Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Commissioner Collusion - what say you? - Update - I’m playing the sketchy commish in the semi’s and Thomas is out


Collusion or not?   

238 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This seems not like collusion and instead just a condition on a trade.  I'm assuming this was out in the open. Not wanting to face the player he traded is an entirely reasonable thing for a

Yes, clearly collusion. Once you admit purposeful intention to help the other team, it's over.

Surprised this is even a discussion at FBG. The gymnastics required to legitimize sitting Thomas for Mattison (with a healthy Cook) is pretty entertaining, LOL. There were probably dynamics at pl

6 hours ago, ghostguy123 said:

I am actually all for "no rules" with some small exceptions that I cant even think of at the moment.

Wanna tank?  Go for it.  Wanna make a conditional trade?  Go for it.

It's all fair if everyone plays by the same rules

You mean like no collusion?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2020 at 12:41 PM, Hot Sauce Guy said:

So what it the deal was “but if we see each other in the playoffs, you have to bench MT.”

still cool with that so long as it was transparent to the league?

you don’t think anyone in the league would take issue with that as a condition of the deal?

Just asking a reasonable, fair-minded question here. 

Thats a straw man, if the deal was contingent on some future playoff week it would be different or even anything beyond the current week the trade was executed would change things for me. However, those are straw men arguments afaic, I am basing my opinion on the contingency not to play the guy I am trading you this week (same week as transaction) because you are playing me this week and it is all 1 transaction imho. If you don't agree I am not trading him to you, if you are the other owner you are deciding whether you the value of having said player for rest of the season out weighs not being able to play him for the current week. Anything beyond the current week would be a no no.

Again, reasonable minds can disagree

 

  • Like 2
  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2020 at 12:40 PM, Gally said:

After reading this thread it is abundantly clear that whether or not a condition like this can be seen as ok or not ok.  It's pretty close which is surprising to me.  I am well on the side that this should never happen as it manipulates the integrity of playing your best perceived lineup every week.  I think that is wrong.

 

That being said,, If the owners making the deal really did not think there was anything wrong with the condition they wouldn't have lied about.  They would have matter of fact said they did it because they didn’t think it was a big deal.   I see that many feel this way so if you thought it was no big deal they treat it as no big deal.  That did not happen as they lied about and tried to hide it.  Then finally came clean.  To me that means they fell on the side that it wasn't a proper condition.  

I agree they should have been up front about it, said so and won't defend it; however I have no problem with the contingency as part of the trade for the week the trade occurred in. I know that many disagree. Right or wrong I got no dog in the fight just callin it like I see it, I would have zero problem with other owners doing this as part of a transaction for that particular week in which the transaction occurs. Now if there are other mitigating factors it might make a difference but it looks like both teams are trying to win here (short and long term) unless I missed something sinister.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, NE_REVIVAL said:

Anything beyond the current week would be a no no.

Totally disagree.  What makes the current week any different from any other week?  One owner is purposely starting an inferior player because another owner is demanding it as part of a deal.  This is the definition of collusion.  You can say whatever you want about Michael Thomas this year, but the fact is, the owner giving him up would not have made the stipulation if he wasn't afraid to play against him.  What if the stipulation was that he must start him?  Would it be exactly the same?  Anyone saying this deal is fair must say yes to this question.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, NE_REVIVAL said:

I agree they should have been up front about it, said so and won't defend it; however I have no problem with the contingency as part of the trade for the week the trade occurred in. I know that many disagree. Right or wrong I got no dog in the fight just callin it like I see it, I would have zero problem with other owners doing this as part of a transaction for that particular week in which the transaction occurs. Now if there are other mitigating factors it might make a difference but it looks like both teams are trying to win here (short and long term) unless I missed something sinister.

100% wrong, as far as the current week goes.  One team is doing anything they can to win because they need to secure a playoff spot; the other team has already secured a playoff spot and is willing to lose the current week in hopes of a deeper playoff run.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, NE_REVIVAL said:

I agree they should have been up front about it, said so and won't defend it; however I have no problem with the contingency as part of the trade for the week the trade occurred in. I know that many disagree. Right or wrong I got no dog in the fight just callin it like I see it, I would have zero problem with other owners doing this as part of a transaction for that particular week in which the transaction occurs. Now if there are other mitigating factors it might make a difference but it looks like both teams are trying to win here (short and long term) unless I missed something sinister.

I totally agree with you that the condition/contingency in and of itself might not be a problem--but the lack of disclosure is.  I've mentioned this question several times and nobody has attempted to answer it--so I will pose it again.   Let's say the commish did not live up to the contingency and started Michael Thomas--then what?  Is the rest of the league supposed to uphold an agreement that was secretly being held from them?   The disclosure is not an after thought--the disclosure or lack of it--is the fundamental issue here.  

  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jvdesigns2002 said:

I totally agree with you that the condition/contingency in and of itself might not be a problem--but the lack of disclosure is.  I've mentioned this question several times and nobody has attempted to answer it--so I will pose it again.   Let's say the commish did not live up to the contingency and started Michael Thomas--then what?  Is the rest of the league supposed to uphold an agreement that was secretly being held from them?   The disclosure is not an after thought--the disclosure or lack of it--is the fundamental issue here.  

This is a good point I had not considered. If it was kept secret, was it really a contingency of the trade, or merely a gentleman's agreement on the side? If two owners have a side bet one week, the league can't force the loser to pay up. It's between them. 

I think you could argue it wasn't an official part of the trade since it wasn't announced that way, and there would be no repercussions to starting Thomas. If they argued it was an official part of the trade, why wasn't it announced? Tough to claim it was official but unspoken.

As an aside, if the league forced the new owner to start Thomas (let's say that's how they ruled it) against his wishes, and Mattison outscored him, how would the league compensate them for costing them a win? 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Neil Beaufort Zod said:

This is a good point I had not considered. If it was kept secret, was it really a contingency of the trade, or merely a gentleman's agreement on the side? If two owners have a side bet one week, the league can't force the loser to pay up. It's between them. 

I think you could argue it wasn't an official part of the trade since it wasn't announced that way, and there would be no repercussions to starting Thomas. If they argued it was an official part of the trade, why wasn't it announced? Tough to claim it was official but unspoken.

As an aside, if the league forced the new owner to start Thomas (let's say that's how they ruled it) against his wishes, and Mattison outscored him, how would the league compensate them for costing them a win? 

Yup--and thats exactly where the murkiness comes in.  The disclosure element is what separates it from being a "conditional" aspect of a trade versus it being collusion.  Gentlemans agreements are a very slippery slope in the scope of fantasy leagues.  If my fantasy team is out of the playoff race--and another owner comes to me and says--trade me this player and in return I'll send you a 12 pack of beer--of course that would be a problem.  This is why when a trade is made--every detail of that trade (all conditions, if there are future picks, or faab dollars being exchanged..etc) need to be disclosed to the rest of the league.  If they are not--they effectively are not truly conditionally attached to the trade and thus the secret condition could be argued as being two owners colluding with one another to effect the competive balance of the league. So to me--the disclosure (frankly--the lack of it) is everything. 

I do think there are valid points on either side on whether or not this exact condition should be allowed.  This debate is exactly why a commissioner that is involved in a possibly ethically amigious trade should never think that the best way to handle the situation is through keeping secrets. A commssioner should be preaching transparency.   Had they announced the trade and the condition to the league the moment it went down--the other owners could have made a decision on whether or not it should be allowed and go from there. 

If it was up to me--I think that because both parties did not disclose to the league complete details of the trade at the time it was made--that it effectively was an illegal trade that may have not been approved by the league had all of the details been given.  Therefore--both teams technically started illegal rosters last week and both should be issued a loss.  That's just my two cents. 

Edited by jvdesigns2002
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Gally said:

So if I agree to trade you Mahomes, Kelce, and Kamara for your first week in the playoffs because I have a bye and you do not and then you trade them back to me after that week it is OK because both teams are trying to win the title?

Do we really need contrived examples with no resemblance of the current situation?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, davearm said:

My reply would be, agreeing to tank to help another team win isn't valid currency to offer in a trade.  Even if it furthers your own title odds.

Except no one agreed to help another team win. If the team is good enough to have already secured a play-off spot without MT, he must be good enough to win one game without him.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Manster said:

Not close to the same.  They are hoping to keep players healthy for the real playoffs.  In fake football, there is nothing comparable.  REAL football controls what we do, and we adjust accordingly.  In fake football, leagues are structured so that every week counts, and every owner is expected to field a legal, and competitive team.  

In my leagues we have rules in place to address owners not putting in proper lineups.  There is nothing specific about the sitch like what happened here, because it's never come up.  I'm about 99.9% sure none of my leaguemates would be ok with this, because it affects the competitive balance.  

If you are ok with this scenario, then imo, you need to be ok with full on tanking.....where this might come into play would be the guy who has the division wrapped up, tanking to affect who gets the 2nd spot, based on him liking the matchup better.

It is close to the same...  Of course, there is different motivation, but, in the NFL, teams sometimes get "gifted" a win and this does have consequences for would be play-off teams.  And that is the same competitive balance or "integrity" that you're demanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, NE_REVIVAL said:

Thats a straw man, if the deal was contingent on some future playoff week it would be different or even anything beyond the current week the trade was executed would change things for me. However, those are straw men arguments afaic, I am basing my opinion on the contingency not to play the guy I am trading you this week (same week as transaction) because you are playing me this week and it is all 1 transaction imho. If you don't agree I am not trading him to you, if you are the other owner you are deciding whether you the value of having said player for rest of the season out weighs not being able to play him for the current week. Anything beyond the current week would be a no no.

Again, reasonable minds can disagree

 

How is it a straw man? You may want to revisit your logic class, friend because your understanding of logical fallacy appears to be off. 

Hardly a straw man, this is actually what’s known as “an analogy”. 

Fact: It’s the same as the trade that went down. 100%, exactly the same. There is literally none difference. 

1. How this conditional deal went down: 

Team A gets Thomas on the condition that he can’t play him in a certain matchup against Team B, who traded him Thomas. 

2. How the trade would go down in my hypothetical analogy: 

Team A gets Thomas on the condition that he can’t play him in a certain matchup against Team B, who traded him Thomas. 

Reasonable minds can disagree, but only if they’re not disingenuously dismissing a point as a nonexistent logical fallacy. You would be quite unreasonable to have done that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DropKick said:

Except no one agreed to help another team win. If the team is good enough to have already secured a play-off spot without MT, he must be good enough to win one game without him.

Tacitly, they sure did. It need not be explicitly agreed that Team MT throw the game. 

but there’s zero question that Team A deliberately fielded a lesser lineup as a condition of this deal. 

Team MT admitted to doing that. Team MT said had it not been a condition, he would have started MT over Mattison.

He didn’t need the win. So he actively, deliberately set a lineup that he believed would score less as a condition to get the guy he wanted. 

A rose by any other name....

That’s called throwing the game. This element isn’t even remotely debatable.

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DropKick said:

Do we really need contrived examples with no resemblance of the current situation?

Actually @Gally’s  example employs the exact logic that you’ve been attempting to use to justify the conditional agreement  that happened in the trade that this topic is about.

It’s hardly contrived. It’s totally consistent. 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Neil Beaufort Zod said:

This is a good point I had not considered. If it was kept secret, was it really a contingency of the trade, or merely a gentleman's agreement on the side? If two owners have a side bet one week, the league can't force the loser to pay up. It's between them. 

a side bet doesn’t impact the other teams competing for a playoff spot. This is in no way the same as the collusive conditional roster-based agreement that actually went down. It’s irrelevant to this topic. 

Quote

I think you could argue it wasn't an official part of the trade since it wasn't announced that way, and there would be no repercussions to starting Thomas. If they argued it was an official part of the trade, why wasn't it announced? Tough to claim it was official but unspoken.

You could argue it, but you’d look really foolish for doing so since they admitted that they colluded. 

The proof is in the fact that he did not start Thomas. And when he benched the player he just went out of his way to obtain, the rest of the league called them on it. That was the red flag that triggered the subsequent league controversy.

all of this is known from the OP. No speculation is required here, and it really doesn’t matter if the cheating they did was or was not “official”. They cheated. Thats all that matters. 

Quote

As an aside, if the league forced the new owner to start Thomas (let's say that's how they ruled it) against his wishes, and Mattison outscored him, how would the league compensate them for costing them a win? 

This is called a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. It is after the fact 20-20 hindsight. 

Whatever happened after they cheated has no bearing on the fact that they cheated.

A man walks out of his house in the middle of a thunderstorm wearing only his pajamas. 100’ down the sidewalk he gets soaked to the bone. Freezing and dripping wet, he returns home to dry off & change into appropriate rain weather gear. “Good thing I was smart enough to notice it was raining after I went out there, or I might have gotten wet!” he smugly thinks to himself.

Same logic you’re trying to employ here. It makes no difference who scored what after the trade. As part of their deal, Team MT agreed to bench him as a condition of acquisition. Both the team dealing MT and the team acquiring MT believed he would score more. 

That’s the only thing that’s relevant here. 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jvdesigns2002 said:

Yup--and thats exactly where the murkiness comes in.  

It’s not murky. it’s cut and dry collusion. 

There’s nothing murky about this in the slightest when you break the deal down to the most basic elements. 

Regardless of how the condition was communicated to the league of not, the condition of the trade itself is collusion.

Lying about it after the fact merely cements the fact that both teams (one of whom is commish) knew there were doing something shady. So while it makes it much worse, it’s certainly not murky. 

 

1. Team A wants Thomas, does not need a W.

2. Team B has Thomas, but needs a W.

3. They play each other that week. team A agreed to set a lesser lineup (without Thomas) as a condition of acquiring him. 

4. Team B didn’t want to face Thomas because he believed he would score well. Team A admitted he would not have benched Thomas if not for the agreement.

That’s how this went down. Everything about their feels or how hard they may or may not have been trying to win is window dressing on a deal where two teams colluded.

At its most basic level, Team A, the commish, opted to abandon his duty to the league as an ethical steward in order to tank a game he didn’t need to win in order to get MT from a team that did need to win. 

That’s it. Thats what happened. I’m stunned this poll is anywhere near 50-50. It is a stunning breach of ethics. 

 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

This debate is exactly why a commissioner that is involved in a possibly ethically amigious trade should never think that the best way to handle the situation is through keeping secrets. A commssioner should be preaching transparency.   Had they announced the trade and the condition to the league the moment it went down--the other owners could have made a decision on whether or not it should be allowed and go from there. 
 

in my opinion as a long-time commissioner, that’s not quite on the mark. More accurately, this example is exactly why there must be a co-commissioner to handle situations like this where the commish is directly involved in a trade.

The commish should be subject to the same rules and bound by the same assumption of ethical behavior as everyone else.

In this example, a co-commish would have been the 1st one to call out the commish on benching MT and get to the bottom of it, preferably before kickoff.

Had this happened, at the very least the league would have a sense that it was being addressed, rather than the chaos & infighting that ensued.

I’m not sure what my recourse would be if I were the co-commish here. If I were to take a WAG at it, I’d likely privately admonish the commish for making this conditional trade. He should know better, and he should recognize both the action as tanking, and the precedent that such a deal would set. 

I would likely rule that the deal stands, but without the condition since that condition is collusion. But it’s also possible that I would put the deal up to league vote, with the new information available, to see if it should be vetoed altogether. I don’t love the idea of rewarding the shady commish with MT. ETA: the more I consider it, the more i lean towards a veto. 

And I would put up for vote whether the commish who did it should remain commish. That way the league’s voice is heard and it’s not some unilateral decision. I strongly suspect this league would vote to move on to a new commish as a result.

But that’s all speculative. 

 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

It’s not murky. it’s cut and dry collusion. 

There’s nothing murky about this in the slightest when you break the deal down to the most basic elements. 

Regardless of how the condition was communicated to the league of not, the condition of the trade itself is collusion.

Lying about it after the fact merely cements the fact that both teams (one of whom is commish) knew there were doing something shady. So while it makes it much worse, it’s certainly not murky. 

 

1. Team A wants Thomas, does not need a W.

2. Team B has Thomas, but needs a W.

3. They play each other that week. team A agreed to set a lesser lineup (without Thomas) as a condition of acquiring him. 

4. Team B didn’t want to face Thomas because he believed he would score well. Team A admitted he would not have benched Thomas if not for the agreement.

That’s how this went down. Everything about their feels or how hard they may or may not have been trying to win is window dressing on a deal where two teams colluded.

At its most basic level, Team A, the commish, opted to abandon his duty to the league as an ethical steward in order to tank a game he didn’t need to win in order to get MT from a team that did need to win. 

That’s it. Thats what happened. I’m stunned this poll is anywhere near 50-50. It is a stunning breach of ethics. 

 

In my league this would have been a completely acceptable conditional trade.  You have every right to think it was unethical and shouldn't be allowed, but that doesn't make us wrong.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Tom Hagen said:

In my league this would have been a completely acceptable conditional trade.  You have every right to think it was unethical and shouldn't be allowed, but that doesn't make us wrong.

1. It is unethical

2. If your league allows it, you’re not wrong.

both of these things can be true. If you play in a system where anything goes & the ends always justify the means so cheating is ok, then yes, you aren’t wrong.

it’s the same as saying If your city allows bank robbery, there would be no bank robbers. 

But you have to apply that explicit condition to your reasoning for you to be right about this deal. Because we know that in the league in which this deal went down, they do not share your “anything goes” philosophy. We know this because the OP told us that league’s reaction to the deal. 

So when it comes to this deal, you are without question 100% wrong. You have to frame it as “in a system where ethics don’t matter, this isn’t unethical. That’s simply not relevant to this topic. My saying you’re wrong isn’t projecting ethics onto you. Ethics are ethics. 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Tom Hagen said:

In my league this would have been a completely acceptable conditional trade.  You have every right to think it was unethical and shouldn't be allowed, but that doesn't make us wrong.

 

Does your league have any rules that cover the situation in this thread?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

How is it a straw man? You may want to revisit your logic class, friend because your understanding of logical fallacy appears to be off. 

Hardly a straw man, this is actually what’s known as “an analogy”. 

Fact: It’s the same as the trade that went down. 100%, exactly the same. There is literally none difference. 

1. How this conditional deal went down: 

Team A gets Thomas on the condition that he can’t play him in a certain matchup against Team B, who traded him Thomas. 

2. How the trade would go down in my hypothetical analogy: 

Team A gets Thomas on the condition that he can’t play him in a certain matchup against Team B, who traded him Thomas. 

Reasonable minds can disagree, but only if they’re not disingenuously dismissing a point as a nonexistent logical fallacy. You would be quite unreasonable to have done that. 

Dude, your getting kind of nasty over this with me and with others and there is no need to.

You claim as "Fact" something that is not a fact, it is your opinion.

"Fact: It’s the same as the trade that went down. 100%, exactly the same. There is literally none difference."

The literal, factual difference is the transaction occurred in the same week (as ive mentioned repeatedly) as opposed to your fictitious scenarios that don't. 

We disagree on the trade contingency and we disagree on there being no difference between a trade that is proposed and completed in the same week and a trade that isn't completed in the same week. Its all good man, nobody died here, no need to get nasty.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NE_REVIVAL said:

Dude, your getting kind of nasty over this with me and with others and there is no need to.

You claim as "Fact" something that is not a fact, it is your opinion.

"Fact: It’s the same as the trade that went down. 100%, exactly the same. There is literally none difference."

The literal, factual difference is the transaction occurred in the same week (as ive mentioned repeatedly) as opposed to your fictitious scenarios that don't. 

We disagree on the trade contingency and we disagree on there being no difference between a trade that is proposed and completed in the same week and a trade that isn't completed in the same week. Its all good man, nobody died here, no need to get nasty.

I’m not getting nasty in the slightest. I corrected your bogus assertion of a straw man.

I’m in no way shape or form being “nasty”. Thats 100% projection on your part. 

preposterous. 

and the “fact” is accurate. What week the condition applies to is irrelevant. that’s the point. It is the same trade. Calling it a “straw man” is incorrect by any definition of the term. 

Sorry you don’t like facts. That doesn’t mean I’m nasty. :shrug: 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

1. It is unethical

2. If your league allows it, you’re not wrong.

both of these things can be true. If you play in a system where anything goes & the ends always justify the means so cheating is ok, then yes, you aren’t wrong.

it’s the same as saying If your city allows bank robbery, there would be no bank robbers. 

But you have to apply that explicit condition to your reasoning for you to be right about this deal. Because we know that in the league in which this deal went down, they do not share your “anything goes” philosophy. We know this because the OP told us that league’s reaction to the deal. 

So when it comes to this deal, you are without question 100% wrong. You have to frame it as “in a system where ethics don’t matter, this isn’t unethical. That’s simply not relevant to this topic. My saying you’re wrong isn’t projecting ethics onto you. Ethics are ethics. 

I disagree and I don't appreciate you questioning my ethics.  We have rules and not everything goes. In this case a team is taking a short term loss for a long term gain and that is an acceptable decision to everyone in the league. 

In your example the bank is suffering harm. In my league no one would feel harmed as it is a conditional trade. I liken it more to legal weed, you may disagree with it's morality but if the people of Oregon say it OK then that is their right regardless of what Iowans think.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tom Hagen said:

I disagree and I don't appreciate you questioning my ethics.  We have rules and not everything goes. In this case a team is taking a short term loss for a long term gain and that is an acceptable decision to everyone in the league. 

In your example the bank is suffering harm. In my league no one would feel harmed as it is a conditional trade. I liken it more to legal weed, you may disagree with it's morality but if the people of Oregon say it OK then that is their right regardless of what Iowans think.

 

I’m not questioning your ethics. You said in your league ethics don’t matter in trades.  You then said it again here:

12 minutes ago, Tom Hagen said:

Not specifically but we have always been very  laissez-faire on trades rules.

In the league in question, the league was not ok with it. You’re saying something opposite of what’s true. 

And as for your league, literally every team fighting with team B  for a playoff spot is potentially injured by this side condition. Ignoring that ignores the crux of why this is an unethical deal.

so again, if bank robbery isn’t a crime then there are no bank robbers.

And if ethics aren’t a problem in trades then this deal where a team agrees to throw a game to get a player is perfectly ok. 

I never once questioned your ethics. Your league seems to have a tenuous grasp of them when it applies to trades though based on your description that this would be perfectly ok for a team to tank a week as a condition of a deal.

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious which of these would be considered ok and which would be considered unacceptable:

Team A trades player A to Team B for player B - also Team B agrees:

  • that he will never use player A against Team A in all future games they ever play.
  • that he will not use player A against Team A for the rest of the season, including playoffs.
  • that he will not use player A against Team A in their next scheduled regular season game a few weeks off.
  • that he will not use player A against Team A in their regular season game that is the same week as the trade.
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

I’m not getting nasty in the slightest. I corrected your bogus assertion of a straw man.

I’m in no way shape or form being “nasty”. Thats 100% projection on your part. 

preposterous. 

You tried to correct (failed) as I pointed out in my previous post which u ignored and instead focus on my assertion u r getting nasty which you claim u r not in the "slightest". What I mean by nasty is when you call my opinion bogus and you say things like 

You may want to revisit your logic class, friend because your understanding of logical fallacy appears to be off

Just chill dude its ok to disagree.

 

Edited by NE_REVIVAL
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NE_REVIVAL said:

You tried to correct (failed) as I pointed out in my previous post which u ignored and instead focus on my assertion u r getting nasty which you claim u r not in the "slightest". What I mean by nasty is when you call my opinion bogus and you say things like 

You may want to revisit your logic class, friend because your understanding of logical fallacy appears to be off

Just chill dude its ok to disagree.

 

I said that because you asserted a logical fallacy that didn’t exist. 

sorry you feel attacked by that, but you were wrong. There was no straw man fallacy so I corrected you.

I am completely chill. I’m not emotional about this in the slightest. Your being wrong about a fallacy doesn’t upset me at all, but it did warrant correction.

maybe instead of getting defensive you could just admit you were wrong. They’re the same situation. A condition was applied to a trade that impacted a lineup. That I asked about a different week doesn’t make it a straw man, it merely shows why the condition is a problem. 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NotSmart said:

I'm curious which of these would be considered ok and which would be considered unacceptable:

Team A trades player A to Team B for player B - also Team B agrees:

  • that he will never use player A against Team A in all future games they ever play.
  • that he will not use player A against Team A for the rest of the season, including playoffs.
  • that he will not use player A against Team A in their next scheduled regular season game a few weeks off.
  • that he will not use player A against Team A in their regular season game that is the same week as the trade.

It’s a trick question: every scenario is unacceptable because they are all the same.

@NE_REVIVAL will be along shortly to incorrectly assert that this is a “straw man” as he did when I brought up the exact same point.

I’m moving on to other topics. This is getting silly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

1. It is unethical

2. If your league allows it, you’re not wrong.

both of these things can be true. If you play in a system where anything goes & the ends always justify the means so cheating is ok, then yes, you aren’t wrong.

it’s the same as saying If your city allows bank robbery, there would be no bank robbers. 

But you have to apply that explicit condition to your reasoning for you to be right about this deal. Because we know that in the league in which this deal went down, they do not share your “anything goes” philosophy. We know this because the OP told us that league’s reaction to the deal. 

So when it comes to this deal, you are without question 100% wrong. You have to frame it as “in a system where ethics don’t matter, this isn’t unethical. That’s simply not relevant to this topic. My saying you’re wrong isn’t projecting ethics onto you. Ethics are ethics. 

No, this is your opinion. There is nothing inherent good or evil about conditional trades. It is simply defining the rules for which ethics in compliance of those rules are observed. It was never about the condition. It was about lying. Very different 

is it unethical to have the WW be first come first serve? You could argue it however you want one way or another 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DropKick said:

Except no one agreed to help another team win. If the team is good enough to have already secured a play-off spot without MT, he must be good enough to win one game without him.

Of course benching Thomas and starting Mattison helps the other team win.  We agreed on this pages ago.

On 11/21/2020 at 5:04 PM, DropKick said:

You're main point is that Thomas is a better fantasy option than Mattison... something nobody has contested.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

It’s a trick question: every scenario is unacceptable because they are all the same.

@NE_REVIVAL will be along shortly to incorrectly assert that this is a “straw man” as he did when I brought up the exact same point.

I’m moving on to other topics. This is getting silly. 

I mentioned earlier that it was a slippery slope to allow the trade described in this thread, the listed choices are meant to illustrate this.

And if there is someone that says all 4 listed trade scenarios are ok, it can get far more slipperier than just these 4 choices.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

I’m not questioning your ethics. You said in your league ethics don’t matter in trades.  You then said it again here:

In the league in question, the league was not ok with it. You’re saying something opposite of what’s true. 

And as for your league, literally every team fighting with team B  for a playoff spot is potentially injured by this side condition. Ignoring that ignores the crux of why this is an unethical deal.

so again, if bank robbery isn’t a crime then there are no bank robbers.

And if ethics aren’t a problem in trades then this deal where a team agrees to throw a game to get a player is perfectly ok. 

I never once questioned your ethics. Your league seems to have a tenuous grasp of them when it applies to trades though based on your description that this would be perfectly ok for a team to tank a week as a condition of a deal.

You keep brining up acts that are illegal and have well documented laws against them as some analogy. Stealing is illegal plain and simple and is not an appropriate analogy to this trade. Things can be legal and unethical. You may not like the conditions of the trade based on your ethical constraints but there was no rule against the trade within the league regardless of the leagues opinion on the conditions. 

Now, why it is not collusion is based upon the league rules as we understand them:

1. There is no league vote on trades. Since there is no formal league inclusion or review on trades other than between the two parties involved there is simply no formal mechanism or requirement to report any conditions of the trade beyond what is observable. 

2. Both teams acted in good faith to improve their own team based on their perceived needs. That MT was benched was a short term sacrifice in order to gain a player of perceived value for later. If the traded players used to acquire MT were perceived to be of lower value overall then the benching was certainly a way creating a ad hoc parity with the trade.

3. Players are entitled to make the necessary decisions to win a league championship. These decisions can be both short term and long term. While it is always best to win every week the NEED to win every week is situation dependent. If I'm in 4th place and assured of a playoff spot but mathematically eliminated from bye week contention then the weekly result simply is not my driving motivation. I'm trying to align my roster for playoff success and I am not concerned about the playoff implications for 6th, 7th or 8th place teams. I am not managing for them. My benching MT may have eliminated one team and my playing MT may have eliminated one team. Frankly, that isn't my problem as they had 10 weeks to control their own destiny. I should not be punished or looked down upon for the fortune of putting myself in a position to control my destiny within reason. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NotSmart said:

I mentioned earlier that it was a slippery slope to allow the trade described in this thread, the listed choices are meant to illustrate this.

And if there is someone that says all 4 listed trade scenarios are ok, it can get far more slipperier than just these 4 choices.

The slope is slippery from undefined rules 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, NotSmart said:

I mentioned earlier that it was a slippery slope to allow the trade described in this thread, the listed choices are meant to illustrate this.

And if there is someone that says all 4 listed trade scenarios are ok, it can get far more slipperier than just these 4 choices.

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy but if it suits your narrative then carry on. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Babooya said:

No, this is your opinion. There is nothing inherent good or evil about conditional trades. It is simply defining the rules for which ethics in compliance of those rules are observed. It was never about the condition. It was about lying. Very different 

This will be my last post in this topic, and I am only responding to this because it is an important point. 

Ethical behavior is at the crux of this issue. 

Opinions about what constitutes ethical behavior can be debated, but the ethics here aren’t a matter of opinion, nor are they debatable. 

you seem confused about this concept. I’m doing my best to explain, but it seems like some in here define ethical behavior as “whatever it takes to get the job done”, which is not a generally accepted interpretation of behaving ethically. 

In general, society frowns upon cheating.

In the specifics of FF leagues, this is a no-brainer. Cheating isn’t allowed. No league has explicit rules to cover every possible scenario that blanket term “cheating” covers, but in this case we know that the two teams involved here knew that it was cheating.

They knew it, and that is why they lied about it. They agreed to fix a game. It’s at the very heart of this trade, and why it was unethical by any generally accepted standard. Because cheating is widely accepted as being unethical in the context of fantasy leagues. 

just because some people have the opinion that it isn’t unethical doesn’t make it ethical. Ethics are ethics - they don’t care about our opinions. 

So contrary to your assertion, this is 100% about the condition of the deal, and it is only peripherally about the lying, which showed consciousness of guilt because both parties involved in the deal knew they were behaving unethically. 

19 minutes ago, Babooya said:

is it unethical to have the WW be first come first serve? You could argue it however you want one way or another 

This is set by however the league is set up, and bears no relevance on this topic. League set-up and waivers type would fall under the category of “fair”, not “ethics”. Is it fair to have waivers run one way or another? All up to the league - ethics do not enter the equation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just surprised this thread went to 17 pages. Most "Is this collusion" threads die a hard death after a few pages.

This one really drew out the debate, which was surprising to me. 

No way I am going back to read the 6 or 7 pages I missed -- I imagine we're not any closer to agreement outside the point of this (and any) league needs some spelled out rules to make it clear whether this kind of provision is fair game or not.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NotSmart said:

Perhaps it will become clearer to you if you attempt to answer the four trade condition situations I posted earlier.

I don't have to answer them because they are not connected in any way shape or form to the trade or to potential outcomes later on. 

But if I'm to entertain your 4 scenarios, based on the current league rules those trade conditions would not go against the league rules at all. 

If the league feels conditions on trades are either against the rules or need to be disclosed then the league needs to write rules to address the potential for abuse beforehand. They now have a real life scenario to base the rules on and not your four hypotheticals. Laws and rules are not predictive in nature, they are reactive. They always have been and always will be. 

My opinion is the trade is fine and should stand. It is also my opinion that if in this leagues feels that the trade does not pass the smell test then I'm all for them addressing it anyway they see fit. It is their league to run based on their standards, not mine and not yours. 

I just don't think that a player who wants to acquire MT WANTS to lose and I don't think that a player who feels the need to trade MT yet doesn't want to play against him that week also is not a manager who wants to lose. It is just very obvious that they are on opposite ends of the playoff race and did what they felt was in their teams best interest to be competitive. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, NotSmart said:

I'm curious which of these would be considered ok and which would be considered unacceptable:

Team A trades player A to Team B for player B - also Team B agrees:

  • that he will never use player A against Team A in all future games they ever play.
  • that he will not use player A against Team A for the rest of the season, including playoffs.
  • that he will not use player A against Team A in their next scheduled regular season game a few weeks off.
  • that he will not use player A against Team A in their regular season game that is the same week as the trade.

One of these things are not like the others (the thing that actually occurred). One transaction begins AND is completed in the same calendar week unlike all the other hypotheticals, straw men, scenarios, analogies etc which do not complete in the same week. 

If something happens on a monday and the same thing happens on a friday are they exactly the same? Or is it factually accurate to say they are the same except they occurred in a different time frame? So it is a fact that they are different (time frame) and the only thing open to debate is whether it matters and to some like me it does and to others it doesn't; its all good. The claim that something that begins and completes in the same week is 100% the same thing as something that begins in one week and ends in another is neither logical or factually accurate. It might be "similar" but it is not the same.  As previously stated, if the contingency goes beyond the week of when the transaction was completed I would have a problem with it. Reasonable minds can disagree.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

This will be my last post in this topic, and I am only responding to this because it is an important point. 

Ethical behavior is at the crux of this issue. 

Opinions about what constitutes ethical behavior can be debated, but the ethics here aren’t a matter of opinion, nor are they debatable. 

you seem confused about this concept. I’m doing my best to explain, but it seems like some in here define ethical behavior as “whatever it takes to get the job done”, which is not a generally accepted interpretation of behaving ethically. 

In general, society frowns upon cheating.

In the specifics of FF leagues, this is a no-brainer. Cheating isn’t allowed. No league has explicit rules to cover every possible scenario that blanket term “cheating” covers, but in this case we know that the two teams involved here knew that it was cheating.

They knew it, and that is why they lied about it. They agreed to fix a game. It’s at the very heart of this trade, and why it was unethical by any generally accepted standard. Because cheating is widely accepted as being unethical in the context of fantasy leagues. 

just because some people have the opinion that it isn’t unethical doesn’t make it ethical. Ethics are ethics - they don’t care about our opinions. 

So contrary to your assertion, this is 100% about the condition of the deal, and it is only peripherally about the lying, which showed consciousness of guilt because both parties involved in the deal knew they were behaving unethically. 

This is set by however the league is set up, and bears no relevance on this topic. League set-up and waivers type would fall under the category of “fair”, not “ethics”. Is it fair to have waivers run one way or another? All up to the league - ethics do not enter the equation. 

They didn't disclose the details of the trade because it was not a league requirement to do so. That is not a lie. The league went into the season with the agreement that they were not concerned about the details of trades by not making disclosure or league votes a requirement. League votes are as much a option upon league setup as WW priorities. Without votes the league simply has no say or recourse to intervene on a trade. Even upon asking the managers could have simply declined the to answer. Basically, the league had no right to even ask the question and the league was not entitled to any answer whether it be misleading or factual. "Ask me no questions, I tell you no lies". 

But, regardless of my stance, if the league doesn't like they'll handle it moving forward. If they don't care about it then that is fine too. It is their league and how they decide to handle it isn't to be judged as right or wrong by us. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

This will be my last post in this topic, and I am only responding to this because it is an important point. 

Ethical behavior is at the crux of this issue. 

Opinions about what constitutes ethical behavior can be debated, but the ethics here aren’t a matter of opinion, nor are they debatable. 

you seem confused about this concept. I’m doing my best to explain, but it seems like some in here define ethical behavior as “whatever it takes to get the job done”, which is not a generally accepted interpretation of behaving ethically. 

In general, society frowns upon cheating.

In the specifics of FF leagues, this is a no-brainer. Cheating isn’t allowed. No league has explicit rules to cover every possible scenario that blanket term “cheating” covers, but in this case we know that the two teams involved here knew that it was cheating.

They knew it, and that is why they lied about it. They agreed to fix a game. It’s at the very heart of this trade, and why it was unethical by any generally accepted standard. Because cheating is widely accepted as being unethical in the context of fantasy leagues. 

just because some people have the opinion that it isn’t unethical doesn’t make it ethical. Ethics are ethics - they don’t care about our opinions. 

So contrary to your assertion, this is 100% about the condition of the deal, and it is only peripherally about the lying, which showed consciousness of guilt because both parties involved in the deal knew they were behaving unethically. 

This is set by however the league is set up, and bears no relevance on this topic. League set-up and waivers type would fall under the category of “fair”, not “ethics”. Is it fair to have waivers run one way or another? All up to the league - ethics do not enter the equation. 

The bolded above is what I have an issue with - not necessarily with @Hot Sauce Guy but in general throughout this thread.  I admittedly didn't read every word of the 17000 posts in here, but I don't think it was ever admitted by Team A that he was willingly handing a win to Team B as part of the trade.  The trade was "I give you MT, but you can't start him this week against me".  The trade was NOT "I'll give you MT and you sit him and give me an easy win this week".  Somehow throughout this thread the argument devolved into Team A throwing a match or tanking because he flexed a different player than who he normally would have.  That's not game fixing.  

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tom Hagen said:

In my league this would have been a completely acceptable conditional trade.  You have every right to think it was unethical and shouldn't be allowed, but that doesn't make us wrong.

 

It's crazy how people are seeing this a so black and white when it's super grey (which is evidenced by the fact the poll is nearly 50/50).

It's also funny how self righteous some people can be. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that one thing that is also getting overlooked here is that allowing a condition like this in leagues inherently randomly gives some teams trade advantages that other teams don't have.   Most fantasy leagues have a schedule that is randomly generated by the platform the league is played on.  You also have the randomness of certain teams having certain players on bye on certain weeks--and you have the randomness of some players getting injured at random points in the season.  If a team happens to have an opponent who might be short a player from a position because of a bye week or an injury--and the team playing them has an abdundance--that team can effectively maximize their trade equity by offering a player for more than value by throwing in the element of agreeing not to start a player.  Other potential trade partners would not have this trading chip---which is a big deal.   A team owner having the ability to offer a dynamic into a trade that other owners don't have the luxury of does not contribute to an even playing field. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, wlwiles said:

I don't think it was ever admitted by Team A that he was willingly handing a win to Team B as part of the trade.  The trade was "I give you MT, but you can't start him this week against me".  The trade was NOT "I'll give you MT and you sit him and give me an easy win this week".  Somehow throughout this thread the argument devolved into Team A throwing a match or tanking because he flexed a different player than who he normally would have.  That's not game fixing.  

Breaking my promise to address this:

It didn’t need to be explicitly stated or acknowledged by either of the teams for this to be the same thing. 

Since you didn’t read through, I’ll summarize what we know: 

Team A (commish) did not need to win the week. 

Team B did need to win the week. 

Team A stated they would have started MT were it not for the condition. 

Both team A & team B believed that MT would outscore Mattison that week with a healthy active Cook. 

It did no harm to team A to lose the game.

it did harm to the league, and anyone other than team B competing for a playoff spot for team A to not field his best team. 

Team A & b lied about the trade condition to the league because they knew it was cheating. 

So it really is irrelevant if Team A or Team B used the term “fixing” or “tanking” or “throwing” the game that week. That was the functional effect of their agreement. 

This aspect is not at all ambiguous. We know that they did this.  And if Team A is agreeing to field a lesser lineup for the game against Team B as a condition of the deal, they colluded to throw a game.

Whether team A thought he could win without MT is irrelevant. The only relevant factor here is that both teams believed MT was the better play, and both teams agreed that team B would face an inferior lineup, which gave team B an unfair advantage to win that week as compared to the other teams competing for a playoff spot who had no such advantage that week, and who may have to face team MT later without such a condition. 

I understand that maybe possibly it could be that they were innocent babes who did this deal with the best of intentions, and in the interest of assuming the very best about people and not calling them dirty players or unethical cheaters I’ll concede that much.

but at the end of the day, the functional agreement was for a team to throw a game they didn’t need to win to get a player. It’s been established that this was the case.

We can debate motives, we can debate intentions. But we simply can’t look past the fact that whether they intended to or not, they entered an agreement that one team tanks as a condition of player acquisition. Both teams involved clearly admitted that was the functional effect.

That they lied implies to me that they knew what they were doing, but I’m drawing my own conclusion there about intent. The nuts and bolts don’t change regardless.

i’m out. This time for real. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

It's crazy how people are seeing this a so black and white when it's super grey (which is evidenced by the fact the poll is nearly 50/50).

It's also funny how self righteous some people can be. 

It’s also amazing how people like to sub-post about others without recognizing the irony of the self righteousness of their own statement. 

Polls are an appeal to the masses fallacy. If 100 people polled agreed that penguins wear roller skates we don’t ask NatGeo to do a special 3 episode series on rollerskating penguins. 

logic is fun. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jvdesigns2002 said:

I think that one thing that is also getting overlooked here is that allowing a condition like this in leagues inherently randomly gives some teams trade advantages that other teams don't have.   Most fantasy leagues have a schedule that is randomly generated by the platform the league is played on.  You also have the randomness of certain teams having certain players on bye on certain weeks--and you have the randomness of some players getting injured at random points in the season.  If a team happens to have an opponent who might be short a player from a position because of a bye week or an injury--and the team playing them has an abdundance--that team can effectively maximize their trade equity by offering a player for more than value by throwing in the element of agreeing not to start a player.  Other potential trade partners would not have this trading chip---which is a big deal.   A team owner having the ability to offer a dynamic into a trade that other owners don't have the luxury of does not contribute to an even playing field. 

Team that have less roster talent and depth will have a harder time trading than those who developed their depth? Sounds like a dynasty league

 

i ultimately agree with your opinion but again it is my preference for how the league should operate, certain not a good/evil issue

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...