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

[McGarnicle]

The truth of the matter is, over 700 people have viewed the thread and only a few cared enough to reply on the issue.

False. I simply couldn't articulate it any better than Adam. Tanking for any purpose is not only foolish, but it does sour the league.

That said, McGarnicle earlier wrote that a league needs specific rules to prevent this. In my view, I think it does need to be in the rules, but vague rules to cast a wide net serves a greater purpose and gives more latitude to a commissioner to simply remove an owner that chooses to tank at any time as soon as possible. I can't remember if it was Adam or McGarnicle that wrote this, but when an owner is willing to tank, that means they are willing to collude or do any number of other things that sacrifice the integrity of the league. My league, thankfully, has no interest in people who constantly look for loopholes. Just score the most points and try to win.

Thank you, Adam, for continuing to express these views in the most patient, easy to understand and interesting to read way.

Another slippery slope argument that bares no truth.

But clearly you can see that a lot of people believe intentionally losing is unethical and hurts the competitive balance, right? Therefore could you see how someone with that viewpoint would wonder where an owner who tanks would draw the ethical line?

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

The truth of the matter is, over 700 people have viewed the thread and only a few cared enough to reply on the issue.

False. I simply couldn't articulate it any better than Adam. Tanking for any purpose is not only foolish, but it does sour the league.

That said, McGarnicle earlier wrote that a league needs specific rules to prevent this. In my view, I think it does need to be in the rules, but vague rules to cast a wide net serves a greater purpose and gives more latitude to a commissioner to simply remove an owner that chooses to tank at any time as soon as possible. I can't remember if it was Adam or McGarnicle that wrote this, but when an owner is willing to tank, that means they are willing to collude or do any number of other things that sacrifice the integrity of the league. My league, thankfully, has no interest in people who constantly look for loopholes. Just score the most points and try to win.

Thank you, Adam, for continuing to express these views in the most patient, easy to understand and interesting to read way.

Another slippery slope argument that bares no truth.

But clearly you can see that a lot of people believe intentionally losing is unethical and hurts the competitive balance, right? Therefore could you see how someone with that viewpoint would wonder where an owner who tanks would draw the ethical line?

I could see that they would draw the line. People obviously feel that way. Still not sure how it hurts the competitive balance. Teams that control their own destiny control their own destiny. Teams that need help can't expect it. Everyone is trying to win a championship. Nobody owes anyone assistance in making the playoffs.

I also don't see why an owner that does feel that way would question where someone else would draw the ethical line. That implies that one viewpoint is more ethical than the other. Unless the person can't grasp that ethical people can fall on both sides of the issue, I don't see how they'd wonder any such thing.

 

[TheStig]

You do what you legally can to win the most you can.

If I can start a lineup of my backups and it helps me win next week, I'm doing it. That's not shady, that's logical.

What if there's no rule against collusion? Fair game?

Collusion is an agreement between two or more people to combine resources or information to manipulate an agreed upon outcome.

Collusion is wrong in FF because the game intentionally pits individual owners against each other. Most go into a league with the assumption that they are playing against other owners individually. To have two owners work against you is wrong because it uses the combined efforts, resources and information if two owners acting as one is an unfair advantage.

I could see a league where collusion could be a legitimate tactic and it is up to you to form your own alliances to be competitive. Again, the act, if allowed isn't necessarily wrong, it is the context of the league and it's rules that deem it wrong.

I could see such a league that allows alliances to be quite an interesting experience. Eventually at some point, you would be forced to turn on your own but that moment of "backstabbing" can be its own unique satisfaction.

 

[TheStig]

The truth of the matter is, over 700 people have viewed the thread and only a few cared enough to reply on the issue.

False. I simply couldn't articulate it any better than Adam. Tanking for any purpose is not only foolish, but it does sour the league. That said, McGarnicle earlier wrote that a league needs specific rules to prevent this. In my view, I think it does need to be in the rules, but vague rules to cast a wide net serves a greater purpose and gives more latitude to a commissioner to simply remove an owner that chooses to tank at any time as soon as possible. I can't remember if it was Adam or McGarnicle that wrote this, but when an owner is willing to tank, that means they are willing to collude or do any number of other things that sacrifice the integrity of the league. My league, thankfully, has no interest in people who constantly look for loopholes. Just score the most points and try to win. Thank you, Adam, for continuing to express these views in the most patient, easy to understand and interesting to read way.

Another slippery slope argument that bares no truth.

But clearly you can see that a lot of people believe intentionally losing is unethical and hurts the competitive balance, right? Therefore could you see how someone with that viewpoint would wonder where an owner who tanks would draw the ethical line?

If that is the belief of the people in the league then they need a rule, or other motivating mechanisms in place to either mitigate its possibility or a set of rules to deal with the situation.

To not play by the league rules is unethical. Increasing your odds of winning within the stated rules is not unethical.

 

[McGarnicle]

The truth of the matter is, over 700 people have viewed the thread and only a few cared enough to reply on the issue.

False. I simply couldn't articulate it any better than Adam. Tanking for any purpose is not only foolish, but it does sour the league.

That said, McGarnicle earlier wrote that a league needs specific rules to prevent this. In my view, I think it does need to be in the rules, but vague rules to cast a wide net serves a greater purpose and gives more latitude to a commissioner to simply remove an owner that chooses to tank at any time as soon as possible. I can't remember if it was Adam or McGarnicle that wrote this, but when an owner is willing to tank, that means they are willing to collude or do any number of other things that sacrifice the integrity of the league. My league, thankfully, has no interest in people who constantly look for loopholes. Just score the most points and try to win.

Thank you, Adam, for continuing to express these views in the most patient, easy to understand and interesting to read way.

Another slippery slope argument that bares no truth.

But clearly you can see that a lot of people believe intentionally losing is unethical and hurts the competitive balance, right? Therefore could you see how someone with that viewpoint would wonder where an owner who tanks would draw the ethical line?

I could see that they would draw the line. People obviously feel that way. Still not sure how it hurts the competitive balance. Teams that control their own destiny control their own destiny. Teams that need help can't expect it. Everyone is trying to win a championship. Nobody owes anyone assistance in making the playoffs.I also don't see why an owner that does feel that way would question where someone else would draw the ethical line. That implies that one viewpoint is more ethical than the other. Unless the person can't grasp that ethical people can fall on both sides of the issue, I don't see how they'd wonder any such thing.

The competitive balance argument has been covered ad nauseum in this thread. You either get it or you don't. Needing "help" is a false premise. It's about ensuring a level playing field.Back to my question, if you're willing to do something a little unethical, I have no confidence you wouldn't do something really unethical. Since tanking and collusion both ruin the competitive balance in the league, I don't draw a massive distinction in my head. I do understand there are a lot of nuances and some scenarios where an owner would feel they had no choice but to lose intentionally. I was never faced with that dilemma. This thread has definitely been enlightening and given me a lot to think about.

 

[McGarnicle]

The truth of the matter is, over 700 people have viewed the thread and only a few cared enough to reply on the issue.

False. I simply couldn't articulate it any better than Adam. Tanking for any purpose is not only foolish, but it does sour the league. That said, McGarnicle earlier wrote that a league needs specific rules to prevent this. In my view, I think it does need to be in the rules, but vague rules to cast a wide net serves a greater purpose and gives more latitude to a commissioner to simply remove an owner that chooses to tank at any time as soon as possible. I can't remember if it was Adam or McGarnicle that wrote this, but when an owner is willing to tank, that means they are willing to collude or do any number of other things that sacrifice the integrity of the league. My league, thankfully, has no interest in people who constantly look for loopholes. Just score the most points and try to win. Thank you, Adam, for continuing to express these views in the most patient, easy to understand and interesting to read way.

Another slippery slope argument that bares no truth.

But clearly you can see that a lot of people believe intentionally losing is unethical and hurts the competitive balance, right? Therefore could you see how someone with that viewpoint would wonder where an owner who tanks would draw the ethical line?

If that is the belief of the people in the league then they need a rule, or other motivating mechanisms in place to either mitigate its possibility or a set of rules to deal with the situation.

To not play by the league rules is unethical. Increasing your odds of winning within the stated rules is not unethical.

The key takeaway from this thread should be that all leagues need more specific rules than most of them have today.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

The truth of the matter is, over 700 people have viewed the thread and only a few cared enough to reply on the issue.

False. I simply couldn't articulate it any better than Adam. Tanking for any purpose is not only foolish, but it does sour the league.

That said, McGarnicle earlier wrote that a league needs specific rules to prevent this. In my view, I think it does need to be in the rules, but vague rules to cast a wide net serves a greater purpose and gives more latitude to a commissioner to simply remove an owner that chooses to tank at any time as soon as possible. I can't remember if it was Adam or McGarnicle that wrote this, but when an owner is willing to tank, that means they are willing to collude or do any number of other things that sacrifice the integrity of the league. My league, thankfully, has no interest in people who constantly look for loopholes. Just score the most points and try to win.

Thank you, Adam, for continuing to express these views in the most patient, easy to understand and interesting to read way.

Another slippery slope argument that bares no truth.

But clearly you can see that a lot of people believe intentionally losing is unethical and hurts the competitive balance, right? Therefore could you see how someone with that viewpoint would wonder where an owner who tanks would draw the ethical line?

I could see that they would draw the line. People obviously feel that way. Still not sure how it hurts the competitive balance. Teams that control their own destiny control their own destiny. Teams that need help can't expect it. Everyone is trying to win a championship. Nobody owes anyone assistance in making the playoffs.I also don't see why an owner that does feel that way would question where someone else would draw the ethical line. That implies that one viewpoint is more ethical than the other. Unless the person can't grasp that ethical people can fall on both sides of the issue, I don't see how they'd wonder any such thing.

The competitive balance argument has been covered ad nauseum in this thread. You either get it or you don't. Needing "help" is a false premise. It's about ensuring a level playing field.Back to my question, if you're willing to do something a little unethical, I have no confidence you wouldn't do something really unethical. Since tanking and collusion both ruin the competitive balance in the league, I don't draw a massive distinction in my head. I do understand there are a lot of nuances and some scenarios where an owner would feel they had no choice but to lose intentionally. I was never faced with that dilemma. This thread has definitely been enlightening and given me a lot to think about.

I get it. I simply don't agree with it. In my opinion, it's based on emotion, not reason. I get that a game will involve people's emotions, but that doesn't make it reasonable.

If "needing help" is a false premise, you have a major beef with the NFL. "Team A needs help to get in the playoffs" is pretty standard jargon, and it means exactly what it says. The team wasn't good enough to make it on their own. They need the outcome of a game they're not even playing to help them get in.

I also get that you do not draw a distinction between two different things (collusion and tanking). I'm sorry to hear it, but I can't help with it. I also get that you think it ruins the competitive balance of the league. That doesn't make it so, but I understand you feel that way. I would suggest you play in leagues where it's stated that way in the rules, since not everyone feels the way you do...even ethical people.

Some things (collusion) would always be seen as unethical to ethical people. This is not one of those things. That doesn't make it "a little unethical." It makes it an issue where people disagree.

 

[-fish-]

I'm playing poker. I see how another guy's playing, and I think by letting him win a couple pots I can bait him into a larger pot in a similar situation. I do it, knowing I'm going to lose, because I feel I have a better chance of winning more money by losing a couple of hands I don't care about to set up the play I want. Is that unethical? Going to cause the game to disintegrate into chaos?

If you're playing for money, it's gambling, and only a fool thinks you should do less than you can possibly do to maximize your chance of winning. If you're playing with people that don't understand that and would get their feelings hurt, maybe you should just play for fun and put the money aside.

I could see the argument Adam's making if it was a work league with a $5/per team throw, but if I've invested a couple hundred bucks or more, I'm not going to hesitate to put myself in what I feel the best position is to win.

There are ethics in gambling; part of that is the understanding that everyone should be maximizing their own self-interest.

 

[TheStig]

The truth of the matter is, over 700 people have viewed the thread and only a few cared enough to reply on the issue.

False. I simply couldn't articulate it any better than Adam. Tanking for any purpose is not only foolish, but it does sour the league. That said, McGarnicle earlier wrote that a league needs specific rules to prevent this. In my view, I think it does need to be in the rules, but vague rules to cast a wide net serves a greater purpose and gives more latitude to a commissioner to simply remove an owner that chooses to tank at any time as soon as possible. I can't remember if it was Adam or McGarnicle that wrote this, but when an owner is willing to tank, that means they are willing to collude or do any number of other things that sacrifice the integrity of the league. My league, thankfully, has no interest in people who constantly look for loopholes. Just score the most points and try to win. Thank you, Adam, for continuing to express these views in the most patient, easy to understand and interesting to read way.

Another slippery slope argument that bares no truth.

But clearly you can see that a lot of people believe intentionally losing is unethical and hurts the competitive balance, right? Therefore could you see how someone with that viewpoint would wonder where an owner who tanks would draw the ethical line?

I could see that they would draw the line. People obviously feel that way. Still not sure how it hurts the competitive balance. Teams that control their own destiny control their own destiny. Teams that need help can't expect it. Everyone is trying to win a championship. Nobody owes anyone assistance in making the playoffs. I also don't see why an owner that does feel that way would question where someone else would draw the ethical line. That implies that one viewpoint is more ethical than the other. Unless the person can't grasp that ethical people can fall on both sides of the issue, I don't see how they'd wonder any such thing.

The competitive balance argument has been covered ad nauseum in this thread. You either get it or you don't. Needing "help" is a false premise. It's about ensuring a level playing field.Back to my question, if you're willing to do something a little unethical, I have no confidence you wouldn't do something really unethical. Since tanking and collusion both ruin the competitive balance in the league, I don't draw a massive distinction in my head. I do understand there are a lot of nuances and some scenarios where an owner would feel they had no choice but to lose intentionally. I was never faced with that dilemma. This thread has definitely been enlightening and given me a lot to think about.

"Needing help" isn't a false premise.

The OPs scenario states that if he loses to team A, Team B is in the playoffs. This means, that Team B, technically owns the tie breaker or already is up by a game on Team A.

Therefor, Team A needs not only to win, but for Team B to lose to get in. Team A does not in fact control their destiny.

 

[GregR]

Bottom line, everyone here knows that it is widely enough viewed as unethical it isn't something you should just do and expect no strife over it.

If you want to be a behave as a decent human being, address the situation to your league. Let them decide before you do anything, whether the league permits such behavior or not.

If the league decides to not allow it, don't do it. If the league decides to allow it, then do it, there's nothing unethical when the league decides to include it.

The only reason for not bringing it up for a league decision first, is that they don't want to be restricted from something they suspect the league will consider to be cheating.

If you do this without clarifying, in my mind you lose any benefit of the doubt you weren't cheating. I think a league is completely in their rights to boot anyone who does this without checking with the league first where it isn't already clear.

The contention that "everyone views it as unethical" is untrue. In fact the consensus is split on the issue.

It is untrue. Which is why no one contended it.

"Everyone views it as unethical" is a completely different statement from "everyone here knows it is widely viewed as unethical".

 

[-fish-]

Bottom line, everyone here knows that it is widely enough viewed as unethical it isn't something you should just do and expect no strife over it.

If you want to be a behave as a decent human being, address the situation to your league. Let them decide before you do anything, whether the league permits such behavior or not.

If the league decides to not allow it, don't do it. If the league decides to allow it, then do it, there's nothing unethical when the league decides to include it.

The only reason for not bringing it up for a league decision first, is that they don't want to be restricted from something they suspect the league will consider to be cheating.

If you do this without clarifying, in my mind you lose any benefit of the doubt you weren't cheating. I think a league is completely in their rights to boot anyone who does this without checking with the league first where it isn't already clear.

The contention that "everyone views it as unethical" is untrue. In fact the consensus is split on the issue.

It is untrue. Which is why no one contended it.

"Everyone views it as unethical" is a completely different statement from "everyone here knows it is widely viewed as unethical".

which may also be untrue. set us up the poll, greg.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

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.

 

[GregR]

Bottom line, everyone here knows that it is widely enough viewed as unethical it isn't something you should just do and expect no strife over it.

If you want to be a behave as a decent human being, address the situation to your league. Let them decide before you do anything, whether the league permits such behavior or not.

If the league decides to not allow it, don't do it. If the league decides to allow it, then do it, there's nothing unethical when the league decides to include it.

The only reason for not bringing it up for a league decision first, is that they don't want to be restricted from something they suspect the league will consider to be cheating.

If you do this without clarifying, in my mind you lose any benefit of the doubt you weren't cheating. I think a league is completely in their rights to boot anyone who does this without checking with the league first where it isn't already clear.

The contention that "everyone views it as unethical" is untrue. In fact the consensus is split on the issue.

It is untrue. Which is why no one contended it.

"Everyone views it as unethical" is a completely different statement from "everyone here knows it is widely viewed as unethical".

which may also be untrue. set us up the poll, greg.

I already posted poll results and links.

 

[blake]

The truth of the matter is, over 700 people have viewed the thread and only a few cared enough to reply on the issue.

False. I simply couldn't articulate it any better than Adam. Tanking for any purpose is not only foolish, but it does sour the league.

That said, McGarnicle earlier wrote that a league needs specific rules to prevent this. In my view, I think it does need to be in the rules, but vague rules to cast a wide net serves a greater purpose and gives more latitude to a commissioner to simply remove an owner that chooses to tank at any time as soon as possible. I can't remember if it was Adam or McGarnicle that wrote this, but when an owner is willing to tank, that means they are willing to collude or do any number of other things that sacrifice the integrity of the league. My league, thankfully, has no interest in people who constantly look for loopholes. Just score the most points and try to win.

Thank you, Adam, for continuing to express these views in the most patient, easy to understand and interesting to read way.

Another slippery slope argument that bares no truth.

But clearly you can see that a lot of people believe intentionally losing is unethical and hurts the competitive balance, right? Therefore could you see how someone with that viewpoint would wonder where an owner who tanks would draw the ethical line?

Thankfully, it bares all the truth needed that our league needs to run ethically and to assure enjoyment for all owners rather than being leery of any. Our league's constitution has a "tanking" section in it, and it casts a wide net so that if there is ever any suspicion, we can start looking for another owner immediately. There is no place for tanking of any kind in the league I am in.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I'm playing poker. I see how another guy's playing, and I think by letting him win a couple pots I can bait him into a larger pot in a similar situation. I do it, knowing I'm going to lose, because I feel I have a better chance of winning more money by losing a couple of hands I don't care about to set up the play I want. Is that unethical? Going to cause the game to disintegrate into chaos?

If you're playing for money, it's gambling, and only a fool thinks you should do less than you can possibly do to maximize your chance of winning. If you're playing with people that don't understand that and would get their feelings hurt, maybe you should just play for fun and put the money aside.

I could see the argument Adam's making if it was a work league with a $5/per team throw, but if I've invested a couple hundred bucks or more, I'm not going to hesitate to put myself in what I feel the best position is to win.

There are ethics in gambling; part of that is the understanding that everyone should be maximizing their own self-interest.

Going further, would it be unethical to try and get under someone's skin so they go on tilt and make mistakes? To subtly egg them on when you can tell they're melting down?

I don't even think money has to be involved. Just the deisre to win-- not just a pot or two, but the whole thing. You could play for pretzel sticks and bragging rights and use the same strategy.

I will say that when you play with friends and you could lose a friendshp over it, maybe you don't do those things. Not because it's wrong, but because you have fragile friends and you take that into account. It might not be worth losing a friend over a game. But that doesn't make it unethical.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

The truth of the matter is, over 700 people have viewed the thread and only a few cared enough to reply on the issue.

False. I simply couldn't articulate it any better than Adam. Tanking for any purpose is not only foolish, but it does sour the league.

That said, McGarnicle earlier wrote that a league needs specific rules to prevent this. In my view, I think it does need to be in the rules, but vague rules to cast a wide net serves a greater purpose and gives more latitude to a commissioner to simply remove an owner that chooses to tank at any time as soon as possible. I can't remember if it was Adam or McGarnicle that wrote this, but when an owner is willing to tank, that means they are willing to collude or do any number of other things that sacrifice the integrity of the league. My league, thankfully, has no interest in people who constantly look for loopholes. Just score the most points and try to win.

Thank you, Adam, for continuing to express these views in the most patient, easy to understand and interesting to read way.

Another slippery slope argument that bares no truth.

But clearly you can see that a lot of people believe intentionally losing is unethical and hurts the competitive balance, right? Therefore could you see how someone with that viewpoint would wonder where an owner who tanks would draw the ethical line?

Thankfully, it bares all the truth needed that our league needs to run ethically and to assure enjoyment for all owners rather than being leery of any. Our league's constitution has a "tanking" section in it, and it casts a wide net so that if there is ever any suspicion, we can start looking for another owner immediately. There is no place for tanking of any kind in the league I am in.

So to be clear-- If a team could actually miss the playoffs by winning, they should do the "right thing" and nobly win and say goodbye to the playoffs. This, in your mind, would be "ethical?"

 

[CalBear]

I'm playing poker. I see how another guy's playing, and I think by letting him win a couple pots I can bait him into a larger pot in a similar situation. I do it, knowing I'm going to lose, because I feel I have a better chance of winning more money by losing a couple of hands I don't care about to set up the play I want. Is that unethical? Going to cause the game to disintegrate into chaos?

If you're playing for money, it's gambling, and only a fool thinks you should do less than you can possibly do to maximize your chance of winning. If you're playing with people that don't understand that and would get their feelings hurt, maybe you should just play for fun and put the money aside.

I could see the argument Adam's making if it was a work league with a $5/per team throw, but if I've invested a couple hundred bucks or more, I'm not going to hesitate to put myself in what I feel the best position is to win.

There are ethics in gambling; part of that is the understanding that everyone should be maximizing their own self-interest.

Going further, would it be unethical to try and get under someone's skin so they go on tilt and make mistakes? To subtly egg them on when you can tell they're melting down?

I don't even think money has to be involved. Just the deisre to win-- not just a pot or two, but the whole thing. You could play for pretzel sticks and bragging rights and use the same strategy.

I will say that when you play with friends and you could lose a friendshp over it, maybe you don't do those things. Not because it's wrong, but because you have fragile friends and you take that into account. It might not be worth losing a friend over a game. But that doesn't make it unethical.

It's unethical because it's outside the parameters of the game. The parameters of the game are that you put in your best lineup, every week; intentionally losing is unethical if you're a bottom-feeder team in a dynasty hoping for a better draft pick, and it's unethical if you're a playoff team hoping for a better playoff matchup.

The poker example is not unethical because it's within the parameters of the game. I think everyone would agree that all actions within the parameters of the game are ethical.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I'm playing poker. I see how another guy's playing, and I think by letting him win a couple pots I can bait him into a larger pot in a similar situation. I do it, knowing I'm going to lose, because I feel I have a better chance of winning more money by losing a couple of hands I don't care about to set up the play I want. Is that unethical? Going to cause the game to disintegrate into chaos?

If you're playing for money, it's gambling, and only a fool thinks you should do less than you can possibly do to maximize your chance of winning. If you're playing with people that don't understand that and would get their feelings hurt, maybe you should just play for fun and put the money aside.

I could see the argument Adam's making if it was a work league with a $5/per team throw, but if I've invested a couple hundred bucks or more, I'm not going to hesitate to put myself in what I feel the best position is to win.

There are ethics in gambling; part of that is the understanding that everyone should be maximizing their own self-interest.

Going further, would it be unethical to try and get under someone's skin so they go on tilt and make mistakes? To subtly egg them on when you can tell they're melting down?

I don't even think money has to be involved. Just the deisre to win-- not just a pot or two, but the whole thing. You could play for pretzel sticks and bragging rights and use the same strategy.

I will say that when you play with friends and you could lose a friendshp over it, maybe you don't do those things. Not because it's wrong, but because you have fragile friends and you take that into account. It might not be worth losing a friend over a game. But that doesn't make it unethical.

It's unethical because it's outside the parameters of the game. The parameters of the game are that you put in your best lineup, every week; intentionally losing is unethical if you're a bottom-feeder team in a dynasty hoping for a better draft pick, and it's unethical if you're a playoff team hoping for a better playoff matchup.

The poker example is not unethical because it's within the parameters of the game. I think everyone would agree that all actions within the parameters of the game are ethical.

Are you saying the "parameters of the game" of fantasy football is not to win a championship, but rather to win every game?

 

[CalBear]

I'm playing poker. I see how another guy's playing, and I think by letting him win a couple pots I can bait him into a larger pot in a similar situation. I do it, knowing I'm going to lose, because I feel I have a better chance of winning more money by losing a couple of hands I don't care about to set up the play I want. Is that unethical? Going to cause the game to disintegrate into chaos?

If you're playing for money, it's gambling, and only a fool thinks you should do less than you can possibly do to maximize your chance of winning. If you're playing with people that don't understand that and would get their feelings hurt, maybe you should just play for fun and put the money aside.

I could see the argument Adam's making if it was a work league with a $5/per team throw, but if I've invested a couple hundred bucks or more, I'm not going to hesitate to put myself in what I feel the best position is to win.

There are ethics in gambling; part of that is the understanding that everyone should be maximizing their own self-interest.

Going further, would it be unethical to try and get under someone's skin so they go on tilt and make mistakes? To subtly egg them on when you can tell they're melting down?

I don't even think money has to be involved. Just the deisre to win-- not just a pot or two, but the whole thing. You could play for pretzel sticks and bragging rights and use the same strategy.

I will say that when you play with friends and you could lose a friendshp over it, maybe you don't do those things. Not because it's wrong, but because you have fragile friends and you take that into account. It might not be worth losing a friend over a game. But that doesn't make it unethical.

It's unethical because it's outside the parameters of the game. The parameters of the game are that you put in your best lineup, every week; intentionally losing is unethical if you're a bottom-feeder team in a dynasty hoping for a better draft pick, and it's unethical if you're a playoff team hoping for a better playoff matchup.

The poker example is not unethical because it's within the parameters of the game. I think everyone would agree that all actions within the parameters of the game are ethical.

Are you saying the "parameters of the game" of fantasy football is not to win a championship, but rather to win every game?

Yes, part of the basic expectation of the game is that everyone plays what they think is their best lineup each week. Do you think tanking for a better draft pick is OK?

 

[blake]

So to be clear-- If a team could actually miss the playoffs by winning, they should do the "right thing" and nobly win and say goodbye to the playoffs. This, in your mind, would be "ethical?"

I have no idea how this would ever happen in my league's setup. As stated numerous times before in this thread, that would be a difficult situation, and hopefully if any league has this hypothetical situation come to fruition, they fix it for the ensuing years.

 

[McGarnicle]

The truth of the matter is, over 700 people have viewed the thread and only a few cared enough to reply on the issue.

False. I simply couldn't articulate it any better than Adam. Tanking for any purpose is not only foolish, but it does sour the league.

That said, McGarnicle earlier wrote that a league needs specific rules to prevent this. In my view, I think it does need to be in the rules, but vague rules to cast a wide net serves a greater purpose and gives more latitude to a commissioner to simply remove an owner that chooses to tank at any time as soon as possible. I can't remember if it was Adam or McGarnicle that wrote this, but when an owner is willing to tank, that means they are willing to collude or do any number of other things that sacrifice the integrity of the league. My league, thankfully, has no interest in people who constantly look for loopholes. Just score the most points and try to win.

Thank you, Adam, for continuing to express these views in the most patient, easy to understand and interesting to read way.

Another slippery slope argument that bares no truth.

But clearly you can see that a lot of people believe intentionally losing is unethical and hurts the competitive balance, right? Therefore could you see how someone with that viewpoint would wonder where an owner who tanks would draw the ethical line?

I could see that they would draw the line. People obviously feel that way. Still not sure how it hurts the competitive balance. Teams that control their own destiny control their own destiny. Teams that need help can't expect it. Everyone is trying to win a championship. Nobody owes anyone assistance in making the playoffs.I also don't see why an owner that does feel that way would question where someone else would draw the ethical line. That implies that one viewpoint is more ethical than the other. Unless the person can't grasp that ethical people can fall on both sides of the issue, I don't see how they'd wonder any such thing.

The competitive balance argument has been covered ad nauseum in this thread. You either get it or you don't. Needing "help" is a false premise. It's about ensuring a level playing field.Back to my question, if you're willing to do something a little unethical, I have no confidence you wouldn't do something really unethical. Since tanking and collusion both ruin the competitive balance in the league, I don't draw a massive distinction in my head. I do understand there are a lot of nuances and some scenarios where an owner would feel they had no choice but to lose intentionally. I was never faced with that dilemma. This thread has definitely been enlightening and given me a lot to think about.

I get it. I simply don't agree with it. In my opinion, it's based on emotion, not reason. I get that a game will involve people's emotions, but that doesn't make it reasonable.If "needing help" is a false premise, you have a major beef with the NFL. "Team A needs help to get in the playoffs" is pretty standard jargon, and it means exactly what it says. The team wasn't good enough to make it on their own. They need the outcome of a game they're not even playing to help them get in.

I also get that you do not draw a distinction between two different things (collusion and tanking). I'm sorry to hear it, but I can't help with it. I also get that you think it ruins the competitive balance of the league. That doesn't make it so, but I understand you feel that way. I would suggest you play in leagues where it's stated that way in the rules, since not everyone feels the way you do...even ethical people.

Some things (collusion) would always be seen as unethical to ethical people. This is not one of those things. That doesn't make it "a little unethical." It makes it an issue where people disagree.

The needing help thing is really a misnomer and it's ridiculous that people keep getting hung up on it. You're at the end of the season and certain things need to fall into place for teams to make the playoffs, but in actuality any given win or loss on their schedule was just as meaningful, they just didn't know it at the time. At the end of the season, the exact combination of wins and losses needed for a team is known, so it becomes a talking point. "Needing help" was invented by the media and doesn't tell the whole story. Bottom line is always that you need to have a better record than your competitors to make the playoffs, so you "need help" all season. In a very competitive league, you ALWAYS need the other top teams to lose one or two more close games than you do. We need to put that phrase to bed because it's meaningless.No one answered my earlier question about the unfairness of a team playing a team in week 13 who is tanking when another team played that same team in week 8 when they were trying to win. If you get burned by that alone, and an inferior team got in ahead of you because a team tanked, then yes, the competitive balance was ruined. Why does one team get a bye week and others don't? And how is that observation in any way based on emotion?

 

[CalBear]

So to be clear-- If a team could actually miss the playoffs by winning, they should do the "right thing" and nobly win and say goodbye to the playoffs. This, in your mind, would be "ethical?"

I have no idea how this would ever happen in my league's setup. As stated numerous times before in this thread, that would be a difficult situation, and hopefully if any league has this hypothetical situation come to fruition, they fix it for the ensuing years.

The way it can come up is if your league has the stupid rule that the top scorer makes the playoffs even if his record is not good enough for the playoffs. It can put someone in the position that if they lose to the top scorer, they get the last playoff spot because the top scorer gets a regular playoff spot instead of a "bonus" spot.

This is why you shouldn't have that rule.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

So to be clear-- If a team could actually miss the playoffs by winning, they should do the "right thing" and nobly win and say goodbye to the playoffs. This, in your mind, would be "ethical?"

I have no idea how this would ever happen in my league's setup. As stated numerous times before in this thread, that would be a difficult situation, and hopefully if any league has this hypothetical situation come to fruition, they fix it for the ensuing years.

Okay, it's a "difficult situation." That doesn't say what the "ethical" thing to do would be. If such a situation occurred, would you hold to your "always play to win" mentality, or would you agree that losing is the smart and an ethical thing to do in that situation? Which one?

 

[-fish-]

I'm playing poker. I see how another guy's playing, and I think by letting him win a couple pots I can bait him into a larger pot in a similar situation. I do it, knowing I'm going to lose, because I feel I have a better chance of winning more money by losing a couple of hands I don't care about to set up the play I want. Is that unethical? Going to cause the game to disintegrate into chaos?

If you're playing for money, it's gambling, and only a fool thinks you should do less than you can possibly do to maximize your chance of winning. If you're playing with people that don't understand that and would get their feelings hurt, maybe you should just play for fun and put the money aside.

I could see the argument Adam's making if it was a work league with a $5/per team throw, but if I've invested a couple hundred bucks or more, I'm not going to hesitate to put myself in what I feel the best position is to win.

There are ethics in gambling; part of that is the understanding that everyone should be maximizing their own self-interest.

Going further, would it be unethical to try and get under someone's skin so they go on tilt and make mistakes? To subtly egg them on when you can tell they're melting down?I don't even think money has to be involved. Just the deisre to win-- not just a pot or two, but the whole thing. You could play for pretzel sticks and bragging rights and use the same strategy.

I will say that when you play with friends and you could lose a friendshp over it, maybe you don't do those things. Not because it's wrong, but because you have fragile friends and you take that into account. It might not be worth losing a friend over a game. But that doesn't make it unethical.

It's unethical because it's outside the parameters of the game. The parameters of the game are that you put in your best lineup, every week; intentionally losing is unethical if you're a bottom-feeder team in a dynasty hoping for a better draft pick, and it's unethical if you're a playoff team hoping for a better playoff matchup.

The poker example is not unethical because it's within the parameters of the game. I think everyone would agree that all actions within the parameters of the game are ethical.

The parameters of the game are to try to win a championship, not win every game. Ever seen someone stack up a bunch of bye weeks and just sacrifice that week? Should that be an illegal draft strategy?

 

[CalBear]

The parameters of the game are to try to win a championship, not win every game. Ever seen someone stack up a bunch of bye weeks and just sacrifice that week? Should that be an illegal draft strategy?

No, the parameters of the game are to play your best lineup every week. Do you think tanking for a better draft pick is acceptable?

Choosing to concentrate your bye weeks is within the parameters of the game. Intentionally starting players on bye rather than players who are playing is not.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

The truth of the matter is, over 700 people have viewed the thread and only a few cared enough to reply on the issue.

False. I simply couldn't articulate it any better than Adam. Tanking for any purpose is not only foolish, but it does sour the league.

That said, McGarnicle earlier wrote that a league needs specific rules to prevent this. In my view, I think it does need to be in the rules, but vague rules to cast a wide net serves a greater purpose and gives more latitude to a commissioner to simply remove an owner that chooses to tank at any time as soon as possible. I can't remember if it was Adam or McGarnicle that wrote this, but when an owner is willing to tank, that means they are willing to collude or do any number of other things that sacrifice the integrity of the league. My league, thankfully, has no interest in people who constantly look for loopholes. Just score the most points and try to win.

Thank you, Adam, for continuing to express these views in the most patient, easy to understand and interesting to read way.

Another slippery slope argument that bares no truth.

But clearly you can see that a lot of people believe intentionally losing is unethical and hurts the competitive balance, right? Therefore could you see how someone with that viewpoint would wonder where an owner who tanks would draw the ethical line?

I could see that they would draw the line. People obviously feel that way. Still not sure how it hurts the competitive balance. Teams that control their own destiny control their own destiny. Teams that need help can't expect it. Everyone is trying to win a championship. Nobody owes anyone assistance in making the playoffs.I also don't see why an owner that does feel that way would question where someone else would draw the ethical line. That implies that one viewpoint is more ethical than the other. Unless the person can't grasp that ethical people can fall on both sides of the issue, I don't see how they'd wonder any such thing.

The competitive balance argument has been covered ad nauseum in this thread. You either get it or you don't. Needing "help" is a false premise. It's about ensuring a level playing field.Back to my question, if you're willing to do something a little unethical, I have no confidence you wouldn't do something really unethical. Since tanking and collusion both ruin the competitive balance in the league, I don't draw a massive distinction in my head. I do understand there are a lot of nuances and some scenarios where an owner would feel they had no choice but to lose intentionally. I was never faced with that dilemma. This thread has definitely been enlightening and given me a lot to think about.

I get it. I simply don't agree with it. In my opinion, it's based on emotion, not reason. I get that a game will involve people's emotions, but that doesn't make it reasonable.If "needing help" is a false premise, you have a major beef with the NFL. "Team A needs help to get in the playoffs" is pretty standard jargon, and it means exactly what it says. The team wasn't good enough to make it on their own. They need the outcome of a game they're not even playing to help them get in.

I also get that you do not draw a distinction between two different things (collusion and tanking). I'm sorry to hear it, but I can't help with it. I also get that you think it ruins the competitive balance of the league. That doesn't make it so, but I understand you feel that way. I would suggest you play in leagues where it's stated that way in the rules, since not everyone feels the way you do...even ethical people.

Some things (collusion) would always be seen as unethical to ethical people. This is not one of those things. That doesn't make it "a little unethical." It makes it an issue where people disagree.

The needing help thing is really a misnomer and it's ridiculous that people keep getting hung up on it. You're at the end of the season and certain things need to fall into place for teams to make the playoffs, but in actuality any given win or loss on their schedule was just as meaningful, they just didn't know it at the time. At the end of the season, the exact combination of wins and losses needed for a team is known, so it becomes a talking point. "Needing help" was invented by the media and doesn't tell the whole story. Bottom line is always that you need to have a better record than your competitors to make the playoffs, so you "need help" all season. In a very competitive league, you ALWAYS need the other top teams to lose one or two more close games than you do. We need to put that phrase to bed because it's meaningless.No one answered my earlier question about the unfairness of a team playing a team in week 13 who is tanking when another team played that same team in week 8 when they were trying to win. If you get burned by that alone, and an inferior team got in ahead of you because a team tanked, then yes, the competitive balance was ruined. Why does one team get a bye week and others don't? And how is that observation in any way based on emotion?

With all due respect, I don't think we're the ones getting hung up on it. The playoffs don't start after week four or seven or nine. They start after week 13 (let's say) and if you don't control your own destiny, you need help to make the playoffs. You weren't good enough to get in on your own so other things need to happen. Until winning out can't get you there, no loss means you need help. But once winning isn't enough, you need help-- other outcomes-- to make the playoffs.

To answer your question, it is unfair. Head to head is unfair. The randomness of the schedule means you'll play some teams on their best days,, while others play them when their starters are on the bye. You'll play against the Foles owner when he scored seven TDs, and someone else plays him when he scored zero.

It's unfair when that happens. It's unfair when you played a team in week 3 when they were trying, and not week 13 when they stopped logging in a month ago. It's unfair when a 10-3 team has fewer points than a 5-8 team. That's the schedule, and you can't control it. The idea is that the benefits of the schedule (the fun of an opponent each week) is worth the unfairness inherent in it. We can debate that, but it doesn't mean the schedule is "unethical."

 

[CalBear]

It's unfair when that happens. It's unfair when you played a team in week 3 when they were trying, and not week 13 when they stopped logging in a month ago. It's unfair when a 10-3 team has fewer points than a 5-8 team. That's the schedule, and you can't control it. The idea is that the benefits of the schedule (the fun of an opponent each week) is worth the unfairness inherent in it. We can debate that, but it doesn't mean the schedule is "unethical."

Here's this exact situation (teams tanking to get a better playoff seed), played out in the 2012 Olympics. Everyone involved was disqualified.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/aug/01/london-2012-badminton-disqualified-olympics

 

[-fish-]

The parameters of the game are to try to win a championship, not win every game. Ever seen someone stack up a bunch of bye weeks and just sacrifice that week? Should that be an illegal draft strategy?

No, the parameters of the game are to play your best lineup every week. Do you think tanking for a better draft pick is acceptable?

Choosing to concentrate your bye weeks is within the parameters of the game. Intentionally starting players on bye rather than players who are playing is not.

If I don't have room for an extra player and I don't want to drop someone because it would hurt me in later weeks, why wouldn't I start say a Jimmy Graham on bye? I'd rather risk losing one week than make my team worse for the rest of the year. Your premise that the game is about your lineup each week is false. The game is about winning a championship.

 

[blake]

So to be clear-- If a team could actually miss the playoffs by winning, they should do the "right thing" and nobly win and say goodbye to the playoffs. This, in your mind, would be "ethical?"

I have no idea how this would ever happen in my league's setup. As stated numerous times before in this thread, that would be a difficult situation, and hopefully if any league has this hypothetical situation come to fruition, they fix it for the ensuing years.

Okay, it's a "difficult situation." That doesn't say what the "ethical" thing to do would be. If such a situation occurred, would you hold to your "always play to win" mentality, or would you agree that losing is the smart and an ethical thing to do in that situation? Which one?

Like I already stated, this is an unenviable position for an owner and a league. I would have no idea, honestly.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

So to be clear-- If a team could actually miss the playoffs by winning, they should do the "right thing" and nobly win and say goodbye to the playoffs. This, in your mind, would be "ethical?"

I have no idea how this would ever happen in my league's setup. As stated numerous times before in this thread, that would be a difficult situation, and hopefully if any league has this hypothetical situation come to fruition, they fix it for the ensuing years.

The way it can come up is if your league has the stupid rule that the top scorer makes the playoffs even if his record is not good enough for the playoffs. It can put someone in the position that if they lose to the top scorer, they get the last playoff spot because the top scorer gets a regular playoff spot instead of a "bonus" spot.

This is why you shouldn't have that rule.

Or you could reward the best team with a playoff berth instead of the ones who had a better random schedule they did absolutely nothing to earn-- and deal with that rare situation if it comes up. Not sure how that's "stupid." Seems like it eliminates some of the luck in the game and rewards better play.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

So to be clear-- If a team could actually miss the playoffs by winning, they should do the "right thing" and nobly win and say goodbye to the playoffs. This, in your mind, would be "ethical?"

I have no idea how this would ever happen in my league's setup. As stated numerous times before in this thread, that would be a difficult situation, and hopefully if any league has this hypothetical situation come to fruition, they fix it for the ensuing years.

Okay, it's a "difficult situation." That doesn't say what the "ethical" thing to do would be. If such a situation occurred, would you hold to your "always play to win" mentality, or would you agree that losing is the smart and an ethical thing to do in that situation? Which one?

Like I already stated, this is an unenviable position for an owner and a league. I would have no idea, honestly.

Fair enough. So you admit you might not "look for another owner immediately" in that instance?

 

[CalBear]

The parameters of the game are to try to win a championship, not win every game. Ever seen someone stack up a bunch of bye weeks and just sacrifice that week? Should that be an illegal draft strategy?

No, the parameters of the game are to play your best lineup every week. Do you think tanking for a better draft pick is acceptable?

Choosing to concentrate your bye weeks is within the parameters of the game. Intentionally starting players on bye rather than players who are playing is not.

If I don't have room for an extra player and I don't want to drop someone because it would hurt me in later weeks, why wouldn't I start say a Joy Graham on bye? I'd rather risk losing one week than make my team worse for the rest of the year. Your premise that the game is about your lineup each week is false. The game is about winning a championship.

You didn't answer the question: do you think it's OK to tank to get a better draft pick?

And, deciding not to pick up a player to fill a slot for someone on bye is a completely different situation than failing to put in a player who's already on your roster to fill a slot for someone on bye.

 

[TheStig]

The truth of the matter is, over 700 people have viewed the thread and only a few cared enough to reply on the issue.

False. I simply couldn't articulate it any better than Adam. Tanking for any purpose is not only foolish, but it does sour the league.

That said, McGarnicle earlier wrote that a league needs specific rules to prevent this. In my view, I think it does need to be in the rules, but vague rules to cast a wide net serves a greater purpose and gives more latitude to a commissioner to simply remove an owner that chooses to tank at any time as soon as possible. I can't remember if it was Adam or McGarnicle that wrote this, but when an owner is willing to tank, that means they are willing to collude or do any number of other things that sacrifice the integrity of the league. My league, thankfully, has no interest in people who constantly look for loopholes. Just score the most points and try to win.

Thank you, Adam, for continuing to express these views in the most patient, easy to understand and interesting to read way.

Another slippery slope argument that bares no truth.

But clearly you can see that a lot of people believe intentionally losing is unethical and hurts the competitive balance, right? Therefore could you see how someone with that viewpoint would wonder where an owner who tanks would draw the ethical line?

I could see that they would draw the line. People obviously feel that way. Still not sure how it hurts the competitive balance. Teams that control their own destiny control their own destiny. Teams that need help can't expect it. Everyone is trying to win a championship. Nobody owes anyone assistance in making the playoffs.I also don't see why an owner that does feel that way would question where someone else would draw the ethical line. That implies that one viewpoint is more ethical than the other. Unless the person can't grasp that ethical people can fall on both sides of the issue, I don't see how they'd wonder any such thing.

The competitive balance argument has been covered ad nauseum in this thread. You either get it or you don't. Needing "help" is a false premise. It's about ensuring a level playing field.Back to my question, if you're willing to do something a little unethical, I have no confidence you wouldn't do something really unethical. Since tanking and collusion both ruin the competitive balance in the league, I don't draw a massive distinction in my head. I do understand there are a lot of nuances and some scenarios where an owner would feel they had no choice but to lose intentionally. I was never faced with that dilemma. This thread has definitely been enlightening and given me a lot to think about.

I get it. I simply don't agree with it. In my opinion, it's based on emotion, not reason. I get that a game will involve people's emotions, but that doesn't make it reasonable.If "needing help" is a false premise, you have a major beef with the NFL. "Team A needs help to get in the playoffs" is pretty standard jargon, and it means exactly what it says. The team wasn't good enough to make it on their own. They need the outcome of a game they're not even playing to help them get in.

I also get that you do not draw a distinction between two different things (collusion and tanking). I'm sorry to hear it, but I can't help with it. I also get that you think it ruins the competitive balance of the league. That doesn't make it so, but I understand you feel that way. I would suggest you play in leagues where it's stated that way in the rules, since not everyone feels the way you do...even ethical people.

Some things (collusion) would always be seen as unethical to ethical people. This is not one of those things. That doesn't make it "a little unethical." It makes it an issue where people disagree.

The needing help thing is really a misnomer and it's ridiculous that people keep getting hung up on it. You're at the end of the season and certain things need to fall into place for teams to make the playoffs, but in actuality any given win or loss on their schedule was just as meaningful, they just didn't know it at the time. At the end of the season, the exact combination of wins and losses needed for a team is known, so it becomes a talking point. "Needing help" was invented by the media and doesn't tell the whole story. Bottom line is always that you need to have a better record than your competitors to make the playoffs, so you "need help" all season. In a very competitive league, you ALWAYS need the other top teams to lose one or two more close games than you do. We need to put that phrase to bed because it's meaningless.No one answered my earlier question about the unfairness of a team playing a team in week 13 who is tanking when another team played that same team in week 8 when they were trying to win. If you get burned by that alone, and an inferior team got in ahead of you because a team tanked, then yes, the competitive balance was ruined. Why does one team get a bye week and others don't? And how is that observation in any way based on emotion?

With all due respect, I don't think we're the ones getting hung up on it. The playoffs don't start after week four or seven or nine. They start after week 13 (let's say) and if you don't control your own destiny, you need help to make the playoffs. You weren't good enough to get in on your own so other things need to happen. Until winning out can't get you there, no loss means you need help. But once winning isn't enough, you need help-- other outcomes-- to make the playoffs.To answer your question, it is unfair. Head to head is unfair. The randomness of the schedule means you'll play some teams on their best days,, while others play them when their starters are on the bye. You'll play against the Foles owner when he scored seven TDs, and someone else plays him when he scored zero.

It's unfair when that happens. It's unfair when you played a team in week 3 when they were trying, and not week 13 when they stopped logging in a month ago. It's unfair when a 10-3 team has fewer points than a 5-8 team. That's the schedule, and you can't control it. The idea is that the benefits of the schedule (the fun of an opponent each week) is worth the unfairness inherent in it. We can debate that, but it doesn't mean the schedule is "unethical."

The difference between playing the team week 8 to week 13 is the same as someone who gets team A in Week 10 during a bye week and a team that plays team A in week 4 with a full roster.

 

[CalBear]

The difference between playing the team week 8 to week 13 is the same as someone who gets team A in Week 10 during a bye week and a team that plays team A in week 4 with a full roster.

No, because bye weeks are evenly distributed, and tanking teams are not.

 

[blake]

So to be clear-- If a team could actually miss the playoffs by winning, they should do the "right thing" and nobly win and say goodbye to the playoffs. This, in your mind, would be "ethical?"

I have no idea how this would ever happen in my league's setup. As stated numerous times before in this thread, that would be a difficult situation, and hopefully if any league has this hypothetical situation come to fruition, they fix it for the ensuing years.

Okay, it's a "difficult situation." That doesn't say what the "ethical" thing to do would be. If such a situation occurred, would you hold to your "always play to win" mentality, or would you agree that losing is the smart and an ethical thing to do in that situation? Which one?

Like I already stated, this is an unenviable position for an owner and a league. I would have no idea, honestly.

Fair enough. So you admit you might not "look for another owner immediately" in that instance?

I admit that these are too many consecutive questions about a strange hypothetical.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

It's unfair when that happens. It's unfair when you played a team in week 3 when they were trying, and not week 13 when they stopped logging in a month ago. It's unfair when a 10-3 team has fewer points than a 5-8 team. That's the schedule, and you can't control it. The idea is that the benefits of the schedule (the fun of an opponent each week) is worth the unfairness inherent in it. We can debate that, but it doesn't mean the schedule is "unethical."

Here's this exact situation (teams tanking to get a better playoff seed), played out in the 2012 Olympics. Everyone involved was disqualified.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/aug/01/london-2012-badminton-disqualified-olympics

I'm familiar with it. Not the same situation at all. You cannot play defense in fantasy football. You cannot stop the other team from scoring. You're playing against a team in real sports, not a collection of stats thrown together across multiple games. Your "opponent" doesn't even control his own team except for setitng a lineup.

"I don't want to face a better collection of stats nobody controls" is different than "I'm afraid of competing against a certain team." And this particular case was different because they had to face their teammates and the country in question probably puts unfair pressure on its athletes to bring home medals. Not really the same at all.

 

[McGarnicle]

The truth of the matter is, over 700 people have viewed the thread and only a few cared enough to reply on the issue.

False. I simply couldn't articulate it any better than Adam. Tanking for any purpose is not only foolish, but it does sour the league.

That said, McGarnicle earlier wrote that a league needs specific rules to prevent this. In my view, I think it does need to be in the rules, but vague rules to cast a wide net serves a greater purpose and gives more latitude to a commissioner to simply remove an owner that chooses to tank at any time as soon as possible. I can't remember if it was Adam or McGarnicle that wrote this, but when an owner is willing to tank, that means they are willing to collude or do any number of other things that sacrifice the integrity of the league. My league, thankfully, has no interest in people who constantly look for loopholes. Just score the most points and try to win.

Thank you, Adam, for continuing to express these views in the most patient, easy to understand and interesting to read way.

Another slippery slope argument that bares no truth.

But clearly you can see that a lot of people believe intentionally losing is unethical and hurts the competitive balance, right? Therefore could you see how someone with that viewpoint would wonder where an owner who tanks would draw the ethical line?

I could see that they would draw the line. People obviously feel that way. Still not sure how it hurts the competitive balance. Teams that control their own destiny control their own destiny. Teams that need help can't expect it. Everyone is trying to win a championship. Nobody owes anyone assistance in making the playoffs.I also don't see why an owner that does feel that way would question where someone else would draw the ethical line. That implies that one viewpoint is more ethical than the other. Unless the person can't grasp that ethical people can fall on both sides of the issue, I don't see how they'd wonder any such thing.

The competitive balance argument has been covered ad nauseum in this thread. You either get it or you don't. Needing "help" is a false premise. It's about ensuring a level playing field.Back to my question, if you're willing to do something a little unethical, I have no confidence you wouldn't do something really unethical. Since tanking and collusion both ruin the competitive balance in the league, I don't draw a massive distinction in my head. I do understand there are a lot of nuances and some scenarios where an owner would feel they had no choice but to lose intentionally. I was never faced with that dilemma. This thread has definitely been enlightening and given me a lot to think about.

I get it. I simply don't agree with it. In my opinion, it's based on emotion, not reason. I get that a game will involve people's emotions, but that doesn't make it reasonable.If "needing help" is a false premise, you have a major beef with the NFL. "Team A needs help to get in the playoffs" is pretty standard jargon, and it means exactly what it says. The team wasn't good enough to make it on their own. They need the outcome of a game they're not even playing to help them get in.

I also get that you do not draw a distinction between two different things (collusion and tanking). I'm sorry to hear it, but I can't help with it. I also get that you think it ruins the competitive balance of the league. That doesn't make it so, but I understand you feel that way. I would suggest you play in leagues where it's stated that way in the rules, since not everyone feels the way you do...even ethical people.

Some things (collusion) would always be seen as unethical to ethical people. This is not one of those things. That doesn't make it "a little unethical." It makes it an issue where people disagree.

The needing help thing is really a misnomer and it's ridiculous that people keep getting hung up on it. You're at the end of the season and certain things need to fall into place for teams to make the playoffs, but in actuality any given win or loss on their schedule was just as meaningful, they just didn't know it at the time. At the end of the season, the exact combination of wins and losses needed for a team is known, so it becomes a talking point. "Needing help" was invented by the media and doesn't tell the whole story. Bottom line is always that you need to have a better record than your competitors to make the playoffs, so you "need help" all season. In a very competitive league, you ALWAYS need the other top teams to lose one or two more close games than you do. We need to put that phrase to bed because it's meaningless.No one answered my earlier question about the unfairness of a team playing a team in week 13 who is tanking when another team played that same team in week 8 when they were trying to win. If you get burned by that alone, and an inferior team got in ahead of you because a team tanked, then yes, the competitive balance was ruined. Why does one team get a bye week and others don't? And how is that observation in any way based on emotion?

With all due respect, I don't think we're the ones getting hung up on it. The playoffs don't start after week four or seven or nine. They start after week 13 (let's say) and if you don't control your own destiny, you need help to make the playoffs. You weren't good enough to get in on your own so other things need to happen. Until winning out can't get you there, no loss means you need help. But once winning isn't enough, you need help-- other outcomes-- to make the playoffs.To answer your question, it is unfair. Head to head is unfair. The randomness of the schedule means you'll play some teams on their best days,, while others play them when their starters are on the bye. You'll play against the Foles owner when he scored seven TDs, and someone else plays him when he scored zero.

It's unfair when that happens. It's unfair when you played a team in week 3 when they were trying, and not week 13 when they stopped logging in a month ago. It's unfair when a 10-3 team has fewer points than a 5-8 team. That's the schedule, and you can't control it. The idea is that the benefits of the schedule (the fun of an opponent each week) is worth the unfairness inherent in it. We can debate that, but it doesn't mean the schedule is "unethical."

Sure, lots of luck is involved with the scheduling and so forth. We all accept that when we play the game. In my opinion, we should try to minimize luck as much as possible with respect to how playoff seeds are determined. We should enforce rules that say you can't start players on a bye. You can't start a lineup with blanks, that sort of thing.None of that addresses this issue though. Someone is INTENTIONALLY LOSING. That's not luck or variance. It is something that can be controlled. Your argument is oh well, lots of tough breaks in fantasy football, don't bother trying to mitigate someone obviously making it an unlevel playing field. By that same argument, collusion should be allowed. Oh well, two guys decided to cheat, how unlucky this game is.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

The truth of the matter is, over 700 people have viewed the thread and only a few cared enough to reply on the issue.

False. I simply couldn't articulate it any better than Adam. Tanking for any purpose is not only foolish, but it does sour the league.

That said, McGarnicle earlier wrote that a league needs specific rules to prevent this. In my view, I think it does need to be in the rules, but vague rules to cast a wide net serves a greater purpose and gives more latitude to a commissioner to simply remove an owner that chooses to tank at any time as soon as possible. I can't remember if it was Adam or McGarnicle that wrote this, but when an owner is willing to tank, that means they are willing to collude or do any number of other things that sacrifice the integrity of the league. My league, thankfully, has no interest in people who constantly look for loopholes. Just score the most points and try to win.

Thank you, Adam, for continuing to express these views in the most patient, easy to understand and interesting to read way.

Another slippery slope argument that bares no truth.

But clearly you can see that a lot of people believe intentionally losing is unethical and hurts the competitive balance, right? Therefore could you see how someone with that viewpoint would wonder where an owner who tanks would draw the ethical line?

I could see that they would draw the line. People obviously feel that way. Still not sure how it hurts the competitive balance. Teams that control their own destiny control their own destiny. Teams that need help can't expect it. Everyone is trying to win a championship. Nobody owes anyone assistance in making the playoffs.I also don't see why an owner that does feel that way would question where someone else would draw the ethical line. That implies that one viewpoint is more ethical than the other. Unless the person can't grasp that ethical people can fall on both sides of the issue, I don't see how they'd wonder any such thing.

The competitive balance argument has been covered ad nauseum in this thread. You either get it or you don't. Needing "help" is a false premise. It's about ensuring a level playing field.Back to my question, if you're willing to do something a little unethical, I have no confidence you wouldn't do something really unethical. Since tanking and collusion both ruin the competitive balance in the league, I don't draw a massive distinction in my head. I do understand there are a lot of nuances and some scenarios where an owner would feel they had no choice but to lose intentionally. I was never faced with that dilemma. This thread has definitely been enlightening and given me a lot to think about.

I get it. I simply don't agree with it. In my opinion, it's based on emotion, not reason. I get that a game will involve people's emotions, but that doesn't make it reasonable.If "needing help" is a false premise, you have a major beef with the NFL. "Team A needs help to get in the playoffs" is pretty standard jargon, and it means exactly what it says. The team wasn't good enough to make it on their own. They need the outcome of a game they're not even playing to help them get in.

I also get that you do not draw a distinction between two different things (collusion and tanking). I'm sorry to hear it, but I can't help with it. I also get that you think it ruins the competitive balance of the league. That doesn't make it so, but I understand you feel that way. I would suggest you play in leagues where it's stated that way in the rules, since not everyone feels the way you do...even ethical people.

Some things (collusion) would always be seen as unethical to ethical people. This is not one of those things. That doesn't make it "a little unethical." It makes it an issue where people disagree.

The needing help thing is really a misnomer and it's ridiculous that people keep getting hung up on it. You're at the end of the season and certain things need to fall into place for teams to make the playoffs, but in actuality any given win or loss on their schedule was just as meaningful, they just didn't know it at the time. At the end of the season, the exact combination of wins and losses needed for a team is known, so it becomes a talking point. "Needing help" was invented by the media and doesn't tell the whole story. Bottom line is always that you need to have a better record than your competitors to make the playoffs, so you "need help" all season. In a very competitive league, you ALWAYS need the other top teams to lose one or two more close games than you do. We need to put that phrase to bed because it's meaningless.No one answered my earlier question about the unfairness of a team playing a team in week 13 who is tanking when another team played that same team in week 8 when they were trying to win. If you get burned by that alone, and an inferior team got in ahead of you because a team tanked, then yes, the competitive balance was ruined. Why does one team get a bye week and others don't? And how is that observation in any way based on emotion?

With all due respect, I don't think we're the ones getting hung up on it. The playoffs don't start after week four or seven or nine. They start after week 13 (let's say) and if you don't control your own destiny, you need help to make the playoffs. You weren't good enough to get in on your own so other things need to happen. Until winning out can't get you there, no loss means you need help. But once winning isn't enough, you need help-- other outcomes-- to make the playoffs.To answer your question, it is unfair. Head to head is unfair. The randomness of the schedule means you'll play some teams on their best days,, while others play them when their starters are on the bye. You'll play against the Foles owner when he scored seven TDs, and someone else plays him when he scored zero.

It's unfair when that happens. It's unfair when you played a team in week 3 when they were trying, and not week 13 when they stopped logging in a month ago. It's unfair when a 10-3 team has fewer points than a 5-8 team. That's the schedule, and you can't control it. The idea is that the benefits of the schedule (the fun of an opponent each week) is worth the unfairness inherent in it. We can debate that, but it doesn't mean the schedule is "unethical."

The difference between playing the team week 8 to week 13 is the same as someone who gets team A in Week 10 during a bye week and a team that plays team A in week 4 with a full roster.

Week four is not an elimination week. Week 10 is not an elimination week. Week 13 is an elimination week. That makes it different. You only need help in week 13; not week eight.

 

[TheStig]

It's unfair when that happens. It's unfair when you played a team in week 3 when they were trying, and not week 13 when they stopped logging in a month ago. It's unfair when a 10-3 team has fewer points than a 5-8 team. That's the schedule, and you can't control it. The idea is that the benefits of the schedule (the fun of an opponent each week) is worth the unfairness inherent in it. We can debate that, but it doesn't mean the schedule is "unethical."

Here's this exact situation (teams tanking to get a better playoff seed), played out in the 2012 Olympics. Everyone involved was disqualified.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/aug/01/london-2012-badminton-disqualified-olympics

It was also against the rules. Nobody here claimed they would agree with going against the stated rules.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

So to be clear-- If a team could actually miss the playoffs by winning, they should do the "right thing" and nobly win and say goodbye to the playoffs. This, in your mind, would be "ethical?"

I have no idea how this would ever happen in my league's setup. As stated numerous times before in this thread, that would be a difficult situation, and hopefully if any league has this hypothetical situation come to fruition, they fix it for the ensuing years.

Okay, it's a "difficult situation." That doesn't say what the "ethical" thing to do would be. If such a situation occurred, would you hold to your "always play to win" mentality, or would you agree that losing is the smart and an ethical thing to do in that situation? Which one?

Like I already stated, this is an unenviable position for an owner and a league. I would have no idea, honestly.

Fair enough. So you admit you might not "look for another owner immediately" in that instance?

I admit that these are too many consecutive questions about a strange hypothetical.

Sorry. Don't want you considering strange things that might question your absolute positions. Best not to think about them.

 

[GregR]

I'm playing poker. I see how another guy's playing, and I think by letting him win a couple pots I can bait him into a larger pot in a similar situation. I do it, knowing I'm going to lose, because I feel I have a better chance of winning more money by losing a couple of hands I don't care about to set up the play I want. Is that unethical? Going to cause the game to disintegrate into chaos?

If you're playing for money, it's gambling, and only a fool thinks you should do less than you can possibly do to maximize your chance of winning. If you're playing with people that don't understand that and would get their feelings hurt, maybe you should just play for fun and put the money aside.

I could see the argument Adam's making if it was a work league with a $5/per team throw, but if I've invested a couple hundred bucks or more, I'm not going to hesitate to put myself in what I feel the best position is to win.

There are ethics in gambling; part of that is the understanding that everyone should be maximizing their own self-interest.

Going further, would it be unethical to try and get under someone's skin so they go on tilt and make mistakes? To subtly egg them on when you can tell they're melting down?I don't even think money has to be involved. Just the deisre to win-- not just a pot or two, but the whole thing. You could play for pretzel sticks and bragging rights and use the same strategy.

I will say that when you play with friends and you could lose a friendshp over it, maybe you don't do those things. Not because it's wrong, but because you have fragile friends and you take that into account. It might not be worth losing a friend over a game. But that doesn't make it unethical.

It's unethical because it's outside the parameters of the game. The parameters of the game are that you put in your best lineup, every week; intentionally losing is unethical if you're a bottom-feeder team in a dynasty hoping for a better draft pick, and it's unethical if you're a playoff team hoping for a better playoff matchup.

The poker example is not unethical because it's within the parameters of the game. I think everyone would agree that all actions within the parameters of the game are ethical.

The parameters of the game are to try to win a championship, not win every game. Ever seen someone stack up a bunch of bye weeks and just sacrifice that week? Should that be an illegal draft strategy?

With the discussion you're having, I would say no, the GOAL of the game is to win a championship, and the PARAMETERS are the way in which the game is (and is not) expected to be played.

Just because something helps you win doesn't mean it is acceptable in the parameters of the game. Hacking your opponent's login and changing his lineup can help you win a championship. It's pretty obviously outside of the parameters of what is allowed and not allowed in the game whether it is written into the rules or not.

Competing as individuals is in the parameters of the game. Not hacking your opponent's account is outside of the parameters of the game.

From polls here, generally more than half of people are against tanking being part of the game, so there is every reason to expect it isn't allowed unless a league authorizes it.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

The truth of the matter is, over 700 people have viewed the thread and only a few cared enough to reply on the issue.

False. I simply couldn't articulate it any better than Adam. Tanking for any purpose is not only foolish, but it does sour the league.

That said, McGarnicle earlier wrote that a league needs specific rules to prevent this. In my view, I think it does need to be in the rules, but vague rules to cast a wide net serves a greater purpose and gives more latitude to a commissioner to simply remove an owner that chooses to tank at any time as soon as possible. I can't remember if it was Adam or McGarnicle that wrote this, but when an owner is willing to tank, that means they are willing to collude or do any number of other things that sacrifice the integrity of the league. My league, thankfully, has no interest in people who constantly look for loopholes. Just score the most points and try to win.

Thank you, Adam, for continuing to express these views in the most patient, easy to understand and interesting to read way.

Another slippery slope argument that bares no truth.

But clearly you can see that a lot of people believe intentionally losing is unethical and hurts the competitive balance, right? Therefore could you see how someone with that viewpoint would wonder where an owner who tanks would draw the ethical line?

I could see that they would draw the line. People obviously feel that way. Still not sure how it hurts the competitive balance. Teams that control their own destiny control their own destiny. Teams that need help can't expect it. Everyone is trying to win a championship. Nobody owes anyone assistance in making the playoffs.I also don't see why an owner that does feel that way would question where someone else would draw the ethical line. That implies that one viewpoint is more ethical than the other. Unless the person can't grasp that ethical people can fall on both sides of the issue, I don't see how they'd wonder any such thing.

The competitive balance argument has been covered ad nauseum in this thread. You either get it or you don't. Needing "help" is a false premise. It's about ensuring a level playing field.Back to my question, if you're willing to do something a little unethical, I have no confidence you wouldn't do something really unethical. Since tanking and collusion both ruin the competitive balance in the league, I don't draw a massive distinction in my head. I do understand there are a lot of nuances and some scenarios where an owner would feel they had no choice but to lose intentionally. I was never faced with that dilemma. This thread has definitely been enlightening and given me a lot to think about.

I get it. I simply don't agree with it. In my opinion, it's based on emotion, not reason. I get that a game will involve people's emotions, but that doesn't make it reasonable.If "needing help" is a false premise, you have a major beef with the NFL. "Team A needs help to get in the playoffs" is pretty standard jargon, and it means exactly what it says. The team wasn't good enough to make it on their own. They need the outcome of a game they're not even playing to help them get in.

I also get that you do not draw a distinction between two different things (collusion and tanking). I'm sorry to hear it, but I can't help with it. I also get that you think it ruins the competitive balance of the league. That doesn't make it so, but I understand you feel that way. I would suggest you play in leagues where it's stated that way in the rules, since not everyone feels the way you do...even ethical people.

Some things (collusion) would always be seen as unethical to ethical people. This is not one of those things. That doesn't make it "a little unethical." It makes it an issue where people disagree.

The needing help thing is really a misnomer and it's ridiculous that people keep getting hung up on it. You're at the end of the season and certain things need to fall into place for teams to make the playoffs, but in actuality any given win or loss on their schedule was just as meaningful, they just didn't know it at the time. At the end of the season, the exact combination of wins and losses needed for a team is known, so it becomes a talking point. "Needing help" was invented by the media and doesn't tell the whole story. Bottom line is always that you need to have a better record than your competitors to make the playoffs, so you "need help" all season. In a very competitive league, you ALWAYS need the other top teams to lose one or two more close games than you do. We need to put that phrase to bed because it's meaningless.No one answered my earlier question about the unfairness of a team playing a team in week 13 who is tanking when another team played that same team in week 8 when they were trying to win. If you get burned by that alone, and an inferior team got in ahead of you because a team tanked, then yes, the competitive balance was ruined. Why does one team get a bye week and others don't? And how is that observation in any way based on emotion?

With all due respect, I don't think we're the ones getting hung up on it. The playoffs don't start after week four or seven or nine. They start after week 13 (let's say) and if you don't control your own destiny, you need help to make the playoffs. You weren't good enough to get in on your own so other things need to happen. Until winning out can't get you there, no loss means you need help. But once winning isn't enough, you need help-- other outcomes-- to make the playoffs.To answer your question, it is unfair. Head to head is unfair. The randomness of the schedule means you'll play some teams on their best days,, while others play them when their starters are on the bye. You'll play against the Foles owner when he scored seven TDs, and someone else plays him when he scored zero.

It's unfair when that happens. It's unfair when you played a team in week 3 when they were trying, and not week 13 when they stopped logging in a month ago. It's unfair when a 10-3 team has fewer points than a 5-8 team. That's the schedule, and you can't control it. The idea is that the benefits of the schedule (the fun of an opponent each week) is worth the unfairness inherent in it. We can debate that, but it doesn't mean the schedule is "unethical."

Sure, lots of luck is involved with the scheduling and so forth. We all accept that when we play the game. In my opinion, we should try to minimize luck as much as possible with respect to how playoff seeds are determined. We should enforce rules that say you can't start players on a bye. You can't start a lineup with blanks, that sort of thing.None of that addresses this issue though. Someone is INTENTIONALLY LOSING. That's not luck or variance. It is something that can be controlled. Your argument is oh well, lots of tough breaks in fantasy football, don't bother trying to mitigate someone obviously making it an unlevel playing field. By that same argument, collusion should be allowed. Oh well, two guys decided to cheat, how unlucky this game is.

Collusion is not unlucky. It's unfair. Not controlling your own destiny is a combination of bad luck and bad play. If you need someone else's help to make the playoffs, you have to understand that nobody owes it to you.

 

[maf005]

I'm playing poker. I see how another guy's playing, and I think by letting him win a couple pots I can bait him into a larger pot in a similar situation. I do it, knowing I'm going to lose, because I feel I have a better chance of winning more money by losing a couple of hands I don't care about to set up the play I want. Is that unethical? Going to cause the game to disintegrate into chaos?

If you're playing for money, it's gambling, and only a fool thinks you should do less than you can possibly do to maximize your chance of winning. If you're playing with people that don't understand that and would get their feelings hurt, maybe you should just play for fun and put the money aside.

I could see the argument Adam's making if it was a work league with a $5/per team throw, but if I've invested a couple hundred bucks or more, I'm not going to hesitate to put myself in what I feel the best position is to win.

There are ethics in gambling; part of that is the understanding that everyone should be maximizing their own self-interest.

Going further, would it be unethical to try and get under someone's skin so they go on tilt and make mistakes? To subtly egg them on when you can tell they're melting down?

I don't even think money has to be involved. Just the deisre to win-- not just a pot or two, but the whole thing. You could play for pretzel sticks and bragging rights and use the same strategy.

I will say that when you play with friends and you could lose a friendshp over it, maybe you don't do those things. Not because it's wrong, but because you have fragile friends and you take that into account. It might not be worth losing a friend over a game. But that doesn't make it unethical.

These arguments are in line with how I feel. If my goal is to win a championship and losing a week to keep a strong opponent out of the playoffs is a possibility, then I'd be dumb to try to win that week. It's really simple

I will add that if it's a friendly league or whatever then yea it's probably douchy to throw a game

 

[CalBear]

It's unfair when that happens. It's unfair when you played a team in week 3 when they were trying, and not week 13 when they stopped logging in a month ago. It's unfair when a 10-3 team has fewer points than a 5-8 team. That's the schedule, and you can't control it. The idea is that the benefits of the schedule (the fun of an opponent each week) is worth the unfairness inherent in it. We can debate that, but it doesn't mean the schedule is "unethical."

Here's this exact situation (teams tanking to get a better playoff seed), played out in the 2012 Olympics. Everyone involved was disqualified.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/aug/01/london-2012-badminton-disqualified-olympics

It was also against the rules. Nobody here claimed they would agree with going against the stated rules.

Do you think it was ethical? That's a separate question from whether it was legal.

 

[maf005]

I'm playing poker. I see how another guy's playing, and I think by letting him win a couple pots I can bait him into a larger pot in a similar situation. I do it, knowing I'm going to lose, because I feel I have a better chance of winning more money by losing a couple of hands I don't care about to set up the play I want. Is that unethical? Going to cause the game to disintegrate into chaos?

If you're playing for money, it's gambling, and only a fool thinks you should do less than you can possibly do to maximize your chance of winning. If you're playing with people that don't understand that and would get their feelings hurt, maybe you should just play for fun and put the money aside.

I could see the argument Adam's making if it was a work league with a $5/per team throw, but if I've invested a couple hundred bucks or more, I'm not going to hesitate to put myself in what I feel the best position is to win.

There are ethics in gambling; part of that is the understanding that everyone should be maximizing their own self-interest.

Going further, would it be unethical to try and get under someone's skin so they go on tilt and make mistakes? To subtly egg them on when you can tell they're melting down?I don't even think money has to be involved. Just the deisre to win-- not just a pot or two, but the whole thing. You could play for pretzel sticks and bragging rights and use the same strategy.

I will say that when you play with friends and you could lose a friendshp over it, maybe you don't do those things. Not because it's wrong, but because you have fragile friends and you take that into account. It might not be worth losing a friend over a game. But that doesn't make it unethical.

It's unethical because it's outside the parameters of the game. The parameters of the game are that you put in your best lineup, every week; intentionally losing is unethical if you're a bottom-feeder team in a dynasty hoping for a better draft pick, and it's unethical if you're a playoff team hoping for a better playoff matchup.

The poker example is not unethical because it's within the parameters of the game. I think everyone would agree that all actions within the parameters of the game are ethical.

The parameters of the game are to try to win a championship, not win every game. Ever seen someone stack up a bunch of bye weeks and just sacrifice that week? Should that be an illegal draft strategy?

With the discussion you're having, I would say no, the GOAL of the game is to win a championship, and the PARAMETERS are the way in which the game is (and is not) expected to be played.

Just because something helps you win doesn't mean it is acceptable in the parameters of the game. Hacking your opponent's login and changing his lineup can help you win a championship. It's pretty obviously outside of the parameters of what is allowed and not allowed in the game whether it is written into the rules or not.

Competing as individuals is in the parameters of the game. Not hacking your opponent's account is outside of the parameters of the game.

From polls here, generally more than half of people are against tanking being part of the game, so there is every reason to expect it isn't allowed unless a league authorizes it.

Disagree. If a league wants this type of activity banned then the bylaws should state such.

 

[TheStig]

The truth of the matter is, over 700 people have viewed the thread and only a few cared enough to reply on the issue.

False. I simply couldn't articulate it any better than Adam. Tanking for any purpose is not only foolish, but it does sour the league.

That said, McGarnicle earlier wrote that a league needs specific rules to prevent this. In my view, I think it does need to be in the rules, but vague rules to cast a wide net serves a greater purpose and gives more latitude to a commissioner to simply remove an owner that chooses to tank at any time as soon as possible. I can't remember if it was Adam or McGarnicle that wrote this, but when an owner is willing to tank, that means they are willing to collude or do any number of other things that sacrifice the integrity of the league. My league, thankfully, has no interest in people who constantly look for loopholes. Just score the most points and try to win.

Thank you, Adam, for continuing to express these views in the most patient, easy to understand and interesting to read way.

Another slippery slope argument that bares no truth.

But clearly you can see that a lot of people believe intentionally losing is unethical and hurts the competitive balance, right? Therefore could you see how someone with that viewpoint would wonder where an owner who tanks would draw the ethical line?

I could see that they would draw the line. People obviously feel that way. Still not sure how it hurts the competitive balance. Teams that control their own destiny control their own destiny. Teams that need help can't expect it. Everyone is trying to win a championship. Nobody owes anyone assistance in making the playoffs.

I also don't see why an owner that does feel that way would question where someone else would draw the ethical line. That implies that one viewpoint is more ethical than the other. Unless the person can't grasp that ethical people can fall on both sides of the issue, I don't see how they'd wonder any such thing.

The competitive balance argument has been covered ad nauseum in this thread. You either get it or you don't. Needing "help" is a false premise. It's about ensuring a level playing field.

Back to my question, if you're willing to do something a little unethical, I have no confidence you wouldn't do something really unethical. Since tanking and collusion both ruin the competitive balance in the league, I don't draw a massive distinction in my head. I do understand there are a lot of nuances and some scenarios where an owner would feel they had no choice but to lose intentionally. I was never faced with that dilemma. This thread has definitely been enlightening and given me a lot to think about.

I get it. I simply don't agree with it. In my opinion, it's based on emotion, not reason. I get that a game will involve people's emotions, but that doesn't make it reasonable.

If "needing help" is a false premise, you have a major beef with the NFL. "Team A needs help to get in the playoffs" is pretty standard jargon, and it means exactly what it says. The team wasn't good enough to make it on their own. They need the outcome of a game they're not even playing to help them get in.

I also get that you do not draw a distinction between two different things (collusion and tanking). I'm sorry to hear it, but I can't help with it. I also get that you think it ruins the competitive balance of the league. That doesn't make it so, but I understand you feel that way. I would suggest you play in leagues where it's stated that way in the rules, since not everyone feels the way you do...even ethical people.

Some things (collusion) would always be seen as unethical to ethical people. This is not one of those things. That doesn't make it "a little unethical." It makes it an issue where people disagree.

The needing help thing is really a misnomer and it's ridiculous that people keep getting hung up on it. You're at the end of the season and certain things need to fall into place for teams to make the playoffs, but in actuality any given win or loss on their schedule was just as meaningful, they just didn't know it at the time. At the end of the season, the exact combination of wins and losses needed for a team is known, so it becomes a talking point. "Needing help" was invented by the media and doesn't tell the whole story. Bottom line is always that you need to have a better record than your competitors to make the playoffs, so you "need help" all season. In a very competitive league, you ALWAYS need the other top teams to lose one or two more close games than you do. We need to put that phrase to bed because it's meaningless.

No one answered my earlier question about the unfairness of a team playing a team in week 13 who is tanking when another team played that same team in week 8 when they were trying to win. If you get burned by that alone, and an inferior team got in ahead of you because a team tanked, then yes, the competitive balance was ruined. Why does one team get a bye week and others don't? And how is that observation in any way based on emotion?

With all due respect, I don't think we're the ones getting hung up on it. The playoffs don't start after week four or seven or nine. They start after week 13 (let's say) and if you don't control your own destiny, you need help to make the playoffs. You weren't good enough to get in on your own so other things need to happen. Until winning out can't get you there, no loss means you need help. But once winning isn't enough, you need help-- other outcomes-- to make the playoffs.

To answer your question, it is unfair. Head to head is unfair. The randomness of the schedule means you'll play some teams on their best days,, while others play them when their starters are on the bye. You'll play against the Foles owner when he scored seven TDs, and someone else plays him when he scored zero.

It's unfair when that happens. It's unfair when you played a team in week 3 when they were trying, and not week 13 when they stopped logging in a month ago. It's unfair when a 10-3 team has fewer points than a 5-8 team. That's the schedule, and you can't control it. The idea is that the benefits of the schedule (the fun of an opponent each week) is worth the unfairness inherent in it. We can debate that, but it doesn't mean the schedule is "unethical."

The difference between playing the team week 8 to week 13 is the same as someone who gets team A in Week 10 during a bye week and a team that plays team A in week 4 with a full roster.

Week four is not an elimination week. Week 10 is not an elimination week. Week 13 is an elimination week. That makes it different. You only need help in week 13; not week eight.

I wasn't aware of the Magic Win week 13 offered over the not as important win in week 4. Until now I never noticed the weeks next to the number in the win column.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I'm playing poker. I see how another guy's playing, and I think by letting him win a couple pots I can bait him into a larger pot in a similar situation. I do it, knowing I'm going to lose, because I feel I have a better chance of winning more money by losing a couple of hands I don't care about to set up the play I want. Is that unethical? Going to cause the game to disintegrate into chaos?

If you're playing for money, it's gambling, and only a fool thinks you should do less than you can possibly do to maximize your chance of winning. If you're playing with people that don't understand that and would get their feelings hurt, maybe you should just play for fun and put the money aside.

I could see the argument Adam's making if it was a work league with a $5/per team throw, but if I've invested a couple hundred bucks or more, I'm not going to hesitate to put myself in what I feel the best position is to win.

There are ethics in gambling; part of that is the understanding that everyone should be maximizing their own self-interest.

Going further, would it be unethical to try and get under someone's skin so they go on tilt and make mistakes? To subtly egg them on when you can tell they're melting down?I don't even think money has to be involved. Just the deisre to win-- not just a pot or two, but the whole thing. You could play for pretzel sticks and bragging rights and use the same strategy.

I will say that when you play with friends and you could lose a friendshp over it, maybe you don't do those things. Not because it's wrong, but because you have fragile friends and you take that into account. It might not be worth losing a friend over a game. But that doesn't make it unethical.

It's unethical because it's outside the parameters of the game. The parameters of the game are that you put in your best lineup, every week; intentionally losing is unethical if you're a bottom-feeder team in a dynasty hoping for a better draft pick, and it's unethical if you're a playoff team hoping for a better playoff matchup.

The poker example is not unethical because it's within the parameters of the game. I think everyone would agree that all actions within the parameters of the game are ethical.

The parameters of the game are to try to win a championship, not win every game. Ever seen someone stack up a bunch of bye weeks and just sacrifice that week? Should that be an illegal draft strategy?

With the discussion you're having, I would say no, the GOAL of the game is to win a championship, and the PARAMETERS are the way in which the game is (and is not) expected to be played.

Just because something helps you win doesn't mean it is acceptable in the parameters of the game. Hacking your opponent's login and changing his lineup can help you win a championship. It's pretty obviously outside of the parameters of what is allowed and not allowed in the game whether it is written into the rules or not.

Competing as individuals is in the parameters of the game. Not hacking your opponent's account is outside of the parameters of the game.

From polls here, generally more than half of people are against tanking being part of the game, so there is every reason to expect it isn't allowed unless a league authorizes it.

Hacking a login is cheating. Taking advantage of a position of strength I earned (or the schedule gave me) isn't cheating. It's something I received from the game. Same with the other owner's position of weakness. He either earned it or was unlucky, but no parameters of the game dictate that I have to help him make the playoffs.

 

[CalBear]

Hacking a login is cheating. Taking advantage of a position of strength I earned (or the schedule gave me) isn't cheating. It's something I received from the game. Same with the other owner's position of weakness. He either earned it or was unlucky, but no parameters of the game dictate that I have to help him make the playoffs.

I hear there's a spot open for you on the Chinese badminton coaching squad. They're looking for an ethics consultant.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

The truth of the matter is, over 700 people have viewed the thread and only a few cared enough to reply on the issue.

False. I simply couldn't articulate it any better than Adam. Tanking for any purpose is not only foolish, but it does sour the league.

That said, McGarnicle earlier wrote that a league needs specific rules to prevent this. In my view, I think it does need to be in the rules, but vague rules to cast a wide net serves a greater purpose and gives more latitude to a commissioner to simply remove an owner that chooses to tank at any time as soon as possible. I can't remember if it was Adam or McGarnicle that wrote this, but when an owner is willing to tank, that means they are willing to collude or do any number of other things that sacrifice the integrity of the league. My league, thankfully, has no interest in people who constantly look for loopholes. Just score the most points and try to win.

Thank you, Adam, for continuing to express these views in the most patient, easy to understand and interesting to read way.

Another slippery slope argument that bares no truth.

But clearly you can see that a lot of people believe intentionally losing is unethical and hurts the competitive balance, right? Therefore could you see how someone with that viewpoint would wonder where an owner who tanks would draw the ethical line?

I could see that they would draw the line. People obviously feel that way. Still not sure how it hurts the competitive balance. Teams that control their own destiny control their own destiny. Teams that need help can't expect it. Everyone is trying to win a championship. Nobody owes anyone assistance in making the playoffs.

I also don't see why an owner that does feel that way would question where someone else would draw the ethical line. That implies that one viewpoint is more ethical than the other. Unless the person can't grasp that ethical people can fall on both sides of the issue, I don't see how they'd wonder any such thing.

The competitive balance argument has been covered ad nauseum in this thread. You either get it or you don't. Needing "help" is a false premise. It's about ensuring a level playing field.

Back to my question, if you're willing to do something a little unethical, I have no confidence you wouldn't do something really unethical. Since tanking and collusion both ruin the competitive balance in the league, I don't draw a massive distinction in my head. I do understand there are a lot of nuances and some scenarios where an owner would feel they had no choice but to lose intentionally. I was never faced with that dilemma. This thread has definitely been enlightening and given me a lot to think about.

I get it. I simply don't agree with it. In my opinion, it's based on emotion, not reason. I get that a game will involve people's emotions, but that doesn't make it reasonable.

If "needing help" is a false premise, you have a major beef with the NFL. "Team A needs help to get in the playoffs" is pretty standard jargon, and it means exactly what it says. The team wasn't good enough to make it on their own. They need the outcome of a game they're not even playing to help them get in.

I also get that you do not draw a distinction between two different things (collusion and tanking). I'm sorry to hear it, but I can't help with it. I also get that you think it ruins the competitive balance of the league. That doesn't make it so, but I understand you feel that way. I would suggest you play in leagues where it's stated that way in the rules, since not everyone feels the way you do...even ethical people.

Some things (collusion) would always be seen as unethical to ethical people. This is not one of those things. That doesn't make it "a little unethical." It makes it an issue where people disagree.

The needing help thing is really a misnomer and it's ridiculous that people keep getting hung up on it. You're at the end of the season and certain things need to fall into place for teams to make the playoffs, but in actuality any given win or loss on their schedule was just as meaningful, they just didn't know it at the time. At the end of the season, the exact combination of wins and losses needed for a team is known, so it becomes a talking point. "Needing help" was invented by the media and doesn't tell the whole story. Bottom line is always that you need to have a better record than your competitors to make the playoffs, so you "need help" all season. In a very competitive league, you ALWAYS need the other top teams to lose one or two more close games than you do. We need to put that phrase to bed because it's meaningless.

No one answered my earlier question about the unfairness of a team playing a team in week 13 who is tanking when another team played that same team in week 8 when they were trying to win. If you get burned by that alone, and an inferior team got in ahead of you because a team tanked, then yes, the competitive balance was ruined. Why does one team get a bye week and others don't? And how is that observation in any way based on emotion?

With all due respect, I don't think we're the ones getting hung up on it. The playoffs don't start after week four or seven or nine. They start after week 13 (let's say) and if you don't control your own destiny, you need help to make the playoffs. You weren't good enough to get in on your own so other things need to happen. Until winning out can't get you there, no loss means you need help. But once winning isn't enough, you need help-- other outcomes-- to make the playoffs.

To answer your question, it is unfair. Head to head is unfair. The randomness of the schedule means you'll play some teams on their best days,, while others play them when their starters are on the bye. You'll play against the Foles owner when he scored seven TDs, and someone else plays him when he scored zero.

It's unfair when that happens. It's unfair when you played a team in week 3 when they were trying, and not week 13 when they stopped logging in a month ago. It's unfair when a 10-3 team has fewer points than a 5-8 team. That's the schedule, and you can't control it. The idea is that the benefits of the schedule (the fun of an opponent each week) is worth the unfairness inherent in it. We can debate that, but it doesn't mean the schedule is "unethical."

The difference between playing the team week 8 to week 13 is the same as someone who gets team A in Week 10 during a bye week and a team that plays team A in week 4 with a full roster.

Week four is not an elimination week. Week 10 is not an elimination week. Week 13 is an elimination week. That makes it different. You only need help in week 13; not week eight.

I wasn't aware of the Magic Win week 13 offered over the not as important win in week 4. Until now I never noticed the weeks next to the number in the win column.

I'm sorry to hear that. The "magic" of week 13 is you have 20/20 hindsight of all the previous weeks. You know where you stand and you know what will make or break you for the rest of the season...because there's only one game left. If you lose in week 4, you know that if you win out, you still make the playoffs. But if you lose in week 13, you already know that won't work. You also know no other trades can be made. You also know what everyone else did the rest of the year and where they stand.

It really is kind of magical. Knowledge is power.

 

[proninja]

Good crud. Six pages on this?

If you don't want someone doing something that's in their best interest, you need to make a rule against it. If there's no rule against it, people are free to act in their own best interest. It isn't collusion or cheating, it's trying to win, which is what everyone should be doing.