, which happens in almost every good trade.

My entire point of that hypothetical was that there are ways to improve your playoff chances by influencing other rosters that are NOT collusion. 

 

[davearm]

The impass here is Stig arguing that the trade partners were acting in good faith that they were following the rules as the exist on paper. That seems to be in question here 

Acting in good faith doesn't involve or require a) concealing and b) lying about it.

There would have been no reason or need to act that way if the deal was legit.  Even the two people involved realized it wasn't.

 

[Babooya]

100% Positive. I described a means to a similar end while not acting unethically. 

I described a trade offer made in good faith that

1. is above board with every factor visible to the league.

2. Doesn’t involve any external or conditional terms

3. is of benefit to both teams

4. Does not involve any discussion between the two teams of motive.

Re-read my post. it’s all very clearly spelled out. 

it’s not at all collusion. It is my team hypothetically offering another team a trade, with the added benefit that it could improve my playoff chances by improving that team. 

There’s no collusion in that scenario. And it is at risk that I hurt myself by becoming thin at WR, and moreover, I might get beat by the player I dealt away if I made the playoffs.

I’m mystified by your interpretation of this as “collusion” when literally no element of collusion is met. 

what I described is a morally acceptable means to improve someone else’s team that might improve my chances of making the playoffs.  The other team isn’t accepting the trade with that motivation known, they’re accepting the trade to help themselves and dealing from strength, which happens in almost every good trade.

My entire point of that hypothetical was that there are ways to improve your playoff chances by influencing other rosters that are NOT collusion. 

The two trade partners both have the primary motivation to help one of the two teams improve at the detriment of a division rival. 
 

I understand it’s hypothetical and you can say the deal value was fair. But I think you can argue with the full backstory (that the league wouldn’t have) it wasn’t a deal done in good faith, but to meddle in competitive balance of the league

its Interesting to think about though

edit : your point #3 is an alibi. The goal was to improve one teams starting lineup without hurting your own value 

 

[I Am the Stig]

Ethical behavior is generally assumed, and collusion is against the rules of every fantasy league I’ve ever been in regardless of whether it is explicitly stated in the rules or not.

we’re getting back to the Salvation Army bucket. Does the Santa ringing the bell need to post a sign asking people not to steal from the bucket?

per your logic above, his failure to do so is merely a loophole that someone might exploit if they really needed a sammich.

And if the Salvation Army doesn’t want people exploiting that loophole, then every Santa’s bucket needs to have a sign with that exact verbiage on it. 

Because scruples are somehow optional, or something.  

There is no loophole in reaching into a Salvation Army bucket and taking money out of the bucket. The money that is in the bucket is the property of the Salvation Army. 
 

And since it is stealing there are rules written that both prohibit and provide both levels and degrees of the crime as well as the punishment. 
 

Find another analogy. Stealing is against the law and there are lots of rules written to address crimes from petty larceny to felonies. 
 

Whether the league knew of the conditions of the trade has no barring on the fact that the conditions themselves broke zero league rules. 
 

And I have asked multiple times about whether the league can vote on trades or not. And have not received an answer. So I can only assume that there really was no mechanism in which to share the details of the trade with the league beforehand. 

 

[Babooya]

Acting in good faith doesn't involve or require a) concealing and b) lying about it.

There would have been no reason or need to act that way if the deal was legit.  Even the two people involved realized it wasn't.

Agreed. There is a question of motivation, intent, and good faith that needs to be sussed out. If intentionally lying about it, sure. 

 

[davearm]

There is no loophole in reaching into a Salvation Army bucket and taking money out of the bucket. The money that is in the bucket is the property of the Salvation Army. 
 

And since it is stealing there are rules written that both prohibit and provide both levels and degrees of the crime as well as the punishment. 
 

Find another analogy. Stealing is against the law and there are lots of rules written to address crimes from petty larceny to felonies. 
 

Whether the league knew of the conditions of the trade has no barring on the fact that the conditions themselves broke zero league rules. 
 

And I have asked multiple times about whether the league can vote on trades or not. And have not received an answer. So I can only assume that there really was no mechanism in which to share the details of the trade with the league beforehand. 

There was a mechanism in which to share the details of the trade with the league.  The OP indicated the league communicates on WhatsApp.

 

[ghostguy123]

You literally just described doing a deal for the express purpose of helping another team knock down your competition. That’s collusion, whether you create a plausible backstory as an alibi or not. 
 

you sure that is ethical?

Yes his deal is not only ethical but brilliant in several ways for his roster, with the obvious added benefit of hurting his direct competition.

Can you collude if you are the only party involved in the collusion?

It doesnt matter what his motives are, it is only collusion if another party is also involved in those motives.  In the case described the trade partner made a deal to improve his chances, sort of like what happens in basically every trade ever.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

The two trade partners both have the primary motivation to help one of the two teams improve at the detriment of a division rival. 

Incorrect. 

Both teams involved do not have that as their primary motivation. There's no way to interpret that from what I said. 

My team has that as a factor. The recipient's primary motivation is to improve their team.

My motivation of that team beating their next opponent was not discussed with the other team, and there was no communication of my motivation for that team to beat his opponent. However, it would be insane to assume that my trade partner wanting to beat his upcoming opponent was not in his motivation regardless. You play to win the  game. If I were making the trade with instructions that he COULDN'T play that player because I wanted him to LOSE a game, that would be collusion. 

It is in no way shape or form collusion. Respectfully, you are incorrect on that point. All teams have winning their next game as a primary motivator in anything they do. 

I understand it’s hypothetical and you can say the deal value was fair. But I think you can argue with the full backstory (that the league wouldn’t have) it wasn’t a deal done in good faith, but to meddle in competitive balance of the league

its Interesting to think about though

You're clearly misunderstanding the premise. 

It is not collusion because my trade partner wants to beat his next opponent. 

it is not collusion because I want my trade partner to beat his next opponent. 

It is simply two teams trading assets. The fact that I saw an opportunity to improve his team to help him with his own goals is simply the nature of making trades, with a small side benefit to me. It's not unethical in the slightest. I'm also not suggesting I take less than fair value for the player I am receiving in kind, nor is there any agreement between us as to who starts whom on any roster. 

Verdict: no collusion. 

 

[Babooya]

There is no loophole in reaching into a Salvation Army bucket and taking money out of the bucket. The money that is in the bucket is the property of the Salvation Army. 
 

And since it is stealing there are rules written that both prohibit and provide both levels and degrees of the crime as well as the punishment. 
 

Find another analogy. Stealing is against the law and there are lots of rules written to address crimes from petty larceny to felonies. 
 

Whether the league knew of the conditions of the trade has no barring on the fact that the conditions themselves broke zero league rules. 
 

And I have asked multiple times about whether the league can vote on trades or not. And have not received an answer. So I can only assume that there really was no mechanism in which to share the details of the trade with the league beforehand. 

Our mechanism is that is must be memorialized in the league software. That only allows concrete players/picks/FAAB to be allowable trade compensation. There are other ethically fine methods of compensation that we don’t allow due to limitations of the software. 
 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

There is no loophole in reaching into a Salvation Army bucket and taking money out of the bucket. The money that is in the bucket is the property of the Salvation Army. 
 

And since it is stealing there are rules written that both prohibit and provide both levels and degrees of the crime as well as the punishment. 
 

Find another analogy. Stealing is against the law and there are lots of rules written to address crimes from petty larceny to felonies. 
 

Whether the league knew of the conditions of the trade has no barring on the fact that the conditions themselves broke zero league rules. 
 

And I have asked multiple times about whether the league can vote on trades or not. And have not received an answer. So I can only assume that there really was no mechanism in which to share the details of the trade with the league beforehand. 

And  as many have said, collusion is an understood law of fantasy sports. The analogy is fine. It is a universally accepted concept, for which no specific rule needs to be written or sign posted on a bucket. 

The rules of the league are irrelevant to the rule violated when the conditional trade was conceived. There was collusion. Collusion is bad. No sign nor rule should be necessary, and claiming it is a loophole seems as ridiculous to me as explaining why it's bad to steal from a Salvation Army bucket. 

 

[CalBear]

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 

It's certainly true that leagues could write rules to allow this kind of trade consideration. We make the rules, after all. But it's not common, and I'm willing to bet it's the first time it's been talked about in the league in question.

 

[I Am the Stig]

Yes his deal is not only ethical but brilliant in several ways for his roster, with the obvious added benefit of hurting his direct competition.

Can you collude if you are the only party involved in the collusion?

It doesnt matter what his motives are, it is only collusion if another party is also involved in those motives.  In the case described the trade partner made a deal to improve his chances, sort of like what happens in basically every trade ever.

The other party may have plausible deniability regarding their benefit in the trade but it is still similar to a roster dump just more precise in the recipient. 

 

[ghostguy123]

The other party may have plausible deniability regarding their benefit in the trade but it is still similar to a roster dump just more precise in the recipient. 

A roster dump?

 

[Babooya]

Yes his deal is not only ethical but brilliant in several ways for his roster, with the obvious added benefit of hurting his direct competition.

Can you collude if you are the only party involved in the collusion?

If his motivation was to help his roster sure, but that’s not the motivation, the motivation is to get his WR asset on another teams starting lineup to influence the competitive balance of a rival 

Apparently the defining characteristic is whether you tell the trade partner your motivation. And that’s kinda irrelevant. You are colluding with the other guy to help him whether he knows about it or not. 
 

 

[Babooya]

A roster dump?

It’s literally the same quasi/mini-tank being argued in the OP with the ‘condition’ only in this case it’s specifically to mess with a third party 

 

[ghostguy123]

If his motivation was to help his roster sure, but that’s not the motivation, the motivation is to get his WR asset on another teams starting lineup to influence the competitive balance of a rival 

Apparently the defining characteristic is whether you tell the trade partner your motivation. And that’s kinda irrelevant. You are colluding with the other guy to help him whether he knows about it or not. 
 

If the other guy has no idea, then it's not collusion.  Like, by the literal definition.

His motivation is to win.  He made a move that gives him a better chance to win, with no other secret discussions with any other team about his motives.

In his case, it is so much NOT collusion that even if he did disclose his motive to the trade partner it STILL wouldn't be collusion because the trade partner would have done the deal no matter what, regardless of anyone's motives.  

 

[Babooya]

If the other guy has no idea, then it's not collusion.  Like, by the literal definition.

His motivation is to win.  He made a move that gives him a better chance to win, with no other secret discussions with any other team about his motives.

In his case, it is so much NOT collusion that even if he did disclose his motive to the trade partner it STILL wouldn't be collusion because the trade partner would have done the deal no matter what, regardless of anyone's motives.  

“Ethical behaviour is doing the right thing when no one else is watching—even when doing the wrong thing is legal”

-Aldo Leopold 

 

[ghostguy123]

It’s literally the same quasi/mini-tank being argued in the OP with the ‘condition’ only in this case it’s specifically to mess with a third party 

Two problems.

1, there was no condition.

2, there was only one person with a motive, not two

 

[I Am the Stig]

And  as many have said, collusion is an understood law of fantasy sports. The analogy is fine. It is a universally accepted concept, for which no specific rule needs to be written or sign posted on a bucket. 

The rules of the league are irrelevant to the rule violated when the conditional trade was conceived. There was collusion. Collusion is bad. No sign nor rule should be necessary, and claiming it is a loophole seems as ridiculous to me as explaining why it's bad to steal from a Salvation Army bucket. 

Then why does this get discussed EVERY year if it is so clear cut? 
 

And for a gosh darn 6k pot I’d have pages written about collusion and what the punishments should be. 
 

There is no universal law of fantasy sports so yes the league rules are relevant. Collusion can be defined in the rules as it relates to fair play and frankly, without actually addressing it as a league rule then you will get the Wild West at times. 
 

Again, your assumption is that people are obliged to play the game the same way that you would. 
 

An assumed understanding is no replacement for well written rules. You can’t collude to play within the rules. 

 

[ghostguy123]

“Ethical behaviour is doing the right thing when no one else is watching—even when doing the wrong thing is legal”

-Aldo Leopold 

I dont think its unethical.   Its intelligent use of your roster.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

If his motivation was to help his roster sure, but that’s not the motivation, the motivation is to get his WR asset on another teams starting lineup to influence the competitive balance of a rival 

Apparently the defining characteristic is whether you tell the trade partner your motivation. And that’s kinda irrelevant. You are colluding with the other guy to help him whether he knows about it or not. 
 

Sorry, but no, that is not the defining characteristic. 

In the definition of collusion, two teams are working together (colluding) to influence an outcome, and the concern of this is that outcome is negative. 

Example:  If you are agreeing that you will lose, or someone else will lose, or how someone's roster is set to help you win (say, not having to face MT who you just traded to that team) those are clearly collusion. 

However in every trade made, the desired outcome of both parties in the deal is that they both win games. Because that is their desired outcome regardless of whether they made a trade or not. 

In an above board system, everyone is always trying to win games. Can we agree there? 

Ok, so back to the hypothetical deal: If I am deep at a position (WR) and trade one to another team because I'm thin at a position he's deep at (TE) and the players are of relatively equal value, that's a good trade. I think anyone would be hard pressed to dispute that.  Can we agree there as well? 

Now - if my personal motivation of making this deal happened to be that my targeted trade partner happened to be about to face a division rival, yes - it is in my best interest that they win that game. BUT it is also in my trade partner's best interest to win that game, because as said, we are all trying to win our games regardless. 

So look at my motivation for reaching out offering the trade as opportunistic. It is not collusion in any way shape or form, and the only reason you know my motivation for making the deal is because I told you. 

To the league it is two teams making a deal where each deals from a strength and gets a player they need. I wanted depth at TE, my opponent needed a starting WR3 because his got the COVID or something. Regardless of whatever motivation I had for offering it, it's an honest, above-board and 100% fair trade. 

There's no such thing as collusion without collusion. I basically described "a fair trade" that happened to potentially benefit my playoff chances. Which I'm sure happens more often than you know since teams don't always announce their motivation in offering or accepting trades. But simply because we both want to win doesn't make it collusion, nor would it make it collusion that I want my trade partner to win that week. After a fair trade, we are both starting our best lineups and we are both hoping for the same outcome. That's not at all collusion. 

 

[Babooya]

I dont think its unethical.   Its intelligent use of your roster.

If the primary motivation is to help another team win whether or not they know about it, it may be intelligent, but that doesn’t make it ethical 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

If the other guy has no idea, then it's not collusion.  Like, by the literal definition.

His motivation is to win.  He made a move that gives him a better chance to win, with no other secret discussions with any other team about his motives.

In his case, it is so much NOT collusion that even if he did disclose his motive to the trade partner it STILL wouldn't be collusion because the trade partner would have done the deal no matter what, regardless of anyone's motives.  

1000000% correct my ghostly friend. 

 

[Gally]

It was a condition of the trade that did not break any rules. 
 

Collusion would be a secret agreement to break the rules. 
 

Trades are legal. One must negotiate a trade in private. The results of the trade were not secret and directly observed. 

The league has no rule regarding voting on or disclosure of a trade parameters. The league has no rule stipulating requiring the starting of “obvious starts” based on projections. 
 

None of what they discussed broke any rules. 
 

Collusion requires that the rules are being purposely avoided by and for the benefit of both parties. They were not working around any known rules. 

Breaking rules is not necessarily a condition to be collusion.  The definition has been posted many times and rule breaking is not required.

Collusion:  Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

All of the conditions of the trade were not disclosed (secret), then were lied about (deceived), and then were divulged after pressure.  This is the definition of collusion.  Secret cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to deceive others.  This is exactly what happened in this specific case.  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

“Ethical behaviour is doing the right thing when no one else is watching—even when doing the wrong thing is legal”

-Aldo Leopold 

sigh. All due respect to Aldo, in my hypothetical, the right thing was done. 

That MY motivation also happens to be my trade partner's motivation doesn't make it unethical, and it certainly doesn't make it collusion (which would be literally impossible since only one party has an ulterior motive to make the trade). 

Plus no one is asking anyone to lose. That's a key part. Both parties involved are doing exactly what they would have done regardless of the side benefit to one team. Nothing exists in a vacuum. 

"with every action theres an equal opposite reaction, with every problem theres a solution just a matter of taking action”

~Albert Einstein 

One team anticipating a reaction from an action they take isn't collusion. It's strategy.  Thus my entire point: it is possible to ethically influence other people's rosters without some shady conditional side deal involving the benching of a perceived top player against you, which likely helps you to win (which is the same thing as the team who gets MT in this topic offering to tank, or reduce their chances of winning). 

Those two things are not the same and it's a mile of difference between them. 

 

[ghostguy123]

I am not a fan of the hush hush wink wink type of deals where two or more teams are conspiring together to give themselves an advantage over the rest of the league or for one team to help another for a kickback that doesnt directly involve trade capital or weird conditions (think 20 bucks under the table),  but when just one team is making moves with motives unbeknownst to the other trade partners??  Perfectly fine by me.  

For example making some trades to help your team or even hurt your competition by using bye weeks or injured players or whatever would be not only fine but brilliant in the right situations.  

Say I badly need a win and the guy i am playing has another WR of equal value, while my WR has a bye this week and his doesnt.   His team is a lock for a 1st round bye while mine needs a win to get in the playoffs.  I may offer him my WR for his, and add a draft pick.   My motivation is obvious in that I want to help my roster while hurting his for the week,  and his motivation is to basically get a free pick to swap players he values the same.

Seems some of you might consider that collusion, which I would strongly disagree with.