Throw my game to change playoff teams? (1 Viewer)

[ghostguy123]

Adam that does look right. And in dynsty leagues and leagues with all friends I say no tanking.

Some restart with strangers, and within the rules, go for it.

That's another thing. If something is unethical when you do it to people you know and like, it is every bit as unethical when you do it to complete strangers you will never see again, even if it doesn't impose as many personal costs.

Anonymity, like money, is not some magical panacea that makes things more ethical. It's just a corrupting influence that makes us more likely to behave unethically.

And sometimes unethical is just fine in my book I guess.

 

[Adam Harstad]

So its in your control to have scored a lot more points than a few other teams who make the playoffs while you don't?

It sounds like a head to head league is out of your control.

It is, although there are positive advantages of head-to-head that make many consider it worth the move away from a stricter meritocracy. For instance, head-to-head leagues are often more exciting than total points leagues, where the binary results mean more is at stake with every play and the single opponent makes it easier to focus your attention. Some people find it more fun to root against particular players rather than rooting against every single player in the entire league except for the ones they own. If people decide that tradeoff is worth it, then that means there's a net positive to offset the net negative of the move away from a merit-based ideal.

I haven't seen anyone propose a mechanism whereby the league as a whole is better off if certain individuals tank, though, which makes it harder to take seriously that there are positive externalities to offset the move away from rewarding merit.

 

[ghostguy123]

Been a while since I did any book readin on my ethics.

Is there really no different levels of unethical? Stealing a penny is just as unethical as stealing a million bucks?

Taking too many free samples when it says take one is the same as stealing the truck the samples came in?

 

[Adam Harstad]

Adam that does look right. And in dynsty leagues and leagues with all friends I say no tanking.

Some restart with strangers, and within the rules, go for it.

That's another thing. If something is unethical when you do it to people you know and like, it is every bit as unethical when you do it to complete strangers you will never see again, even if it doesn't impose as many personal costs.

Anonymity, like money, is not some magical panacea that makes things more ethical. It's just a corrupting influence that makes us more likely to behave unethically.

And sometimes unethical is just fine in my book I guess.

Sometimes unethical is just fine in everyone's book. I've never before met anyone who acted 100% ethically in every situation. Just because they felt the tradeoffs were worth it, or the costs were small enough, doesn't mean they were acting ethically, though. Justifiable != ethical. Ethical is a much higher standard.

I've behaved unethically before. I've lied. I've cheated in games. Often when I did it, the stakes were low, and it was easy to justify to myself that I wasn't hurting anybody, but I hold no illusions that I was acting ethically.

 

[ghostguy123]

So its in your control to have scored a lot more points than a few other teams who make the playoffs while you don't?

It sounds like a head to head league is out of your control.

It is, although there are positive advantages of head-to-head that make many consider it worth the move away from a stricter meritocracy. For instance, head-to-head leagues are often more exciting than total points leagues, where the binary results mean more is at stake with every play and the single opponent makes it easier to focus your attention. Some people find it more fun to root against particular players rather than rooting against every single player in the entire league except for the ones they own. If people decide that tradeoff is worth it, then that means there's a net positive to offset the net negative of the move away from a merit-based ideal.

I haven't seen anyone propose a mechanism whereby the league as a whole is better off if certain individuals tank, though, which makes it harder to take seriously that there are positive externalities to offset the move away from rewarding merit.

Why does it have to be better for everyone in the league??

Is it better for everyone in the league if I win the title?

 

[Adam Harstad]

Been a while since I did any book readin on my ethics.

Is there really no different levels of unethical? Stealing a penny is just as unethical as stealing a million bucks?

Taking too many free samples when it says take one is the same as stealing the truck the samples came in?

I never said they were JUST AS unethical. I said they were both unethical. A thief can comfort himself by telling himself that at least he's not a murderer, but ethics are not judged relative to the lowest possible standard.

 

[ghostguy123]

Adam that does look right. And in dynsty leagues and leagues with all friends I say no tanking.

Some restart with strangers, and within the rules, go for it.

That's another thing. If something is unethical when you do it to people you know and like, it is every bit as unethical when you do it to complete strangers you will never see again, even if it doesn't impose as many personal costs.

Anonymity, like money, is not some magical panacea that makes things more ethical. It's just a corrupting influence that makes us more likely to behave unethically.

And sometimes unethical is just fine in my book I guess.

Sometimes unethical is just fine in everyone's book. I've never before met anyone who acted 100% ethically in every situation. Just because they felt the tradeoffs were worth it, or the costs were small enough, doesn't mean they were acting ethically, though. Justifiable != ethical. Ethical is a much higher standard.

I've behaved unethically before. I've lied. I've cheated in games. Often when I did it, the stakes were low, and it was easy to justify to myself that I wasn't hurting anybody, but I hold no illusions that I was acting ethically.

So then who says we can't be unethical in fantasy football as long as it is justifiable?

 

[Adam Harstad]

So its in your control to have scored a lot more points than a few other teams who make the playoffs while you don't?

It sounds like a head to head league is out of your control.

It is, although there are positive advantages of head-to-head that make many consider it worth the move away from a stricter meritocracy. For instance, head-to-head leagues are often more exciting than total points leagues, where the binary results mean more is at stake with every play and the single opponent makes it easier to focus your attention. Some people find it more fun to root against particular players rather than rooting against every single player in the entire league except for the ones they own. If people decide that tradeoff is worth it, then that means there's a net positive to offset the net negative of the move away from a merit-based ideal.

I haven't seen anyone propose a mechanism whereby the league as a whole is better off if certain individuals tank, though, which makes it harder to take seriously that there are positive externalities to offset the move away from rewarding merit.

Why does it have to be better for everyone in the league??

Is it better for everyone in the league if I win the title?

It is a net neutral from the league's standpoint if you win a title. Someone is going to win the title, and the league as a whole is pretty neutral on who it is. You winning the title is better for you, and worse for everyone else. The fact that tanking improves your championship odds are also a net neutral- your odds get better, someone else's get worse, and everyone as a whole winds up exactly as well off as they were before.

As I said, though, moving away from a meritocracy or violating the expectations of fair competition imposes negative externalities above and beyond any impact it might have on championship odds, and therefore unless it is accompanied by an equal or greater positive offset, it is a net negative for the league as a whole.

 

[davearm]

But why is it unethical??? Many of us do not think it is.

What higher power wrote the fantasy book of ethics that says you can't keep your chances alive by losing one game in purpose?

It's unethical because it violates expectations of fair competition. When I join a fantasy league with you, I do so under the expectation that I will spend 13 weeks playing teams that are trying to win, and you will spend 13 weeks playing against teams that are trying to win, and at the end of those 13 weeks whichever of us has won more games will be in the playoffs. If all of a sudden you only have to play 12 teams that are trying to win, while I still have to play the full 13, then that's no longer a fair competition, and I am negatively impacted by that.

From the league's standpoint, tanking does not improves the net odds of making the playoffs or winning a championship. At any given point, the sum total of everyone's odds of winning a championship will always sum to 1.00, because wins and losses are zero-sum and only one championship is awarded a season. So when one team tanks to improve his odds, by definition the rest of the league, on the whole, will see their odds decreased by an exactly equal amount. One team's losses are another team's gains, making tanking a net neutral from a "chances to win" standpoint.

At the same time, tanking introduces negative externalities. I assume that most people join fantasy leagues with a desire to see the better teams triumph through competition and be rewarded for it. Insofar as tanking undermines that desire, it leaves the league as a whole worse off, while producing no net positives to show for it (because total championship odds remain static at 1.00).

Or, to recycle another example from earlier in the thread: imagine a world where no one ever tanked, and imagine a world where everyone always tanked every time they felt like it. In my mind, the first world is preferable. I would rather play fantasy football in the former world than the latter, because I believe, all else being equal, the former world would be more of a meritocracy, would do more to reward skill and performance, and would leave each team less at the mercy of forces outside of its own control. Because of that, I view any behavior that moves us further on the continuum from the former world to the latter world as being unethical insofar as the sum impact on all parties involved is a net negative. Everyone, as a collective singular, is worse off when tanking occurs, even if everyone, as a collection of individuals, is not.

When we join a league together, let's all expect everyone to act in their own best interests while pursuing the championship, subject to the rules, and of course generally held notions of ethical conduct.

I don't think tanking falls into the category of conduct that is generally considered unethical. Perhaps that's a bias, because I personally don't view it as unethical, but there have been enough folks arguing each side here that it seems not to be in that "no-brainer" category.

Given that, whether or not to tank is stipulated by the rules (or lack thereof).

As an aside, I think the negative externality angle is overplayed. I get you feel that way, however.

 

[davearm]

It's an assumption based on the original hypothetical. In an anonymous (I should have specified anonymous) $$$$ league, I think it's reasonable to assume that the collective expectation is that it's OK to tank to try to improve your odds of winning the league.

With something that is widely considered unethical, I don't think it's ever reasonable to assume that in a particular instance it can be considered ethical. I would need that explicitly confirmed by the league.

Not clear, are you saying tanking is that something that is widely considered unethical?

 

[ghostguy123]

So its in your control to have scored a lot more points than a few other teams who make the playoffs while you don't?

It sounds like a head to head league is out of your control.

It is, although there are positive advantages of head-to-head that make many consider it worth the move away from a stricter meritocracy. For instance, head-to-head leagues are often more exciting than total points leagues, where the binary results mean more is at stake with every play and the single opponent makes it easier to focus your attention. Some people find it more fun to root against particular players rather than rooting against every single player in the entire league except for the ones they own. If people decide that tradeoff is worth it, then that means there's a net positive to offset the net negative of the move away from a merit-based ideal.

I haven't seen anyone propose a mechanism whereby the league as a whole is better off if certain individuals tank, though, which makes it harder to take seriously that there are positive externalities to offset the move away from rewarding merit.

Why does it have to be better for everyone in the league??

Is it better for everyone in the league if I win the title?

It is a net neutral from the league's standpoint if you win a title. Someone is going to win the title, and the league as a whole is pretty neutral on who it is. You winning the title is better for you, and worse for everyone else. The fact that tanking improves your championship odds are also a net neutral- your odds get better, someone else's get worse, and everyone as a whole winds up exactly as well off as they were before.

As I said, though, moving away from a meritocracy or violating the expectations of fair competition imposes negative externalities above and beyond any impact it might have on championship odds, and therefore unless it is accompanied by an equal or greater positive offset, it is a net negative for the league as a whole.[

/quote]

I don't see it as fair to force someone to knock themselves out of the playoffs.

I expect every owner to keep themself from being eliminated.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Adam that does look right. And in dynsty leagues and leagues with all friends I say no tanking.

Some restart with strangers, and within the rules, go for it.

That's another thing. If something is unethical when you do it to people you know and like, it is every bit as unethical when you do it to complete strangers you will never see again, even if it doesn't impose as many personal costs.

Anonymity, like money, is not some magical panacea that makes things more ethical. It's just a corrupting influence that makes us more likely to behave unethically.

And sometimes unethical is just fine in my book I guess.

Sometimes unethical is just fine in everyone's book. I've never before met anyone who acted 100% ethically in every situation. Just because they felt the tradeoffs were worth it, or the costs were small enough, doesn't mean they were acting ethically, though. Justifiable != ethical. Ethical is a much higher standard.

I've behaved unethically before. I've lied. I've cheated in games. Often when I did it, the stakes were low, and it was easy to justify to myself that I wasn't hurting anybody, but I hold no illusions that I was acting ethically.

So then who says we can't be unethical in fantasy football as long as it is justifiable?

No one. I never said that you physically could not tank. You absolutely can, and I can't stop you. It would simply be unethical to do so.

Similarly, who's to say you can't cheat on your wife? Who's to say you can't lie to your parents? Who's to say you can't gossip about your coworkers? Ethics aren't about can or can't, they're about ought or oughtn't.

 

[ghostguy123]

It's an assumption based on the original hypothetical. In an anonymous (I should have specified anonymous) $$$$ league, I think it's reasonable to assume that the collective expectation is that it's OK to tank to try to improve your odds of winning the league.

With something that is widely considered unethical, I don't think it's ever reasonable to assume that in a particular instance it can be considered ethical. I would need that explicitly confirmed by the league.

Not clear, are you saying tanking is that something that is widely considered unethical?

Yes

And to his post, I mentioned before, there are certain behaviors that are widely considered unethical that given the right circumstance would no longer be considered unethical.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Not clear, are you saying tanking is that something that is widely considered unethical?

Yes. Not universally, but there is little dispute that it is widely considered unethical.

 

[ghostguy123]

Adam that does look right. And in dynsty leagues and leagues with all friends I say no tanking.

Some restart with strangers, and within the rules, go for it.

That's another thing. If something is unethical when you do it to people you know and like, it is every bit as unethical when you do it to complete strangers you will never see again, even if it doesn't impose as many personal costs.

Anonymity, like money, is not some magical panacea that makes things more ethical. It's just a corrupting influence that makes us more likely to behave unethically.

And sometimes unethical is just fine in my book I guess.

Sometimes unethical is just fine in everyone's book. I've never before met anyone who acted 100% ethically in every situation. Just because they felt the tradeoffs were worth it, or the costs were small enough, doesn't mean they were acting ethically, though. Justifiable != ethical. Ethical is a much higher standard.

I've behaved unethically before. I've lied. I've cheated in games. Often when I did it, the stakes were low, and it was easy to justify to myself that I wasn't hurting anybody, but I hold no illusions that I was acting ethically.

So then who says we can't be unethical in fantasy football as long as it is justifiable?

No one. I never said that you physically could not tank. You absolutely can, and I can't stop you. It would simply be unethical to do so.

Similarly, who's to say you can't cheat on your wife? Who's to say you can't lie to your parents? Who's to say you can't gossip about your coworkers? Ethics aren't about can or can't, they're about ought or oughtn't.

I think you missed the justifiable part of my quote.

 

[davearm]

It's an assumption based on the original hypothetical. In an anonymous (I should have specified anonymous) $$$$ league, I think it's reasonable to assume that the collective expectation is that it's OK to tank to try to improve your odds of winning the league.

With something that is widely considered unethical, I don't think it's ever reasonable to assume that in a particular instance it can be considered ethical. I would need that explicitly confirmed by the league.

Not clear, are you saying tanking is that something that is widely considered unethical?

Yes

And to his post, I mentioned before, there are certain behaviors that are widely considered unethical that given the right circumstance would no longer be considered unethical.

And he correctly pointed out that they don't cease to be unethical even if/when they do become justifiable.

 

[ghostguy123]

Well, this might be a worse conversation thn the stats convo.

Ethics, yeesh.

 

[davearm]

Not clear, are you saying tanking is that something that is widely considered unethical?

Yes. Not universally, but there is little dispute that it is widely considered unethical.

I dunno, a 22 page thread full of folks saying it's acceptable under a range of conditions would seem to suggest otherwise.

 

[Adam Harstad]

When we join a league together, let's all expect everyone to act in their own best interests while pursuing the championship, subject to the rules, and of course generally held notions of ethical conduct.

I don't think tanking falls into the category of conduct that is generally considered unethical. Perhaps that's a bias, because I personally don't view it as unethical, but there have been enough folks arguing each side here that it seems not to be in that "no-brainer" category.

Given that, whether or not to tank is stipulated by the rules (or lack thereof).

As an aside, I think the negative externality angle is overplayed. I get you feel that way, however.

I don't see how it's overplayed, given that I'm the only one who is playing it.

I agree that it's not a huge thing. It's a tiny negative cost, and a rare enough event that the real-world impact is pretty negligible. Still, I'm unaware of anything that suggests ethics are only concerned with things that have huge negative externalities.

The fact that people say they'd be more hesitant to tank in free leagues or leagues with friends, I feel, leds pretty heavy credence to the fact that tanking is widely considered unethical. If someone didn't doubt that it was ethical, they would have no problem doing it when there was no money on the line, or when doing so had the potential to incur social consequences.

 

[ghostguy123]

It's an assumption based on the original hypothetical. In an anonymous (I should have specified anonymous) $$$$ league, I think it's reasonable to assume that the collective expectation is that it's OK to tank to try to improve your odds of winning the league.

With something that is widely considered unethical, I don't think it's ever reasonable to assume that in a particular instance it can be considered ethical. I would need that explicitly confirmed by the league.

Not clear, are you saying tanking is that something that is widely considered unethical?

YesAnd to his post, I mentioned before, there are certain behaviors that are widely considered unethical that given the right circumstance would no longer be considered unethical.

And he correctly pointed out that they don't cease to be unethical even if/when they do become justifiable.

And I disagree with him.

I wasn't aware that lying to save your babys life was unethical.

I wasn't aware that killing someone in self defense was unethical.

But what do I know. I didn't major in ethics. So maybe I truly am wrong about that.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I don't see it as fair to force someone to knock themselves out of the playoffs.

I expect every owner to keep themself from being eliminated.

Fairness has little to do with it. In theory, if a team could make the playoffs with one more loss, it doesn't matter when that loss would have occurred. A loss in week 2 and a win in week 13 gets him in just as easily as a win in week 2 and a loss in week 13. The only difference is that the owner won't know he needs that loss until week 13. From that standpoint, though, how is that fair to his week 2 opponent, who had to face him while he was trying to win, while his week 13 opponent gets to face him when he's trying to lose?

I don't think "fairness" is ever a very good defense of tanking.

 

[ghostguy123]

Why are we talking about ethics anyway??

I mean, honestly. Why are we?

If something is unethical but justifiable and is the right thing to do, then.....ah Nevermind, who cares.

 

[davearm]

I think all you need to know is that there are circumstances in which it is justifiable to act unethically.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Not clear, are you saying tanking is that something that is widely considered unethical?

Yes. Not universally, but there is little dispute that it is widely considered unethical.

I dunno, a 22 page thread full of folks saying it's acceptable under a range of conditions would seem to suggest otherwise.

A 22-page thread full of folks saying it's acceptable under a range of conditions proves it is not UNIVERSALLY considered unethical (although, distinction: acceptable != ethical). But again, I never said it was UNIVERSALLY considered ethical. I said "widely" considered ethical. Greg posted old polls in this thread a dozen pages back that showed 50+% of people opposed tanking. That's pretty widely considered, in my opinion.

 

[davearm]

Those polls (like this thread) also serve to illustrate that it'd be misguided to lump tanking into the "well everyone knows that's wrong, so we don't even need a rule for it" bin.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Adam that does look right. And in dynsty leagues and leagues with all friends I say no tanking.

Some restart with strangers, and within the rules, go for it.

That's another thing. If something is unethical when you do it to people you know and like, it is every bit as unethical when you do it to complete strangers you will never see again, even if it doesn't impose as many personal costs.

Anonymity, like money, is not some magical panacea that makes things more ethical. It's just a corrupting influence that makes us more likely to behave unethically.

And sometimes unethical is just fine in my book I guess.

Sometimes unethical is just fine in everyone's book. I've never before met anyone who acted 100% ethically in every situation. Just because they felt the tradeoffs were worth it, or the costs were small enough, doesn't mean they were acting ethically, though. Justifiable != ethical. Ethical is a much higher standard.

I've behaved unethically before. I've lied. I've cheated in games. Often when I did it, the stakes were low, and it was easy to justify to myself that I wasn't hurting anybody, but I hold no illusions that I was acting ethically.

So then who says we can't be unethical in fantasy football as long as it is justifiable?

No one. I never said that you physically could not tank. You absolutely can, and I can't stop you. It would simply be unethical to do so.

Similarly, who's to say you can't cheat on your wife? Who's to say you can't lie to your parents? Who's to say you can't gossip about your coworkers? Ethics aren't about can or can't, they're about ought or oughtn't.

I think you missed the justifiable part of my quote.

And you missed the bolded "justifiable != ethical" statement from earlier in the quote string.

Something that is unethical remains unethical even if you find a way to justify it. That doesn't mean you can't do it. Ethics aren't about can or can't, they're about ought or oughtn't.

 

[ghostguy123]

I think all you need to know is that there are circumstances in which it is justifiable to act unethically.

And I say the purpose of an action can determine whether it is unethical in that situation.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Forgive me but I'd like to resurrect an earlier question.

In a dynasty league, it would be ok for me to trade away a couple of aging (but immediately valuable) studs for a couple of young (but currently injured) prospects, if I thought that would make my team better. But it wouldn't be ok for me to bench the studs for the injured guys, if I thought it was my best (or only) chance to make the playoffs/win a championship.

What's the distinction? Why is one ok and not the other? I'm sure it was answered but I don't remember.

 

[ghostguy123]

Forgive me but I'd like to resurrect an earlier question.

In a dynasty league, it would be ok for me to trade away a couple of aging (but immediately valuable) studs for a couple of young (but currently injured) prospects, if I thought that would make my team better. But it wouldn't be ok for me to bench the studs for the injured guys, if I thought it was my best (or only) chance to make the playoffs/win a championship.

What's the distinction? Why is one ok and not the other? I'm sure it was answered but I don't remember.

I will let someone else rip that apart. I am takin a nap.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Forgive me but I'd like to resurrect an earlier question.

In a dynasty league, it would be ok for me to trade away a couple of aging (but immediately valuable) studs for a couple of young (but currently injured) prospects, if I thought that would make my team better. But it wouldn't be ok for me to bench the studs for the injured guys, if I thought it was my best (or only) chance to make the playoffs/win a championship.

What's the distinction? Why is one ok and not the other? I'm sure it was answered but I don't remember.

I will let someone else rip that apart. I am takin a nap.

Well, obviously the question wasn't directed at you, since you've made it clear that you don't think it's unacceptable to tank when it's your only chance to make the playoffs. When you wake up, I'd be curious to hear how you'd "rip it apart."

 

[ghostguy123]

Who defines which actions are unethical anyway, and tell them I am not being unethical when I shoot an intruder that is shooting at my baby with an AK-47.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Yes

And to his post, I mentioned before, there are certain behaviors that are widely considered unethical that given the right circumstance would no longer be considered unethical.

To this: I believe the reason why involves higher-order ethical judgments. For instance, we could have an ethical imperative that the truth should be told, and a higher-order ethical imperative that life should be preserved, and it would then be ethical to lie in order to save a life because the higher-order ethical imperative overrules the lower-order one. Honestly, I'm reasonably out of my depth on this one, too- despite appearances to the contrary, I've never been a fan of moral philosophy.

 

[davearm]

Forgive me but I'd like to resurrect an earlier question.

In a dynasty league, it would be ok for me to trade away a couple of aging (but immediately valuable) studs for a couple of young (but currently injured) prospects, if I thought that would make my team better. But it wouldn't be ok for me to bench the studs for the injured guys, if I thought it was my best (or only) chance to make the playoffs/win a championship.

What's the distinction? Why is one ok and not the other? I'm sure it was answered but I don't remember.

I'm with you on this. There are a whole range of actions that everyone agrees are perfectly fine, and they all have the same (sometimes greater) consequences to fairness, competitive balance, etc. etc. as does tanking.

Nobody would bat an eye if a 4-10 dynasty team traded Andre Johnson to a 10-4 team for Julio Jones. Heck it'd be expected. That 10-4 team just got a lot better chance of winning this year (assuming s/he was weak at WR).

 

[Adam Harstad]

I think all you need to know is that there are circumstances in which it is justifiable to act unethically.

Oh, it's always justifiable to act unethically. "Justifiable" is a laughably low standard, given the amount of mental resources and processes we have devoted to justifying our own behavior. Anything can be justified. That's why it's so important to separate "ethical" from "justifiable".

 

[davearm]

I think all you need to know is that there are circumstances in which it is justifiable to act unethically.

Oh, it's always justifiable to act unethically. "Justifiable" is a laughably low standard, given the amount of mental resources and processes we have devoted to justifying our own behavior. Anything can be justified. That's why it's so important to separate "ethical" from "justifiable".

You're right, folks can go to great lengths to justify their own behavior.

But justifiable works just fine if we're talking about impartial observers making the call.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Forgive me but I'd like to resurrect an earlier question.

In a dynasty league, it would be ok for me to trade away a couple of aging (but immediately valuable) studs for a couple of young (but currently injured) prospects, if I thought that would make my team better. But it wouldn't be ok for me to bench the studs for the injured guys, if I thought it was my best (or only) chance to make the playoffs/win a championship.

What's the distinction? Why is one ok and not the other? I'm sure it was answered but I don't remember.

I believe Greg and I both answered that when you initially posted it. The distinction is all a matter of intent. In the first case, the owner is still trying to win with the players he has available, which preserves the integrity of the competition. In the latter case, the owner is actively trying to lose with the players he has available, which violates the expectations of fair competition.

The litmus test I proposed at the time was, if draft picks were randomly assigned by drawing names out of a hat in a straight drawing (i.e. not weighted by order of finish), would the owner still make that move? If so, then the move is fine, as it helps the team entirely in and of itself. If not, then the move is not fine, because it hurts the team, but that hurt is offset by the improvement in draft position.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Who defines which actions are unethical anyway, and tell them I am not being unethical when I shoot an intruder that is shooting at my baby with an AK-47.

Again, moral philosophy is not my strong point, but one system of addressing this is an ethical hierarchy, whereby certain ethical imperatives are given priority over others. In this case, "protect your family" could be a higher-order imperative than "do not kill" and act as an overriding factor.

 

[davearm]

Forgive me but I'd like to resurrect an earlier question.

In a dynasty league, it would be ok for me to trade away a couple of aging (but immediately valuable) studs for a couple of young (but currently injured) prospects, if I thought that would make my team better. But it wouldn't be ok for me to bench the studs for the injured guys, if I thought it was my best (or only) chance to make the playoffs/win a championship.

What's the distinction? Why is one ok and not the other? I'm sure it was answered but I don't remember.

I believe Greg and I both answered that when you initially posted it. The distinction is all a matter of intent. In the first case, the owner is still trying to win with the players he has available, which preserves the integrity of the competition. In the latter case, the owner is actively trying to lose with the players he has available, which violates the expectations of fair competition.

The litmus test I proposed at the time was, if draft picks were randomly assigned by drawing names out of a hat in a straight drawing (i.e. not weighted by order of finish), would the owner still make that move? If so, then the move is fine, as it helps the team entirely in and of itself. If not, then the move is not fine, because it hurts the team, but that hurt is offset by the improvement in draft position.

IE isn't attempting to improve his draft position in this hypo.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Forgive me but I'd like to resurrect an earlier question.

In a dynasty league, it would be ok for me to trade away a couple of aging (but immediately valuable) studs for a couple of young (but currently injured) prospects, if I thought that would make my team better. But it wouldn't be ok for me to bench the studs for the injured guys, if I thought it was my best (or only) chance to make the playoffs/win a championship.

What's the distinction? Why is one ok and not the other? I'm sure it was answered but I don't remember.

I believe Greg and I both answered that when you initially posted it. The distinction is all a matter of intent. In the first case, the owner is still trying to win with the players he has available, which preserves the integrity of the competition. In the latter case, the owner is actively trying to lose with the players he has available, which violates the expectations of fair competition.

The litmus test I proposed at the time was, if draft picks were randomly assigned by drawing names out of a hat in a straight drawing (i.e. not weighted by order of finish), would the owner still make that move? If so, then the move is fine, as it helps the team entirely in and of itself. If not, then the move is not fine, because it hurts the team, but that hurt is offset by the improvement in draft position.

That's right, I knew we had this discussion already. I have a few thoughts:

1) The standard of "if draft picks were randomly assigned" seems arbitrary to me. Draft picks aren't randomly assigned and I don't see why anyone should be compelled to act as if they were.

2) In my scenario, I'm not "tanking" to improve my draft position. The trade helps my team entirely in and of itself. I'm unloading older players for younger players which is, in the long run, presumably inherently beneficial to my team.

3) I'd argue that you're "trying" just as hard to win right now by trading away studs for useless players, as you are by benching your studs for useless players (here I'm making the simplifying assumption that I'd end up having to start the injured guys I traded for, which in reality wouldn't necessarily be the case). If I roll out a starting lineup littered with injured players in week 13, why is it ok if I'm doing it to benefit my team next year, but not ok if I'm doing it to benefit my team next week?

Edit: And really, just in terms of impact, I think we all agree that the "tank to get into the playoffs" scenario is relatively rare. How often does that actually happen? I think I mentioned way back in the thread, but in my league if someone found themselves in that situation, I'd applaud them for actually doing the work to even realize they were in that spot to begin with (I'd rather play with people who are that astute than people who would just put their foot on the gas every week without even considering whether that was the best strategy). We'd probably change the rule in the offseason to prevent that kind of situation from occurring in the future, but I'd have no problem with someone tanking if the rules inadvertently forced them into that kind of position.

On the other hand, "tanking" in dynasty becomes an attractive option to multiple teams pretty much every single year. In the last weeks of the regular season, you're always going to have teams that are pretty much out of contention, who have talented players that other contending teams want, etc. It seems there would be a constant issue of some teams getting an "easy" schedule late in the year by facing teams that have mortgaged the present to improve their chances in the future.

So even if the people in the latter scenario aren't literally "trying" to lose, the impact is (almost) the same as if they were trying to lose, and it happens much more frequently than the "tank to get in the playoffs" situation. So, just from a practical standpoint, it seems odd to me to be perfectly ok with the latter but be strictly against the former.

 

[Amused to Death]

It's an assumption based on the original hypothetical. In an anonymous (I should have specified anonymous) $$$$ league, I think it's reasonable to assume that the collective expectation is that it's OK to tank to try to improve your odds of winning the league.

With something that is widely considered unethical, I don't think it's ever reasonable to assume that in a particular instance it can be considered ethical. I would need that explicitly confirmed by the league.

I hate jumping back in here, and maybe I'm misunderstanding the context of the bolded, but where is it stated that tanking for immediate good of your team (win this year) is widely considered unethical? I have seen no proof that is the prevailing thought among the entirety of FFL. None. I've searched other boards and even presented proof that there is a large portion that DOES allow for it in some form (ESPN). Other sites I've searched either discuss tanking for teams giving up (bad) and the ones are about manipulating playoff teams are split much like this one.

Just because YOU deem all forms unethical doesn't make it the universal standard.

"I think it depends greatly on the league you're in. I've been in leagues where this would be considered an acceptable strategy and others where it would be considered a scumbag thing to do and owners would likely quit over it." - Aaron Rudnicki, post #262

 

[Bamac]

Forgive me but I'd like to resurrect an earlier question.

In a dynasty league, it would be ok for me to trade away a couple of aging (but immediately valuable) studs for a couple of young (but currently injured) prospects, if I thought that would make my team better. But it wouldn't be ok for me to bench the studs for the injured guys, if I thought it was my best (or only) chance to make the playoffs/win a championship.

What's the distinction? Why is one ok and not the other? I'm sure it was answered but I don't remember.

I think you have to start with the premise that, aside from the effect on the doormat's performance the rest of the year, allowing the doormat to trade present assets for future assets (and to trade future assets for present assets) is a positive for the league -- indeed, that's part of why we play dynasty. In order to allow these positive transactions, we have to accept the negative externality, namely the disrupting effect of doormat's team being worse for the rest of the season. That's why it's allowed, but not why it's ethical. If a doormat trades Tony G for a three-pick bump in the fifth round of next year's rookie draft, the trade may well be unethical (to the extent tanking is unethical) because his primary goal is to decrease his present production, and that has no positive impact on the league.

Here's the tricky part, to me. Can an owner ethically consider a decrease in this year's production a positive in a trade? For instance, earlier this year I moved Peyton for Brady+. Suppose it was close, but I wouldn't have made the deal except that I thought starting Brady instead of Peyton would decrease my production this year (and thus improve my draft position). Can't enforce anything, but is that tanking? Is it ethical?

 

[Ernol]

Whether ethical, non-ethical, good sportsmanship or questionable sportsmanship. All dynasties should have rules to cover the concept of tanking imo, even for the anomaly situation (if playoffs are determined using two or more categories).

 

[Amused to Death]

Not clear, are you saying tanking is that something that is widely considered unethical?

Yes. Not universally, but there is little dispute that it is widely considered unethical.

I dunno, a 22 page thread full of folks saying it's acceptable under a range of conditions would seem to suggest otherwise.

A 22-page thread full of folks saying it's acceptable under a range of conditions proves it is not UNIVERSALLY considered unethical (although, distinction: acceptable != ethical). But again, I never said it was UNIVERSALLY considered ethical. I said "widely" considered ethical. Greg posted old polls in this thread a dozen pages back that showed 50+% of people opposed tanking. That's pretty widely considered, in my opinion.

No, Greg posted a 6 or 7 year old poll that showed 59% would consider it. Only 41% responded "definitely wouldn't". To me that means 59% would at least have to think about.

Here's one he linked from '07. The 2nd from '06 only asked only yes/no if you would tank to gain a better match up and was much more against. We're talking about 6 and 7 year old polls from 1 site.

 

[ghostguy123]

Forgive me but I'd like to resurrect an earlier question.

In a dynasty league, it would be ok for me to trade away a couple of aging (but immediately valuable) studs for a couple of young (but currently injured) prospects, if I thought that would make my team better. But it wouldn't be ok for me to bench the studs for the injured guys, if I thought it was my best (or only) chance to make the playoffs/win a championship.

What's the distinction? Why is one ok and not the other? I'm sure it was answered but I don't remember.

I'm with you on this. There are a whole range of actions that everyone agrees are perfectly fine, and they all have the same (sometimes greater) consequences to fairness, competitive balance, etc. etc. as does tanking.

Nobody would bat an eye if a 4-10 dynasty team traded Andre Johnson to a 10-4 team for Julio Jones. Heck it'd be expected. That 10-4 team just got a lot better chance of winning this year (assuming s/he was weak at WR).

I am sure more posts after this and address this, but before I do, couple pretty obvious things.

Trading is part of trying to make your team better, a widely expected practice in dynasty, much like the widely expected practice of starting your best lineup every week.

SO trading is trying to make your team better, benching active studs for injured studs is not only tanking, but incredibly stupid if you think an inactive player will help you more than an active player.

Not to mention one is ok because it is not only following the rules, but very much encouraged. One is against the rules, and widely on in almost every case byt half or more people.

 

[ghostguy123]

Forgive me but I'd like to resurrect an earlier question.

In a dynasty league, it would be ok for me to trade away a couple of aging (but immediately valuable) studs for a couple of young (but currently injured) prospects, if I thought that would make my team better. But it wouldn't be ok for me to bench the studs for the injured guys, if I thought it was my best (or only) chance to make the playoffs/win a championship.

What's the distinction? Why is one ok and not the other? I'm sure it was answered but I don't remember.

I believe Greg and I both answered that when you initially posted it. The distinction is all a matter of intent. In the first case, the owner is still trying to win with the players he has available, which preserves the integrity of the competition. In the latter case, the owner is actively trying to lose with the players he has available, which violates the expectations of fair competition.

The litmus test I proposed at the time was, if draft picks were randomly assigned by drawing names out of a hat in a straight drawing (i.e. not weighted by order of finish), would the owner still make that move? If so, then the move is fine, as it helps the team entirely in and of itself. If not, then the move is not fine, because it hurts the team, but that hurt is offset by the improvement in draft position.

KInd of like tanking when it is your ony chance to make the playoffs. Far different intent than tanking for a better pick, to screw someone you fear out of the playoffs, or to make your playoff seed better.

The intent of tanking to make the playoffs has no ill intent towards anyone else, not even the team you end up knocking out because of it. Your intent is not towards them, it is fully focused on your own team.

 

[ghostguy123]

Who defines which actions are unethical anyway, and tell them I am not being unethical when I shoot an intruder that is shooting at my baby with an AK-47.

Again, moral philosophy is not my strong point, but one system of addressing this is an ethical hierarchy, whereby certain ethical imperatives are given priority over others. In this case, "protect your family" could be a higher-order imperative than "do not kill" and act as an overriding factor.

Right, so in one circumstance the act is unethical, and in another it is no longer unethical.

Protect your family so they dont die.

Tank to protect your team so it doesnt die. I will argue that "keeping your team alive" takes moral priority over "do not tank"

 

[ghostguy123]

Here's the tricky part, to me. Can an owner ethically consider a decrease in this year's production a positive in a trade? For instance, earlier this year I moved Peyton for Brady+. Suppose it was close, but I wouldn't have made the deal except that I thought starting Brady instead of Peyton would decrease my production this year (and thus improve my draft position). Can't enforce anything, but is that tanking? Is it ethical?

Sometimes doing stupid things isn't unethical, it's just stupid.

And trades are tricky anyway, just like tanking when you start a guy you might otherwise not have, but it isn't completely obvious to people you are tanking, like playing Jordan Cameron over Gonzo if you have a feeling Cameron will score less.

But when you bench Calvin Johnson for Greg LIttle and tell people you think Little is your best option, you might get kicked out of the league.

 

[davearm]

Forgive me but I'd like to resurrect an earlier question.

In a dynasty league, it would be ok for me to trade away a couple of aging (but immediately valuable) studs for a couple of young (but currently injured) prospects, if I thought that would make my team better. But it wouldn't be ok for me to bench the studs for the injured guys, if I thought it was my best (or only) chance to make the playoffs/win a championship.

What's the distinction? Why is one ok and not the other? I'm sure it was answered but I don't remember.

I believe Greg and I both answered that when you initially posted it. The distinction is all a matter of intent. In the first case, the owner is still trying to win with the players he has available, which preserves the integrity of the competition. In the latter case, the owner is actively trying to lose with the players he has available, which violates the expectations of fair competition.

The litmus test I proposed at the time was, if draft picks were randomly assigned by drawing names out of a hat in a straight drawing (i.e. not weighted by order of finish), would the owner still make that move? If so, then the move is fine, as it helps the team entirely in and of itself. If not, then the move is not fine, because it hurts the team, but that hurt is offset by the improvement in draft position.

KInd of like tanking when it is your ony chance to make the playoffs. Far different intent than tanking for a better pick, to screw someone you fear out of the playoffs, or to make your playoff seed better.

The intent of tanking to make the playoffs has no ill intent towards anyone else, not even the team you end up knocking out because of it. Your intent is not towards them, it is fully focused on your own team.

All of these things are "fully focused on your own team", and the intent in all cases is to improve your chances of winning a championship... In most cases, this year's championship, except in the case where that opportunity is gone, and then next year's championship ( tanking for a better pick). They're all motivated by self-interest.

 

[ghostguy123]

All of these things are "fully focused on your own team", and the intent in all cases is to improve your chances of winning a championship... In most cases, this year's championship, except in the case where that opportunity is gone, and then next year's championship ( tanking for a better pick). They're all motivated by self-interest.

Everything in the world is motivated by self interest. People donate to charity because it makes them feel good. That is a self interest.

People pick up an item that some 95 year old lady drops because it makes them feel good to do it. That is a self interest.

Tanking to make the playoffs is motivated by self interest also, like everything else, ever. But unlike any of the other reasons that normally go along with tanking, it is also motivated by not wanting your season to end that day.

 

[davearm]

Bottom line is this -- if you want to make a rule against tanking, then fine. I've got no problem with that.

But absent a rule, a) don't expect that tanking is one of those things that everyone agrees is wrong, and b) don't draw arbitrary lines that attempt to define it as ok sometimes, but not others. It's an all or nothing thing.