Real Collusion (1 Viewer)

[fantasycurse42]

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.

This one really made me laugh KCitons!

You went and tracked down a post I made in the AC to clear up where I stand in a trade

The question, "which side do you like?" should be a hint that someone is trying to gauge which side they personally like better. Unfortunately this doesn't help your agenda.

KCitons, you are one stupid individual.

 

[KCitons]

It just sounds like someone being an ### and making a stupid deal.

Reverse the trade, and move on. This could have been taken care of in 1 minute with a reversal and an email warnign to the league, problem solved, and everyone is back to where they were 1 second before the trade went down.

But then the OP wouldn't have an easier road to the championship.

 

[ghostguy123]

And yes, this term "collusion" is thrown around too much.

I don't care if there is collusion in a deal or not, if the deal is close to equal value, so be it.

I would rather have collusion and a deal that is fairly close than a person just being stupid and making a couple HORRIBLE deals.

 

[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.

This one really made me laugh KCitons!

You went and tracked down a post I made in the AC to clear up where I stand in a trade

The question, "which side do you like?" should be a hint that someone is trying to gauge which side they personally like better. Unfortunately this doesn't help your agenda.

KCitons, you are one stupid individual.

Reread your title. It clearly says "Fair Trade?" Note the question mark.

I may not be a genius like you, but I did ok in elementary school. I know when a question mark appears at the end of a sentence, it means a question has been asked. In this case, the question is whether or not this is a fair trade.

 

[Rove!]

The beggar is pathetic and lame.

If the begged tells him "buzz off you're pathetic and lame", then good on him.

If the begged says "OK fine just take em already and leave me alone", then he's failed in his duty to protect the integrity of the league by putting his own team's best interest first.

If the begged says, "only if you wash my car and walk my dog," then we've got collusion.

col·lu·sion [kuh-loo-zhuh

n] Show IPA
noun 1. a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him.
2. Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement: collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce.

Nowhere in that definition is motivation or quid pro quo a necessary element of the definition of the word.

This should I end the discussion, but I'm guessing it won't.

You apparently missed "gain".

The quid pro quo is what elevates this from something uncool/unethical to something nefarious.

apparently your interpretation of gain is extremely narrow. Whether it's money, friendship, having a favor owed or catharsis, the team tanking gaining something of value to him.

also I think you missed "or" so even if you incorrectly initerpret "gain" the word "or" should help you out here

 

[fantasycurse42]

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.

This one really made me laugh KCitons!

You went and tracked down a post I made in the AC to clear up where I stand in a trade

The question, "which side do you like?" should be a hint that someone is trying to gauge which side they personally like better. Unfortunately this doesn't help your agenda.

KCitons, you are one stupid individual.

Reread your title. It clearly says "Fair Trade?" Note the question mark.I may not be a genius like you, but I did ok in elementary school. I know when a question mark appears at the end of a sentence, it means a question has been asked. In this case, the question is whether or not this is a fair trade.

"Which side do you like better?"

I don't believe you. You did poorly in elementary school, be honest.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

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.

This one really made me laugh KCitons!

You went and tracked down a post I made in the AC to clear up where I stand in a trade

The question, "which side do you like?" should be a hint that someone is trying to gauge which side they personally like better. Unfortunately this doesn't help your agenda.

KCitons, you are one stupid individual.

Reread your title. It clearly says "Fair Trade?" Note the question mark.

I may not be a genius like you, but I did ok in elementary school. I know when a question mark appears at the end of a sentence, it means a question has been asked. In this case, the question is whether or not this is a fair trade.

Don't get tangled with him dude. He could buy and sell either of us a hundred times over.

 

[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.

This one really made me laugh KCitons!

You went and tracked down a post I made in the AC to clear up where I stand in a trade

The question, "which side do you like?" should be a hint that someone is trying to gauge which side they personally like better. Unfortunately this doesn't help your agenda.

KCitons, you are one stupid individual.

Reread your title. It clearly says "Fair Trade?" Note the question mark.I may not be a genius like you, but I did ok in elementary school. I know when a question mark appears at the end of a sentence, it means a question has been asked. In this case, the question is whether or not this is a fair trade.

"Which side do you like better?"

I don't believe you. You did poorly in elementary school, be honest.

This is why this entire thread is questionable. You see things one way, but post them differently. The tread is clearly titled, Fair Trade? Now, that you have to defend it, you want to change the meaning.

 

[fantasycurse42]

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.

This one really made me laugh KCitons!

You went and tracked down a post I made in the AC to clear up where I stand in a trade

The question, "which side do you like?" should be a hint that someone is trying to gauge which side they personally like better. Unfortunately this doesn't help your agenda.

KCitons, you are one stupid individual.

Reread your title. It clearly says "Fair Trade?" Note the question mark.I may not be a genius like you, but I did ok in elementary school. I know when a question mark appears at the end of a sentence, it means a question has been asked. In this case, the question is whether or not this is a fair trade.

Don't get tangled with him dude. He could buy and sell either of us a hundred times over.

Any more sound football advice? Brady ROS #1 QB - your FF advice is awful, your trolling is even worse.

 

[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.

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?

I'll ask you the same questions I asked the OP, who refuses to answer.

Have you ever thrown out a lowball offer? Whether to start a trade convo, or because you're hoping the other owner is dumb enough to take it?

If a lowball offer were accepted, does that make you a "colluder" or "cheater?"

 

[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.

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.

Since you're not "man" enough to actually engage in a discussion, answer questions posed of you, be rational, etc, I'm done with you.

You were wrong, this was not "real collusion," as there were not TWO OR MORE people conspiring, which is required to meet the definition of collusion.

Since you seem to be too immature to discuss that, good luck continuing your crusade to change the definition of collusion.

 

[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?

I'll ask you the same questions I asked the OP, who refuses to answer.

Have you ever thrown out a lowball offer? Whether to start a trade convo, or because you're hoping the other owner is dumb enough to take it?

If a lowball offer were accepted, does that make you a "colluder" or "cheater?"

Maybe he refuse to answer because this isn't simply the case of a low ball offer.

But I will answer. Yes, I am a cheater if I target a team, possibly appealing to our friendship, who is out of contention and therefore lacking interest, to exact a trade severely in my favor.

 

[KCitons]

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?

I'll ask you the same questions I asked the OP, who refuses to answer.

Have you ever thrown out a lowball offer? Whether to start a trade convo, or because you're hoping the other owner is dumb enough to take it?

If a lowball offer were accepted, does that make you a "colluder" or "cheater?"

Maybe he refuse to answer because this isn't simply the case of a low ball offer.

But I will answer. Yes, I am a cheater if I target a team, possibly appealing to our friendship, who is out of contention and therefore lacking interest, to exact a trade severely in my favor.

Since this is a league entirely of HS friends, doesn't this happen with every trade?

 

[ghostguy123]

Apparently the term "cheating" is now also being grossly misused.

This thread jumped the shark.

 

[Rove!]

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?

I'll ask you the same questions I asked the OP, who refuses to answer.

Have you ever thrown out a lowball offer? Whether to start a trade convo, or because you're hoping the other owner is dumb enough to take it?

If a lowball offer were accepted, does that make you a "colluder" or "cheater?"

Maybe he refuse to answer because this isn't simply the case of a low ball offer.

But I will answer. Yes, I am a cheater if I target a team, possibly appealing to our friendship, who is out of contention and therefore lacking interest, to exact a trade severely in my favor.

Since this is a league entirely of HS friends, doesn't this happen with every trade?

People make lopsided trades to help out their buddies in every trade?

Check to be sure you're all caught up on your meds.....

 

[KCitons]

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?

I'll ask you the same questions I asked the OP, who refuses to answer.

Have you ever thrown out a lowball offer? Whether to start a trade convo, or because you're hoping the other owner is dumb enough to take it?

If a lowball offer were accepted, does that make you a "colluder" or "cheater?"

Maybe he refuse to answer because this isn't simply the case of a low ball offer.

But I will answer. Yes, I am a cheater if I target a team, possibly appealing to our friendship, who is out of contention and therefore lacking interest, to exact a trade severely in my favor.

Since this is a league entirely of HS friends, doesn't this happen with every trade?

People make lopsided trades to help out their buddies in every trade?

Check to be sure you're all caught up on your meds.....

Thanks for the concern. That's touching.

Did I attack you personally in some way? Or do show no class in all your posts?

This league is all friends. Are we to believe that every trade in 9 years was completely fair?

 

[ragnarok628]

Maybe he refuse to answer because this isn't simply the case of a low ball offer.

But I will answer. Yes, I am a cheater if I target a team, possibly appealing to our friendship, who is out of contention and therefore lacking interest, to exact a trade severely in my favor.

Since this is a league entirely of HS friends, doesn't this happen with every trade?

People make lopsided trades to help out their buddies in every trade?

Check to be sure you're all caught up on your meds.....

Thanks for the concern. That's touching.

Did I attack you personally in some way? Or do show no class in all your posts?

This league is all friends. Are we to believe that every trade in 9 years was completely fair?

trading isn't about exchanging players of exactly equal value--perceived value, of course-- It's about two managers trying to improve their own rosters. Dropkick is exactly right, to "target a team, possibly appealing to our friendship, who is out of contention and therefore lacking interest, to exact a trade severely in my favor." is definitely collusive, and it has nothing to do with any of the other friends in the league's trades; these things do not equate. You're trying to make it out like that describes every trade but it clearly does not.

 

[Johnny Blood]

Why should the trade have to be an attempt to improve your roster? A trade can improve your chance of winning the pot without improving your roster.

 

[Interseptopus]

Why should the trade have to be an attempt to improve your roster? A trade can improve your chance of winning the pot without improving your roster.

I recently made trades with three teams in my league to improve their team, and didn't do much to help mine- I got a couple guys I might keep for cheap and Rodgers for the playoffs.

I did these trades to try and push another team out of the playoffs that I am worried about as a top seed.

Is that collusion? No, I'm bettering my chances in the playoffs by trying to push another team out

 

[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.

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?

I'll ask you the same questions I asked the OP, who refuses to answer.

Have you ever thrown out a lowball offer? Whether to start a trade convo, or because you're hoping the other owner is dumb enough to take it?

If a lowball offer were accepted, does that make you a "colluder" or "cheater?"

Maybe he refuse to answer because this isn't simply the case of a low ball offer.

But I will answer. Yes, I am a cheater if I target a team, possibly appealing to our friendship, who is out of contention and therefore lacking interest, to exact a trade severely in my favor.

Thanks for answering (ie-advancing the conversation). I appreciate it.

I disagree with you, though. Every year, there are countless "art of the trade" type threads. One of the main strategies in these threads is to target struggling teams, where owners might be desperate. Another strategy often suggested is to reserve your best offer (ie-lowball them). You might get what you wanted without having to pay what you were willing to pay.

Since the 3-7 team wasn't out of contention (OP has said numerous times "practically" out of it), trading with them would fit strategy #1. The lowball offer is strategy #2. With regards to "do this because we are friends." That is coming from the OP, who has, by his own admission, been selective with the information he supplies, and what he has selected to share has unanimously been information that supports his pre-determined version of what had happened. So, I do not believe him about this being exactly how it happened.

So, IMO, a lowball offer being accepted isn't cheating. Taking advantage of an owner who is desperate or is giving up, isn't cheating.

Again, thanks for the polite, mature conversation. It was refreshing.

 

[monk]

Explain the difference between collusion and a bad trade.

Then explain how you know it's collusion. Or how you can prove it's collusion.

Doesn't matter ... no competitive league would allow this trade to go through.

Collusion or not if everyone agrees that it's bad for the integrity of the league than the trade should be busted.

I wouldn't fault the guy getting the best side of the trade (who wouldn't want a good deal) but the guy on the bad end of the trade should be gone after this season because he is incompetent.

Everyone throws around the word collusion ... there are other ways destroy the integrity of a good league ... incompetence, lack of interest, spite etc...

 

[KCitons]

Explain the difference between collusion and a bad trade.

Then explain how you know it's collusion. Or how you can prove it's collusion.

Doesn't matter ... no competitive league would allow this trade to go through.

Collusion or not if everyone agrees that it's bad for the integrity of the league than the trade should be busted.

I wouldn't fault the guy getting the best side of the trade (who wouldn't want a good deal) but the guy on the bad end of the trade should be gone after this season because he is incompetent.

Everyone throws around the word collusion ... there are other ways destroy the integrity of a good league ... incompetence, lack of interest, spite etc...

I've made reference to this in past threads about collusion. I will ask it again.

Based on your response, should the same apply to every teams draft pick in a startup draft? If someone was to take Jay Cutler with the 10th overall pick, would you stop the draft, demand the owner be removed from the league and keep his fees?

As the teams move through the season, should you monitor everyone teams waivers? If an owner acquires the wrong player, should you kick him out of the league and keep his fees?

Lastly, should you monitor every owners starting lineup to make sure they are starting the players you would start? What if they end up losing the game and it becomes obvious that the players you would have started would have earn him the win? Should this owner be removed from the league and his fees kept?

Bottom line. It's your league, but it's not your team. If NFL owners acted like this, they would have kicked the Browns, Jags and Raiders out of the league years ago. Without specific rules on how to handle things, there is only one agreement between owners and the league. The owner pays a fee and in return he manages a team.

 

[ragnarok628]

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?

I'll ask you the same questions I asked the OP, who refuses to answer.

Have you ever thrown out a lowball offer? Whether to start a trade convo, or because you're hoping the other owner is dumb enough to take it?

If a lowball offer were accepted, does that make you a "colluder" or "cheater?"

Maybe he refuse to answer because this isn't simply the case of a low ball offer.

But I will answer. Yes, I am a cheater if I target a team, possibly appealing to our friendship, who is out of contention and therefore lacking interest, to exact a trade severely in my favor.

Thanks for answering (ie-advancing the conversation). I appreciate it.

I disagree with you, though. Every year, there are countless "art of the trade" type threads. One of the main strategies in these threads is to target struggling teams, where owners might be desperate. Another strategy often suggested is to reserve your best offer (ie-lowball them). You might get what you wanted without having to pay what you were willing to pay.

Since the 3-7 team wasn't out of contention (OP has said numerous times "practically" out of it), trading with them would fit strategy #1. The lowball offer is strategy #2. With regards to "do this because we are friends." That is coming from the OP, who has, by his own admission, been selective with the information he supplies, and what he has selected to share has unanimously been information that supports his pre-determined version of what had happened. So, I do not believe him about this being exactly how it happened.

So, IMO, a lowball offer being accepted isn't cheating. Taking advantage of an owner who is desperate or is giving up, isn't cheating.

Again, thanks for the polite, mature conversation. It was refreshing.

there is nothing wrong with recognizing that downtrodden teams would be more likely trade partners than successful ones... the former type are more likely to need to do something different in order to win, the latter type are already winning so may be less open to trading. But finding a likely trade partner who would be willing to make some trades with you is not the same thing as finding a guy who's given up so that you can talk him into colluding with you to stack your own team and throw the rest of his season away.

let's say team A is struggling, not getting the wins he needs, and a long shot for the playoffs. team B dangles a few startable (for team A) WR depth for A's best RB. A decides that he's better off accepting your deal, because apparently that RB wasn't winning for him and he'd like to try something new with better WR, and takes the deal.

Other situation: A is not just struggling, but practically eliminated from the possibility of the playoffs. he doesn't care to play out the string and try for the best record he can, because he's a poor sport and juvenile. but hey, there are people like this. B is a friend who realizes that A doesn't care, offers his worst 3 players for A's best 3 players, telling A that since A can't win anyway, A should help B win. A agrees to do this, with the express understanding that he is just doing whatever B wants him to do to help B win.

certainly we can pick out a few similar things in both situations, but the fundamental difference is that in scenario 1, both teams are trying to win the league for themselves. in scenario 2, both teams are trying to win the league for team B. that's why it is collusion.

if you do happen to be a juvenile, boring, poor sport and want to quit trying in FF the correct path is to just suck it up and spend the 30 seconds it takes each week to field the best lineup you can, and this you owe to your leaguemates as a result of agreeing to be a part of the league in the first place. anything else is just taking your ball and bat and going home.

 

[Da Gildz]

Umm how is this not collusion? BJGE is worthless, Cutler is hurt and Fitz is barely on the WR3 radar. For Aj Green, Wilson and Moreno?!?! Please. I'd reverse the trade and not let either of these guys back in the league.

 

[Rove!]

It's funny how the "not collusion" guys are always changing the facts to support their case

 

[monk]

Explain the difference between collusion and a bad trade.

Then explain how you know it's collusion. Or how you can prove it's collusion.

Doesn't matter ... no competitive league would allow this trade to go through.

Collusion or not if everyone agrees that it's bad for the integrity of the league than the trade should be busted.

I wouldn't fault the guy getting the best side of the trade (who wouldn't want a good deal) but the guy on the bad end of the trade should be gone after this season because he is incompetent.

Everyone throws around the word collusion ... there are other ways destroy the integrity of a good league ... incompetence, lack of interest, spite etc...

I've made reference to this in past threads about collusion. I will ask it again.

Based on your response, should the same apply to every teams draft pick in a startup draft? If someone was to take Jay Cutler with the 10th overall pick, would you stop the draft, demand the owner be removed from the league and keep his fees?

As the teams move through the season, should you monitor everyone teams waivers? If an owner acquires the wrong player, should you kick him out of the league and keep his fees?

Lastly, should you monitor every owners starting lineup to make sure they are starting the players you would start? What if they end up losing the game and it becomes obvious that the players you would have started would have earn him the win? Should this owner be removed from the league and his fees kept?

Bottom line. It's your league, but it's not your team. If NFL owners acted like this, they would have kicked the Browns, Jags and Raiders out of the league years ago. Without specific rules on how to handle things, there is only one agreement between owners and the league. The owner pays a fee and in return he manages a team.

Sorry but that is a terrible example.

If you draft bad you're only hurting yourself. You would get your balls busted unmercifully but we would gladly accept your entry fee / donation. As long as that individual sets his lineup every week and attempts to compete they are welcome back every year.

But if a guy attempts to trade the a top 5 WR, Top 6 RB and a Top 7 QB for a pile of crap because he has nothing to play for ... that aint gonna happen and he is probably done in our league

 

[davearm]

If you don't see both sides are doing this, you're either blind or willfully ignorant.

The closest thing we got to facts was the text of the email the OP finally posted... Which deviated from his previous explanation of events.

Bottom line, the selective manipulation of facts began at post #1.

 

[KCitons]

Explain the difference between collusion and a bad trade.

Then explain how you know it's collusion. Or how you can prove it's collusion.

Doesn't matter ... no competitive league would allow this trade to go through.

Collusion or not if everyone agrees that it's bad for the integrity of the league than the trade should be busted.

I wouldn't fault the guy getting the best side of the trade (who wouldn't want a good deal) but the guy on the bad end of the trade should be gone after this season because he is incompetent.

Everyone throws around the word collusion ... there are other ways destroy the integrity of a good league ... incompetence, lack of interest, spite etc...

I've made reference to this in past threads about collusion. I will ask it again.

Based on your response, should the same apply to every teams draft pick in a startup draft? If someone was to take Jay Cutler with the 10th overall pick, would you stop the draft, demand the owner be removed from the league and keep his fees?

As the teams move through the season, should you monitor everyone teams waivers? If an owner acquires the wrong player, should you kick him out of the league and keep his fees?

Lastly, should you monitor every owners starting lineup to make sure they are starting the players you would start? What if they end up losing the game and it becomes obvious that the players you would have started would have earn him the win? Should this owner be removed from the league and his fees kept?

Bottom line. It's your league, but it's not your team. If NFL owners acted like this, they would have kicked the Browns, Jags and Raiders out of the league years ago. Without specific rules on how to handle things, there is only one agreement between owners and the league. The owner pays a fee and in return he manages a team.

Sorry but that is a terrible example.

If you draft bad you're only hurting yourself. You would get your balls busted unmercifully but we would gladly accept your entry fee / donation. As long as that individual sets his lineup every week and attempts to compete they are welcome back every year.

But if a guy attempts to trade the a top 5 WR, Top 6 RB and a Top 7 QB for a pile of crap because he has nothing to play for ... that aint gonna happen and he is probably done in our league

No it's not a terrible example. you were the one the brought up integrity of the league. I simply gave you examples that could make one team worse, while making others stronger. They upset the balance of the league, but that's different than the integrity. But, then again, we are not the NFL. I highly doubt that most fantasy football leagues work towards competitive balance at all times. It's usually survival of the fittest.

If there is any doubt, check the title of the forum you are posting in.

 

[T J]

Explain the difference between collusion and a bad trade.

Then explain how you know it's collusion. Or how you can prove it's collusion.

I absolutely f'ng hate answers like these. How do you EVER actually prove collusion?

I 100% disagree with those who say you can't overturn a trade if you can't prove collusion, gimme a break. If it's a crap trade, it's a crap trade. Overturned. And every single person in our league agrees with this approach.

 

[KCitons]

Explain the difference between collusion and a bad trade.

Then explain how you know it's collusion. Or how you can prove it's collusion.

I absolutely f'ng hate answers like these. How do you EVER actually prove collusion?

I 100% disagree with those who say you can't overturn a trade if you can't prove collusion, gimme a break. If it's a crap trade, it's a crap trade. Overturned. And every single person in our league agrees with this approach.

Yeah, being the second post of the thread probably didn't help.

If your league agrees and you have established rules to deal with it, then there are no problems. I don't particularly like 2qb leagues, so I don't play in them. Everybody has choices.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

doesnt the commish see all trades before they go thru?

 

[DropKick]

Explain the difference between collusion and a bad trade.

Then explain how you know it's collusion. Or how you can prove it's collusion.

Doesn't matter ... no competitive league would allow this trade to go through.

Collusion or not if everyone agrees that it's bad for the integrity of the league than the trade should be busted.

I wouldn't fault the guy getting the best side of the trade (who wouldn't want a good deal) but the guy on the bad end of the trade should be gone after this season because he is incompetent.

Everyone throws around the word collusion ... there are other ways destroy the integrity of a good league ... incompetence, lack of interest, spite etc...

I've made reference to this in past threads about collusion. I will ask it again.

Based on your response, should the same apply to every teams draft pick in a startup draft? If someone was to take Jay Cutler with the 10th overall pick, would you stop the draft, demand the owner be removed from the league and keep his fees?

As the teams move through the season, should you monitor everyone teams waivers? If an owner acquires the wrong player, should you kick him out of the league and keep his fees?

Lastly, should you monitor every owners starting lineup to make sure they are starting the players you would start? What if they end up losing the game and it becomes obvious that the players you would have started would have earn him the win? Should this owner be removed from the league and his fees kept?

Bottom line. It's your league, but it's not your team. If NFL owners acted like this, they would have kicked the Browns, Jags and Raiders out of the league years ago. Without specific rules on how to handle things, there is only one agreement between owners and the league. The owner pays a fee and in return he manages a team.

Sorry but that is a terrible example.

If you draft bad you're only hurting yourself. You would get your balls busted unmercifully but we would gladly accept your entry fee / donation. As long as that individual sets his lineup every week and attempts to compete they are welcome back every year.

But if a guy attempts to trade the a top 5 WR, Top 6 RB and a Top 7 QB for a pile of crap because he has nothing to play for ... that aint gonna happen and he is probably done in our league

No it's not a terrible example. you were the one the brought up integrity of the league. I simply gave you examples that could make one team worse, while making others stronger. They upset the balance of the league, but that's different than the integrity. But, then again, we are not the NFL. I highly doubt that most fantasy football leagues work towards competitive balance at all times. It's usually survival of the fittest.

If there is any doubt, check the title of the forum you are posting in.

No, it really is a terribly silly example.

But, hey, carry on. Irrelevant counter points are in vogue.

 

[TheStig]

I take it nobody looked at the box scores to see how this "lopsided" trade panned out. Did I read .7 points for AJ Green to be correct? And he will have zero points next week? And Fitzgerald with 12.10 points.

I Law Firm 6.2 points Moreno 7.9 points.

This is why you dont play God in your league. Leave trades alone unless you have a time machine period.

 

[Insein]

I take it nobody looked at the box scores to see how this "lopsided" trade panned out. Did I read .7 points for AJ Green to be correct? And he will have zero points next week? And Fitzgerald with 12.10 points.

I Law Firm 6.2 points Moreno 7.9 points.

This is why you dont play God in your league. Leave trades alone unless you have a time machine period.

Noticed it. Was going to post but didn't care that much.

 

[DropKick]

I take it nobody looked at the box scores to see how this "lopsided" trade panned out. Did I read .7 points for AJ Green to be correct? And he will have zero points next week? And Fitzgerald with 12.10 points.

I Law Firm 6.2 points Moreno 7.9 points.

This is why you dont play God in your league. Leave trades alone unless you have a time machine period.

You conveniently left out Russell Wilson who was traded for an injured QB.

Look we get that unexpected things happen, but this is a team that gave away his players. Maybe you want to play in that type of league but most people prefer a league with legitimate and honest competition.

 

[Legion of Doom]

I take it nobody looked at the box scores to see how this "lopsided" trade panned out. Did I read .7 points for AJ Green to be correct? And he will have zero points next week? And Fitzgerald with 12.10 points.

I Law Firm 6.2 points Moreno 7.9 points.

This is why you dont play God in your league. Leave trades alone unless you have a time machine period.

You conveniently left out Russell Wilson who was traded for an injured QB.

Look we get that unexpected things happen, but this is a team that gave away his players. Maybe you want to play in that type of league but most people prefer a league with legitimate and honest competition.

The 3-7 team had Josh McCown,so that changes everything!

 

[TheStig]

I take it nobody looked at the box scores to see how this "lopsided" trade panned out. Did I read .7 points for AJ Green to be correct? And he will have zero points next week? And Fitzgerald with 12.10 points.

I Law Firm 6.2 points Moreno 7.9 points.

This is why you dont play God in your league. Leave trades alone unless you have a time machine period.

You conveniently left out Russell Wilson who was traded for an injured QB.

Look we get that unexpected things happen, but this is a team that gave away his players. Maybe you want to play in that type of league but most people prefer a league with legitimate and honest competition.

We also don't know the rosters but it is a 10 Team league and when Wilson starts sitting because they have locked up the Conference.

 

[TheStig]

I take it nobody looked at the box scores to see how this "lopsided" trade panned out. Did I read .7 points for AJ Green to be correct? And he will have zero points next week? And Fitzgerald with 12.10 points.

I Law Firm 6.2 points Moreno 7.9 points.

This is why you dont play God in your league. Leave trades alone unless you have a time machine period.

You conveniently left out Russell Wilson who was traded for an injured QB.

Look we get that unexpected things happen, but this is a team that gave away his players. Maybe you want to play in that type of league but most people prefer a league with legitimate and honest competition.

And you want to play in a league that questions your trades, kicks you out based on your trades AND then keeps your money? That my friend is collusion. They certainly improved their chances at winning $4000 at the sniff of a bad trade.

In this case, it is looking like the league was wrong in predicting the outcome of the trades.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Explain the difference between collusion and a bad trade.

Then explain how you know it's collusion. Or how you can prove it's collusion.

Doesn't matter ... no competitive league would allow this trade to go through.

Collusion or not if everyone agrees that it's bad for the integrity of the league than the trade should be busted.

I wouldn't fault the guy getting the best side of the trade (who wouldn't want a good deal) but the guy on the bad end of the trade should be gone after this season because he is incompetent.

Everyone throws around the word collusion ... there are other ways destroy the integrity of a good league ... incompetence, lack of interest, spite etc...

I've made reference to this in past threads about collusion. I will ask it again.

Based on your response, should the same apply to every teams draft pick in a startup draft? If someone was to take Jay Cutler with the 10th overall pick, would you stop the draft, demand the owner be removed from the league and keep his fees?

As the teams move through the season, should you monitor everyone teams waivers? If an owner acquires the wrong player, should you kick him out of the league and keep his fees?

Lastly, should you monitor every owners starting lineup to make sure they are starting the players you would start? What if they end up losing the game and it becomes obvious that the players you would have started would have earn him the win? Should this owner be removed from the league and his fees kept?

Bottom line. It's your league, but it's not your team. If NFL owners acted like this, they would have kicked the Browns, Jags and Raiders out of the league years ago. Without specific rules on how to handle things, there is only one agreement between owners and the league. The owner pays a fee and in return he manages a team.

Sorry but that is a terrible example.

If you draft bad you're only hurting yourself. You would get your balls busted unmercifully but we would gladly accept your entry fee / donation. As long as that individual sets his lineup every week and attempts to compete they are welcome back every year.

But if a guy attempts to trade the a top 5 WR, Top 6 RB and a Top 7 QB for a pile of crap because he has nothing to play for ... that aint gonna happen and he is probably done in our league

No it's not a terrible example. you were the one the brought up integrity of the league. I simply gave you examples that could make one team worse, while making others stronger. They upset the balance of the league, but that's different than the integrity. But, then again, we are not the NFL. I highly doubt that most fantasy football leagues work towards competitive balance at all times. It's usually survival of the fittest.

If there is any doubt, check the title of the forum you are posting in.

It is an atrocious example. If one team drafts like a moron it doesn't give any other team an advantage. It spreads the wealth equally. If one team makes a ridiculous trade (that only somebody that just likes to argue would defend) it greatly benefits one team. The rest of the league gets screwed.

 

[Rove!]

I take it nobody looked at the box scores to see how this "lopsided" trade panned out. Did I read .7 points for AJ Green to be correct? And he will have zero points next week? And Fitzgerald with 12.10 points.

I Law Firm 6.2 points Moreno 7.9 points.

This is why you dont play God in your league. Leave trades alone unless you have a time machine period.

which would only be relevant if the 3-7 team didn't already admit that he didn't make the trade in good faith (and the leaving Russel Wilson out thing)

 

[KCitons]

Explain the difference between collusion and a bad trade.

Then explain how you know it's collusion. Or how you can prove it's collusion.

Doesn't matter ... no competitive league would allow this trade to go through.

Collusion or not if everyone agrees that it's bad for the integrity of the league than the trade should be busted.

I wouldn't fault the guy getting the best side of the trade (who wouldn't want a good deal) but the guy on the bad end of the trade should be gone after this season because he is incompetent.

Everyone throws around the word collusion ... there are other ways destroy the integrity of a good league ... incompetence, lack of interest, spite etc...

I've made reference to this in past threads about collusion. I will ask it again.

Based on your response, should the same apply to every teams draft pick in a startup draft? If someone was to take Jay Cutler with the 10th overall pick, would you stop the draft, demand the owner be removed from the league and keep his fees?

As the teams move through the season, should you monitor everyone teams waivers? If an owner acquires the wrong player, should you kick him out of the league and keep his fees?

Lastly, should you monitor every owners starting lineup to make sure they are starting the players you would start? What if they end up losing the game and it becomes obvious that the players you would have started would have earn him the win? Should this owner be removed from the league and his fees kept?

Bottom line. It's your league, but it's not your team. If NFL owners acted like this, they would have kicked the Browns, Jags and Raiders out of the league years ago. Without specific rules on how to handle things, there is only one agreement between owners and the league. The owner pays a fee and in return he manages a team.

Sorry but that is a terrible example.

If you draft bad you're only hurting yourself. You would get your balls busted unmercifully but we would gladly accept your entry fee / donation. As long as that individual sets his lineup every week and attempts to compete they are welcome back every year.

But if a guy attempts to trade the a top 5 WR, Top 6 RB and a Top 7 QB for a pile of crap because he has nothing to play for ... that aint gonna happen and he is probably done in our league

No it's not a terrible example. you were the one the brought up integrity of the league. I simply gave you examples that could make one team worse, while making others stronger. They upset the balance of the league, but that's different than the integrity. But, then again, we are not the NFL. I highly doubt that most fantasy football leagues work towards competitive balance at all times. It's usually survival of the fittest.

If there is any doubt, check the title of the forum you are posting in.

It is an atrocious example. If one team drafts like a moron it doesn't give any other team an advantage. It spreads the wealth equally. If one team makes a ridiculous trade (that only somebody that just likes to argue would defend) it greatly benefits one team. The rest of the league gets screwed.

Atrocious? That's sounds like it's REALLY bad. Again, for the people that only read one or two posts before they post themselves, that comment was in regards to people using league integrity or league balance as an excuse to veto trades. It doesn't matter whether the crappy owner helps all teams or just one or two teams. By it's definition, balance would be that all teams would be close to equal. One one team drafts poorly, trades poorly, waivers poorly and sets a poor lineup, they consistently lose. Where is the balance in that?

I take it nobody looked at the box scores to see how this "lopsided" trade panned out. Did I read .7 points for AJ Green to be correct? And he will have zero points next week? And Fitzgerald with 12.10 points.

I Law Firm 6.2 points Moreno 7.9 points.

This is why you dont play God in your league. Leave trades alone unless you have a time machine period.

which would only be relevant if the 3-7 team didn't already admit that he didn't make the trade in good faith (and the leaving Russel Wilson out thing)

But, it would be relevant for the next owner/commissioner that has to deal with a situation, and do so without confession.

I would venture a wild guess, and say 1 in 1000 owners would admit to any wrong doing. (probably higher, but haven't completely lost faith in mankind)

 

[ConnSKINS26]

This league hasn't fallen apart yet? Disappointed.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Explain the difference between collusion and a bad trade.

Then explain how you know it's collusion. Or how you can prove it's collusion.

Doesn't matter ... no competitive league would allow this trade to go through.

Collusion or not if everyone agrees that it's bad for the integrity of the league than the trade should be busted.

I wouldn't fault the guy getting the best side of the trade (who wouldn't want a good deal) but the guy on the bad end of the trade should be gone after this season because he is incompetent.

Everyone throws around the word collusion ... there are other ways destroy the integrity of a good league ... incompetence, lack of interest, spite etc...

I've made reference to this in past threads about collusion. I will ask it again.

Based on your response, should the same apply to every teams draft pick in a startup draft? If someone was to take Jay Cutler with the 10th overall pick, would you stop the draft, demand the owner be removed from the league and keep his fees?

As the teams move through the season, should you monitor everyone teams waivers? If an owner acquires the wrong player, should you kick him out of the league and keep his fees?

Lastly, should you monitor every owners starting lineup to make sure they are starting the players you would start? What if they end up losing the game and it becomes obvious that the players you would have started would have earn him the win? Should this owner be removed from the league and his fees kept?

Bottom line. It's your league, but it's not your team. If NFL owners acted like this, they would have kicked the Browns, Jags and Raiders out of the league years ago. Without specific rules on how to handle things, there is only one agreement between owners and the league. The owner pays a fee and in return he manages a team.

Sorry but that is a terrible example.

If you draft bad you're only hurting yourself. You would get your balls busted unmercifully but we would gladly accept your entry fee / donation. As long as that individual sets his lineup every week and attempts to compete they are welcome back every year.

But if a guy attempts to trade the a top 5 WR, Top 6 RB and a Top 7 QB for a pile of crap because he has nothing to play for ... that aint gonna happen and he is probably done in our league

No it's not a terrible example. you were the one the brought up integrity of the league. I simply gave you examples that could make one team worse, while making others stronger. They upset the balance of the league, but that's different than the integrity. But, then again, we are not the NFL. I highly doubt that most fantasy football leagues work towards competitive balance at all times. It's usually survival of the fittest.

If there is any doubt, check the title of the forum you are posting in.

It is an atrocious example. If one team drafts like a moron it doesn't give any other team an advantage. It spreads the wealth equally. If one team makes a ridiculous trade (that only somebody that just likes to argue would defend) it greatly benefits one team. The rest of the league gets screwed.

Atrocious? That's sounds like it's REALLY bad. Again, for the people that only read one or two posts before they post themselves, that comment was in regards to people using league integrity or league balance as an excuse to veto trades. It doesn't matter whether the crappy owner helps all teams or just one or two teams. By it's definition, balance would be that all teams would be close to equal. One one team drafts poorly, trades poorly, waivers poorly and sets a poor lineup, they consistently lose. Where is the balance in that?

I did unfortunately read all of your posts regarding this topic. They were all equally as bad.

The argument for why a trade like that upsets league balance or league integrity is because it unfairly stacks the deck. Having one idiot draft poorly doesnt do that. People aren't arguing that league balance should mean all teams are almost equal. They are arguing that teams shouldn't get an unfair or unethical advantage.

 

[KCitons]

Explain the difference between collusion and a bad trade.

Then explain how you know it's collusion. Or how you can prove it's collusion.

Doesn't matter ... no competitive league would allow this trade to go through.

Collusion or not if everyone agrees that it's bad for the integrity of the league than the trade should be busted.

I wouldn't fault the guy getting the best side of the trade (who wouldn't want a good deal) but the guy on the bad end of the trade should be gone after this season because he is incompetent.

Everyone throws around the word collusion ... there are other ways destroy the integrity of a good league ... incompetence, lack of interest, spite etc...

I've made reference to this in past threads about collusion. I will ask it again.

Based on your response, should the same apply to every teams draft pick in a startup draft? If someone was to take Jay Cutler with the 10th overall pick, would you stop the draft, demand the owner be removed from the league and keep his fees?

As the teams move through the season, should you monitor everyone teams waivers? If an owner acquires the wrong player, should you kick him out of the league and keep his fees?

Lastly, should you monitor every owners starting lineup to make sure they are starting the players you would start? What if they end up losing the game and it becomes obvious that the players you would have started would have earn him the win? Should this owner be removed from the league and his fees kept?

Bottom line. It's your league, but it's not your team. If NFL owners acted like this, they would have kicked the Browns, Jags and Raiders out of the league years ago. Without specific rules on how to handle things, there is only one agreement between owners and the league. The owner pays a fee and in return he manages a team.

Sorry but that is a terrible example.

If you draft bad you're only hurting yourself. You would get your balls busted unmercifully but we would gladly accept your entry fee / donation. As long as that individual sets his lineup every week and attempts to compete they are welcome back every year.

But if a guy attempts to trade the a top 5 WR, Top 6 RB and a Top 7 QB for a pile of crap because he has nothing to play for ... that aint gonna happen and he is probably done in our league

No it's not a terrible example. you were the one the brought up integrity of the league. I simply gave you examples that could make one team worse, while making others stronger. They upset the balance of the league, but that's different than the integrity. But, then again, we are not the NFL. I highly doubt that most fantasy football leagues work towards competitive balance at all times. It's usually survival of the fittest.

If there is any doubt, check the title of the forum you are posting in.

It is an atrocious example. If one team drafts like a moron it doesn't give any other team an advantage. It spreads the wealth equally. If one team makes a ridiculous trade (that only somebody that just likes to argue would defend) it greatly benefits one team. The rest of the league gets screwed.

Atrocious? That's sounds like it's REALLY bad. Again, for the people that only read one or two posts before they post themselves, that comment was in regards to people using league integrity or league balance as an excuse to veto trades. It doesn't matter whether the crappy owner helps all teams or just one or two teams. By it's definition, balance would be that all teams would be close to equal. One one team drafts poorly, trades poorly, waivers poorly and sets a poor lineup, they consistently lose. Where is the balance in that?

I did unfortunately read all of your posts regarding this topic. They were all equally as bad.

The argument for why a trade like that upsets league balance or league integrity is because it unfairly stacks the deck. Having one idiot draft poorly doesnt do that. People aren't arguing that league balance should mean all teams are almost equal. They are arguing that teams shouldn't get an unfair or unethical advantage.

Unfair? That's that part that is open for debate. In the OP's case, there was a confession. You seem to refuse to acknowledge all the other situations where an owner thinks something wrong has happened. (since you are good at reading, maybe you should do a quick search for collusion, the SP is littered with them)

Now you want to define any trade that is unbalanced as being unfair. How did the trade in the OP's league effect the rest of that league so far?

What would you do if both owners defended that trade? If you choose to overturn based on league integrity, (or league balance) then you are essentially protecting a bad owner from himself. And, why stop there?

 

[ghostguy123]

There is a certain level of unbalance in a trade that is acceptable. There is a line that must be crossed for the level of unbalace to be viewed as TOO MUCH of an unbalance.

The level of unbalance needed for this is open for interpretation, and obviously varies widely from league to league.

I know this. I don't want to be in a league that would allow, right now, someone to trade Dez Bryant for Greg Little because they have a "hunch". I don't even care if it is a 10-1 team trading Dez away to a 1-10 team.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Explain the difference between collusion and a bad trade.

Then explain how you know it's collusion. Or how you can prove it's collusion.

Doesn't matter ... no competitive league would allow this trade to go through.

Collusion or not if everyone agrees that it's bad for the integrity of the league than the trade should be busted.

I wouldn't fault the guy getting the best side of the trade (who wouldn't want a good deal) but the guy on the bad end of the trade should be gone after this season because he is incompetent.

Everyone throws around the word collusion ... there are other ways destroy the integrity of a good league ... incompetence, lack of interest, spite etc...

I've made reference to this in past threads about collusion. I will ask it again.

Based on your response, should the same apply to every teams draft pick in a startup draft? If someone was to take Jay Cutler with the 10th overall pick, would you stop the draft, demand the owner be removed from the league and keep his fees?

As the teams move through the season, should you monitor everyone teams waivers? If an owner acquires the wrong player, should you kick him out of the league and keep his fees?

Lastly, should you monitor every owners starting lineup to make sure they are starting the players you would start? What if they end up losing the game and it becomes obvious that the players you would have started would have earn him the win? Should this owner be removed from the league and his fees kept?

Bottom line. It's your league, but it's not your team. If NFL owners acted like this, they would have kicked the Browns, Jags and Raiders out of the league years ago. Without specific rules on how to handle things, there is only one agreement between owners and the league. The owner pays a fee and in return he manages a team.

Sorry but that is a terrible example.

If you draft bad you're only hurting yourself. You would get your balls busted unmercifully but we would gladly accept your entry fee / donation. As long as that individual sets his lineup every week and attempts to compete they are welcome back every year.

But if a guy attempts to trade the a top 5 WR, Top 6 RB and a Top 7 QB for a pile of crap because he has nothing to play for ... that aint gonna happen and he is probably done in our league

No it's not a terrible example. you were the one the brought up integrity of the league. I simply gave you examples that could make one team worse, while making others stronger. They upset the balance of the league, but that's different than the integrity. But, then again, we are not the NFL. I highly doubt that most fantasy football leagues work towards competitive balance at all times. It's usually survival of the fittest.

If there is any doubt, check the title of the forum you are posting in.

It is an atrocious example. If one team drafts like a moron it doesn't give any other team an advantage. It spreads the wealth equally. If one team makes a ridiculous trade (that only somebody that just likes to argue would defend) it greatly benefits one team. The rest of the league gets screwed.

Atrocious? That's sounds like it's REALLY bad. Again, for the people that only read one or two posts before they post themselves, that comment was in regards to people using league integrity or league balance as an excuse to veto trades. It doesn't matter whether the crappy owner helps all teams or just one or two teams. By it's definition, balance would be that all teams would be close to equal. One one team drafts poorly, trades poorly, waivers poorly and sets a poor lineup, they consistently lose. Where is the balance in that?

I did unfortunately read all of your posts regarding this topic. They were all equally as bad.

The argument for why a trade like that upsets league balance or league integrity is because it unfairly stacks the deck. Having one idiot draft poorly doesnt do that. People aren't arguing that league balance should mean all teams are almost equal. They are arguing that teams shouldn't get an unfair or unethical advantage.

Unfair? That's that part that is open for debate. In the OP's case, there was a confession. You seem to refuse to acknowledge all the other situations where an owner thinks something wrong has happened. (since you are good at reading, maybe you should do a quick search for collusion, the SP is littered with them)

Now you want to define any trade that is unbalanced as being unfair. How did the trade in the OP's league effect the rest of that league so far?

What would you do if both owners defended that trade? If you choose to overturn based on league integrity, (or league balance) then you are essentially protecting a bad owner from himself. And, why stop there?

I would know that they were both dishonest to the core.

 

[TheStig]

I take it nobody looked at the box scores to see how this "lopsided" trade panned out. Did I read .7 points for AJ Green to be correct? And he will have zero points next week? And Fitzgerald with 12.10 points.

I Law Firm 6.2 points Moreno 7.9 points.

This is why you dont play God in your league. Leave trades alone unless you have a time machine period.

which would only be relevant if the 3-7 team didn't already admit that he didn't make the trade in good faith (and the leaving Russel Wilson out thing)

The actual results are what matter though. Everyone is simply playing God shouting unfair this and collusion that. In the end, for one week at least, everyone was wrong about the outcome of the trade. Everyone considered the trade collusionary based on the direction and the perceived value of the players involved.

Again, 8 people colluded to improve their chance at winning $4000 and keeping the money from the two guys they kicked out.and on top of it, terms of how the trade worked out, they were all wrong.

 

[KCitons]

I take it nobody looked at the box scores to see how this "lopsided" trade panned out. Did I read .7 points for AJ Green to be correct? And he will have zero points next week? And Fitzgerald with 12.10 points.

I Law Firm 6.2 points Moreno 7.9 points.

This is why you dont play God in your league. Leave trades alone unless you have a time machine period.

which would only be relevant if the 3-7 team didn't already admit that he didn't make the trade in good faith (and the leaving Russel Wilson out thing)

The actual results are what matter though. Everyone is simply playing God shouting unfair this and collusion that. In the end, for one week at least, everyone was wrong about the outcome of the trade. Everyone considered the trade collusionary based on the direction and the perceived value of the players involved.

Again, 8 people colluded to improve their chance at winning $4000 and keeping the money from the two guys they kicked out.and on top of it, terms of how the trade worked out, they were all wrong.

I am still not understanding why the trade wasn't reversed and the teams allowed to finish the season? The solution looks like collusion also. But, since it's done by a group and it doesn't benefit one team, they will defend that it's not collusion.

Maybe that was a Freudian slip by the OP when he created the title. It wasn't the two owners that were showing "Real Collusion", it was the rest of the league.

The difficult thing about this thread is that it evolves around a specific scenario. Those that are saying it's collusion are only able to do so since there was a confession. Take the confession out of the equation and it makes it much more difficult to kick people out of a league. What you are left with at that point is deciding where the line of unbalance falls in a trade. Good Luck with that. If you know everything, you should be winning your league every year regardless of bad trades.

 

[Backside Pursuit]

I take it nobody looked at the box scores to see how this "lopsided" trade panned out. Did I read .7 points for AJ Green to be correct? And he will have zero points next week? And Fitzgerald with 12.10 points.

I Law Firm 6.2 points Moreno 7.9 points.

This is why you dont play God in your league. Leave trades alone unless you have a time machine period.

which would only be relevant if the 3-7 team didn't already admit that he didn't make the trade in good faith (and the leaving Russel Wilson out thing)

The actual results are what matter though. Everyone is simply playing God shouting unfair this and collusion that. In the end, for one week at least, everyone was wrong about the outcome of the trade. Everyone considered the trade collusionary based on the direction and the perceived value of the players involved.

Again, 8 people colluded to improve their chance at winning $4000 and keeping the money from the two guys they kicked out.and on top of it, terms of how the trade worked out, they were all wrong.

I disagree with this philosophically. I'm not much of a fan of Consequentialism--for a whole plethora of reasons I won't clog up this thread with. Consequentialism is a really bad and really lazy philosophy. If I trade away Julio Jones for Davone Bess the week before Jones is knocked out for the year, have I made a "good" trade? Have I made a "fair" trade?

YMMV of course. Some of us are process-oriented and others of us are results-oriented. I'm just disagreeing with the idea that "results are all that matter."

 

[KCitons]

I take it nobody looked at the box scores to see how this "lopsided" trade panned out. Did I read .7 points for AJ Green to be correct? And he will have zero points next week? And Fitzgerald with 12.10 points.

I Law Firm 6.2 points Moreno 7.9 points.

This is why you dont play God in your league. Leave trades alone unless you have a time machine period.

which would only be relevant if the 3-7 team didn't already admit that he didn't make the trade in good faith (and the leaving Russel Wilson out thing)

The actual results are what matter though. Everyone is simply playing God shouting unfair this and collusion that. In the end, for one week at least, everyone was wrong about the outcome of the trade. Everyone considered the trade collusionary based on the direction and the perceived value of the players involved.

Again, 8 people colluded to improve their chance at winning $4000 and keeping the money from the two guys they kicked out.and on top of it, terms of how the trade worked out, they were all wrong.

I disagree with this philosophically. I'm not much of a fan of Consequentialism--for a whole plethora of reasons I won't clog up this thread with. Consequentialism is a really bad and really lazy philosophy. If I trade away Julio Jones for Davone Bess the week before Jones is knocked out for the year, have I made a "good" trade? Have I made a "fair" trade?

YMMV of course. Some of us are process-oriented and others of us are results-oriented. I'm just disagreeing with the idea that "results are all that matter."

I get what you are trying to say, "the end doesn't justify the means". But, the same thing should be applied the OP's situation. They had made the decision to reverse the trade, and eliminate two teams. It wasn't until after, that the confessions came.

Also, what the players do after the trade, is a part of justifying why a team may have made the trade in the first place. Fantasy Owners value players differently, whether it's through the draft, waivers, or trade, you have a certain expectation from that player. Otherwise, you wouldn't want the player at the price you are being asked to pay (draft spot, blind bidding dollars, etc)

Did Trent Richardson achieve the level of expectation for his owners that drafted him in the 1st round the last two years? How about CJ Spiller? If you were to trade TRich today, would you get the same first round pick for him that you spent in August? If you don't then is that a trade that should be vetoed? After all, the perceived value doesn't match the real value being paid.