Unethical or Collusion? Yes/No poll (1 Viewer)

[Lydia]

As much as I don't want to use the OP's example, I will. The OP was obviously angry about what happened in his league. What we don't know is how other people in his league viewed it. This poll is testament to that. Not everyone views things the same way.

Multiple people having multiple opinions doesn't mean that there are multiple right answers to a question.

 

[KCitons]

As much as I don't want to use the OP's example, I will. The OP was obviously angry about what happened in his league. What we don't know is how other people in his league viewed it. This poll is testament to that. Not everyone views things the same way.

Multiple people having multiple opinions doesn't mean that there are multiple right answers to a question.

???? it does when those multiple people are voting to decide the fate of a fellow league member.

I already mentioned what could have happened if just 5 of the people that voted "not collusion" in this poll were in the OP's league.

 

[DropKick]

Wait, your now categorizing the discussion (conspiring) as falling under the rules of collusion. I am pointing out that the act must be completed in order for it to be collusion. Since the act is acquiring the QB, all teams have the same opportunity participate.

Based on your scenario, both the 6-4 team should have been guilty of collusion even if the 3-7 team never went through with the trade? The trade had to go through to complete the act of collusion.

The essence of collusion is conspiracy between multiple parties. We use it in fantasy football to distinguish between unilateral or independent acts. It is generally accepted that if someone does something on their own (poor trades, bad drafting) you must allow them to manage their team. However, we must draw a line somewhere and opt to do it when teams cooperate to do something sneaky or wrong.

I am not categorizing simple discussion as collusion. I said that if teams conspire to discuss something specifically to mislead or persuade someone to do the wrong thing and they then follow through with that discussion, it is collusive. In this example, the "act" is discussion.

In your example, if two teams discuss a collusive trade, but never complete it, I agree there is no act and no collusion.

I can agree with 99% of the first paragraph. It is an excellent start to something everyone can use in a league rule. The wording of the last sentence can be open to interpretation. "sneaky" or "wrong" by one persons definition may not be the same as another persons.

As much as I don't want to use the OP's example, I will. The OP was obviously angry about what happened in his league. What we don't know is how other people in his league viewed it. This poll is testament to that. Not everyone views things the same way.

So, now we are left defining actions that are wrong or sneaky. Also understanding intent is an important part of the equation.

You will probably always have black, white and 98 shades of gray when it comes to fantasy football ethics. I am currently observing my son's league and several friendships disintegrate over a poorly run league. It is ripe with shaky rule changes and collusive trades (redraft). Unfortunately, the commissioner and his brother are two of the most conniving young men I have ever met. These kids are two years out of H.S. and the $50 fee is probably too rich for some of them. The potential $600 windfall is apparently too much temptation for these boys. Bottom line? You need to have a good commissioner and don't gamble beyond your means.

 

[KCitons]

Strong rules and a good commish can handle nearly anything that pops up. This needs to be brought up again about the OP's situation. I asked what the rules where in his league. A few people made mention that home leagues or friends leagues don't need rules to cover this.

If that's the way they feel, then I could argue we don't need threads to help them when problems occur.