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

[Hot Sauce Guy]

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

knowing right from wrong is something I learned as a small child, and has nothing.to do with a “sense of superiority”. 

Ethics are ethics. I don’t define them. I adhere to them as best I can, not because I have a sense of superiority, but because I had good parents who instilled that in me.

I also studied ethics in school, giving me a fairly decent high level understanding of what constitutes “ethical behavior”. 

Here you choose to make a personal attack based on that. That’s a choice I guess, just not one that I would make.  

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. 

Which is why it’s not necessary to explicitly have it in the league rules or constitution. It is assumed that managers will behave ethically. 

the assertion that not everyone has the same ethics is technically correct. That doesn’t make unethical behavior right, it just means those who commit unethical transgressions don’t care that it’s wrong. 

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

you seem to have not finished your thought here. I’m interpreting this to mean there’s more to a trade than the worst part of it?

Which might be true. But for the purpose of this discussion the other parts are irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what the value of the players were or anything else: 

All that matters here is that these owners colluded. It’s cut & dry. 

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

There’s no sanctimony - that’s an inference. When it comes to black and white issues like what’s ethical and what isn’t I tend to speak in matter of fact terms because I don’t believe there is a grey area here. I also try to choose my words carefully because I’m my experience on boards like this, people like to slice and dice what you say, or make projections as to what others believe or intend. 

take it as you like. Chuckle away.  

 

[Gally]

Who got cheated?

Everyone else in the league.   Specifically the guy fighting with Team B for the last playoff spot.  Team B received a win that they should not have.  (The results are actually irrelevant on whether collusion occurred but it is handy that the outcome would have changed without the secret agreement giving Team B a win they did not deserve).  

 

[Joe Bryant]

My main takeaway from this thread: You folks are into Fantasy Football.  

Love it. 

 

[I Am the Stig]

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

I don’t k is about them but I would tell you who I roster is none of your business. You’re not entitled to an answer. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

/thread

End the thread because someone who doesn’t care about ethical behavior wants to redefine it as “my sense of superiority?

Yeah; sure ok.
 

In the real world ethics are a universally understood concept. 

/thread

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

My main takeaway from this thread: You folks are into Fantasy Football.  

Love it. 

Facts!

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I don’t k is about them but I would tell you who I roster is none of your business. You’re not entitled to an answer. 

But that’s not the point at all. 

Assuming you’re part of this deal (your hypothetical here) it has nothing to do with who you set for your team.

It also has nothing to do with who your trade partner sets for his team. 

it has everything to do with a secret condition imposed where YOU set the lineup for THEIR team. 

And that IS the business of everyone in the league since it is, literally, collusion. 

 

[I Am the Stig]

Everyone else in the league.   Specifically the guy fighting with Team B for the last playoff spot.  Team B received a win that they should not have.  (The results are actually irrelevant on whether collusion occurred but it is handy that the outcome would have changed without the secret agreement giving Team B a win they did not deserve).  

The guy fighting for a playoff spot with team B had 10 weeks to make better decisions. It sucks not controlling ones own destiny but team A made a deal to help themselves. They don’t owe the other team any consideration. 
 

Team B on the other hand did what they needed to do to stay in the hunt. They gave up a valuable player to live now. That is how you play. 

 

[I Am the Stig]

But that’s not the point at all. 

Assuming you’re part of this deal (your hypothetical here) it has nothing to do with who you set for your team.

It also has nothing to do with who your trade partner sets for his team. 

it has everything to do with a secret condition imposed where YOU set the lineup for THEIR team. 

And that IS the business of everyone in the league since it is, literally, collusion. 

It is the entirety of the point because the benching is what raised the issue to begin with. 
 

Nobody had a problem with the trade on face value, it was the usage that raised the eyebrows and I wouldn’t have felt obligated to explain my players usage to you or the league. It just isn’t a question you’re entitled an answer to. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

The guy fighting for a playoff spot with team B had 10 weeks to make better decisions. It sucks not controlling ones own destiny but team A made a deal to help themselves. They don’t owe the other team any consideration. 
 

Team B on the other hand did what they needed to do to stay in the hunt. They gave up a valuable player to live now. That is how you play. 

You seem to be overlooking the fact that they had to collude to make a secret conditional deal to do these things. It’s a very “ends justify the means” sort of reasoning. 

back to the analogy:

“Dude was broke and need a sammich. That Salvation Army bucket was right there filled with $. If Santa didn’t want to have $20 stolen from the bucket, he shouldn’t have walked over to pet the stray doggie leaving it unattended.”

Dude “did what he needed to do” to get his sammich. dude got his sammich. All good? 

 

[Gally]

The guy fighting for a playoff spot with team B had 10 weeks to make better decisions. It sucks not controlling ones own destiny but team A made a deal to help themselves. They don’t owe the other team any consideration. 
 

Team B on the other hand did what they needed to do to stay in the hunt. They gave up a valuable player to live now. That is how you play. 

Ok so I am going to now trade Mahomes (I also have Murray) to the guy playing against the team I am fighting for with the condition that he trades him back to me next week so he can beat the team I need to lose.  Is that just tough #### to that team because he had 10 weeks to be in a better position?

 

[Babooya]

knowing right from wrong is something I learned as a small child, and has nothing.to do with a “sense of superiority”. 

Ethics are ethics. I don’t define them. I adhere to them as best I can, not because I have a sense of superiority, but because I had good parents who instilled that in me.

I also studied ethics in school, giving me a fairly decent high level understanding of what constitutes “ethical behavior”. 

Here you choose to make a personal attack based on that. That’s a choice I guess, just not one that I would make.  

Which is why it’s not necessary to explicitly have it in the league rules or constitution. It is assumed that managers will behave ethically. 

the assertion that not everyone has the same ethics is technically correct. That doesn’t make unethical behavior right, it just means those who commit unethical transgressions don’t care that it’s wrong. 

you seem to have not finished your thought here. I’m interpreting this to mean there’s more to a trade than the worst part of it?

Which might be true. But for the purpose of this discussion the other parts are irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what the value of the players were or anything else: 

All that matters here is that these owners colluded. It’s cut & dry. 

There’s no sanctimony - that’s an inference. When it comes to black and white issues like what’s ethical and what isn’t I tend to speak in matter of fact terms because I don’t believe there is a grey area here. I also try to choose my words carefully because I’m my experience on boards like this, people like to slice and dice what you say, or make projections as to what others believe or intend. 

take it as you like. Chuckle away.  

It’s not a personal attack, you have an opinion like everyone else, it’s fair and reasoned. But it’s not universal nor should it be taken as such. 
 

and to accuse those who have reasoned disagreement with you as being unethical IS a personal attack.

I though Joe Bryant’s comments were perfectly reasonable, but according to you he’s an unethical person. That’s quite a stamp and why I called you sanctimonious, but hey, you took a college class on it

I could argue the issue either way which usually leads me to believe defining the rule is the best course in matters of grey area

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

It is the entirety of the point because the benching is what raised the issue to begin with. 
 

Nobody had a problem with the trade on face value, it was the usage that raised the eyebrows and I wouldn’t have felt obligated to explain my players usage to you or the league. It just isn’t a question you’re entitled an answer to. 

The usage was a condition of the trade. you’re arguing using after the fact reasoning.

the usage wasn’t optional, as you assert. The usage was preconditioned. There was not a choice to bench Thomas. 

This is why it’s a problem. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

It’s not a personal attack, you have an opinion like everyone else, it’s fair and reasoned. But it’s not universal nor should it be taken as such. 

calling me sanctimonious is 100% a personal attack. Hey, you do you., I won’t cry.  

and to accuse those who have reasoned disagreement with you as being unethical IS a personal attack.

I though Joe Bryant’s comments were perfectly reasonable, but according to you he’s an unethical person. That’s quite a stamp and why I called you sanctimonious, but hey, you took a college class on it

you’re 100% projecting here. Now you explain that your personal attack was based on that projection. That doesn’t make your personal attack better. I jever said or implied that everyone in disagreement with me is unethical. Please quote me doing so. I’ll wait. 

I have only spoken to what I believe is ethical behavior. Everything else is projection. 

Clearly, I replied to @Joe Bryant and clearly, I did not say he was unethical. I said I agreed with his last statement & I expressed how I disagree with his 1st and explained why in detail. You can go read it again to validate that. No need to project something I did not imply or state.

Please stop projecting, especially when projecting things I did not say or assert about the owner of this site’s ethics. That’s a pretty disingenuous and disrespectful thing to do. I’ve been respectful throughout this topic. I would expect the same, thanks.

I could argue the issue either way which usually leads me to believe defining the rule is the best course in matters of grey area

but it’s not a grey area. It’s an issue of ethics. Universally accepted, not a grey area. Like lying about having colluded, which goes back to the 10 commandments. 

sorry if you feel that’s sanctimonious. 

 

[I Am the Stig]

You seem to be overlooking the fact that they had to collude to make a secret conditional deal to do these things. It’s a very “ends justify the means” sort of reasoning. 

back to the analogy:

“Dude was broke and need a sammich. That Salvation Army bucket was right there filled with $. If Santa didn’t want to have $20 stolen from the bucket, he shouldn’t have walked over to pet the stray doggie leaving it unattended.”

Dude “did what he needed to do” to get his sammich. dude got his sammich. All good? 

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. 

 

[SayWhat?]

End the thread because someone who doesn’t care about ethical behavior wants to redefine it as “my sense of superiority?

Yeah; sure ok.
 

In the real world ethics are a universally understood concept. 

/thread

The tireless projection of your opinion as a fact coupled with your refusal to even remotely acknowledge a possible gray area in this scenario (a gray area which seems pretty well evidenced by ~45% of the respondents not believing this to be collusion) is, in the opinion of more than one poster, presenting as a sense of superiority.  That you can’t see that isn’t all that surprising.  Have a great day.

 

[Babooya]

The usage was a condition of the trade. you’re arguing using after the fact reasoning.

the usage wasn’t optional, as you assert. The usage was preconditioned. There was not a choice to bench Thomas. 

This is why it’s a problem. 

His point is that MT isn’t a ‘top 5 WR’ In fact he’s WR 132 in PPR and has averaged 6pt/gm played . The divide between the two options (Mattison or frankly A WW streamer) is being wildly exaggerated to get the the preconceived conclusion that this condition vastly changed the deal in terms of a dynasty league and upset competitor balance. 
 

the truth is it is a very minor element of the deal and is either allowed or not. And it doesn’t make the league or individuals bad people no matter which side of that you are on

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

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. 

But part of that negotiation involved setting each other’s lineups; and more specific to the ethics issue, benching a presumed top player (the specific target of the trade) as a condition of the deal. 

And more to the point, they agreed to this secretly, then lied about it to the league. 

i fail to understand why this isn’t cut and dry, but I’m done beating this horse. It’s been dead for 2 pages.

 

[davearm]

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

This is wrong. 

The terms aren't fine.  Requiring one team to tank isn't fine.

Keeping it secret and trying to sneak it by the rest of the league is a problem also, but a much smaller one.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

The tireless projection of your opinion as a fact coupled with your refusal to even remotely acknowledge a possible gray area in this scenario (a gray area which seems pretty well evidenced by ~45% of the respondents not believing this to be collusion) is, in the opinion of more than one poster, presenting as a sense of superiority.  That you can’t see that isn’t all that surprising.  Have a great day.

1. Ethics of collusion aren’t a grey area. It is a fact they colluded and it is a fact that collusion is unethical. 

2. Appeal to the masses fallacies shockingly remain illogical and unconvincing. 45% of respondents could believe the moon is made of cheese. Does that make it a grey area that the moon might be made of cheese? 

None of this involves “superiority” on my behalf. That seems like a defensive position to take because you can’t logically argue your position.

but you have yourself a very good day as well.

 

[Babooya]

calling me sanctimonious is 100% a personal attack. Hey, you do you., I won’t cry.  

you’re 100% projecting here. Now you explain that your personal attack was based on that projection. That doesn’t make your personal attack better. I jever said or implied that everyone in disagreement with me is unethical. Please quote me doing so. I’ll wait. 

I have only spoken to what I believe is ethical behavior. Everything else is projection. 

Clearly, I replied to @Joe Bryant and clearly, I did not say he was unethical. I said I agreed with his last statement & I expressed how I disagree with his 1st and explained why in detail. You can go read it again to validate that. No need to project something I did not imply or state.

Please stop projecting, especially when projecting things I did not say or assert about the owner of this site’s ethics. That’s a pretty disingenuous and disrespectful thing to do. I’ve been respectful throughout this topic. I would expect the same, thanks.

but it’s not a grey area. It’s an issue of ethics. Universally accepted, not a grey area. Like lying about having colluded, which goes back to the 10 commandments. 

sorry if you feel that’s sanctimonious. 

Here is one quote of many, hope you didn’t wait long:

“End the thread because someone who doesn’t care about ethical behavior wants to redefine it as “my sense of superiority?”

Keep calling everyone who doesn’t agree with you unethical, then say your aren’t, then say ethics in this case is universal and not a grey area. 

what a logic box!

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

His point is that MT isn’t a ‘top 5 WR’ In fact he’s WR 132 in PPR and has averaged 6pt/gm played . The divide between the two options (Mattison or frankly A WW streamer) is being wildly exaggerated to get the the preconceived conclusion that this condition vastly changed the deal in terms of a dynasty league and upset competitor balance. 
 

the truth is it is a very minor element of the deal and is either allowed or not. And it doesn’t make the league or individuals bad people no matter which side of that you are on

I never said anyone was a bad person. Good people could make an unethical deal. 

that they subsequently lied to the league about it paints them in not the best light though. 

But whatever MT is ranked or how he’s doing or what he’s capable of are 100% irrelevant to the absolute fact that they colluded.

They colluded. It’s a fact. That’s why their deal is problematic. Cut & dry. 

 

[davearm]

His point is that MT isn’t a ‘top 5 WR’ In fact he’s WR 132 in PPR and has averaged 6pt/gm played . The divide between the two options (Mattison or frankly A WW streamer) is being wildly exaggerated to get the the preconceived conclusion that this condition vastly changed the deal in terms of a dynasty league and upset competitor balance. 
 

the truth is it is a very minor element of the deal and is either allowed or not. And it doesn’t make the league or individuals bad people no matter which side of that you are on

All you need to know is that the owner acknowledged he would have played Thomas over Mattison, if not for the secret deal.  Average PPGs are not relevant.  The divide between the two options is not relevant.  Tanking a little or tanking a lot are both tanking.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Here is one quote of many, hope you didn’t wait long:

“End the thread because someone who doesn’t care about ethical behavior wants to redefine it as “my sense of superiority?”

Keep calling everyone who doesn’t agree with you unethical, then say your aren’t, then say ethics in this case is universal and not a grey area. 

what a logic box!

Please quote me calling anyone who disagreed with me unethical.

That never happened. You are inventing things that clearly never happened in order to paint me in a bad light.

I commented on behavior. There is no “logical box” because I never said anyone in this topic was unethical.

you inferred that.  incorrectly I might add. 

pointing out universally accepted ethics that disfavor your opinion isn’t the same as me calling you unethical. I operate with the assumption that we can discuss whether something is ethical or not without taking it personally or as accusation.

clearly, you cannot. 

 

[Babooya]

But part of that negotiation involved setting each other’s lineups; and more specific to the ethics issue, benching a presumed top player (the specific target of the trade) as a condition of the deal. 

I don’t recall any mention of setting anyone’s lineup. ‘Presumed’ is carry alot of water for WR132. Losing your mind over not playing a guy who scored 4 pts when he avg 6

Extremely minor element of the dynasty trade but a good Case study to bat around 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

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

Yes, in principal I agree. However it didn’t extend beyond the scope of “cost of transaction”, and there were no strings attached in terms of lineup decisions.

I wasn’t thrilled with it and we did subsequently disallow this in our rules for the next season, but we didn’t see it as rising to a veto-able offense.

but we also recognized the potential for slippery slope “l’ll give you $100 + Chris Carson for CMC” possibility for future deals so we put the kibosh on it. 

 

[Babooya]

pointing out universally accepted ethics that disfavor your opinion isn’t the same as me calling you unethical. I operate with the assumption that we can discuss whether something is ethical or not without taking it personally or as accusation.

clearly, you cannot. 

 

this is ridiculous 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I don’t recall any mention of setting anyone’s lineup. ‘Presumed’ is carry alot of water for WR132. Losing your mind over not playing a guy who scored 4 pts when he avg 6

Extremely minor element of the dynasty trade but a good Case study to bat around 

It’s the very premise of this topic. The conditional deal that constituted collusion was that the team receiving MT would bench him. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

 

this is ridiculous 

welcome to ignore. 

 

[I Am the Stig]

It’s the very premise of this topic. The conditional deal that constituted collusion was that the team receiving MT would bench him. 

Is the condition of my playing in the league stipulate that the league can determine who I play and when?

 

[Judge Smails]

All trades are done in private. And the terms were within the parameters of FF. 
 

There was no quid pro quo here. Both teams presumably wanted to win and want to win going forward. 
 

This isn’t a situation of throwing a game to benefit the other team. Collusion would be asking the other team to bench already owned players because they need the win and the other player doesn’t.  
 

This was a condition to receive a player that they did not yet own. Again, the MT owner was not going to play AGAINST MT that week one way or the other. If the term was not accepted the MT owner would have used it benched MT. 
 

The league trade deadline was likely approaching so it was truly a now or never trade. 

Wat?????

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Is the condition of my playing in the league stipulate that the league can determine who I play and when?

It’s irrelevant. They colluded.
 

Again, if “I” in this scenario means you’re the team getting MT, then the deal should have been nixed by one owner or the other when they made MT being benched a condition of trade acceptance.

In my business law classes I learned a term called “fruit of the poisoned vine”. The concept goes like this: if you rob a bank, then give that money to charity, you still go to jail for bank robbery.

Same thing here. The problem with the trade isn’t that MT was benched. That’s the follow-through on the collusive agreement. 

The deal involved collusion. That’s what’s important.

 

[I Am the Stig]

Wat?????

Was the trade deadline approaching?

Could the same trade have been made the following week?

Are there league votes on trades?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Wat?????

Yeah, it was obviously quid pro quo. That’s the biggest issue with it.  

 

[Gally]

Was the trade deadline approaching?

Could the same trade have been made the following week?

Are there league votes on trades?

Why is any of that relevant to a secret deal involving lineup manipulation?

 

[Judge Smails]

You don’t know that because you are not in the league. 

I do know.  They denied after getting confronted.  Tried to laugh it off, said no way, you're all crazy,  blah blah blah.  Then one said it actually was a condition of the trade and gaskets blew.

 

[I Am the Stig]

It’s irrelevant. They collided.
 

Again, if “I” in this scenario means you’re the team getting MT, then the deal should have been nixed by one owner or the other when they made MT being benched a condition of trade acceptance.

In my business law classes I learned a term called “fruit of the poisoned vine”. The concept goes like this: if you rob a bank, then give that money to charity, you still go to jail for bank robbery.

Same thing here. The problem with the trade isn’t that MT was benched. That’s the follow-through on the collusive agreement. 

The deal involved collusion. That’s what’s important.

It is relevant because how I roster is not up for the league to decide. Basically, you have no jurisdiction over how I roster my players beyond making sure every position is rostered with a player who is playing. 
 

I don’t need to tell you the trade condition because it is my team to roster as I see fit to do. 
 

Because I can make my own roster decisions it is not subject to disclosure. 

 

[Judge Smails]

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. 

Understood.  My future son in law is in leagues like that.  Anything goes.  Trade injured players, teams dump, etc.  Yahoo and work leagues.  I'm in one league.  That stuff doesn't fly in our league.  And you wouldn't want to be in ours because of that.  Cool.

 

[I Am the Stig]

Yeah, it was obviously quid pro quo. That’s the biggest issue with it.  

In as much as every trade is quid pro quo and collusion. 
 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Was the trade deadline approaching?

Could the same trade have been made the following week?

Are there league votes on trades?

Why is any of that relevant in the slightest? I’ll address each in kind:

1. was the trade deadline approaching?

A: doesn’t matter. Make the deal cleanly or don’t make the deal.

Judge: why did you rob that bank?

Bank Robber: “rent was due in a few days.”

Jury : Guilty!

2. Could the same trade have been made the following week?

A: if yes, ok. There’s the best option. If no, make a deal cleanly that doesn’t involve secret roster-oriented conditions. If the team dealing MT doesn’t want to face MT, that’s tough luck. The choice then is to not make the deal, not to collude in secret to bench MT. Because collusion is bad. 

3. Are there league votes on trades?

A: not sure why it’s important but it does highlight the collusion. Because if there were league votes on trades, then league mates would only be voting on part of the deal that was known to them, making the collusion even worse. Voting on a deal without knowing all components/conditions isn’t a fair vote. It is lying by omission of information. 

Now I’m not on a moral high horse superiority complex here, but to me, #3 seems to fail the ethical standards society has laid out for what constitutes “fairness” and “above board” dealing. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Why is any of that relevant to a secret deal involving lineup manipulation?

Exactly. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

In as much as every trade is quid pro quo and collusion. 
 

No, as much as deeply unethical deals involving collusion do.

You’re drawing a false equivalence between above board deals and deals involving shady secretive side arrangements. 

these two things aren’t the same. 

 

[I Am the Stig]

Understood.  My future son in law is in leagues like that.  Anything goes.  Trade injured players, teams dump, etc.  Yahoo and work leagues.  I'm in one league.  That stuff doesn't fly in our league.  And you wouldn't want to be in ours because of that.  Cool.

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. 

 

[Babooya]

if they lied about colluding kick them both out of the league

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

It is relevant because how I roster is not up for the league to decide. Basically, you have no jurisdiction over how I roster my players beyond making sure every position is rostered with a player who is playing. 

I never disagreed that you’re not able to make your own lineup decisions. No one here has. It’s irrelevant. 

I don’t need to tell you the trade condition because it is my team to roster as I see fit to do. 
 

Because I can make my own roster decisions it is not subject to disclosure. 

Except you do need to tell the league the conditions of your trade if they involve making lineup decisions based on conditional player acquisition. Because again; that’s collusion. 

If you’re asserting that collusion is ok, then we will simply agree to disagree. That seems to be your assertion.

I want to make sure I’m not putting words in your mouth here, but that last statement implies that you see no issue with a secret side deal, unknown to anyone in the league but you and your trade partner, involving benching a trade target. Which means you see nothing wrong with collusion. 

is that accurate? 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

if they lied about colluding kick them both out of the league

That was said by the OP. And I actually agree with you on this one. 

 

[Babooya]

That was said by the OP. And I actually agree with you on this one. 

I didn’t see that fact. My assumption was that both owners negotiated in good faith, if they didn’t and hid the deal that’s collusion 

edit I don’t think the condition itself necessarily means collusion but hiding it certainly does

 

[I Am the Stig]

if they lied about colluding kick them both out of the league

There should have been no expectation of an answer. 
 

It doesn’t matter if they told the truth or lied, they weren’t entitled to either. 
 

Now by the same token, the two players are not entitled to playing in the league next year and if the league has a real problem that is the ultimate solution. 
 

I don’t have a problem with the trade and I don’t have a problem with how the league handles it POST season either. 
 

But, without league votes or roster requirements they did nothing wrong as far as the league rules are stated. How the league feels about it is another matter. But it sounds like sour grapes and nothing more. 
 

Close the loophole at season’s end and move on. 

 

[Absolutely Nothing]

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. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

But, without league votes or roster requirements they did nothing wrong as far as the league rules are stated. How the league feels about it is another matter. But it sounds like sour grapes and nothing more. 
 

Close the loophole at season’s end and move on. 

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.