Throw my game to change playoff teams? (2 Viewers)

[Amused to Death]

Quick Monopoly question, you have 3 to 4 houses on all your properties and are flush with cash. Is it unethical to not replace your houses with hotels?

I can't imagine why you think this would be an ethical question.

Look up the rules of Monopoly (hint: focus on the rules relating to putting houses on your property).

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

That's missing the point of the analogy. Replace "hacking" with a situation where your leaguemate hands you his laptop so you can look something up on the internet, and you change his lineup after noticing that he's still logged in to his team. In the absence of a rule specifically prohibiting it, would ruffrody still say that's unacceptable? Why or why not?

I would defer to my league rules and my commish's judgement. That's my answer for all ludicrous scenarios people can try to come up with. Strictly within the realm of how I would handle MY team to win the championship THIS year, I would set MY lineup accordingly.

Ruffrody said:

Spell it out clearly in the rules, or stop whining about it

If ethics, and ethical behavior, are such a highly required component of a league, then rules should already be in place to address such behavior. Sans such rules, it's perfectly acceptable.

If you share that opinion, then you haven't answered my question.

If you don't share that opinion, then I'm not sure why you answered my question. I'm not surveying to find out how people would actually handle that kind of situation in their own leagues. The analogy was proposed to illustrate what's so silly about ruffrody's comment.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Quick Monopoly question, you have 3 to 4 houses on all your properties and are flush with cash. Is it unethical to not replace your houses with hotels?

I can't imagine why you think this would be an ethical question.

Look up the rules of Monopoly (hint: focus on the rules relating to putting houses on your property).

 

[Amused to Death]

That's missing the point of the analogy. Replace "hacking" with a situation where your leaguemate hands you his laptop so you can look something up on the internet, and you change his lineup after noticing that he's still logged in to his team. In the absence of a rule specifically prohibiting it, would ruffrody still say that's unacceptable? Why or why not?

I would defer to my league rules and my commish's judgement. That's my answer for all ludicrous scenarios people can try to come up with. Strictly within the realm of how I would handle MY team to win the championship THIS year, I would set MY lineup accordingly.

Ruffrody said:

Spell it out clearly in the rules, or stop whining about it

If ethics, and ethical behavior, are such a highly required component of a league, then rules should already be in place to address such behavior. Sans such rules, it's perfectly acceptable.

If you share that opinion, then you haven't answered my question.

If you don't share that opinion, then I'm not sure why you answered my question. I'm not surveying to find out how people would actually handle that kind of situation in their own leagues. The analogy was proposed to illustrate what's so silly about ruffrody's comment.

I would not favor a league that allows for "anything goes if its not in the rules". Would you still lose a game to benefit winning? That's what is being discussed. I also don't condone kidnapping your opponent's wife to make him accept a trade, even if its not in the rules

 

[TheStig]

That's missing the point of the analogy. Replace "hacking" with a situation where your leaguemate hands you his laptop so you can look something up on the internet, and you change his lineup after noticing that he's still logged in to his team. In the absence of a rule specifically prohibiting it, would ruffrody still say that's unacceptable? Why or why not?

I would defer to my league rules and my commish's judgement. That's my answer for all ludicrous scenarios people can try to come up with. Strictly within the realm of how I would handle MY team to win the championship THIS year, I would set MY lineup accordingly.

Ruffrody said:

Spell it out clearly in the rules, or stop whining about it

If ethics, and ethical behavior, are such a highly required component of a league, then rules should already be in place to address such behavior. Sans such rules, it's perfectly acceptable.

If you share that opinion, then you haven't answered my question.

If you don't share that opinion, then I'm not sure why you answered my question. I'm not surveying to find out how people would actually handle that kind of situation in their own leagues. The analogy was proposed to illustrate what's so silly about ruffrody's comment.

I would not favor a league that allows for "anything goes if its not in the rules". Would you still lose a game to benefit winning? That's what is being discussed. I also don't condone kidnapping your opponent's wife to make him accept a trade, even if its not in the rules

I think the point about the rules is that this is a predictable scenario and as such it should be addressed by a rule. It is simply CYA

 

[Pickle Rody]

Maybe I got a little carried away with my defense of why tanking is perfectly acceptable in some cases and then, lo and behold, I let myself get sucked into an ethical debate. Sheesh.

1. I am okay with tanking if it is not prohibited by league rules. When such tanking is used as a means to increase a teams probability of winning a title, this year or in future years, and is not prohibited by rules governing otherwise, I'm fine with it. If you disagree, that's fine with me also. I wasn't saying others with differing views were wrong, just that I have a different take on it.

2. Ethics, by my reading comprehension, seemed to be at the head of the line when discussing the issue of tanking. I was trying to illustrate that ethics had very little to do with it and those that were claiming so were putting too much emphasis on it, as it relates to TANKING.

3. Hacking into someone's account to change their lineup, regardless of any ridiculous scenario suggested, is detestable to me. Rules don't need to be in place for such actions to be regarded as detestable or "foul play." Any idiot knows that.

4. If, as claimed by others that, ethics had a lot to do with why tanking is detestable to them, then they should have rules in place to handle those situations.

5. Yes, my "If ethics, and ethical behavior, are such a highly required component of a league, then rules should already be in place to address such behavior. Sans such rules, it's perfectly acceptable." comment was probably too broad of a statement for some to grasp.

Everyone happy now?

 

[GregR]

Maybe I got a little carried away with my defense of why tanking is perfectly acceptable in some cases and then, lo and behold, I let myself get sucked into an ethical debate. Sheesh.

1. I am okay with tanking if it is not prohibited by league rules. When such tanking is used as a means to increase a teams probability of winning a title, this year or in future years, and is not prohibited by rules governing otherwise, I'm fine with it. If you disagree, that's fine with me also. I wasn't saying others with differing views were wrong, just that I have a different take on it.

2. Ethics, by my reading comprehension, seemed to be at the head of the line when discussing the issue of tanking. I was trying to illustrate that ethics had very little to do with it and those that were claiming so were putting too much emphasis on it, as it relates to TANKING.

3. Hacking into someone's account to change their lineup, regardless of any ridiculous scenario suggested, is detestable to me. Rules don't need to be in place for such actions to be regarded as detestable or "foul play." Any idiot knows that.

4. If, as claimed by others that, ethics had a lot to do with why tanking is detestable to them, then they should have rules in place to handle those situations.

5. Yes, my "If ethics, and ethical behavior, are such a highly required component of a league, then rules should already be in place to address such behavior. Sans such rules, it's perfectly acceptable." comment was probably too broad of a statement for some to grasp.

Everyone happy now?

Said I was done, but I never said this out as fully as I wanted, so I'll do it here.

Ignoratio tried to ask questions that get to the heart of the matter, but no one will engage in an honest discussion with him on it, instead continually dodging the question. So I'll give the answer. In a situation like this about a game, the collective view of people involved is what makes one thing ethical compared to another.

Hacking a login is unethical because 99.9% of us think it is unethical. You don't need a rule because it is so obviously understood it isn't allowed.

Using your high waiver priority and then trading the player you acquired is something that most everyone considers ethical. We don't need a rule that says it's allowed because everyone is similarly on the same page.

Tanking is more in the middle. From polls here, a majority think it is unethical. If you look at the actions of amateur and pro sports when the issue comes up, it is obviously frowned upon in society in general.

At what point do you need a rule for something? If 95% of us said it was ethical or unethical we wouldn't need a rule. What about 50%? 66%?

We don't really need to answer the exact percentage. If you know something is widely viewed as wrong, you should find out before doing it if you're an honorable person. The amount that view tanking as wrong is enough there should be no expectation it will necessarily be allowed.

I personally think tanking is unethical. But if someone disagrees, I don't think they are a bad person for thinking otherwise.

But I would think someone a bad person if they know tanking is viewed as unethical by the amount of people that it actually is... and they do it anyway rather than have their league clarify where they stand on it. If someone does that, it tells me that they are willing to do something that they know it is very likely that a majority of the league will consider cheating, so long as they think they can get away with it.

I don't have patience for that kind of immature behavior. I expect adults in my league. Have the integrity to let the league discuss it, where you will have an equal voice as everyone else, and make a decision.

Someone who shows they will try to turn this into a loophole only shows me that they cannot be trusted to not exploit any loophole they find. When I find an issue with our rules, I notify the league so we can address it. I expect the same from all of my owners.

 

[TakiToki]

I think Greg R's post above does strike at the heart of the matter. Tanking is generally reflective of poor ethics because most people think tanking is unethical. It's circular logic, and frankly most people assess these situations intuitively and then address the reasoning afterwards. But that doesn't necessarily make his contention inaccurate.

In a dynasty league composed of new players without any exposure to competitive norms of any sort, is there a salient ethical difference between a non-contender trading a producing player for future draft improvement and benching a producing player for future draft improvement? For the sake of avoiding a path that I don't think is all that relevant, let's say that it's a cap/contract league and that the player being benched has absolutely no chance of remaining on the non-contender's roster the following year.

 

[Amused to Death]

We don't really need to answer the exact percentage. If you know something is widely viewed as wrong, you should find out before doing it if you're an honorable person. The amount that view tanking as wrong is enough there should be no expectation it will necessarily be allowed.

I personally think tanking is unethical. But if someone disagrees, I don't think they are a bad person for thinking otherwise.

But I would think someone a bad person if they know tanking is viewed as unethical by the amount of people that it actually is... and they do it anyway rather than have their league clarify where they stand on it. If someone does that, it tells me that they are willing to do something that they know it is very likely that a majority of the league will consider cheating, so long as they think they can get away with it.

I don't have patience for that kind of immature behavior. I expect adults in my league. Have the integrity to let the league discuss it, where you will have an equal voice as everyone else, and make a decision.

Someone who shows they will try to turn this into a loophole only shows me that they cannot be trusted to not exploit any loophole they find. When I find an issue with our rules, I notify the league so we can address it. I expect the same from all of my owners.

Bottom line is league's need to have clearly defined rules. We say it all the time regarding collusion. A simple paragraph outlining what is expected regarding lineups and rosters should be standard. By the most recent poll you linked, only 41% said they definitely would not tank to improve playoff positioning. And combining the results of both, its almost exactly 50% that respond they definitely would not.

That's a lot of gray area remaining.

 

[Amused to Death]

From the 2006 link provided earlier, Marc Levin had an interesting reply. at post #28.

H.K.: Couple things:A) Do what you want to do that you think is best for your teamB) Karma is a bee-yotch

M.L. Wow, not only do I agree with H.K., but this reply should end the discussion.You most definitely tank the game if losing eliminates strong competition in the playoffs - es. if you'd be facing LT2 versus AZ in your first playoff game.Expect some leaguemates to be pissed and expect Karma to bite you sometime down the road.

Another from Levin at post #33:

What about a league with your buddies for serious money?My oldest league is with all my buddies and a G super bowl winner prize - I'd tank my last game in a heartbeat for an easier playoff matchup - and all my leaguemates woud understand why I did it.I don't see why the money matters, though.I like winning the league as much as winning the money, though I put a little more emphasis on winning the $$ leagues.

Why?Aren't you still trying to win the league at all costs?

ETA: Marc Levin literally helped write the Beginner's Guide To Fantasy Football here at FBGs

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

did you guys get this figured out yet?

 

[Amused to Death]

did you guys get this figured out yet?

Yes, the guy who wrote the FBG's manual on FFL approves.

 

[TheStig]

did you guys get this figured out yet?

Yes, the guy who wrote the FBG's manual on FFL approves.

Game, set, match. The definitive answer.

This was a pretty good, civil debate. Lots of good points raised on both sides of the fence. I particularly enjoy debating inbfavor of the underdog.

 

[Amused to Death]

did you guys get this figured out yet?

Yes, the guy who wrote the FBG's manual on FFL approves.

Game, set, match. The definitive answer.

This was a pretty good, civil debate. Lots of good points raised on both sides of the fence. I particularly enjoy debating inbfavor of the underdog.

I think the definitive answer is to know your league and follow your rules. It certainly is not a clear-cut, one-sided argument against. I saw a good analogy in the '06 thread - sometimes in chess you sacrifice a rook to take the queen.

 

[ghostguy123]

I think the definitive answer is to know your league and follow your rules. It certainly is not a clear-cut, one-sided argument against. I saw a good analogy in the '06 thread - sometimes in chess you sacrifice a rook to take the queen.

That's not a very good analogy at all. There are only two teams, and your moves only affect you and your opponent.

It's not something that SHOULD be done, but if I am in a redraft league with strangers, I would EXPECT things like this to happen. Whether I like it or not is pretty irrelevant. Since I expect it, it would make no sense to get upset about it, because if I was going to get upset about it then I should just not join that type of league.

ANy other kind of league, no.

 

[Amused to Death]

ESPN only prohibits tanking if it prevents other teams from making the playoffs. Seems they allow for some maneuvering for match ups if they're already in.

Fair Play and Conduct rules says this:

C: Impeding other owners
Certain transactions made solely to impede other owners is not allowed. Tanking games for the sole purpose of denying another player's chance to make the playoffs is against the rules. In particular, cycling through players in free agency to put them on waivers and make them unavailable to other teams in your league is strictly prohibited and is grounds for expulsion from the game.

 

[coolnerd]

Quick Monopoly question, you have 3 to 4 houses on all your properties and are flush with cash. Is it unethical to not replace your houses with hotels?

I can't imagine why you think this would be an ethical question.

He said quick queas

Quick Monopoly question, you have 3 to 4 houses on all your properties and are flush with cash. Is it unethical to not replace your houses with hotels?

I can't imagine why you think this would be an ethical question

Because he is asking a different question than he think he is asking.

In Monopoly if I don't maximize my potential income by not allowing any other players houses, I am treating all the other players equally...none of the other players can buy houses. When a player acts in his so-called best interest and sets a bogus line-up , he is treating one opponent differently than other opponents (the rest of the league).

 

[Wilfredo Ledezma]

good thing this topic has never been addressed before....

 

[Adam Harstad]

did you guys get this figured out yet?

Yes, the guy who wrote the FBG's manual on FFL approves.

Footballguys is not a monolith.

 

[Hoss Style]

I'm looking for a leauge that does NOT allow hacking into other's accounts.

Every time I've lost in any league it's been because of this.

 

[TheStig]

Quick Monopoly question, you have 3 to 4 houses on all your properties and are flush with cash. Is it unethical to not replace your houses with hotels?

I can't imagine why you think this would be an ethical question.

He said quick queas

Quick Monopoly question, you have 3 to 4 houses on all your properties and are flush with cash. Is it unethical to not replace your houses with hotels?

I can't imagine why you think this would be an ethical question

Because he is asking a different question than he think he is asking. In Monopoly if I don't maximize my potential income by not allowing any other players houses, I am treating all the other players equally...none of the other players can buy houses. When a player acts in his so-called best interest and sets a bogus line-up , he is treating one opponent differently than other opponents (the rest of the league).

So which is it? People have been claiming that tanking affects the balance of the league in its entirety and you claim it is treating one person unfairly. Do not bye weeks force lineups that not everyone gets the fortune of facing? While I understand your next point that "everyone gets bye weeks", the point is, it is also understood that unbalance is already built into the game. An optimal lineup every week is never a guarantee nor should it be expected.

The point with Monopoly and the houses is that your opponents may think it unfair that you are not maximizing your potential by buying hotels, thus freeing up houses for them to buy so that they may also maximize their potential or chances. That, in a sense, you are not putting your full roster out. Hotels are better than houses so it stands to reason that if you can purchase them, it is your ethical duty to do so in order to create a level playing field for the rest of the competitors. But what you have, when you control the houses is called a Monopoly. It took all game to get to that point of control and luxury where you command your ultimate destiny to be able to drive people to bankruptcy. It is an unpleasant, slow, and nasty way to lose in a "family game" when you realize that there is nothing you can do about it to change the outcome.

In this guys case, an entire season has played out. More of his decisions went his way than several others in the league. Luck of scheduling, in his eyes, has shined upon that have given him the opportunity to control the game to his perceived advantage. He earned a Monopoly of sorts by owning more wins (ie Houses) than his counterparts. He has determined that the short term profit ( buying hotels) is not worth the risk of ceding his "houses" to another opponent who has the "cash" (players, roster and matchup) to take advantage of newly available houses. His goal is to drive his opposition to elimination ("bankruptcy") and win the championship. This is also a unpleasant, slow, and nasty way to lose. But remember, of the 10 to 14 guys playing, elimination will happen to 9 to 13 of them anyway. Nobody ever cried for the guy who was eliminated in week 9 because a bye week prevented optimal lineups, but eliminated he was just the same. The game, in and of itself, is not balanced and evenly distributed.

And one other point that nobody has brought up, perhaps ever, what is then the obligation of the the opponent to set their roster at all as well? Let's say the guy goes for the full tank, and due to rules he doesn't have to set his roster. The opponent could do the same and force a tie. Why is he ethically bound to accept a free win if it is not in the "best interest of the league"? Is he not bound to the higher calling of the league as well? Is it ethical to still profit from another's unethical move?

 

[Amused to Death]

did you guys get this figured out yet?

Yes, the guy who wrote the FBG's manual on FFL approves.

Footballguys is not a monolith.

No, but it does show that even highly intelligent, knowledgeable FFL vets have differing opinions.

 

[CalBear]

The point with Monopoly and the houses is that your opponents may think it unfair that you are not maximizing your potential by buying hotels, thus freeing up houses for them to buy so that they may also maximize their potential or chances.

For someone who can't seem to grasp basic concepts of analogy, you sure use a lot of words.

 

[TheStig]

did you guys get this figured out yet?

Yes, the guy who wrote the FBG's manual on FFL approves.

Footballguys is not a monolith.

No, but it does show that even highly intelligent, knowledgeable FFL vets have differing opinions.

It also disproved the Myth of the Social Universal that tanking is always considered unethical in any form.

 

[Pickle Rody]

Said I was done, but I never said this out as fully as I wanted, so I'll do it here.

Ignoratio tried to ask questions that get to the heart of the matter, but no one will engage in an honest discussion with him on it, instead continually dodging the question. So I'll give the answer. In a situation like this about a game, the collective view of people involved is what makes one thing ethical compared to another.

Hacking a login is unethical because 99.9% of us think it is unethical. You don't need a rule because it is so obviously understood it isn't allowed.

Using your high waiver priority and then trading the player you acquired is something that most everyone considers ethical. We don't need a rule that says it's allowed because everyone is similarly on the same page.

Tanking is more in the middle. From polls here, a majority think it is unethical. If you look at the actions of amateur and pro sports when the issue comes up, it is obviously frowned upon in society in general.

At what point do you need a rule for something? If 95% of us said it was ethical or unethical we wouldn't need a rule. What about 50%? 66%?

We don't really need to answer the exact percentage. If you know something is widely viewed as wrong, you should find out before doing it if you're an honorable person. The amount that view tanking as wrong is enough there should be no expectation it will necessarily be allowed.

I personally think tanking is unethical. But if someone disagrees, I don't think they are a bad person for thinking otherwise.

But I would think someone a bad person if they know tanking is viewed as unethical by the amount of people that it actually is... and they do it anyway rather than have their league clarify where they stand on it. If someone does that, it tells me that they are willing to do something that they know it is very likely that a majority of the league will consider cheating, so long as they think they can get away with it.

I don't have patience for that kind of immature behavior. I expect adults in my league. Have the integrity to let the league discuss it, where you will have an equal voice as everyone else, and make a decision.

Someone who shows they will try to turn this into a loophole only shows me that they cannot be trusted to not exploit any loophole they find. When I find an issue with our rules, I notify the league so we can address it. I expect the same from all of my owners.

Someone disagrees with you about the issue of tanking, but you don't think they're a bad person for doing so. Okay.

Ahhh, but because they do, you also think they'd be willing to circumvent the rules any chance they get, and obviously they cannot be trusted to do otherwise. Hmmm, seems like a stretch to me, but okay, you have the right to think whatever you want. Your words say to me that you actually do think they're a bad person, because you cannot possibly trust someone who thinks that way to not dig up any loophole they can find. (Your words, not mine.) So, because they have a differing opinion than yours and it's not what the majority thinks, they must be a bad person who cannot be trusted otherwise. You have the right to question their honor, or integrity, because they have a differing opinion, but that would be a mistake on your part.

Just because the majority of folks think tanking is cheating doesn't necessarily mean the minority of folks are bad people because they don't think it is, but you are free to make that leap in judgement if you so choose. Just because the majority thinks tanking is cheating doesn't necessarily mean it actually is. The majority has often been shown to be mistaken.

I'll even give a real example of this statement. About 10 years ago, in my own league that I commish, there was some discontent about some trades that went down the previous year. The majority of the league thought a Trades Committee, one which would approve or disapprove of trades, would be the correct way to handle all trades going forward. It was a disaster the next year. The majority very quickly realized their mistake and disbanded the Trades Committee after one year. Turns out, the minority views on trading and being able to do what each owner felt was in the best interests of their own team was ultimately more important to each of them than having their decisions critiqued every time they wanted to make a trade.

And by the way, it's not a loophole if everyone in the league is fine with it. I've given two real examples of this (in real leagues I participate in) in previous posts, yet that's been mostly ignored because they are examples of the minority viewpoint. I couldn't possibly create a loophole where none existed in the first place.

If the majority of league members thinks tanking is cheating or unethical, then there absolutely should be rules to prevent it. Thus, the majority imparts it's will on the minority and, the discussion is moot. It doesn't necessarily mean the majority is right, it just means that they have taken steps to prevent what they would consider wrong.

As an honorable person, with integrity, I would abide by those rules. Just like I have with every other rule that has been instilled in my league, even though I may not have agreed every time the majority had differing opinions than my own.

 

[Amused to Death]

Said I was done, but I never said this out as fully as I wanted, so I'll do it here.

Ignoratio tried to ask questions that get to the heart of the matter, but no one will engage in an honest discussion with him on it, instead continually dodging the question. So I'll give the answer. In a situation like this about a game, the collective view of people involved is what makes one thing ethical compared to another.

Hacking a login is unethical because 99.9% of us think it is unethical. You don't need a rule because it is so obviously understood it isn't allowed.

Using your high waiver priority and then trading the player you acquired is something that most everyone considers ethical. We don't need a rule that says it's allowed because everyone is similarly on the same page.

Tanking is more in the middle. From polls here, a majority think it is unethical. If you look at the actions of amateur and pro sports when the issue comes up, it is obviously frowned upon in society in general.

At what point do you need a rule for something? If 95% of us said it was ethical or unethical we wouldn't need a rule. What about 50%? 66%?

We don't really need to answer the exact percentage. If you know something is widely viewed as wrong, you should find out before doing it if you're an honorable person. The amount that view tanking as wrong is enough there should be no expectation it will necessarily be allowed.

I personally think tanking is unethical. But if someone disagrees, I don't think they are a bad person for thinking otherwise.

But I would think someone a bad person if they know tanking is viewed as unethical by the amount of people that it actually is... and they do it anyway rather than have their league clarify where they stand on it. If someone does that, it tells me that they are willing to do something that they know it is very likely that a majority of the league will consider cheating, so long as they think they can get away with it.

I don't have patience for that kind of immature behavior. I expect adults in my league. Have the integrity to let the league discuss it, where you will have an equal voice as everyone else, and make a decision.

Someone who shows they will try to turn this into a loophole only shows me that they cannot be trusted to not exploit any loophole they find. When I find an issue with our rules, I notify the league so we can address it. I expect the same from all of my owners.

Someone disagrees with you about the issue of tanking, but you don't think they're a bad person for doing so. Okay.

"They may not be a bad person but they are immature if they don't agree." Just paraphrasing.

 

[FUBAR]

Quick Monopoly question, you have 3 to 4 houses on all your properties and are flush with cash. Is it unethical to not replace your houses with hotels?

I can't imagine why you think this would be an ethical question.

He said quick queas

Quick Monopoly question, you have 3 to 4 houses on all your properties and are flush with cash. Is it unethical to not replace your houses with hotels?

I can't imagine why you think this would be an ethical question

Because he is asking a different question than he think he is asking. In Monopoly if I don't maximize my potential income by not allowing any other players houses, I am treating all the other players equally...none of the other players can buy houses. When a player acts in his so-called best interest and sets a bogus line-up , he is treating one opponent differently than other opponents (the rest of the league).

So which is it? People have been claiming that tanking affects the balance of the league in its entirety and you claim it is treating one person unfairly. Do not bye weeks force lineups that not everyone gets the fortune of facing? While I understand your next point that "everyone gets bye weeks", the point is, it is also understood that unbalance is already built into the game. An optimal lineup every week is never a guarantee nor should it be expected.

The point with Monopoly and the houses is that your opponents may think it unfair that you are not maximizing your potential by buying hotels, thus freeing up houses for them to buy so that they may also maximize their potential or chances. That, in a sense, you are not putting your full roster out. Hotels are better than houses so it stands to reason that if you can purchase them, it is your ethical duty to do so in order to create a level playing field for the rest of the competitors. But what you have, when you control the houses is called a Monopoly. It took all game to get to that point of control and luxury where you command your ultimate destiny to be able to drive people to bankruptcy. It is an unpleasant, slow, and nasty way to lose in a "family game" when you realize that there is nothing you can do about it to change the outcome.

In this guys case, an entire season has played out. More of his decisions went his way than several others in the league. Luck of scheduling, in his eyes, has shined upon that have given him the opportunity to control the game to his perceived advantage. He earned a Monopoly of sorts by owning more wins (ie Houses) than his counterparts. He has determined that the short term profit ( buying hotels) is not worth the risk of ceding his "houses" to another opponent who has the "cash" (players, roster and matchup) to take advantage of newly available houses. His goal is to drive his opposition to elimination ("bankruptcy") and win the championship. This is also a unpleasant, slow, and nasty way to lose. But remember, of the 10 to 14 guys playing, elimination will happen to 9 to 13 of them anyway. Nobody ever cried for the guy who was eliminated in week 9 because a bye week prevented optimal lineups, but eliminated he was just the same. The game, in and of itself, is not balanced and evenly distributed.

And one other point that nobody has brought up, perhaps ever, what is then the obligation of the the opponent to set their roster at all as well? Let's say the guy goes for the full tank, and due to rules he doesn't have to set his roster. The opponent could do the same and force a tie. Why is he ethically bound to accept a free win if it is not in the "best interest of the league"? Is he not bound to the higher calling of the league as well? Is it ethical to still profit from another's unethical move?

The Monopoly analogy only works in an all-play format.

The point is simple, if your "tanking" effects everyone equally, then it seems valid.

 

[McGarnicle]

Said I was done, but I never said this out as fully as I wanted, so I'll do it here.

Ignoratio tried to ask questions that get to the heart of the matter, but no one will engage in an honest discussion with him on it, instead continually dodging the question. So I'll give the answer. In a situation like this about a game, the collective view of people involved is what makes one thing ethical compared to another.

Hacking a login is unethical because 99.9% of us think it is unethical. You don't need a rule because it is so obviously understood it isn't allowed.

Using your high waiver priority and then trading the player you acquired is something that most everyone considers ethical. We don't need a rule that says it's allowed because everyone is similarly on the same page.

Tanking is more in the middle. From polls here, a majority think it is unethical. If you look at the actions of amateur and pro sports when the issue comes up, it is obviously frowned upon in society in general.

At what point do you need a rule for something? If 95% of us said it was ethical or unethical we wouldn't need a rule. What about 50%? 66%?

We don't really need to answer the exact percentage. If you know something is widely viewed as wrong, you should find out before doing it if you're an honorable person. The amount that view tanking as wrong is enough there should be no expectation it will necessarily be allowed.

I personally think tanking is unethical. But if someone disagrees, I don't think they are a bad person for thinking otherwise.

But I would think someone a bad person if they know tanking is viewed as unethical by the amount of people that it actually is... and they do it anyway rather than have their league clarify where they stand on it. If someone does that, it tells me that they are willing to do something that they know it is very likely that a majority of the league will consider cheating, so long as they think they can get away with it.

I don't have patience for that kind of immature behavior. I expect adults in my league. Have the integrity to let the league discuss it, where you will have an equal voice as everyone else, and make a decision.

Someone who shows they will try to turn this into a loophole only shows me that they cannot be trusted to not exploit any loophole they find. When I find an issue with our rules, I notify the league so we can address it. I expect the same from all of my owners.

Someone disagrees with you about the issue of tanking, but you don't think they're a bad person for doing so. Okay.

"They may not be a bad person but they are immature if they don't agree." Just paraphrasing.

Kind of a pertinent paragraph you chose not to put in bold there chief. Did you also not read it?

 

[TheStig]

Quick Monopoly question, you have 3 to 4 houses on all your properties and are flush with cash. Is it unethical to not replace your houses with hotels?

I can't imagine why you think this would be an ethical question.

He said quick queas

Quick Monopoly question, you have 3 to 4 houses on all your properties and are flush with cash. Is it unethical to not replace your houses with hotels?

I can't imagine why you think this would be an ethical question

Because he is asking a different question than he think he is asking. In Monopoly if I don't maximize my potential income by not allowing any other players houses, I am treating all the other players equally...none of the other players can buy houses. When a player acts in his so-called best interest and sets a bogus line-up , he is treating one opponent differently than other opponents (the rest of the league).

So which is it? People have been claiming that tanking affects the balance of the league in its entirety and you claim it is treating one person unfairly. Do not bye weeks force lineups that not everyone gets the fortune of facing? While I understand your next point that "everyone gets bye weeks", the point is, it is also understood that unbalance is already built into the game. An optimal lineup every week is never a guarantee nor should it be expected.

The point with Monopoly and the houses is that your opponents may think it unfair that you are not maximizing your potential by buying hotels, thus freeing up houses for them to buy so that they may also maximize their potential or chances. That, in a sense, you are not putting your full roster out. Hotels are better than houses so it stands to reason that if you can purchase them, it is your ethical duty to do so in order to create a level playing field for the rest of the competitors. But what you have, when you control the houses is called a Monopoly. It took all game to get to that point of control and luxury where you command your ultimate destiny to be able to drive people to bankruptcy. It is an unpleasant, slow, and nasty way to lose in a "family game" when you realize that there is nothing you can do about it to change the outcome.

In this guys case, an entire season has played out. More of his decisions went his way than several others in the league. Luck of scheduling, in his eyes, has shined upon that have given him the opportunity to control the game to his perceived advantage. He earned a Monopoly of sorts by owning more wins (ie Houses) than his counterparts. He has determined that the short term profit ( buying hotels) is not worth the risk of ceding his "houses" to another opponent who has the "cash" (players, roster and matchup) to take advantage of newly available houses. His goal is to drive his opposition to elimination ("bankruptcy") and win the championship. This is also a unpleasant, slow, and nasty way to lose. But remember, of the 10 to 14 guys playing, elimination will happen to 9 to 13 of them anyway. Nobody ever cried for the guy who was eliminated in week 9 because a bye week prevented optimal lineups, but eliminated he was just the same. The game, in and of itself, is not balanced and evenly distributed.

And one other point that nobody has brought up, perhaps ever, what is then the obligation of the the opponent to set their roster at all as well? Let's say the guy goes for the full tank, and due to rules he doesn't have to set his roster. The opponent could do the same and force a tie. Why is he ethically bound to accept a free win if it is not in the "best interest of the league"? Is he not bound to the higher calling of the league as well? Is it ethical to still profit from another's unethical move?

The Monopoly analogy only works in an all-play format.

The point is simple, if your "tanking" effects everyone equally, then it seems valid.

The Monopoly analogy holds because the decision to "hold" with houses directly affects some players more immediately than others. Not all the players have the same cash holdings (players) to potentially improve their position in the game. These are the 3-10 owners. The Bankruptcy of one of these players then shifts the balance for the remaining players. If the resources of the 3-10 player go to the "2nd Strongest" player it only prolongs the game but the outcome will likely be the same as long as the houses remain in the control of player 1.

For some, simply playing the game is the enjoyment and thus house rules such as collecting free parking money can help change ones fortunes. But, like differing leagues, those are "house rules" and are created to represent the flavor and personality of the league.

But, as an earlier post eluded to in regards to FBG writer promoting tanking strategically, to do so does not violate the rules on the box top.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I wonder if the opinions on this thread would be different if the question was asked this way: "should having a strong record late in the regular season merit/justify manipulating the competitive balance of a fantasy league?". Some people mentioned that teams that are mathematically out of the playoffs should also be handcuffed from acting in their regular ownership duties late in the season (restrict them from adding and dropping players---and I'm not talking about player dumping here). Taking this another step further--the second question would be "should having an unsuccessful record late in the regular season merit/justify manipulating the competitive balance of a fantasy league?". For me--and I think to anybody rational--the answers to both of these questions is "no". We all play in fantasy leagues with the hopes of the rules and competition being fair to everybody. If winning and losing teams "tank"--this will unquestionably favor some teams and punish others---it manipulates the equal playing field that every rule exists to try to maintain. While it is commonly understood that it is impossible to "force" somebody to put out their best lineups all of the time-- I think it is absolutely absurd to justify it and try to "cloak" it as being good behavior. It is no different than a healthy person acting as a handicap that goes to Disneyland so they don't have to wait in lines. Sure--there is no law against it--but it's garbage behavior and it's selfish behavior. The person that does that is promoting their own cause--"legally maximizing their chances to go on the most possible rides they can"--while at the same time reducing the chances of the regular park patrons by going on as many rides as they can. So basically it comes down to this--while it may be a viable fantasy football strategy-- it is absolutely and undeniably a garbage, selfish, and unsportsmanlike move.

 

[Amused to Death]

I wonder if the opinions on this thread would be different if the question was asked this way: "should having a strong record late in the regular season merit/justify manipulating the competitive balance of a fantasy league?". Some people mentioned that teams that are mathematically out of the playoffs should also be handcuffed from acting in their regular ownership duties late in the season (restrict them from adding and dropping players---and I'm not talking about player dumping here). Taking this another step further--the second question would be "should having an unsuccessful record late in the regular season merit/justify manipulating the competitive balance of a fantasy league?". For me--and I think to anybody rational--the answers to both of these questions is "no". We all play in fantasy leagues with the hopes of the rules and competition being fair to everybody. If winning and losing teams "tank"--this will unquestionably favor some teams and punish others---it manipulates the equal playing field that every rule exists to try to maintain. While it is commonly understood that it is impossible to "force" somebody to put out their best lineups all of the time-- I think it is absolutely absurd to justify it and try to "cloak" it as being good behavior. It is no different than a healthy person acting as a handicap that goes to Disneyland so they don't have to wait in lines. Sure--there is no law against it--but it's garbage behavior and it's selfish behavior. The person that does that is promoting their own cause--"legally maximizing their chances to go on the most possible rides they can"--while at the same time reducing the chances of the regular park patrons by going on as many rides as they can. So basically it comes down to this--while it may be a viable fantasy football strategy-- it is absolutely and undeniably a garbage, selfish, and unsportsmanlike move.

You left out the part where we eat small children too.

 

[Adam Harstad]

did you guys get this figured out yet?

Yes, the guy who wrote the FBG's manual on FFL approves.

Footballguys is not a monolith.

No, but it does show that even highly intelligent, knowledgeable FFL vets have differing opinions.

It shows the even really bright, accomplished guys like Levin can be wrong sometimes.

Just because Levin wrote one part of a 12-part guide for beginners years ago doesn't mean his arguments are right on the subject of tanking. That's an appeal to authority. Heck, just because he felt that way in 2006 doesn't mean he still feels that way in 2013, either. That's a long time ago. I can't really tell you how I felt about tanking back in 2006. For all I know, if someone digs around enough in my posting history, they might just find some very old posts supporting tanking from me, too.

A 7-year-old appeal to authority hardly closes the book on the matter.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Just because the majority of folks think tanking is cheating doesn't necessarily mean the minority of folks are bad people because they don't think it is, but you are free to make that leap in judgement if you so choose. Just because the majority thinks tanking is cheating doesn't necessarily mean it actually is. The majority has often been shown to be mistaken.

I don't think we're discussing whether Tanking is "cheating". That's a different discussion entirely from whether tanking is "ethical".

 

[Amused to Death]

did you guys get this figured out yet?

Yes, the guy who wrote the FBG's manual on FFL approves.

Footballguys is not a monolith.

No, but it does show that even highly intelligent, knowledgeable FFL vets have differing opinions.

It shows the even really bright, accomplished guys like Levin can be wrong sometimes.

Just because Levin wrote one part of a 12-part guide for beginners years ago doesn't mean his arguments are right on the subject of tanking. That's an appeal to authority. Heck, just because he felt that way in 2006 doesn't mean he still feels that way in 2013, either. That's a long time ago. I can't really tell you how I felt about tanking back in 2006. For all I know, if someone digs around enough in my posting history, they might just find some very old posts supporting tanking from me, too.

A 7-year-old appeal to authority hardly closes the book on the matter.

He might feel the same about you.

 

[Amused to Death]

did you guys get this figured out yet?

Yes, the guy who wrote the FBG's manual on FFL approves.

Footballguys is not a monolith.

No, but it does show that even highly intelligent, knowledgeable FFL vets have differing opinions.

It shows the even really bright, accomplished guys like Levin can be wrong sometimes.

Just because Levin wrote one part of a 12-part guide for beginners years ago doesn't mean his arguments are right on the subject of tanking. That's an appeal to authority. Heck, just because he felt that way in 2006 doesn't mean he still feels that way in 2013, either. That's a long time ago. I can't really tell you how I felt about tanking back in 2006. For all I know, if someone digs around enough in my posting history, they might just find some very old posts supporting tanking from me, too.

A 7-year-old appeal to authority hardly closes the book on the matter.

So why do 6 and 7 year old (flawed) polls count for anything? The polls btw never asked if people thought it was unethical, the poll questions were "would you do it". Some commented that they wouldn't but didn't have a problem if others did. And the one poll only had 41% of respondents answer "definitely not". I think that implies 59% would do it OR consider it.

And do you have a problem with ESPN's current set up (as I posted above)?

 

[Pickle Rody]

Just because the majority of folks think tanking is cheating doesn't necessarily mean the minority of folks are bad people because they don't think it is, but you are free to make that leap in judgement if you so choose. Just because the majority thinks tanking is cheating doesn't necessarily mean it actually is. The majority has often been shown to be mistaken.

I don't think we're discussing whether Tanking is "cheating". That's a different discussion entirely from whether tanking is "ethical".

Sure we were. You used both words in the same post, implying they were one and the same. Cheating = Unethical Behavior. Do you not feel that cheating is unethical? Please don't answer, as I'm sure you do. Unethical may not always = cheating, but cheating definitely always = unethical.

Anyway, I was simply, through too many words and an example, pointing out that the majority doesn't always trump the minority.

I am happy to leave this thread with the understanding that we don't agree when it comes to our viewpoints on tanking. That's okay with me.

I hope everyone has a successful and fortuitous run through their fantasy playoffs!! Good luck!!

Merry Christmas and all that happy jazz!!!!

 

[Adam Harstad]

He might feel the same about you.

Probably does. And he's free to. Lots of others do, too.

 

[Adam Harstad]

So why do 6 and 7 year old (flawed) polls count for anything? The polls btw never asked if people thought it was unethical, the poll questions were "would you do it". Some commented that they wouldn't but didn't have a problem if others did. And the one poll only had 41% of respondents answer "definitely not". I think that implies 59% would do it OR consider it.


And do you have a problem with ESPN's current set up (as I posted above)?

For starters, I wasn't the one who posted 6 and 7 year old polls.

Also, I'm pretty sure Greg's intention of posting the polls wasn't to say "the majority agrees with me, so therefore I'm right". That would just be another fallacy (argumentum ad populum). The majority believing something doesn't make it true any more than one expert believing something else makes it true. I believe Greg's intention was simply to demonstrate that the majority DOES believe that tanking is shady. He was saying that, even if you disagree, if you know that the majority of your leaguemates are likely to frown on your behavior and you try to do it without seeking clarification first, then you're skating on thin ethical ice regardless of whether tanking is ethical or not.

As far as the ESPN setup... I think my stance has been pretty clear in this thread (No Tanking, Ever, For Any Reason), so whenever something contradicts that stance, it's a safe bet that I disagree.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Just because the majority of folks think tanking is cheating doesn't necessarily mean the minority of folks are bad people because they don't think it is, but you are free to make that leap in judgement if you so choose. Just because the majority thinks tanking is cheating doesn't necessarily mean it actually is. The majority has often been shown to be mistaken.

I don't think we're discussing whether Tanking is "cheating". That's a different discussion entirely from whether tanking is "ethical".

Sure we were. You used both words in the same post, implying they were one and the same. Cheating = Unethical Behavior. Do you not feel that cheating is unethical? Please don't answer, as I'm sure you do. Unethical may not always = cheating, but cheating definitely always = unethical.

Anyway, I was simply, through too many words and an example, pointing out that the majority doesn't always trump the minority.

I am happy to leave this thread with the understanding that we don't agree when it comes to our viewpoints on tanking. That's okay with me.

I hope everyone has a successful and fortuitous run through their fantasy playoffs!! Good luck!!

Merry Christmas and all that happy jazz!!!!

I've posted 57 times in this thread (this one makes 58), and that was the first time I've used the word "cheating". Although looking back, you're right that Greg has consistently referred to it as both cheating and unethical through the course of the thread. I'd say probably 75% of the time the word has come up, Greg has been the one using it.

To be clear: I happen to disagree with Greg on this. I believe that tanking is only cheating when there is a clear rule against it. I believe that tanking is unethical in all instances.

I do agree that we're well past the point where there are any good points left to be made or any minds left to be changed, and now we're just talking in circles to hear ourselves talk. I'm glad we managed to find a little bit of common ground on the bolded, though.

 

[Amused to Death]

So why do 6 and 7 year old (flawed) polls count for anything? The polls btw never asked if people thought it was unethical, the poll questions were "would you do it". Some commented that they wouldn't but didn't have a problem if others did. And the one poll only had 41% of respondents answer "definitely not". I think that implies 59% would do it OR consider it.


And do you have a problem with ESPN's current set up (as I posted above)?

For starters, I wasn't the one who posted 6 and 7 year old polls.

Also, I'm pretty sure Greg's intention of posting the polls wasn't to say "the majority agrees with me, so therefore I'm right". That would just be another fallacy (argumentum ad populum). The majority believing something doesn't make it true any more than one expert believing something else makes it true. I believe Greg's intention was simply to demonstrate that the majority DOES believe that tanking is shady. He was saying that, even if you disagree, if you know that the majority of your leaguemates are likely to frown on your behavior and you try to do it without seeking clarification first, then you're skating on thin ethical ice regardless of whether tanking is ethical or not.

As far as the ESPN setup... I think my stance has been pretty clear in this thread (No Tanking, Ever, For Any Reason), so whenever something contradicts that stance, it's a safe bet that I disagree.

And my point has been that we're allowed to play within the league rules. I don't see where a majority of the FFL world feels otherwise. I see 1 or 2 flawed polls from '06 & '07 from one fantasy message board. And I provided an example of a large provider of FFL allows for some form.

Establish rules; play within them.

 

[Adam Harstad]

So why do 6 and 7 year old (flawed) polls count for anything? The polls btw never asked if people thought it was unethical, the poll questions were "would you do it". Some commented that they wouldn't but didn't have a problem if others did. And the one poll only had 41% of respondents answer "definitely not". I think that implies 59% would do it OR consider it.


And do you have a problem with ESPN's current set up (as I posted above)?

For starters, I wasn't the one who posted 6 and 7 year old polls.

Also, I'm pretty sure Greg's intention of posting the polls wasn't to say "the majority agrees with me, so therefore I'm right". That would just be another fallacy (argumentum ad populum). The majority believing something doesn't make it true any more than one expert believing something else makes it true. I believe Greg's intention was simply to demonstrate that the majority DOES believe that tanking is shady. He was saying that, even if you disagree, if you know that the majority of your leaguemates are likely to frown on your behavior and you try to do it without seeking clarification first, then you're skating on thin ethical ice regardless of whether tanking is ethical or not.

As far as the ESPN setup... I think my stance has been pretty clear in this thread (No Tanking, Ever, For Any Reason), so whenever something contradicts that stance, it's a safe bet that I disagree.

And my point has been that we're allowed to play within the league rules. I don't see where a majority of the FFL world feels otherwise. I see 1 or 2 flawed polls from '06 & '07 from one fantasy message board. And I provided an example of a large provider of FFL allows for some form.

Establish rules; play within them.

Yes, you're allowed to play within the rules. I don't think anyone has ever disputed that. We aren't saying that you aren't allowed to tank in leagues that don't have rules against it. We're saying that it's unethical to do so, whether such rules exist or not.

I'm allowed to sell all of my wife's clothes and spend the money on gambling and booze. No laws exist to stop me. In fact, I'm pretty sure the law would say that it's common property and I'm fully within my rights to do so. And if I do, my wife is allowed to think I'm a terrible unethical jerk and to want no further association with me. That's well within her rights, too.

You can tank to your heart's content, but the fact that it isn't against the rules doesn't mean it's ethical behavior, and it doesn't mean I'm not free to kick you out of my leagues after the season if you do.

 

[Amused to Death]

So why do 6 and 7 year old (flawed) polls count for anything? The polls btw never asked if people thought it was unethical, the poll questions were "would you do it". Some commented that they wouldn't but didn't have a problem if others did. And the one poll only had 41% of respondents answer "definitely not". I think that implies 59% would do it OR consider it.


And do you have a problem with ESPN's current set up (as I posted above)?

For starters, I wasn't the one who posted 6 and 7 year old polls.

Also, I'm pretty sure Greg's intention of posting the polls wasn't to say "the majority agrees with me, so therefore I'm right". That would just be another fallacy (argumentum ad populum). The majority believing something doesn't make it true any more than one expert believing something else makes it true. I believe Greg's intention was simply to demonstrate that the majority DOES believe that tanking is shady. He was saying that, even if you disagree, if you know that the majority of your leaguemates are likely to frown on your behavior and you try to do it without seeking clarification first, then you're skating on thin ethical ice regardless of whether tanking is ethical or not.

As far as the ESPN setup... I think my stance has been pretty clear in this thread (No Tanking, Ever, For Any Reason), so whenever something contradicts that stance, it's a safe bet that I disagree.

And my point has been that we're allowed to play within the league rules. I don't see where a majority of the FFL world feels otherwise. I see 1 or 2 flawed polls from '06 & '07 from one fantasy message board. And I provided an example of a large provider of FFL allows for some form.

Establish rules; play within them.

Yes, you're allowed to play within the rules. I don't think anyone has ever disputed that. We aren't saying that you aren't allowed to tank in leagues that don't have rules against it. We're saying that it's unethical to do so, whether such rules exist or not.

I'm allowed to sell all of my wife's clothes and spend the money on gambling and booze. No laws exist to stop me. In fact, I'm pretty sure the law would say that it's common property and I'm fully within my rights to do so. And if I do, my wife is allowed to think I'm a terrible unethical jerk and to want no further association with me. That's well within her rights, too.

You can tank to your heart's content, but the fact that it isn't against the rules doesn't mean it's ethical behavior, and it doesn't mean I'm not free to kick you out of my leagues after the season if you do.

And you're well within your rights to do so. And I hope you would update your rules for the next year. Don't you advocate provisions against collusion in your rules, even though I'm fairly certain 99.99% of fantasy players understand it? Compared to the 41% Greg used as an example. Not all leagues and owners have the same basic understanding of what's expected. YOU expect no tanking ever. Others do not and may have played the same way for years because in their leagues it was acceptable. There is an entire segment of the community playing at ESPN where they use it as strategy.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

If you are attempting to lose your games, it's wrong. How blatant you are about it doesn't change that.

Generally, you're probably right about this. But sometimes leagues inadvertently have some wonky setup that incentivizes losing a game. For example, some leagues (with good intentions) award the final playoff spot to the total points leader among teams that haven't already earned a playoff spot by record. In that kind of league, you can find yourself in a position where if you win the last week of the regular season, you're out of the playoffs, but if you lose, you get in.In those situations, I'd have no problem encouraging someone to do whatever they can within the rules to lose their game. Some would complain that it's not fair to other teams on the bubble, but I'm sure you've heard the standard response to such a complaint - you should've won more games. If, going into the last week of the season, you haven't clinched a playoff spot yet, you really have no one to blame but yourself. To the extent that this is a game of skill, it's on you if you're 6-6 and need some things to break right for you to get into the playoffs. If it's not illegal for OP to submit an incomplete lineup (which, I believe it should be) then it's hard to fault him for doing what he feels is in his team's best interests.

However, I don't agree with what the OP did, not because I can outline exactly what he did wrong, but because it simply feels like a bush league move. More importantly, while it may be in his team's best interests, it's not necessarily in the league's best interests - and I tend to think that's a responsibility all owners share. Sure, you may increase your shot at a title, but at what cost?

Yes, this is about the only exception I've ever come across for that rule of thumb. We've seen it a few times in the SP. It's interesting to note that a fair percent were reluctant to do anything to throw the game even then.If the rules cause such a conflict in trying to play the game as intended, I wouldn't consider a reasonable decision unethical at all.

Funny to see our responses to a similar question from a year ago.

Edit: The whole thread is a pretty interesting read, and it features some of the same participants from this year's thread.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I wonder if the opinions on this thread would be different if the question was asked this way: "should having a strong record late in the regular season merit/justify manipulating the competitive balance of a fantasy league?". Some people mentioned that teams that are mathematically out of the playoffs should also be handcuffed from acting in their regular ownership duties late in the season (restrict them from adding and dropping players---and I'm not talking about player dumping here). Taking this another step further--the second question would be "should having an unsuccessful record late in the regular season merit/justify manipulating the competitive balance of a fantasy league?". For me--and I think to anybody rational--the answers to both of these questions is "no". We all play in fantasy leagues with the hopes of the rules and competition being fair to everybody. If winning and losing teams "tank"--this will unquestionably favor some teams and punish others---it manipulates the equal playing field that every rule exists to try to maintain. While it is commonly understood that it is impossible to "force" somebody to put out their best lineups all of the time-- I think it is absolutely absurd to justify it and try to "cloak" it as being good behavior. It is no different than a healthy person acting as a handicap that goes to Disneyland so they don't have to wait in lines. Sure--there is no law against it--but it's garbage behavior and it's selfish behavior. The person that does that is promoting their own cause--"legally maximizing their chances to go on the most possible rides they can"--while at the same time reducing the chances of the regular park patrons by going on as many rides as they can. So basically it comes down to this--while it may be a viable fantasy football strategy-- it is absolutely and undeniably a garbage, selfish, and unsportsmanlike move.

You left out the part where we eat small children too.

Small chidren are over-rated anyways. The medium sized and larger ones are too. Happy holidays everybody.

 

[hamster_13]

I wonder if the opinions on this thread would be different if the question was asked this way: "should having a strong record late in the regular season merit/justify manipulating the competitive balance of a fantasy league?". Some people mentioned that teams that are mathematically out of the playoffs should also be handcuffed from acting in their regular ownership duties late in the season (restrict them from adding and dropping players---and I'm not talking about player dumping here). Taking this another step further--the second question would be "should having an unsuccessful record late in the regular season merit/justify manipulating the competitive balance of a fantasy league?". For me--and I think to anybody rational--the answers to both of these questions is "no". We all play in fantasy leagues with the hopes of the rules and competition being fair to everybody. If winning and losing teams "tank"--this will unquestionably favor some teams and punish others---it manipulates the equal playing field that every rule exists to try to maintain. While it is commonly understood that it is impossible to "force" somebody to put out their best lineups all of the time-- I think it is absolutely absurd to justify it and try to "cloak" it as being good behavior. It is no different than a healthy person acting as a handicap that goes to Disneyland so they don't have to wait in lines. Sure--there is no law against it--but it's garbage behavior and it's selfish behavior. The person that does that is promoting their own cause--"legally maximizing their chances to go on the most possible rides they can"--while at the same time reducing the chances of the regular park patrons by going on as many rides as they can. So basically it comes down to this--while it may be a viable fantasy football strategy-- it is absolutely and undeniably a garbage, selfish, and unsportsmanlike move.

I'm not a fan of locking rosters for eliminated teams either. That is very precisely creating a big advantage for the teams they play once eliminated, and very likely messing with the playoff contestants at the end. If their QB gets hurt, they can't pickup another one. That's an unfair advantage given to their competition (and unfair to every other team in the league) and it's by rule!

 

[Amused to Death]

I wonder if the opinions on this thread would be different if the question was asked this way: "should having a strong record late in the regular season merit/justify manipulating the competitive balance of a fantasy league?". Some people mentioned that teams that are mathematically out of the playoffs should also be handcuffed from acting in their regular ownership duties late in the season (restrict them from adding and dropping players---and I'm not talking about player dumping here). Taking this another step further--the second question would be "should having an unsuccessful record late in the regular season merit/justify manipulating the competitive balance of a fantasy league?". For me--and I think to anybody rational--the answers to both of these questions is "no". We all play in fantasy leagues with the hopes of the rules and competition being fair to everybody. If winning and losing teams "tank"--this will unquestionably favor some teams and punish others---it manipulates the equal playing field that every rule exists to try to maintain. While it is commonly understood that it is impossible to "force" somebody to put out their best lineups all of the time-- I think it is absolutely absurd to justify it and try to "cloak" it as being good behavior. It is no different than a healthy person acting as a handicap that goes to Disneyland so they don't have to wait in lines. Sure--there is no law against it--but it's garbage behavior and it's selfish behavior. The person that does that is promoting their own cause--"legally maximizing their chances to go on the most possible rides they can"--while at the same time reducing the chances of the regular park patrons by going on as many rides as they can. So basically it comes down to this--while it may be a viable fantasy football strategy-- it is absolutely and undeniably a garbage, selfish, and unsportsmanlike move.

I'm not a fan of locking rosters for eliminated teams either. That is very precisely creating a big advantage for the teams they play once eliminated, and very likely messing with the playoff contestants at the end. If their QB gets hurt, they can't pickup another one. That's an unfair advantage given to their competition (and unfair to every other team in the league) and it's by rule!

I backtracked on that for the record. It was quick, poorly thought out reply.

 

[TheStig]

So why do 6 and 7 year old (flawed) polls count for anything? The polls btw never asked if people thought it was unethical, the poll questions were "would you do it". Some commented that they wouldn't but didn't have a problem if others did. And the one poll only had 41% of respondents answer "definitely not". I think that implies 59% would do it OR consider it.

And do you have a problem with ESPN's current set up (as I posted above)?

For starters, I wasn't the one who posted 6 and 7 year old polls.

Also, I'm pretty sure Greg's intention of posting the polls wasn't to say "the majority agrees with me, so therefore I'm right". That would just be another fallacy (argumentum ad populum). The majority believing something doesn't make it true any more than one expert believing something else makes it true. I believe Greg's intention was simply to demonstrate that the majority DOES believe that tanking is shady. He was saying that, even if you disagree, if you know that the majority of your leaguemates are likely to frown on your behavior and you try to do it without seeking clarification first, then you're skating on thin ethical ice regardless of whether tanking is ethical or not.

As far as the ESPN setup... I think my stance has been pretty clear in this thread (No Tanking, Ever, For Any Reason), so whenever something contradicts that stance, it's a safe bet that I disagree.

And my point has been that we're allowed to play within the league rules. I don't see where a majority of the FFL world feels otherwise. I see 1 or 2 flawed polls from '06 & '07 from one fantasy message board. And I provided an example of a large provider of FFL allows for some form.Establish rules; play within them.

Yes, you're allowed to play within the rules. I don't think anyone has ever disputed that. We aren't saying that you aren't allowed to tank in leagues that don't have rules against it. We're saying that it's unethical to do so, whether such rules exist or not.

I'm allowed to sell all of my wife's clothes and spend the money on gambling and booze. No laws exist to stop me. In fact, I'm pretty sure the law would say that it's common property and I'm fully within my rights to do so. And if I do, my wife is allowed to think I'm a terrible unethical jerk and to want no further association with me. That's well within her rights, too.

You can tank to your heart's content, but the fact that it isn't against the rules doesn't mean it's ethical behavior, and it doesn't mean I'm not free to kick you out of my leagues after the season if you do.

I think we can all agree that when you come out of your wife's closet on a Fantasy Football Forum we have exhausted every bad analogy and point.

 

[Adam Harstad]

So why do 6 and 7 year old (flawed) polls count for anything? The polls btw never asked if people thought it was unethical, the poll questions were "would you do it". Some commented that they wouldn't but didn't have a problem if others did. And the one poll only had 41% of respondents answer "definitely not". I think that implies 59% would do it OR consider it.

And do you have a problem with ESPN's current set up (as I posted above)?

For starters, I wasn't the one who posted 6 and 7 year old polls.

Also, I'm pretty sure Greg's intention of posting the polls wasn't to say "the majority agrees with me, so therefore I'm right". That would just be another fallacy (argumentum ad populum). The majority believing something doesn't make it true any more than one expert believing something else makes it true. I believe Greg's intention was simply to demonstrate that the majority DOES believe that tanking is shady. He was saying that, even if you disagree, if you know that the majority of your leaguemates are likely to frown on your behavior and you try to do it without seeking clarification first, then you're skating on thin ethical ice regardless of whether tanking is ethical or not.

As far as the ESPN setup... I think my stance has been pretty clear in this thread (No Tanking, Ever, For Any Reason), so whenever something contradicts that stance, it's a safe bet that I disagree.

And my point has been that we're allowed to play within the league rules. I don't see where a majority of the FFL world feels otherwise. I see 1 or 2 flawed polls from '06 & '07 from one fantasy message board. And I provided an example of a large provider of FFL allows for some form.Establish rules; play within them.

Yes, you're allowed to play within the rules. I don't think anyone has ever disputed that. We aren't saying that you aren't allowed to tank in leagues that don't have rules against it. We're saying that it's unethical to do so, whether such rules exist or not.

I'm allowed to sell all of my wife's clothes and spend the money on gambling and booze. No laws exist to stop me. In fact, I'm pretty sure the law would say that it's common property and I'm fully within my rights to do so. And if I do, my wife is allowed to think I'm a terrible unethical jerk and to want no further association with me. That's well within her rights, too.

You can tank to your heart's content, but the fact that it isn't against the rules doesn't mean it's ethical behavior, and it doesn't mean I'm not free to kick you out of my leagues after the season if you do.

I think we can all agree that when you come out of your wife's closet on a Fantasy Football Forum we have exhausted every bad analogy and point.

Not quite all of them...

 

[hamster_13]

I wonder if the opinions on this thread would be different if the question was asked this way: "should having a strong record late in the regular season merit/justify manipulating the competitive balance of a fantasy league?". Some people mentioned that teams that are mathematically out of the playoffs should also be handcuffed from acting in their regular ownership duties late in the season (restrict them from adding and dropping players---and I'm not talking about player dumping here). Taking this another step further--the second question would be "should having an unsuccessful record late in the regular season merit/justify manipulating the competitive balance of a fantasy league?". For me--and I think to anybody rational--the answers to both of these questions is "no". We all play in fantasy leagues with the hopes of the rules and competition being fair to everybody. If winning and losing teams "tank"--this will unquestionably favor some teams and punish others---it manipulates the equal playing field that every rule exists to try to maintain. While it is commonly understood that it is impossible to "force" somebody to put out their best lineups all of the time-- I think it is absolutely absurd to justify it and try to "cloak" it as being good behavior. It is no different than a healthy person acting as a handicap that goes to Disneyland so they don't have to wait in lines. Sure--there is no law against it--but it's garbage behavior and it's selfish behavior. The person that does that is promoting their own cause--"legally maximizing their chances to go on the most possible rides they can"--while at the same time reducing the chances of the regular park patrons by going on as many rides as they can. So basically it comes down to this--while it may be a viable fantasy football strategy-- it is absolutely and undeniably a garbage, selfish, and unsportsmanlike move.

I'm not a fan of locking rosters for eliminated teams either. That is very precisely creating a big advantage for the teams they play once eliminated, and very likely messing with the playoff contestants at the end. If their QB gets hurt, they can't pickup another one. That's an unfair advantage given to their competition (and unfair to every other team in the league) and it's by rule!

I backtracked on that for the record. It was quick, poorly thought out reply.

Ah, didn't see that. This thread exploded way beyond what I thought it would

 

[blake]

Generally, you're probably right about this. But sometimes leagues inadvertently have some wonky setup that incentivizes losing a game. For example, some leagues (with good intentions) award the final playoff spot to the total points leader among teams that haven't already earned a playoff spot by record. In that kind of league, you can find yourself in a position where if you win the last week of the regular season, you're out of the playoffs, but if you lose, you get in.

At the risk of looking like an idiot, I've been going over and over in my brain trying to devise a hypothetical where this would/could happen. Can you, or someone, explain in detail a hypothetical situation where losing could ensure a playoff spot? Maybe it is because I haven't played in leagues with wonky setups, or maybe it seems like simply scoring the most points you can would ensure the playoff spot. Whatever it is, I can't quite wrap my brain around this scenario. Just out of curiosity, if you or someone could lay out a scenario where this would happen, it would satisfy my curiosity that has been nagging at me!