Real Collusion (1 Viewer)

[Dr. Octopus]

Man lots of folks in this thread tossing out terms like collusion and cheating, and having very little understanding what those terms mean.

Nobody in this situation colluded, and nobody cheated.

When the team on the short end admitted he wasn't trying to improve his team (the ultimate basis for any legit trade), then the trade became illegitimate and should have been reversed.

But it wasn't illegitimate on the basis of collusion or cheating. There was no secret agreement (collusion). And there was no attempt to break the rules (cheating).

It kind of seems like there was. Maybe not in the classical sense, but now we're just arguing semantics.

 

[FF Wiseguy]

whenever team A and team B mutually agree to ship A's good players to B and B's crap players to A, THIS IS COLLUSION. it doesn't matter whether there was an agreement to split a prize, or whether team A was just disinterested and had given up, what matters is that two managers were acting in the interests of only one of their teams. In fantasy football, this is considered cheating for a lot of very good reasons which i hope we all understand.

I disagree with your definition.

Player B simply gave up, and didn't care if he had his good players or the other guy's bad players. This is no good for the integrity of the league, for obvious reasons, but that doesn't mean it has to be labeled collusion or cheating. It's neither.

I agree with you that ragnarok's definition of collusion is not right. As for the bolded part of your post, I agree this alone does not constitute collusion. An owner giving up and taking a lowball trade is not collusion. However, they had discussions about the trade, and the owner had to be convinced to take the trade. He was not convinced that the merits of the trade were somehow worth taking. He was convinced to just take the trade for the F of it, and to help his friend win. That is what makes it collusion.

 

[Houston turmOiler]

I just had the same issue today... A guy on the verge of elimination traded away Charles Julius Thomas Deshawn Jackson Antonio Brown and Percy Harvin 4 Mendenhall Garrett Graham Greg Jennings and Big Ben to his friend he works with. I don't know how you prove collusion or cheating. A huge fight followed but my co commissioner and I agreed and vetoed the trade. I guess you just have to have a certain amount of leeway because that trade was bad for the league. It's the only one we have ever overturned.... I'm struggling with how to define it but something was obviously very off with that trade

 

[KCitons]

Collusion - secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

Was 3-7 being deceitful? Decieitful - not honest : making or trying to make someone believe something that is not true Maybe, but I don't think so.

Was either team doing something illegal? Let's check the rules......oh wait, there are no rules.

 

[FF Wiseguy]

I just had the same issue today... A guy on the verge of elimination traded away Charles Julius Thomas Deshawn Jackson Antonio Brown and Percy Harvin 4 Mendenhall Garrett Graham Greg Jennings and Big Ben to his friend he works with. I don't know how you prove collusion or cheating. A huge fight followed but my co commissioner and I agreed and vetoed the trade. I guess you just have to have a certain amount of leeway because that trade was bad for the league. It's the only one we have ever overturned.... I'm struggling with how to define it but something was obviously very off with that trade

You did the right thing. Like you said, you can never prove collusion. But you as commissioner have to use your best judgement and make tough calls sometimes. Luckily, this was not a very tough call.

 

[davearm]

Man lots of folks in this thread tossing out terms like collusion and cheating, and having very little understanding what those terms mean.

Nobody in this situation colluded, and nobody cheated.

When the team on the short end admitted he wasn't trying to improve his team (the ultimate basis for any legit trade), then the trade became illegitimate and should have been reversed.

But it wasn't illegitimate on the basis of collusion or cheating. There was no secret agreement (collusion). And there was no attempt to break the rules (cheating).

It kind of seems like there was. Maybe not in the classical sense, but now we're just arguing semantics.

If there's nothing in it for team B, then there's no collusion.

 

[Bayhawks]

Commish got in touch with 3-7... He admitted the deal was no good and apologized. His explanation was as follows:

Him and 6-4 had been working on a legit deal for weeks but couldn't ever quite get there. 3-7 was a team that lost a ton of close games, suffered a lot of heartbreakers - after his last loss this week he had finally given up and didn't give a ####. Afterwards, 6-4 had been begging him to make this deal (which was a much ####tier variation of a deal they negotiated a few weeks ago), he said he finally obliged. He said that he didn't take any money on the deal (he is fairly well off & commish said he sounded sincere).

After the call, the commish laid out the options for the two teams to all of us. He is presenting them with the choice of a or b:

A) Your season is over, you forfeit your buy-in, & you are welcome back next season

B) Your season is over, your money is returned and you're out of the league for good.

It's fair enough and our commish did a good job with the mud he had to dig through.

Now we are in discussions about adding a league review for trades... As much as I hate this, I might actually now vote in a favor. I really do hate this league review bull####, but it would prevent a situation like this.

So, essentially, despite all your loud talk, you were wrong. There was no collusion. No secret deals, no splitting of money, etc. It was a owner who was out of the running, not giving a s##t, and unloading his players to a buddy because he didn't care. Hmm, that sounds exactly like one of the scenarios I presented, before you decided to say (I can't defend my weak position any more so) "I can't discuss this any more."

Interesting.

False, it was an owner using his friendship with another owner to give him an edge... Clearly we have a diff opinion of what cheating is.

YOU titled the thread "Real Collusion." Collusion and cheating are not one and the same. Collusion is cheating, not all forms of cheating is collusion. So, if you want to contend that the 3-7 owner was cheating, (while I wouldn't agree with the term), I wouldn't argue with you over the semantics. The 6-4 owner, however, neither cheated, nor colluded (at least, not based on the information you've deigned to provide us). And the fact stands that you were all for stealing his $400 for offering, begging even, for another owner to make a trade with him. Offering a trade is not cheating. Pestering another owner about the trade is not cheating. Making a trade that is lopsided for your team is not cheating. The 6-4 owner did not cheat.

 

[FF Wiseguy]

Man lots of folks in this thread tossing out terms like collusion and cheating, and having very little understanding what those terms mean.

Nobody in this situation colluded, and nobody cheated.

When the team on the short end admitted he wasn't trying to improve his team (the ultimate basis for any legit trade), then the trade became illegitimate and should have been reversed.

But it wasn't illegitimate on the basis of collusion or cheating. There was no secret agreement (collusion). And there was no attempt to break the rules (cheating).

It kind of seems like there was. Maybe not in the classical sense, but now we're just arguing semantics.

If there's nothing in it for team B, then there's no collusion.

There was something in it for Team B. He got to help his friend win. That is ultimately why he did it. Thus, it is collusion.

Kind of flimsy, I know. But an owner acting intentionally acting in a way that does not benefit them but benefits another, along with an agreement with the other owner to do so, constitutes collusion, regardless of whether or not a tangible compensation is provided.

 

[davearm]

Yep, flimsy. My read is he just stopped caring, more than he actively wanted to see the other guy win.

The distinction is immaterial though, the second he stopped looking out for his own team's best interest.

 

[KCitons]

Yep, flimsy. My read is he just stopped caring, more than he actively wanted to see the other guy win.

The distinction is immaterial though, the second he stopped looking out for his own team's best interest.

This brings up the issue of a team that has given up. What if he decides to not set a lineup, or starts players that are on a bye (or injured) To a degree, this could constitute collusion. Any team could easily effect the playoff seedings by doing this.

Do you kick him out then? Keep his fee? He's exacted the same effect

 

[Bayhawks]

Just checked the assistant coach forum and I can't find a single post where someone is offered a trade and posters tell him/her not to accept because it's not even for both teams.

You never answered my question earlier, do you think Aaron Hernandez is a murderer? I'm dying for you to tell me he is innocent. What about OJ? Innocent too?

So I need to up my begging when I make trade offers?

"Please accept this, your season is over, help out a friend and give me these guys"

Sure, if you are okay with being a huge scumbag and ####### over your friends, go ahead and step the begging up.

Dude, why does anyone need to answer your questions? You ignore every one asked of you that might show that you are/might be wrong. If you want to have a discussion/debate, act like an adult. Don't call names, don't lie/cover things up, be truthful, admit when you are wrong, accept contrary opinions/ideas without acting like a child. That would make these things go much easier.

That being said, the saying "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" is appropriate here. If you threw out a lowball offer, expecting a counter offer, you'd be happy if the other owner accepted your lowball offer. It wouldn't make you a cheater, even though it might demonstrate the other owner was stupid, or didn't give a s- - t. So, unless you have never made a lowball offer, you're a hypocrite.

 

[FF Wiseguy]

Yep, flimsy. My read is he just stopped caring, more than he actively wanted to see the other guy win.

The distinction is immaterial though, the second he stopped looking out for his own team's best interest.

This brings up the issue of a team that has given up. What if he decides to not set a lineup, or starts players that are on a bye (or injured) To a degree, this could constitute collusion. Any team could easily effect the playoff seedings by doing this.

Do you kick him out then? Keep his fee? He's exacted the same effect

Exactly. Unless you have rules that specifically make this illegal and/or identify how it will be handled, you have to let them do it, then just don't allow them back in the league the next year. You have no basis for disqualification, and definitely no basis for disqualification AND forfeiture of league fee.

 

[Bayhawks]

Commish got in touch with 3-7... He admitted the deal was no good and apologized. His explanation was as follows:

Him and 6-4 had been working on a legit deal for weeks but couldn't ever quite get there. 3-7 was a team that lost a ton of close games, suffered a lot of heartbreakers - after his last loss this week he had finally given up and didn't give a ####. Afterwards, 6-4 had been begging him to make this deal (which was a much ####tier variation of a deal they negotiated a few weeks ago), he said he finally obliged. He said that he didn't take any money on the deal (he is fairly well off & commish said he sounded sincere).

After the call, the commish laid out the options for the two teams to all of us. He is presenting them with the choice of a or b:

A) Your season is over, you forfeit your buy-in, & you are welcome back next season

B) Your season is over, your money is returned and you're out of the league for good.

It's fair enough and our commish did a good job with the mud he had to dig through.

Now we are in discussions about adding a league review for trades... As much as I hate this, I might actually now vote in a favor. I really do hate this league review bull####, but it would prevent a situation like this.

So, essentially, despite all your loud talk, you were wrong. There was no collusion. No secret deals, no splitting of money, etc. It was a owner who was out of the running, not giving a s##t, and unloading his players to a buddy because he didn't care.

Hmm, that sounds exactly like one of the scenarios I presented, before you decided to say (I can't defend my weak position any more so) "I can't discuss this any more."

Interesting.

You have to read between the lines a little.

"Collusion" doesn't have to necessarily by splitting the pot. Team A pestering his buddy, Team B (who no longer gives a crap), into accepting a bad deal that only benefits Team A and does not benefit Team B in anyway is a form of collusion, albeit a less sinister variation.

No, it isn't. You want to call it "sneaky?" OK. You want to call it "unethical?" OK. You want to call it cheating or collusion. You're wrong.

 

[davearm]

Yep, flimsy. My read is he just stopped caring, more than he actively wanted to see the other guy win.

The distinction is immaterial though, the second he stopped looking out for his own team's best interest.

This brings up the issue of a team that has given up. What if he decides to not set a lineup, or starts players that are on a bye (or injured) To a degree, this could constitute collusion. Any team could easily effect the playoff seedings by doing this.

Do you kick him out then? Keep his fee? He's exacted the same effect

None of that is collusion. Collusion is very narrow, and as has been mentioned, nearly impossible to prove. It involves an under-the-table agreement that's both mutually beneficial and illegal/deceitful.

Every team has a duty to manage their team actively, and in such a way as to put the team's best interest first.

Making a crap trade out of boredom or frustration violates this (written or unwritten) rule. That doesn't make it cheating or collusion. It's just not holding up your end of the bargain.

Same goes for dropping good players to the waiver wire for crappy ones. Or starting guys that are injured or on their bye week. All the same violation.

 

[Houston turmOiler]

I never thought Id see someone so mad that they were keeping Charles and missing out on Garrett Graham..... Whatever the definitions I guess we will just continue to weed out people that don't love the sport and play hard no matter the record. We have quite a few good guys right now and they are happy we squashed it so we will keep them together and replace that guy. We will just rule it by common sense and fill it with guys that want a good competitive smack talking league above anything else.... I think that's the only way to do it really

 

[Houston turmOiler]

Yeah Im about to update his cant drop list so he doesnt create waiver chaos

 

[FF Wiseguy]

Yep, flimsy. My read is he just stopped caring, more than he actively wanted to see the other guy win.

The distinction is immaterial though, the second he stopped looking out for his own team's best interest.

This brings up the issue of a team that has given up. What if he decides to not set a lineup, or starts players that are on a bye (or injured) To a degree, this could constitute collusion. Any team could easily effect the playoff seedings by doing this.

Do you kick him out then? Keep his fee? He's exacted the same effect

None of that is collusion. Collusion is very narrow, and as has been mentioned, nearly impossible to prove. It involves an under-the-table agreement that's both mutually beneficial and illegal/deceitful.

Every team has a duty to manage their team actively, and in such a way as to put the team's best interest first.

Making a crap trade out of boredom or frustration violates this (written or unwritten) rule. That doesn't make it cheating or collusion. It's just not holding up your end of the bargain.

Same goes for dropping good players to the waiver wire for crappy ones. Or starting guys that are injured or on their bye week. All the same violation.

Again, you're right, that alone doesn't make it cheating or collusion. The conversation they had to get the deal done is what makes it collusion.

Friend A: Hey, let's do this trade.

Friend B: I don't want to, it makes no sense. You offered a better trade last week, and I said no.

Friend A: C'mon, who cares, you're basically eliminated anyways, and I have a shot at winning!

Friend B: Okay, fine, I'll do it.

How is this not collusion?

 

[Houston turmOiler]

I agree Wiseguy...thats our issue

 

[davearm]

Sounds more like coercion to me. You still haven't shown me what B's motive is, beyond getting A off his back.

 

[FF Wiseguy]

Sounds more like coercion to me. You still haven't shown me what B's motive is, beyond getting A off his back.

It is your definition that collusion has to be mutually beneficial. I do not agree. Owner B only has to willingly act in a way that is not in his best interest, and do so after making an agreement with owner A to do so. This satisfies that.

But at this point, we might as well quit arguing. We're arguing semantics. Semantics which are pretty immaterial to the "topic" at hand.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Just checked the assistant coach forum and I can't find a single post where someone is offered a trade and posters tell him/her not to accept because it's not even for both teams.

You never answered my question earlier, do you think Aaron Hernandez is a murderer? I'm dying for you to tell me he is innocent. What about OJ? Innocent too?

So I need to up my begging when I make trade offers?

"Please accept this, your season is over, help out a friend and give me these guys"

Sure, if you are okay with being a huge scumbag and ####### over your friends, go ahead and step the begging up.

Dude, why does anyone need to answer your questions? You ignore every one asked of you that might show that you are/might be wrong. If you want to have a discussion/debate, act like an adult. Don't call names, don't lie/cover things up, be truthful, admit when you are wrong, accept contrary opinions/ideas without acting like a child. That would make these things go much easier.

That being said, the saying "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" is appropriate here. If you threw out a lowball offer, expecting a counter offer, you'd be happy if the other owner accepted your lowball offer. It wouldn't make you a cheater, even though it might demonstrate the other owner was stupid, or didn't give a s- - t. So, unless you have never made a lowball offer, you're a hypocrite.

You define the word hypocrite in this thread

 

[davearm]

Fair enough. IMO there has to be at least some component of "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" for collusion to be in play.

Just a pet peeve, but collusion gets slapped on a lot of stuff that isn't, IMO.

 

[davearm]

OP, change thread title from "Real Collusion" to "Really Not Collusion" please.

 

[Houston turmOiler]

Thanks for your insight Wiseguy....I just want a kick ### league where we all try to bury each other every week. I hate having to do crap like I did today but Ill put the league first even over my own team....

 

[davearm]

Just checked the assistant coach forum and I can't find a single post where someone is offered a trade and posters tell him/her not to accept because it's not even for both teams.

You never answered my question earlier, do you think Aaron Hernandez is a murderer? I'm dying for you to tell me he is innocent. What about OJ? Innocent too?

So I need to up my begging when I make trade offers?

"Please accept this, your season is over, help out a friend and give me these guys"

Sure, if you are okay with being a huge scumbag and ####### over your friends, go ahead and step the begging up.

Dude, why does anyone need to answer your questions? You ignore every one asked of you that might show that you are/might be wrong. If you want to have a discussion/debate, act like an adult. Don't call names, don't lie/cover things up, be truthful, admit when you are wrong, accept contrary opinions/ideas without acting like a child. That would make these things go much easier.

That being said, the saying "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" is appropriate here. If you threw out a lowball offer, expecting a counter offer, you'd be happy if the other owner accepted your lowball offer. It wouldn't make you a cheater, even though it might demonstrate the other owner was stupid, or didn't give a s- - t. So, unless you have never made a lowball offer, you're a hypocrite.

You define the word hypocrite in this thread

He's exactly right though. By your logic, tossing out a lowball offer is attempted cheating. Having that offer accepted is actual cheating, and grounds for being kicked out of a league and forfeiting your entry fee.

 

[FF Wiseguy]

Fair enough. IMO there has to be at least some component of "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" for collusion to be in play.

Just a pet peeve, but collusion gets slapped on a lot of stuff that isn't, IMO.

Agreed. And we are essentially on the same side of the argument.

It's ridiculous how much work I've avoided posting in this thread for the last hour.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Helping your friend by giving him your best players is unethical, cheating, & collusion - Amazingly some still defend the situation even though one of the offenders has admitted to being wrong, apologized, and accepting whatever punishment comes his way. All of the sudden, the guy who said nothing shady took place and defended this trade tooth and nail has suddenly gone silent, no surprise there.

He begged his friend to just hand over his best players, his friend obliged... whether or not they exchanged money or not doesn't change the situation and the result.

Anyone who thinks giving their friends their best players to help isn't collusion on both ends, when both teams know the situation as "me helping you win" is insane!

/thread

 

[Mr.Pack]

Just checked the assistant coach forum and I can't find a single post where someone is offered a trade and posters tell him/her not to accept because it's not even for both teams.

You never answered my question earlier, do you think Aaron Hernandez is a murderer? I'm dying for you to tell me he is innocent. What about OJ? Innocent too?

So I need to up my begging when I make trade offers?

"Please accept this, your season is over, help out a friend and give me these guys"

Sure, if you are okay with being a huge scumbag and ####### over your friends, go ahead and step the begging up.

Do I think AH is guilty? Possibly, the evidence seems to appear that way, but I won't know until he has had due process. Might want to ask the same question to Brian Banks.

This was a league of friends, but you keep claiming that 3-7 and 6-4 are best friends? What if you had made the trade offer to 3-7? Would he have made that trade with you?

It's quite clear to me that 6-4 held a gun to 3-7 to make the trade.

6-4 should definitely be kicked out and prosecuted for armed robbery.

 

[mbuehner]

This is all your characterization of how it went down.

 

[davearm]

Helping your friend by giving him your best players is unethical, cheating, & collusion - Amazingly some still defend the situation even though one of the offenders has admitted to being wrong, apologized, and accepting whatever punishment comes his way. All of the sudden, the guy who said nothing shady took place and defended this trade tooth and nail has suddenly gone silent, no surprise there.

He begged his friend to just hand over his best players, his friend obliged... whether or not they exchanged money or not doesn't change the situation and the result.

Anyone who thinks giving their friends their best players to help isn't collusion on both ends, when both teams know the situation as "me helping you win" is insane!

/thread

Why is it not sufficient simply to say it's unethical, reverse the trade, and leave it at that?

You keep insisting on piling on more terms that don't fit the situation.

And as mbuehner just said, you're taking quite a few liberties with your interpretation.

 

[Wrigley]

Helping your friend by giving him your best players is unethical, cheating, & collusion - Amazingly some still defend the situation even though one of the offenders has admitted to being wrong, apologized, and accepting whatever punishment comes his way. All of the sudden, the guy who said nothing shady took place and defended this trade tooth and nail has suddenly gone silent, no surprise there.

He begged his friend to just hand over his best players, his friend obliged... whether or not they exchanged money or not doesn't change the situation and the result.

Anyone who thinks giving their friends their best players to help isn't collusion on both ends, when both teams know the situation as "me helping you win" is insane!

/thread

Why is it not sufficient simply to say it's unethical, reverse the trade, and leave it at that?

You keep insisting on piling on more terms that don't fit the situation.

And as mbuehner just said, you're taking quite a few liberties with your interpretation.

oh god

Two teams conspired....period.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Helping your friend by giving him your best players is unethical, cheating, & collusion - Amazingly some still defend the situation even though one of the offenders has admitted to being wrong, apologized, and accepting whatever punishment comes his way. All of the sudden, the guy who said nothing shady took place and defended this trade tooth and nail has suddenly gone silent, no surprise there.

He begged his friend to just hand over his best players, his friend obliged... whether or not they exchanged money or not doesn't change the situation and the result.

Anyone who thinks giving their friends their best players to help isn't collusion on both ends, when both teams know the situation as "me helping you win" is insane!

/thread

Why is it not sufficient simply to say it's unethical, reverse the trade, and leave it at that?

You keep insisting on piling on more terms that don't fit the situation.

And as mbuehner just said, you're taking quite a few liberties with your interpretation.

I agree with this. Still not clear why the trade can't just be reversed,and say that the two teams' rosters are frozen.

 

[Bayhawks]

Just checked the assistant coach forum and I can't find a single post where someone is offered a trade and posters tell him/her not to accept because it's not even for both teams.

You never answered my question earlier, do you think Aaron Hernandez is a murderer? I'm dying for you to tell me he is innocent. What about OJ? Innocent too?

So I need to up my begging when I make trade offers?

"Please accept this, your season is over, help out a friend and give me these guys"

Sure, if you are okay with being a huge scumbag and ####### over your friends, go ahead and step the begging up.

Dude, why does anyone need to answer your questions? You ignore every one asked of you that might show that you are/might be wrong. If you want to have a discussion/debate, act like an adult. Don't call names, don't lie/cover things up, be truthful, admit when you are wrong, accept contrary opinions/ideas without acting like a child. That would make these things go much easier.

That being said, the saying "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" is appropriate here. If you threw out a lowball offer, expecting a counter offer, you'd be happy if the other owner accepted your lowball offer. It wouldn't make you a cheater, even though it might demonstrate the other owner was stupid, or didn't give a s- - t. So, unless you have never made a lowball offer, you're a hypocrite.

You define the word hypocrite in this thread

if you truly think that, then you have no idea what the word means.

For me to be a hypocrite, I'd have to believe the opposite of how I'm acting. How is me thinking you jumped to conclusions in your conclusion that these 2 owners cheated hypocritical?

 

[Bayhawks]

Helping your friend by giving him your best players is unethical, cheating, & collusion - Amazingly some still defend the situation even though one of the offenders has admitted to being wrong, apologized, and accepting whatever punishment comes his way. All of the sudden, the guy who said nothing shady took place and defended this trade tooth and nail has suddenly gone silent, no surprise there.

He begged his friend to just hand over his best players, his friend obliged... whether or not they exchanged money or not doesn't change the situation and the result.

Anyone who thinks giving their friends their best players to help isn't collusion on both ends, when both teams know the situation as "me helping you win" is insane!

/thread

Why is it not sufficient simply to say it's unethical, reverse the trade, and leave it at that?

You keep insisting on piling on more terms that don't fit the situation.

And as mbuehner just said, you're taking quite a few liberties with your interpretation.

Again, if you want to call it shady, unethical, etc, I'd have no problem with that. But you named the thread "real collusion," and you seem determined to be right, despite all evidence to the contrary.

And, based on the selective release of information that you've employed in this thread, there's no way we can take your version of what happened and what these 2 owners said at face value.

 

[KCitons]

Helping your friend by giving him your best players is unethical, cheating, & collusion - Amazingly some still defend the situation even though one of the offenders has admitted to being wrong, apologized, and accepting whatever punishment comes his way. All of the sudden, the guy who said nothing shady took place and defended this trade tooth and nail has suddenly gone silent, no surprise there.

He begged his friend to just hand over his best players, his friend obliged... whether or not they exchanged money or not doesn't change the situation and the result.

Anyone who thinks giving their friends their best players to help isn't collusion on both ends, when both teams know the situation as "me helping you win" is insane!

/thread

Not sure who you are referring to as going silent? If you're talking about me, your wrong. I was just sending out low ball offers to all my league mates.

Anything we say isn't going to change your mind. As I already mentioned you had your plan set before you started this thread. The only thing you've done since the beginning, is cloud things with limited information and name calling. Some of us are having a discussion. Some of which doesn't even deal with your specific problem, yet you still feel the need to make it about you. Give other people a chance to learn from your mistakes.

I would still venture to guess that you are a team vying for one of the playoff spots, Mr 6-4 was probably hot on your heals or already ahead of you in the standings. The only way you could secure your playoff spot was to ensure these guys got kicked out of the league. Having the trade reversed and the teams continue this year, was not an option in your mind.

It's sad really. Based on all your bragging about bank accounts, I wouldn't think a $400 fantasy league wouldn't be worth a friendship. But, a guy like you can buy more friends.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Helping your friend by giving him your best players is unethical, cheating, & collusion - Amazingly some still defend the situation even though one of the offenders has admitted to being wrong, apologized, and accepting whatever punishment comes his way. All of the sudden, the guy who said nothing shady took place and defended this trade tooth and nail has suddenly gone silent, no surprise there.

He begged his friend to just hand over his best players, his friend obliged... whether or not they exchanged money or not doesn't change the situation and the result.

Anyone who thinks giving their friends their best players to help isn't collusion on both ends, when both teams know the situation as "me helping you win" is insane!

/thread

Not sure who you are referring to as going silent? If you're talking about me, your wrong. I was just sending out low ball offers to all my league mates.Anything we say isn't going to change your mind. As I already mentioned you had your plan set before you started this thread. The only thing you've done since the beginning, is cloud things with limited information and name calling. Some of us are having a discussion. Some of which doesn't even deal with your specific problem, yet you still feel the need to make it about you. Give other people a chance to learn from your mistakes.

I would still venture to guess that you are a team vying for one of the playoff spots, Mr 6-4 was probably hot on your heals or already ahead of you in the standings. The only way you could secure your playoff spot was to ensure these guys got kicked out of the league. Having the trade reversed and the teams continue this year, was not an option in your mind.

It's sad really. Based on all your bragging about bank accounts, I wouldn't think a $400 fantasy league wouldn't be worth a friendship. But, a guy like you can buy more friends.

You clearly think you're more important than you are - I think you're the only one who has this one confused as that is obviously about the GM in question

If you were literate, you'll see slightly above here I wanted them to take their money and leave for ruining the integrity of the league.

Lastly, wrong again, here take a look at the 9-0 thread... http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=698067&hl=

Get back to arguing about Cogs and JMart, with your man crush on that story I'd have to assume you were on the wrong end of some bullying for a lengthy stage of your life.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Just checked the assistant coach forum and I can't find a single post where someone is offered a trade and posters tell him/her not to accept because it's not even for both teams.

You never answered my question earlier, do you think Aaron Hernandez is a murderer? I'm dying for you to tell me he is innocent. What about OJ? Innocent too?

So I need to up my begging when I make trade offers?

"Please accept this, your season is over, help out a friend and give me these guys"

Sure, if you are okay with being a huge scumbag and ####### over your friends, go ahead and step the begging up.

Dude, why does anyone need to answer your questions? You ignore every one asked of you that might show that you are/might be wrong. If you want to have a discussion/debate, act like an adult. Don't call names, don't lie/cover things up, be truthful, admit when you are wrong, accept contrary opinions/ideas without acting like a child. That would make these things go much easier.That being said, the saying "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" is appropriate here. If you threw out a lowball offer, expecting a counter offer, you'd be happy if the other owner accepted your lowball offer. It wouldn't make you a cheater, even though it might demonstrate the other owner was stupid, or didn't give a s- - t. So, unless you have never made a lowball offer, you're a hypocrite.

You define the word hypocrite in this thread

if you truly think that, then you have no idea what the word means.For me to be a hypocrite, I'd have to believe the opposite of how I'm acting. How is me thinking you jumped to conclusions in your conclusion that these 2 owners cheated hypocritical?

Talking about a glass house, I thought you referred to me as a female earlier, compared me to your wife. Okay, now I have a better understanding of how this works... You can be a condescending insulting #######, but it isn't allowed by anyone else. Cool, real sorry about the misunderstanding.

 

[KCitons]

Helping your friend by giving him your best players is unethical, cheating, & collusion - Amazingly some still defend the situation even though one of the offenders has admitted to being wrong, apologized, and accepting whatever punishment comes his way. All of the sudden, the guy who said nothing shady took place and defended this trade tooth and nail has suddenly gone silent, no surprise there.

He begged his friend to just hand over his best players, his friend obliged... whether or not they exchanged money or not doesn't change the situation and the result.

Anyone who thinks giving their friends their best players to help isn't collusion on both ends, when both teams know the situation as "me helping you win" is insane!

/thread

Not sure who you are referring to as going silent? If you're talking about me, your wrong. I was just sending out low ball offers to all my league mates.Anything we say isn't going to change your mind. As I already mentioned you had your plan set before you started this thread. The only thing you've done since the beginning, is cloud things with limited information and name calling. Some of us are having a discussion. Some of which doesn't even deal with your specific problem, yet you still feel the need to make it about you. Give other people a chance to learn from your mistakes.

I would still venture to guess that you are a team vying for one of the playoff spots, Mr 6-4 was probably hot on your heals or already ahead of you in the standings. The only way you could secure your playoff spot was to ensure these guys got kicked out of the league. Having the trade reversed and the teams continue this year, was not an option in your mind.

It's sad really. Based on all your bragging about bank accounts, I wouldn't think a $400 fantasy league wouldn't be worth a friendship. But, a guy like you can buy more friends.

You clearly think you're more important than you are - I think you're the only one who has this one confused as that is obviously about the GM in question

If you were literate, you'll see slightly above here I wanted them to take their money and leave for ruining the integrity of the league.

Lastly, wrong again, here take a look at the 9-0 thread... http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=698067&hl=

Get back to arguing about Cogs and JMart, with your man crush on that story I'd have to assume you were on the wrong end of some bullying for a lengthy stage of your life.

Class to the end. Integrity of the league before friendship. I have a feeling you see these guys as your friend, they see you as something else.

Good luck with your season. Odds of winning just got better. How about link to your league? So we an all watch your road to the championship

I can multitask between two threads. What if I was bullied? Does that matter?

 

[Bayhawks]

Just checked the assistant coach forum and I can't find a single post where someone is offered a trade and posters tell him/her not to accept because it's not even for both teams.

You never answered my question earlier, do you think Aaron Hernandez is a murderer? I'm dying for you to tell me he is innocent. What about OJ? Innocent too?

So I need to up my begging when I make trade offers?

"Please accept this, your season is over, help out a friend and give me these guys"

Sure, if you are okay with being a huge scumbag and ####### over your friends, go ahead and step the begging up.

Dude, why does anyone need to answer your questions? You ignore every one asked of you that might show that you are/might be wrong. If you want to have a discussion/debate, act like an adult. Don't call names, don't lie/cover things up, be truthful, admit when you are wrong, accept contrary opinions/ideas without acting like a child. That would make these things go much easier.That being said, the saying "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" is appropriate here. If you threw out a lowball offer, expecting a counter offer, you'd be happy if the other owner accepted your lowball offer. It wouldn't make you a cheater, even though it might demonstrate the other owner was stupid, or didn't give a s- - t. So, unless you have never made a lowball offer, you're a hypocrite.

You define the word hypocrite in this thread

if you truly think that, then you have no idea what the word means.For me to be a hypocrite, I'd have to believe the opposite of how I'm acting. How is me thinking you jumped to conclusions in your conclusion that these 2 owners cheated hypocritical?

Talking about a glass house, I thought you referred to me as a female earlier, compared me to your wife. Okay, now I have a better understanding of how this works... You can be a condescending insulting #######, but it isn't allowed by anyone else. Cool, real sorry about the misunderstanding.

Since you want to talk about people's literacy, I'd suggest that you go back and read what I said. I never referred to you as a female; I asked you if you were one, because of your avoidance tactic, which is something that my wife does as well. In case you aren't aware, this is a message board, there is no way of knowing an indivdual's gender without asking. Being a woman isn't an insult. If you feel that it is, perhaps you should talk to someone about your misogynistic issues.

That being said, once again you are trying to deflect the issue at hand. I'll ask the question again, but I doubt you will answer it.

Have you ever made a lowball offer to another owner? If so, did you offer to give your entrance fee to the league since, in your opinion, lowball offers are some form of cheating? if the answer to either is yes, THAT is what makes you a hypocrite, not your juvenile insults and name-calling.

 

[DropKick]

Yep, flimsy. My read is he just stopped caring, more than he actively wanted to see the other guy win.

The distinction is immaterial though, the second he stopped looking out for his own team's best interest.

This brings up the issue of a team that has given up. What if he decides to not set a lineup, or starts players that are on a bye (or injured) To a degree, this could constitute collusion. Any team could easily effect the playoff seedings by doing this.

Do you kick him out then? Keep his fee? He's exacted the same effect

None of that is collusion. Collusion is very narrow, and as has been mentioned, nearly impossible to prove. It involves an under-the-table agreement that's both mutually beneficial and illegal/deceitful.

Every team has a duty to manage their team actively, and in such a way as to put the team's best interest first.

Making a crap trade out of boredom or frustration violates this (written or unwritten) rule. That doesn't make it cheating or collusion. It's just not holding up your end of the bargain.

Same goes for dropping good players to the waiver wire for crappy ones. Or starting guys that are injured or on their bye week. All the same violation.

Again, you're right, that alone doesn't make it cheating or collusion. The conversation they had to get the deal done is what makes it collusion.

Friend A: Hey, let's do this trade.

Friend B: I don't want to, it makes no sense. You offered a better trade last week, and I said no.

Friend A: C'mon, who cares, you're basically eliminated anyways, and I have a shot at winning!

Friend B: Okay, fine, I'll do it.

How is this not collusion?

It is collusion. We just have a lot of wannabe lawyers here who like to nitpick and argue semantics.

It reminds me of two women I work with... I offered them $5,000 for a night together... just the three of us They agreed and even said it might be fun. So, given their apparent interest, I asked them to do it for free. Appalled, they replied "what do you think we are? A couple of whores?". "Yes, that has already been established. Now we're just negotiating price".

 

[KCitons]

Yep, flimsy. My read is he just stopped caring, more than he actively wanted to see the other guy win.

The distinction is immaterial though, the second he stopped looking out for his own team's best interest.

This brings up the issue of a team that has given up. What if he decides to not set a lineup, or starts players that are on a bye (or injured) To a degree, this could constitute collusion. Any team could easily effect the playoff seedings by doing this.

Do you kick him out then? Keep his fee? He's exacted the same effect

None of that is collusion. Collusion is very narrow, and as has been mentioned, nearly impossible to prove. It involves an under-the-table agreement that's both mutually beneficial and illegal/deceitful.

Every team has a duty to manage their team actively, and in such a way as to put the team's best interest first.

Making a crap trade out of boredom or frustration violates this (written or unwritten) rule. That doesn't make it cheating or collusion. It's just not holding up your end of the bargain.

Same goes for dropping good players to the waiver wire for crappy ones. Or starting guys that are injured or on their bye week. All the same violation.

Again, you're right, that alone doesn't make it cheating or collusion. The conversation they had to get the deal done is what makes it collusion.

Friend A: Hey, let's do this trade.

Friend B: I don't want to, it makes no sense. You offered a better trade last week, and I said no.

Friend A: C'mon, who cares, you're basically eliminated anyways, and I have a shot at winning!

Friend B: Okay, fine, I'll do it.

How is this not collusion?

Funny how we couldn't get any answers early on in this thread. Now we have the entire conversation.

 

[Mr.Pack]

 

[Apple Jack]

Must be really good friends.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Just checked the assistant coach forum and I can't find a single post where someone is offered a trade and posters tell him/her not to accept because it's not even for both teams.

You never answered my question earlier, do you think Aaron Hernandez is a murderer? I'm dying for you to tell me he is innocent. What about OJ? Innocent too?

So I need to up my begging when I make trade offers?

"Please accept this, your season is over, help out a friend and give me these guys"

Sure, if you are okay with being a huge scumbag and ####### over your friends, go ahead and step the begging up.

Dude, why does anyone need to answer your questions? You ignore every one asked of you that might show that you are/might be wrong. If you want to have a discussion/debate, act like an adult. Don't call names, don't lie/cover things up, be truthful, admit when you are wrong, accept contrary opinions/ideas without acting like a child. That would make these things go much easier.That being said, the saying "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" is appropriate here. If you threw out a lowball offer, expecting a counter offer, you'd be happy if the other owner accepted your lowball offer. It wouldn't make you a cheater, even though it might demonstrate the other owner was stupid, or didn't give a s- - t. So, unless you have never made a lowball offer, you're a hypocrite.

You define the word hypocrite in this thread

if you truly think that, then you have no idea what the word means.For me to be a hypocrite, I'd have to believe the opposite of how I'm acting. How is me thinking you jumped to conclusions in your conclusion that these 2 owners cheated hypocritical?

Talking about a glass house, I thought you referred to me as a female earlier, compared me to your wife. Okay, now I have a better understanding of how this works... You can be a condescending insulting #######, but it isn't allowed by anyone else. Cool, real sorry about the misunderstanding.

Since you want to talk about people's literacy, I'd suggest that you go back and read what I said. I never referred to you as a female; I asked you if you were one, because of your avoidance tactic, which is something that my wife does as well. In case you aren't aware, this is a message board, there is no way of knowing an indivdual's gender without asking. Being a woman isn't an insult. If you feel that it is, perhaps you should talk to someone about your misogynistic issues. That being said, once again you are trying to deflect the issue at hand. I'll ask the question again, but I doubt you will answer it.

Have you ever made a lowball offer to another owner? If so, did you offer to give your entrance fee to the league since, in your opinion, lowball offers are some form of cheating? if the answer to either is yes, THAT is what makes you a hypocrite, not your juvenile insults and name-calling.

Oh I get the misunderstanding. You see, you've been a member here for 10 years, so I figured you knew you could click my profile and it says my gender is male. Now I see the disconnect. Probably a problem with my literacy, sorry about that.

In regards to the issue at hand, one of the members has confessed to cheating, admitted it and decided to leave his $400 in and take the DQ. He understands what he did is wrong, maybe you don't due to my literacy problem.

 

[DropKick]

Just checked the assistant coach forum and I can't find a single post where someone is offered a trade and posters tell him/her not to accept because it's not even for both teams.

You never answered my question earlier, do you think Aaron Hernandez is a murderer? I'm dying for you to tell me he is innocent. What about OJ? Innocent too?

So I need to up my begging when I make trade offers?

"Please accept this, your season is over, help out a friend and give me these guys"

Sure, if you are okay with being a huge scumbag and ####### over your friends, go ahead and step the begging up.

Dude, why does anyone need to answer your questions? You ignore every one asked of you that might show that you are/might be wrong. If you want to have a discussion/debate, act like an adult. Don't call names, don't lie/cover things up, be truthful, admit when you are wrong, accept contrary opinions/ideas without acting like a child. That would make these things go much easier.That being said, the saying "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" is appropriate here. If you threw out a lowball offer, expecting a counter offer, you'd be happy if the other owner accepted your lowball offer. It wouldn't make you a cheater, even though it might demonstrate the other owner was stupid, or didn't give a s- - t. So, unless you have never made a lowball offer, you're a hypocrite.

You define the word hypocrite in this thread

if you truly think that, then you have no idea what the word means.For me to be a hypocrite, I'd have to believe the opposite of how I'm acting. How is me thinking you jumped to conclusions in your conclusion that these 2 owners cheated hypocritical?

Talking about a glass house, I thought you referred to me as a female earlier, compared me to your wife. Okay, now I have a better understanding of how this works... You can be a condescending insulting #######, but it isn't allowed by anyone else. Cool, real sorry about the misunderstanding.

Since you want to talk about people's literacy, I'd suggest that you go back and read what I said. I never referred to you as a female; I asked you if you were one, because of your avoidance tactic, which is something that my wife does as well. In case you aren't aware, this is a message board, there is no way of knowing an indivdual's gender without asking. Being a woman isn't an insult. If you feel that it is, perhaps you should talk to someone about your misogynistic issues. That being said, once again you are trying to deflect the issue at hand. I'll ask the question again, but I doubt you will answer it.

Have you ever made a lowball offer to another owner? If so, did you offer to give your entrance fee to the league since, in your opinion, lowball offers are some form of cheating? if the answer to either is yes, THAT is what makes you a hypocrite, not your juvenile insults and name-calling.

Oh I get the misunderstanding. You see, you've been a member here for 10 years, so I figured you knew you could click my profile and it says my gender is male. Now I see the disconnect. Probably a problem with my literacy, sorry about that.

In regards to the issue at hand, one of the members has confessed to cheating, admitted it and decided to leave his $400 in and take the DQ. He understands what he did is wrong, maybe you don't due to my literacy problem.

Water board? Get's em every time!

 

[Insein]

How many alias' can Lhucks get banned?

 

[KCitons]

Did you kick these two owners out of your league too?

Was it a 16 team league at the start of the season? Keep questioning trades until you're the last man standing.

 

[DropKick]

Commish got in touch with 3-7... He admitted the deal was no good and apologized. His explanation was as follows:

Him and 6-4 had been working on a legit deal for weeks but couldn't ever quite get there. 3-7 was a team that lost a ton of close games, suffered a lot of heartbreakers - after his last loss this week he had finally given up and didn't give a ####. Afterwards, 6-4 had been begging him to make this deal (which was a much ####tier variation of a deal they negotiated a few weeks ago), he said he finally obliged. He said that he didn't take any money on the deal (he is fairly well off & commish said he sounded sincere).

After the call, the commish laid out the options for the two teams to all of us. He is presenting them with the choice of a or b:

A) Your season is over, you forfeit your buy-in, & you are welcome back next season

B) Your season is over, your money is returned and you're out of the league for good.

It's fair enough and our commish did a good job with the mud he had to dig through.

Now we are in discussions about adding a league review for trades... As much as I hate this, I might actually now vote in a favor. I really do hate this league review bull####, but it would prevent a situation like this.

So, essentially, despite all your loud talk, you were wrong. There was no collusion. No secret deals, no splitting of money, etc. It was a owner who was out of the running, not giving a s##t, and unloading his players to a buddy because he didn't care. Hmm, that sounds exactly like one of the scenarios I presented, before you decided to say (I can't defend my weak position any more so) "I can't discuss this any more."

Interesting.

You have to read between the lines a little.

"Collusion" doesn't have to necessarily by splitting the pot. Team A pestering his buddy, Team B (who no longer gives a crap), into accepting a bad deal that only benefits Team A and does not benefit Team B in anyway is a form of collusion, albeit a less sinister variation.

No, it isn't. You want to call it "sneaky?" OK. You want to call it "unethical?" OK. You want to call it cheating or collusion. You're wrong.

How can I argue with that rock solid argument? You win.

Really Bayhawk, even if you blame it on apathy, it is still collusion. It's two teams conspiring (making a trade) that defrauds the rest of the league (gives a team an "unearned" advantage).

And, if you can't accept that collusion comes in multiple flavors, dos the term "poor sportsmanship" fit for you?

 

[ragnarok628]

Man lots of folks in this thread tossing out terms like collusion and cheating, and having very little understanding what those terms mean.

Nobody in this situation colluded, and nobody cheated.

When the team on the short end admitted he wasn't trying to improve his team (the ultimate basis for any legit trade), then the trade became illegitimate and should have been reversed.

But it wasn't illegitimate on the basis of collusion or cheating. There was no secret agreement (collusion). And there was no attempt to break the rules (cheating).

It kind of seems like there was. Maybe not in the classical sense, but now we're just arguing semantics.

If there's nothing in it for team B, then there's no collusion.

this statement is absurd. there is ALWAYS something in it for team B in any trade, else the trade would not happen; if the thing B hopes to gain is an improved FF roster, this is just a normal trade and should never be overturned no matter how 'bad' of a trade it is. however, if the thing B hopes to gain is 1) to 'being a good friend' by helping a guy win the league by cheating the rest of the managers, or 2) to make an annoying guy go away by giving him your players in a league you no longer care about, or 3) some cut from the pot 'earned' by the guy he helped to win, that's COLLUSION, which is cheating. You seem to think that it's not collusion just because the manager of team B is apathetic. That is incorrect.

also some people seem to think that 6-4 didn't do anything wrong by agreeing to a trade which brings in 3 studs for 3 scrubs. There is no such thing as collusion where only one participant is guilty. this situation is not the same as one owner unexpectedly getting taken up on a lowball offer, this is a conscious decision on the part of both managers to stack one of their teams with players while leaving the other high and dry. in other words, clear cut collusion.

all of this assuming we're getting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth from OP. I say all this from that assumption, please don't try to counter this position with contrary assumptions as obviously none of this stands when the premises are revoked.

 

[KCitons]

Man lots of folks in this thread tossing out terms like collusion and cheating, and having very little understanding what those terms mean.

Nobody in this situation colluded, and nobody cheated.

When the team on the short end admitted he wasn't trying to improve his team (the ultimate basis for any legit trade), then the trade became illegitimate and should have been reversed.

But it wasn't illegitimate on the basis of collusion or cheating. There was no secret agreement (collusion). And there was no attempt to break the rules (cheating).

It kind of seems like there was. Maybe not in the classical sense, but now we're just arguing semantics.

If there's nothing in it for team B, then there's no collusion.

this statement is absurd. there is ALWAYS something in it for team B in any trade, else the trade would not happen; if the thing B hopes to gain is an improved FF roster, this is just a normal trade and should never be overturned no matter how 'bad' of a trade it is. however, if the thing B hopes to gain is 1) to 'being a good friend' by helping a guy win the league by cheating the rest of the managers, or 2) to make an annoying guy go away by giving him your players in a league you no longer care about, or 3) some cut from the pot 'earned' by the guy he helped to win, that's COLLUSION, which is cheating. You seem to think that it's not collusion just because the manager of team B is apathetic. That is incorrect.

also some people seem to think that 6-4 didn't do anything wrong by agreeing to a trade which brings in 3 studs for 3 scrubs. There is no such thing as collusion where only one participant is guilty. this situation is not the same as one owner unexpectedly getting taken up on a lowball offer, this is a conscious decision on the part of both managers to stack one of their teams with players while leaving the other high and dry. in other words, clear cut collusion.

all of this assuming we're getting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth from OP. I say all this from that assumption, please don't try to counter this position with contrary assumptions as obviously none of this stands when the premises are revoked.

We can move on from the OP's situation. I don't think there is any point in discussing it any further. The general question of what constitutes collusion has been an ongoing thing.

I asked before about a team that fails to set a lineup or submits a weak lineup the last 4 weeks of the fantasy season, because they know they are out of the playoffs. If it's a league of friends or coworkers, there is always room for interpretation. Maybe one guy doesn't want the boss to get into the playoffs. Too much of it is left up to interpretation by the commissioner.

An owner will often use the excuse that they forgot a player was on a bye. It all comes down to plausible deniability. This owner is effecting the balance of the league exactly the same as a lopsided trade.