WXV Rule Discussion 2023

[Holz]

"and if you do that your tipping point is a lot smaller, as you were wishing for. The better the player that you wish to tag, the bigger the loss is going to be if it goes wrong."

The other team can ratchet up the gamble (which this is) by Tagging a top player. Plus, the handball swing causing a 40-80SC difference is only one team. Both teams can tag so if both are at the tipping point then a few handballs can make the difference of a 80-160 SC swing.

"As for the "I want my player to score less" part, something like this is necessary under the current structure of the proposal."

Thats because as it stands the tagged player goes down to the taggers score rather then a % decrease to the score which made much more sense. That is why the Tagged players score goes up as the Tagger "plays better" which goes against the whole premise of a tag.

[GoLions]

Top 10 draft picks should be worth 200k cap. Will help lower teams rebuild through the draft and not worry about cap as much.

[GoLions]

Top 10 draft picks should be worth 200k cap. Will help lower teams rebuild through the draft and not worry about cap as much.

To add a bit more detail to this, during their first 3 years (as the current cap is worked out over a 3 year period), a player drafted in the Top 10 in WXVs will be worth whichever of the following is higher:
- 200k
- the cap calculated as per the current formula

[Holz]

Vote to Scrap rules in the first and last rule voting.

For example, the Tag rule. If a majority of teams dont like it outright then we might as well have it out of discussion from the get go rather than voting on iterations of a rule that could easily be scrapped. If it is kept in for the first Vote then should be voted on at the end also if there has been any changes to the rule.

[Purple 77]

That's not a rule - that's my process. I won't be changing it.

It's also needlessly prohibitive. Please just be patient, and get through the mild inconvenience.

[Purple 77]

Vote to Scrap rules in the first and last rule voting.

For example, the Tag rule. If a majority of teams dont like it outright then we might as well have it out of discussion from the get go rather than voting on iterations of a rule that could easily be scrapped. If it is kept in for the first Vote then should be voted on at the end also if there has been any changes to the rule.

My last comment, which I thought i made clear in my last PM.

If I offered to scrap tagging outright from the start, that option does not consider any of the permutations or amendments that people would have otherwise liked to have seen in the rule.

Conversely, said amendments could make the rule worse in someone's eyes, and sway them to scrap it.

To offer to scrap it from the get go is needlessly premature, and by doing it the way I have, allows a totally informed view of what the preferred format of rule is, before we decide to scrap it.

[Ringo]

With the passing of value for first 10 draft picks can we amend to a sliding scale starting at 200k reducing 10k per pick. Think 200k for pick 1 and pick 10 screwed a little.
rest of rule remains the same.

[JBs-Hawks]

With the passing of value for first 10 draft picks can we amend to a sliding scale starting at 200k reducing 10k per pick. Think 200k for pick 1 and pick 10 screwed a little.
rest of rule remains the same.

KISS

[PowerBug]

Vote to Scrap rules in the first and last rule voting.

For example, the Tag rule. If a majority of teams dont like it outright then we might as well have it out of discussion from the get go rather than voting on iterations of a rule that could easily be scrapped. If it is kept in for the first Vote then should be voted on at the end also if there has been any changes to the rule.

If you voted in a rule and then it got adjusted into a version you would've voted against I'm sure you would be arguing to do the rules process the current way.

[Holz]

Vote to Scrap rules in the first and last rule voting.

For example, the Tag rule. If a majority of teams dont like it outright then we might as well have it out of discussion from the get go rather than voting on iterations of a rule that could easily be scrapped. If it is kept in for the first Vote then should be voted on at the end also if there has been any changes to the rule.

If you voted in a rule and then it got adjusted into a version you would've voted against I'm sure you would be arguing to do the rules process the current way.

No that's why I said a scrap it rule at the start and the end.

[Holz]

Vote to Scrap rules in the first and last rule voting.

For example, the Tag rule. If a majority of teams dont like it outright then we might as well have it out of discussion from the get go rather than voting on iterations of a rule that could easily be scrapped. If it is kept in for the first Vote then should be voted on at the end also if there has been any changes to the rule.

My last comment, which I thought i made clear in my last PM.

If I offered to scrap tagging outright from the start, that option does not consider any of the permutations or amendments that people would have otherwise liked to have seen in the rule.

Conversely, said amendments could make the rule worse in someone's eyes, and sway them to scrap it.

To offer to scrap it from the get go is needlessly premature, and by doing it the way I have, allows a totally informed view of what the preferred format of rule is, before we decide to scrap it.

I guess the flipside of this is now the tagging rule has become incredibly volatile and the rule could be scrapped now. We wont know if people didnt like tagging as a rule or if they just don't like this extreme version of it.

[Purple 77]

Rule discussion now closed.

Final PM will be sent shortly

[Purple 77]

Results from last vote



16. Unlimited Floods/Attacks
A) Remove cap of 5 times per H&A season (can't be used in finals) 5
B) Keep it to a limit of 5 times per H&A season (can't be used in finals) 13

17. Unlimited Tagging
A) Remove cap of 5 times per H&A season (can't be used in finals) 8
B) Keep it to a limit of 5 times per H&A season (can't be used in finals) 10

18. Player Tagging Limit (this vote is essentially the same as Rule 17, but a limitation on players)
A) Change the tagging limit from '5 times per year' to unlimited, but an AFL player can be tagged no more than 5 times per H&A season (can't be used in finals) 2
B) Keep as is 16

19. Utilisation of Tagging/Flood/Attack in Finals
A) Have the ability to Tag/Flood/Attack in finals if you have not exceeded any limits (if any existing) 10
B) Keep as is - do not allow in finals 8

20. Team submission inaccuracy interpretation - see link
A) Implement opposition discretion on ambiguously named players as PB prescribes 9
B) Keep as is - (i.e. Admin's best guess) 9.5 (my tiebreaker vote)

21. Move Rule Discussion After WXV Grand Final - see link (FYI, this will delay trade period 2-3 weeks)
A) Yes - Move it 4
B) No - Keep as is 14

22. Top 10 Draft Picks to be Valued as $200k each - see link
A) Yes 11
B) No - keep as is 7

[upthemaidens]

With the "train-on" players, is that unlimited use? and available in finals?
 

[Purple 77]

With the "train-on" players, is that unlimited use? and available in finals?

Yes and yes