2018 is waaaay off but if you have any thoughts on old rules or ideas on some new ones (good or bad!) chuck them down here throughout the year.
The Mods can only put them to vote if they know about them
Quote from: Ricochet on September 16, 2016, 05:21:23 PM
2018 is waaaay off but if you have any thoughts on old rules or ideas on some new ones (good or bad!) chuck them down here throughout the year.
The Mods can only put them to vote if they know about them
Good idea. Especially as things like your draft idea is a good one but would've been incorrectly implemented post season (much like if the AFL took away the Bombers pick 1 this year). If we find a system that works then a better equalisation system can be found.
Also things like, removing rookie lists, changing list movement caps need to be discussed a year in advance :)
I want to suggest something in regards to the trade approval process. I would like the below to be considered for next off-season.
All trades are initially approved. There is however a 24 hour window from when the trade has been confirmed where people have an opportunity to message T Dog and express their concerns with the trade. If 6 people (up for discussion) do this within the 24 hour period then the trade goes for a vote where all coaches vote on the trade to pass or fail.
This would hopefully promote more participation on the AXV threads with people having to log in daily to check out the trades. If they don't then obviously their opinion on the trade won't be heard. The current process is too subjective and opinionated. Coaches would also then also know that their trades have passed or failed in an appropriate timeframe instead of what is occurring presently.
Maybe 48 hr timeframe is better as it is offseason. Idea is okay I think something similar has been used before though (not sure if it was AXV) and issues arose from people not saying they have a problem until after the deadline when the people that did say something would mention it on the forums and then those other people will agree with the comments (make sense?)
Quote from: Rids on September 19, 2016, 09:00:31 AM
I want to suggest something in regards to the trade approval process. I would like the below to be considered for next off-season.
All trades are initially approved. There is however a 24 hour window from when the trade has been confirmed where people have an opportunity to message T Dog and express their concerns with the trade. If 6 people (up for discussion) do this within the 24 hour period then the trade goes for a vote where all coaches vote on the trade to pass or fail.
This would hopefully promote more participation on the AXV threads with people having to log in daily to check out the trades. If they don't then obviously their opinion on the trade won't be heard. The current process is too subjective and opinionated. Coaches would also then also know that their trades have passed or failed in an appropriate timeframe instead of what is occurring presently.
Quote from: PowerBug on September 19, 2016, 09:54:17 AM
Maybe 48 hr timeframe is better as it is offseason. Idea is okay I think something similar has been used before though (not sure if it was AXV) and issues arose from people not saying they have a problem until after the deadline when the people that did say something would mention it on the forums and then those other people will agree with the comments (make sense?)
Myself think that the 24 hour time frame would be better, but even the 48 hour time frame would be ok. The last trade confirm / rejection both were on the 12/09. There has been 9 trades posted since.
**Note** Having said that, realise that people have other commitments as well. Not everything revolves around this.
Agree with the 6 people that vote within the 24 hour time frame, & then to send the said trade out to vote.
Quote from: PowerBug on September 19, 2016, 09:54:17 AM
Maybe 48 hr timeframe is better as it is offseason. Idea is okay I think something similar has been used before though (not sure if it was AXV) and issues arose from people not saying they have a problem until after the deadline when the people that did say something would mention it on the forums and then those other people will agree with the comments (make sense?)
I personally think that the participation factor for AXV is dead. If it was 24 hours then it would make people log on more frequently.
Quote from: nas on September 19, 2016, 10:23:25 AM
Myself think that the 24 hour time frame would be better, but even the 48 hour time frame would be ok. The last trade confirm / rejection both were on the 12/09. There has been 9 trades posted since.
**Note** Having said that, realise that people have other commitments as well. Not everything revolves around this.
Agree with the 6 people that vote within the 24 hour time frame, & then to send the said trade out to vote.
I get it if people have other priorities etc but the admins have been on multiple times in this timeframe. I have been in the situation of being a mod previously for other sites and groups and have struggled for time to fulfil the associated responsibilities. It is a simple case of if there isn't enough time then to speak up and others either take over or assist. This is not criticism of the current mods at all but rather stating the obvious.
Atm there is no rookie draft and no delistings threads. None of the usual tidy up for the 2016 season has occurred either. Trades haven't been ruled on for a long time and there is no transparency on the current process. At the end of the day people cannot expect there to be activity in the comp if there is no structure and organisation.
All of the above comments are right on the money.
AXV is a great comp, has a great scoring system and there are alot of really committed of passionate coaches involed. If need be I'm sure there'd be more than enough people ready to step up and fill any void.
Quote from: nostradamus on September 19, 2016, 10:57:17 AM
All of the above comments are right on the money.
AXV is a great comp, has a great scoring system and there are alot of really committed of passionate coaches involed. If need be I'm sure there'd be more than enough people ready to step up and fill any void.
No that's not true, because we got new mods this season. They were the only ones to apply I believe. They are doing as well as they can but no one else has the time to take over or duties because it was recently advertised!!
Quote from: PowerBug on September 19, 2016, 11:40:03 AM
Quote from: nostradamus on September 19, 2016, 10:57:17 AM
All of the above comments are right on the money.
AXV is a great comp, has a great scoring system and there are alot of really committed of passionate coaches involed. If need be I'm sure there'd be more than enough people ready to step up and fill any void.
No that's not true, because we got new mods this season. They were the only ones to apply I believe. They are doing as well as they can but no one else has the time to take over or duties because it was recently advertised!!
I think that things have changed now with personal circumstances. I know that I am more than willing to help out now if required.
Don't mind it Rids. Especially with it creating more activity
Only concern would be
Quote from: Rids on September 19, 2016, 09:00:31 AM
All trades are initially approved. There is however a 24 hour window from when the trade has been confirmed where people have an opportunity to message T Dog and express their concerns with the trade. If 6 people (up for discussion) do this within the 24 hour period then the trade goes for a vote where all coaches vote on the trade to pass or fail.
If we have a week where a lot of coaches are inactive then some howlers may slip through.
Maybe trades are still ruled on by admins but if enough coaches disagree then the trade can then be put to vote?
Quote from: Ricochet on September 19, 2016, 11:51:49 AM
Don't mind it Rids. Especially with it creating more activity
Only concern would be
Quote from: Rids on September 19, 2016, 09:00:31 AM
All trades are initially approved. There is however a 24 hour window from when the trade has been confirmed where people have an opportunity to message T Dog and express their concerns with the trade. If 6 people (up for discussion) do this within the 24 hour period then the trade goes for a vote where all coaches vote on the trade to pass or fail.
If we have a week where a lot of coaches are inactive then some howlers may slip through.
Maybe trades are still ruled on by admins but if enough coaches disagree then the trade can then be put to vote?
We use this system in EXV where all trades are initially approved. I think that it needs to be a common sense approach however. The definition of howler is subjective imo. I think the Lyons trade that has been approved is a howler personally but the next guy might disagree and think it is fair. At least this way it promotes more discussion and coach activity. I know personally that I am usually online once a day every day. I get it that people might be away for periods of time but then they should be using their assistants etc.
The comp really needs people becoming active again otherwise it will die a slow death.
Quote from: Rids on September 19, 2016, 11:58:25 AM
Quote from: Ricochet on September 19, 2016, 11:51:49 AM
Don't mind it Rids. Especially with it creating more activity
Only concern would be
Quote from: Rids on September 19, 2016, 09:00:31 AM
All trades are initially approved. There is however a 24 hour window from when the trade has been confirmed where people have an opportunity to message T Dog and express their concerns with the trade. If 6 people (up for discussion) do this within the 24 hour period then the trade goes for a vote where all coaches vote on the trade to pass or fail.
If we have a week where a lot of coaches are inactive then some howlers may slip through.
Maybe trades are still ruled on by admins but if enough coaches disagree then the trade can then be put to vote?
We use this system in EXV where all trades are initially approved. I think that it needs to be a common sense approach however. The definition of howler is subjective imo. I think the Lyons trade that has been approved is a howler personally but the next guy might disagree and think it is fair. At least this way it promotes more discussion and coach activity. I know personally that I am usually online once a day every day. I get it that people might be away for periods of time but then they should be using their assistants etc.
The comp really needs people becoming active again otherwise it will die a slow death.
I agree, we need to change something to promote activity.
I know you don't agree with it (and your reasons are solid too), but getting all coaches to vote on all trades works in worlds.
Quote from: Ricochet on September 19, 2016, 12:01:51 PM
Quote from: Rids on September 19, 2016, 11:58:25 AM
Quote from: Ricochet on September 19, 2016, 11:51:49 AM
Don't mind it Rids. Especially with it creating more activity
Only concern would be
Quote from: Rids on September 19, 2016, 09:00:31 AM
All trades are initially approved. There is however a 24 hour window from when the trade has been confirmed where people have an opportunity to message T Dog and express their concerns with the trade. If 6 people (up for discussion) do this within the 24 hour period then the trade goes for a vote where all coaches vote on the trade to pass or fail.
If we have a week where a lot of coaches are inactive then some howlers may slip through.
Maybe trades are still ruled on by admins but if enough coaches disagree then the trade can then be put to vote?
We use this system in EXV where all trades are initially approved. I think that it needs to be a common sense approach however. The definition of howler is subjective imo. I think the Lyons trade that has been approved is a howler personally but the next guy might disagree and think it is fair. At least this way it promotes more discussion and coach activity. I know personally that I am usually online once a day every day. I get it that people might be away for periods of time but then they should be using their assistants etc.
The comp really needs people becoming active again otherwise it will die a slow death.
I agree, we need to change something to promote activity.
I know you don't agree with it (and your reasons are solid too), but getting all coaches to vote on all trades works in worlds.
I dont necessarily agree with having every trade being voted on. I think the majority of people know when a trade is fair and when one is not. The simple ones should just be approved and processed within the stated timeframes. Otherwise we are waiting for people to log on to vote which might take longer than desired.
Anyways, hopefully people jump on and share their views. It is important everyone gets involved to better the comp.
Quote from: Rids on September 19, 2016, 11:46:27 AM
Quote from: PowerBug on September 19, 2016, 11:40:03 AM
Quote from: nostradamus on September 19, 2016, 10:57:17 AM
All of the above comments are right on the money.
AXV is a great comp, has a great scoring system and there are alot of really committed of passionate coaches involed. If need be I'm sure there'd be more than enough people ready to step up and fill any void.
No that's not true, because we got new mods this season. They were the only ones to apply I believe. They are doing as well as they can but no one else has the time to take over or duties because it was recently advertised!!
I think that things have changed now with personal circumstances. I know that I am more than willing to help out now if required.
With this being my last week @ work, also have more time on my hands if needed to help. Annual trip coming up, but always have access. Having time off work for a while.
Im not against every trade being voted on, but I don't think its really necessary. I think a 48 hour time frame to raise concerns will work with trades being initially approved is good, but think admin should have some veto power.
I'm fine with admins deciding on trades if they are willing to do it, especially since we have tdog as an admin without a team, which makes him a good candidate imo
I agree with the idea that trade vetoes should be handed back to the coaches, with the administator/s having some overturning power if they see fit.
I'd probably disagree with Rids, and suggest 24 hours for trade period 1 trades leading up to the draft, and 48 hours for those in period 2, with Christmas, and whatnot occupying peoples lives. I know a large majority of the coaches will be away in December/January (myself included). Also think 6 is probably the threshold needed.
As for list management (rookies, etc.) I think the current system works well when people are aware of it, and simulates a proper AFL list. However I am not opposed to changes if the majority vote in favour of scrapping lists.
I'd be up for discussing a points cap again.
Looking at what has been discussed so far in this thread http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,108074.0.html thinking that we should set out a list in preparation for discussion prion to this 2017 seasons completion.
1: Removal of Rookie List, meaning squad of 46 players. Saying if this gets up will also mean removal of the LTI thread also.
Rookie list to be removed. Voting results: Remove 10. Keep 5. Other 1. Total Votes 16.
2: National Draft rule 2hr & 24hr remains, but for the first round, if it goes over, you get the next allocated AFL drafted player. Also if you log on prior to the next coach pick, you can change the allocated pick.
3. Points Cap, tho previously discussed & defeated.
4. Finalise squads after AFL Draft, meaning if players (who are currently on a AXV list) are delisted and get picked up. AXV Clubs will know before finalising.
5. Bidding process for returning AFL players, returning players who have been out of the AFL system for at least one year. They will not be on a current AXV list. The Club who last owned that player will get to match any bid prior to the AXV Nat draft.
6. Team Submission, (A) Keep the current naming of team. (B) Submit the traditional way & as well use UF.
7. Players Positions, (A) Maintain the current Virtual Sports. (B) Adopt UF's positions at start of the season.**Note saying this gets voted in would then require another vote on to "Allow In-Season Updates."
8. Play through the bye rounds, Play through or have this off.
9. Leadership Group, In the week leading up to the first round of the season, each team must nominate 5 players on their list to form their leadership group. The Captain, Vice-Captain or Co-Captain's you select on any given game, MUST come from this group.
-Though I like salary Caps in general, I think to introduce one now is pretty unfair for the bigger Clubs.
Maybe another way to help even the Comp, the top 4 scoring teams swap their 1st rd picks with the bottom 4 scoring teams 3rd rd picks.
-Can we add a bidding process for returning AFL players.
-Can we finalise our squads 'After' the AFL Nat draft has taken place.
Quote from: nas on January 09, 2017, 10:46:06 AM
Looking at what has been discussed so far in this thread http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,108074.0.html thinking that we should set out a list in preparation for discussion prion to this 2017 seasons completion.
1: Removal of Rookie List, meaning squad of 46 players. Saying if this gets up will also mean removal of the LTI thread also.
2: National Draft rule 2hr & 24hr remains, but for the first round, if it goes over, you get the next allocated AFL drafted player. Also if you log on prior to the next coach pick, you can change the allocated pick.
3. Points Cap, tho previously discussed & defeated.
4. Finalise squads after AFL Draft, meaning if players (who are currently on a AXV list) are delisted and get picked up. AXV Clubs will know before finalising.
5. Bidding process for returning AFL players, returning players who have been out of the AFL system for at least one year. They will not be on a current AXV list. The Club who last owned that player will get to match any bid prior to the AXV Nat draft.
6. Team Submission, (A) Keep the current naming of team. (B) Submit the traditional way & as well use UF.
7. Players Positions, (A) Maintain the current Virtual Sports. (B) Adopt UF's positions at start of the season.**Note saying this gets voted in would then require another vote on to "Allow In-Season Updates."
8. Play through the bye rounds, Play through or have this off.
Now that the season has commenced will start sending the above 1 x 1. All the results will be added to the thread.
TIA.
Should we maybe wait until the end of the season before we vote on rule changes? People's opinions often change during the season over these kind of rules.
Also, I believe that we should only be allowing one vote per club, rather than coach. It seems unfair that teams with co-coaches get two votes regarding how the rule change potentially impacts their team.
Quote from: BB67th on March 27, 2017, 06:27:54 PM
Should we maybe wait until the end of the season before we vote on rule changes? People's opinions often change during the season over these kind of rules.
Also, I believe that we should only be allowing one vote per club, rather than coach. It seems unfair that teams with co-coaches get two votes regarding how the rule change potentially impacts their team.
what?? never knew this was the case. That isnt very fair.
Quote from: SydneyRox on March 27, 2017, 06:36:39 PM
Quote from: BB67th on March 27, 2017, 06:27:54 PM
Should we maybe wait until the end of the season before we vote on rule changes? People's opinions often change during the season over these kind of rules.
Also, I believe that we should only be allowing one vote per club, rather than coach. It seems unfair that teams with co-coaches get two votes regarding how the rule change potentially impacts their team.
what?? never knew this was the case. That isnt very fair.
In the past I believe we've only had one vote per team, but in the pm nas sent out he mentioned 20 coaches voting including co-coaches.
already replied this to Nas and he said it was just a typo/mistake, its 1 vote per club
Quote from: BB67th on March 27, 2017, 06:46:30 PM
Quote from: SydneyRox on March 27, 2017, 06:36:39 PM
Quote from: BB67th on March 27, 2017, 06:27:54 PM
Should we maybe wait until the end of the season before we vote on rule changes? People's opinions often change during the season over these kind of rules.
Also, I believe that we should only be allowing one vote per club, rather than coach. It seems unfair that teams with co-coaches get two votes regarding how the rule change potentially impacts their team.
what?? never knew this was the case. That isnt very fair.
In the past I believe we've only had one vote per team, but in the pm nas sent out he mentioned 20 coaches voting including co-coaches.
IMO, some of the rules need to be in place prior to the start of the trading / drafts so that we're ready to go. Some can be held off till later when the season is completed.
Yes, should & will be 1 vote per team. Would expect the teams that share the duties vote accordingly & submit 1 vote for their team.
The 20 PM's were sent so that to promote discussion between them. My mistake to not include wording for 1 vote per team.
Quote from: nas on March 27, 2017, 06:51:55 PM
Quote from: BB67th on March 27, 2017, 06:46:30 PM
Quote from: SydneyRox on March 27, 2017, 06:36:39 PM
Quote from: BB67th on March 27, 2017, 06:27:54 PM
Should we maybe wait until the end of the season before we vote on rule changes? People's opinions often change during the season over these kind of rules.
Also, I believe that we should only be allowing one vote per club, rather than coach. It seems unfair that teams with co-coaches get two votes regarding how the rule change potentially impacts their team.
what?? never knew this was the case. That isnt very fair.
In the past I believe we've only had one vote per team, but in the pm nas sent out he mentioned 20 coaches voting including co-coaches.
IMO, some of the rules need to be in place prior to the start of the trading / drafts so that we're ready to go. Some can be held off till later when the season is completed.
Yes, should & will be 1 vote per team. Would expect the teams that share the duties vote accordingly & submit 1 vote for their team.
The 20 PM's were sent so that to promote discussion between them. My mistake to not include wording for 1 vote per team.
I still don't see the point in voting on 2018 rules after round 1 of 2017. We can vote towards the end of the season if need be, but there will be coaches who change their minds on some things between now and then.
Quote from: BB67th on March 27, 2017, 06:58:13 PM
Quote from: nas on March 27, 2017, 06:51:55 PM
Quote from: BB67th on March 27, 2017, 06:46:30 PM
Quote from: SydneyRox on March 27, 2017, 06:36:39 PM
Quote from: BB67th on March 27, 2017, 06:27:54 PM
Should we maybe wait until the end of the season before we vote on rule changes? People's opinions often change during the season over these kind of rules.
Also, I believe that we should only be allowing one vote per club, rather than coach. It seems unfair that teams with co-coaches get two votes regarding how the rule change potentially impacts their team.
what?? never knew this was the case. That isnt very fair.
In the past I believe we've only had one vote per team, but in the pm nas sent out he mentioned 20 coaches voting including co-coaches.
IMO, some of the rules need to be in place prior to the start of the trading / drafts so that we're ready to go. Some can be held off till later when the season is completed.
Yes, should & will be 1 vote per team. Would expect the teams that share the duties vote accordingly & submit 1 vote for their team.
The 20 PM's were sent so that to promote discussion between them. My mistake to not include wording for 1 vote per team.
I still don't see the point in voting on 2018 rules after round 1 of 2017. We can vote towards the end of the season if need be, but there will be coaches who change their minds on some things between now and then.
If thy change their minds and enough agree then we can just do a re-vote.
It is always nice to get things addressed nice and early. I don't see any issue in voting early and addressing things then when they come up.
Quote from: Rids on March 27, 2017, 10:02:47 PM
Quote from: BB67th on March 27, 2017, 06:58:13 PM
Quote from: nas on March 27, 2017, 06:51:55 PM
Quote from: BB67th on March 27, 2017, 06:46:30 PM
Quote from: SydneyRox on March 27, 2017, 06:36:39 PM
Quote from: BB67th on March 27, 2017, 06:27:54 PM
Should we maybe wait until the end of the season before we vote on rule changes? People's opinions often change during the season over these kind of rules.
Also, I believe that we should only be allowing one vote per club, rather than coach. It seems unfair that teams with co-coaches get two votes regarding how the rule change potentially impacts their team.
what?? never knew this was the case. That isnt very fair.
In the past I believe we've only had one vote per team, but in the pm nas sent out he mentioned 20 coaches voting including co-coaches.
IMO, some of the rules need to be in place prior to the start of the trading / drafts so that we're ready to go. Some can be held off till later when the season is completed.
Yes, should & will be 1 vote per team. Would expect the teams that share the duties vote accordingly & submit 1 vote for their team.
The 20 PM's were sent so that to promote discussion between them. My mistake to not include wording for 1 vote per team.
I still don't see the point in voting on 2018 rules after round 1 of 2017. We can vote towards the end of the season if need be, but there will be coaches who change their minds on some things between now and then.
If thy change their minds and enough agree then we can just do a re-vote.
It is always nice to get things addressed nice and early. I don't see any issue in voting early and addressing things then when they come up.
Totally agree, what's the point in dragging the chain on philosophical issues that matter not if they're voted on now or later. Another thing in favour of doing as much as possible sooner rather than later in regard to rule tweaks is that all coaches are active, this can't really be said for the off season.
Quote from: Rids on March 27, 2017, 10:02:47 PM
Quote from: BB67th on March 27, 2017, 06:58:13 PM
Quote from: nas on March 27, 2017, 06:51:55 PM
Quote from: BB67th on March 27, 2017, 06:46:30 PM
Quote from: SydneyRox on March 27, 2017, 06:36:39 PM
Quote from: BB67th on March 27, 2017, 06:27:54 PM
Should we maybe wait until the end of the season before we vote on rule changes? People's opinions often change during the season over these kind of rules.
Also, I believe that we should only be allowing one vote per club, rather than coach. It seems unfair that teams with co-coaches get two votes regarding how the rule change potentially impacts their team.
what?? never knew this was the case. That isnt very fair.
In the past I believe we've only had one vote per team, but in the pm nas sent out he mentioned 20 coaches voting including co-coaches.
IMO, some of the rules need to be in place prior to the start of the trading / drafts so that we're ready to go. Some can be held off till later when the season is completed.
Yes, should & will be 1 vote per team. Would expect the teams that share the duties vote accordingly & submit 1 vote for their team.
The 20 PM's were sent so that to promote discussion between them. My mistake to not include wording for 1 vote per team.
I still don't see the point in voting on 2018 rules after round 1 of 2017. We can vote towards the end of the season if need be, but there will be coaches who change their minds on some things between now and then.
If thy change their minds and enough agree then we can just do a re-vote.
It is always nice to get things addressed nice and early. I don't see any issue in voting early and addressing things then when they come up.
Not a fan of re-voting in the same year on the same thing tbh, i think once a matter is voted on it should be kept until the next when you can then revote again. Having said that i dont really mind when the voting happens :P
Quote from: iZander on March 27, 2017, 10:45:06 PM
Quote from: Rids on March 27, 2017, 10:02:47 PM
Quote from: BB67th on March 27, 2017, 06:58:13 PM
Quote from: nas on March 27, 2017, 06:51:55 PM
Quote from: BB67th on March 27, 2017, 06:46:30 PM
Quote from: SydneyRox on March 27, 2017, 06:36:39 PM
Quote from: BB67th on March 27, 2017, 06:27:54 PM
Should we maybe wait until the end of the season before we vote on rule changes? People's opinions often change during the season over these kind of rules.
Also, I believe that we should only be allowing one vote per club, rather than coach. It seems unfair that teams with co-coaches get two votes regarding how the rule change potentially impacts their team.
what?? never knew this was the case. That isnt very fair.
In the past I believe we've only had one vote per team, but in the pm nas sent out he mentioned 20 coaches voting including co-coaches.
IMO, some of the rules need to be in place prior to the start of the trading / drafts so that we're ready to go. Some can be held off till later when the season is completed.
Yes, should & will be 1 vote per team. Would expect the teams that share the duties vote accordingly & submit 1 vote for their team.
The 20 PM's were sent so that to promote discussion between them. My mistake to not include wording for 1 vote per team.
I still don't see the point in voting on 2018 rules after round 1 of 2017. We can vote towards the end of the season if need be, but there will be coaches who change their minds on some things between now and then.
If thy change their minds and enough agree then we can just do a re-vote.
It is always nice to get things addressed nice and early. I don't see any issue in voting early and addressing things then when they come up.
Not a fan of re-voting in the same year on the same thing tbh, i think once a matter is voted on it should be kept until the next when you can then revote again. Having said that i dont really mind when the voting happens :P
It would only be a re-vote if people changed their mind 180 degrees which would be very unlikely anyways. The fact is we just move forward and keep tinkering these rule changes while people are active and get AXV back to where it once was.
Quote from: Rids on March 27, 2017, 10:51:11 PM
Quote from: iZander on March 27, 2017, 10:45:06 PM
Quote from: Rids on March 27, 2017, 10:02:47 PM
Quote from: BB67th on March 27, 2017, 06:58:13 PM
Quote from: nas on March 27, 2017, 06:51:55 PM
Quote from: BB67th on March 27, 2017, 06:46:30 PM
Quote from: SydneyRox on March 27, 2017, 06:36:39 PM
Quote from: BB67th on March 27, 2017, 06:27:54 PM
Should we maybe wait until the end of the season before we vote on rule changes? People's opinions often change during the season over these kind of rules.
Also, I believe that we should only be allowing one vote per club, rather than coach. It seems unfair that teams with co-coaches get two votes regarding how the rule change potentially impacts their team.
what?? never knew this was the case. That isnt very fair.
In the past I believe we've only had one vote per team, but in the pm nas sent out he mentioned 20 coaches voting including co-coaches.
IMO, some of the rules need to be in place prior to the start of the trading / drafts so that we're ready to go. Some can be held off till later when the season is completed.
Yes, should & will be 1 vote per team. Would expect the teams that share the duties vote accordingly & submit 1 vote for their team.
The 20 PM's were sent so that to promote discussion between them. My mistake to not include wording for 1 vote per team.
I still don't see the point in voting on 2018 rules after round 1 of 2017. We can vote towards the end of the season if need be, but there will be coaches who change their minds on some things between now and then.
If thy change their minds and enough agree then we can just do a re-vote.
It is always nice to get things addressed nice and early. I don't see any issue in voting early and addressing things then when they come up.
Not a fan of re-voting in the same year on the same thing tbh, i think once a matter is voted on it should be kept until the next when you can then revote again. Having said that i dont really mind when the voting happens :P
It would only be a re-vote if people changed their mind 180 degrees which would be very unlikely anyways. The fact is we just move forward and keep tinkering these rule changes while people are active and get AXV back to where it once was.
May as well do the voting later if people can change there mind anytime though? I mean it wont actually be locked in that way anyway
Though I don't care when the vote is.
I do think that if someone comes up with proposal rule change during the season, we should still be able to send it to a vote before the season ends.
Whether that's already the case or not I don't know, just thought I'd mention it.
Can I suggest a Leadership Group proposal to add to the list? Like what there is in Worlds :)
Quote from: PowerBug on March 27, 2017, 11:03:44 PM
Can I suggest a Leadership Group proposal to add to the list? Like what there is in Worlds :)
for non worlds people, whats this?
Quote from: SydneyRox on March 28, 2017, 04:19:39 PM
Quote from: PowerBug on March 27, 2017, 11:03:44 PM
Can I suggest a Leadership Group proposal to add to the list? Like what there is in Worlds :)
for non worlds people, whats this?
QuoteLeadership Group
19. In the week leading up to the first round of the season, each team must nominate 5 players on their list to form their leadership group. The Captain, Vice-Captain or Co-Captain's you select on any given game, MUST come from this group.
19a. During the mid-season bye (Representative Round), you are able to update your leadership group.
19b. If a player in your leadership group suffers a long term injury, you are able to promote another player in their place. However, should that player recover, he will resume his place in the leadership group at the expense of his replacement.
19c. Some leniency may be given under certain circumstances to allow for a captaincy selection outside of the leadership group. E.g. If all 5 members of a leadership have been seriously under-performing, and other players in your team have unexpectedly been scoring magnificently, you may be granted to choose a player outside of the leadership, but only in a co-captain capacity. All requests for leniency should be sent via PM to the Administrator, and they will have the final call.
Quote from: Ricochet on March 28, 2017, 04:35:52 PM
Quote from: SydneyRox on March 28, 2017, 04:19:39 PM
Quote from: PowerBug on March 27, 2017, 11:03:44 PM
Can I suggest a Leadership Group proposal to add to the list? Like what there is in Worlds :)
for non worlds people, whats this?
QuoteLeadership Group
19. In the week leading up to the first round of the season, each team must nominate 5 players on their list to form their leadership group. The Captain, Vice-Captain or Co-Captain's you select on any given game, MUST come from this group.
19a. During the mid-season bye (Representative Round), you are able to update your leadership group.
19b. If a player in your leadership group suffers a long term injury, you are able to promote another player in their place. However, should that player recover, he will resume his place in the leadership group at the expense of his replacement.
19c. Some leniency may be given under certain circumstances to allow for a captaincy selection outside of the leadership group. E.g. If all 5 members of a leadership have been seriously under-performing, and other players in your team have unexpectedly been scoring magnificently, you may be granted to choose a player outside of the leadership, but only in a co-captain capacity. All requests for leniency should be sent via PM to the Administrator, and they will have the final call.
Will add this to the rule change for the 2018 season. Would say re 19a would start of the 1st bye round be right for the updating of the teams leadership group? Also maintaining 19b & 19c?
Only trouble with 19c is that I don't think we have any independent admin. Should just make it 6 players and only way to replace them is for LTIs. Captains can have bad years so I personally don't like 19c.
Quote from: nas on March 29, 2017, 10:22:04 AM
Quote from: Ricochet on March 28, 2017, 04:35:52 PM
Quote from: SydneyRox on March 28, 2017, 04:19:39 PM
Quote from: PowerBug on March 27, 2017, 11:03:44 PM
Can I suggest a Leadership Group proposal to add to the list? Like what there is in Worlds :)
for non worlds people, whats this?
QuoteLeadership Group
19. In the week leading up to the first round of the season, each team must nominate 5 players on their list to form their leadership group. The Captain, Vice-Captain or Co-Captain's you select on any given game, MUST come from this group.
19a. During the mid-season bye (Representative Round), you are able to update your leadership group.
19b. If a player in your leadership group suffers a long term injury, you are able to promote another player in their place. However, should that player recover, he will resume his place in the leadership group at the expense of his replacement.
19c. Some leniency may be given under certain circumstances to allow for a captaincy selection outside of the leadership group. E.g. If all 5 members of a leadership have been seriously under-performing, and other players in your team have unexpectedly been scoring magnificently, you may be granted to choose a player outside of the leadership, but only in a co-captain capacity. All requests for leniency should be sent via PM to the Administrator, and they will have the final call.
Will add this to the rule change for the 2018 season. Would say re 19a would start of the 1st bye round be right for the updating of the teams leadership group? Also maintaining 19b & 19c?
Yep 1st bye would be about right imo
Quote from: PowerBug on March 29, 2017, 10:45:58 AM
Only trouble with 19c is that I don't think we have any independent admin. Should just make it 6 players and only way to replace them is for LTIs. Captains can have bad years so I personally don't like 19c.
And agree
I would like to raise the question about playing the bye rounds post 2017 season to be discussed.
I am not fussed either way but think it would be good to be discussed anyways.
Quote from: Rids on June 07, 2017, 01:51:22 PM
I would like to raise the question about playing the bye rounds post 2017 season to be discussed.
I am not fussed either way but think it would be good to be discussed anyways.
It's there in the proposal for the rule changes for 2018, rule discussion no 8. Awaiting for some coaches to reply for number 2, that has been sent out.
Quote from: nas on June 07, 2017, 02:37:21 PM
Quote from: Rids on June 07, 2017, 01:51:22 PM
I would like to raise the question about playing the bye rounds post 2017 season to be discussed.
I am not fussed either way but think it would be good to be discussed anyways.
It's there in the proposal for the rule changes for 2018, rule discussion no 8. Awaiting for some coaches to reply for number 2, that has been sent out.
What? Really?? That was like two months ago??
I replied right....... :-\ ??? :o
Also, if we do stop bye rounds, then it has to be all bye rounds, not just the multi byes. (Say the China game happens at the same time next year, Round 9 needs to be taken off as well)
Quote from: SydneyRox on June 07, 2017, 02:55:41 PM
Quote from: nas on June 07, 2017, 02:37:21 PM
Quote from: Rids on June 07, 2017, 01:51:22 PM
I would like to raise the question about playing the bye rounds post 2017 season to be discussed.
I am not fussed either way but think it would be good to be discussed anyways.
It's there in the proposal for the rule changes for 2018, rule discussion no 8. Awaiting for some coaches to reply for number 2, that has been sent out.
What? Really?? That was like two months ago??
I replied right....... :-\ ???
:o
Yeah, I'm not sure whether I replied to this or not haha.
I'll update & resend out 2morrow as away ATM
Quote from: nas on January 09, 2017, 10:46:06 AM
Looking at what has been discussed so far in this thread http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,108074.0.html thinking that we should set out a list in preparation for discussion prion to this 2017 seasons completion.
1: Removal of Rookie List, meaning squad of 46 players. Saying if this gets up will also mean removal of the LTI thread also.
Rookie list to be removed. Voting Results: Remove 10. Keep 5. Other 1. Total Votes 16.
2: National Draft rule 2hr & 24hr remains, but for the first round, if it goes over, you get the next allocated AFL drafted player. Also if you log on prior to the next coach pick, you can change the allocated pick.
National Draft rule 2hr & 24hr remains. Voting Results:
3. Points Cap, tho previously discussed & defeated.
Points Cap. Voting Results:
4. Finalise squads after AFL Draft, meaning if players (who are currently on a AXV list) are delisted and get picked up. AXV Clubs will know before finalising.
Finalise squads after AFL Draft. Voting Results:
5. Bidding process for returning AFL players, returning players who have been out of the AFL system for at least one year. They will not be on a current AXV list. The Club who last owned that player will get to match any bid prior to the AXV Nat draft.
Bidding process for returning AFL players. Voting Results:
6. Team Submission, (A) Keep the current naming of team. (B) Submit the traditional way & as well use UF.
Team Submission. Voting Results:
7. Players Positions, (A) Maintain the current Virtual Sports. (B) Adopt UF's positions at start of the season.**Note saying if this gets voted in, would then require another vote on to "Allow In-Season Updates."
Players Positions. Voting Results:
8. Play through the bye rounds, Play through or have all these nominated bye rounds off. Wording added "all these" to implement any others that may occur.
Play through bye rounds. Voting Results:
9. Leadership Group, In the week leading up to the first round of the season, each team must nominate 5 players on their list to form their leadership group. The Captain, Vice-Captain or Co-Captain's you select on any given game, MUST come from this group.
Leadership Group. Voting Results:
Have resent for voting Rule 2 to the coaches that have currently not voted.
Rules 3 4 & 5 feel that these need to be implemented prior to the seasons ending, so when the results from Rule 2 are in will send out rule 3.
Okay, so I don't think I've ever made a secret of how much I hate how the byes work in the comp, it's arguably the worst rule across the entire XVs imo. I rather we not play the byes at all like Euros. There's only marginally more activity here so it's not like people will miss the action. Although a 3 week hiatus is kinda counterproductive in terms of activity. I really that's extremely contradictory, but I guess unless there's some kind of like all stars game that other comps have, there's no real other solution.
I don't mind if we scrap playing over the byes, but it would have to be replaced with something. Can't have 3 weeks of nothing imo
We could use something similar to the WXVs fixture and still get the Rounds in across the 3 weeks
Or, something a little different, instead of a best XV each week what about condensing it down for the bye period? Best X? Best VIII?
Quote from: Ricochet on June 14, 2017, 12:39:42 PM
I don't mind if we scrap playing over the byes, but it would have to be replaced with something. Can't have 3 weeks of nothing imo
We could use something similar to the WXVs fixture and still get the Rounds in across the 3 weeks
Or, something a little different, instead of a best XV each week what about condensing it down for the bye period? Best X? Best VIII?
I'm okay with the idea of condensing it down.
Quote from: Ricochet on June 14, 2017, 12:39:42 PM
I don't mind if we scrap playing over the byes, but it would have to be replaced with something. Can't have 3 weeks of nothing imo
We could use something similar to the WXVs fixture and still get the Rounds in across the 3 weeks
Or, something a little different, instead of a best XV each week what about condensing it down for the bye period? Best X? Best VIII?
If you want to condense, don't need to condense too much. 3-4-1-3-1 (3) should be fine.
Something like Worlds could work here tbh
INCDOCHINA TERRITORAL (Territoral Chinese Countries + Indochina pensinsulan countries) (Vietnam, Laos, Taiwan, Mongolia, Hong Kong, Tibet, KL, Bangkok)
WEST-SOUTH ASIAN ALLIANCE (West Asia, Subcontinent, Rest of South East Asia, PNG & AUS) (UAE, Turkey, Australia, PNG, Manila, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Kathmandu)
OR
INDOCHINA TERRITORIAL IGUANAS (Vietnam, Laos, Taiwan, Mongolia, Hong Kong, Tibet)
WEST ASIAN WARRIORS (Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Kathmandu, UAE, Turkey)
SOUTH EAST AUSTRALALASIA ANTELOPES (Australia, PNG, Manila, Bangkok, KL)
OR
TERRITORIAL (Taiwan, Mongolia, Hong Kong, Tibet)
WA/SC (UAE, Bangladesh, Turkey, Sri Lanka)
INDOCHINA + KATHMANDU (lol) (Laos, Bangkok, Vietnam, Kathmandu)
SEA (Manila, Australia, PNG, KL
OR
NORTH (Mongolia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tibet)
WEST (Turkey, UAE, Kathmandu, Sri Lanka)
SOUTH (Australia, PNG, Manila, KL)
CENTRAL (Vietnam, Laos, Bangladesh, Bangkok)
OR
OILERS (Turkey, UAE)
SHERPAS (Kathmandu, Tibet)
ARE WE REALLY ASIANS? (Australia, PNG)
LADYBOYS (Bangkok, Manila)
GUERILLAS (Vietnam, Laos)
CRICKETERS (Sri Lanka, Bangladesh)
FLOWER OFF CHINA (Mongolia, Taiwan)
AIRPORTS N' STUFF (Hong Kong, KL)
----
I think representatives would be a lot more interesting than condensed/staggered bye scoring, if we were to change how things operate.
Would like to put forward a proposal for 2018 that the fixture be done so that the remaining 4 games after we play everyone once are truly random, and not just the first 4 teams you played against early in the season.
Quote from: Koop on June 24, 2017, 05:24:28 PM
Would like to put forward a proposal for 2018 that the fixture be done so that the remaining 4 games after we play everyone once are truly random, and not just the first 4 teams you played against early in the season.
or if rule 8 gets up where we don't play through the bye rounds (4 this year) then that is / would be solved? Do the suggestion of your earlier post re playing a series like worlds etc.
Quote from: nas on June 24, 2017, 05:32:44 PM
Quote from: Koop on June 24, 2017, 05:24:28 PM
Would like to put forward a proposal for 2018 that the fixture be done so that the remaining 4 games after we play everyone once are truly random, and not just the first 4 teams you played against early in the season.
or if rule 8 gets up where we don't play through the bye rounds (4 this year) then that is / would be solved? Do the suggestion of your earlier post re playing a series like worlds etc.
Actually yeah fair comment, and odd round could be a rivalry round?
Quote from: nas on June 09, 2017, 08:32:17 AM
Quote from: nas on January 09, 2017, 10:46:06 AM
Looking at what has been discussed so far in this thread http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,108074.0.html thinking that we should set out a list in preparation for discussion prion to this 2017 seasons completion.
1: Removal of Rookie List, meaning squad of 46 players. Saying if this gets up will also mean removal of the LTI thread also.
Rookie list to be removed. Voting Results: Remove 10. Keep 5. Other 1. Total Votes 16.
2: National Draft rule 2hr & 24hr remains, but for the first round, if it goes over, you get the next allocated AFL drafted player. Also if you log on prior to the next coach pick, you can change the allocated pick.
National Draft rule 2hr & 24hr remains. Voting Results:
3. Points Cap, tho previously discussed & defeated.
Points Cap. Voting Results:
4. Finalise squads after AFL Draft, meaning if players (who are currently on a AXV list) are delisted and get picked up. AXV Clubs will know before finalising.
Finalise squads after AFL Draft. Voting Results:
5. Bidding process for returning AFL players, returning players who have been out of the AFL system for at least one year. They will not be on a current AXV list. The Club who last owned that player will get to match any bid prior to the AXV Nat draft.
Bidding process for returning AFL players. Voting Results:
6. Team Submission, (A) Keep the current naming of team. (B) Submit the traditional way & as well use UF.
Team Submission. Voting Results:
7. Players Positions, (A) Maintain the current Virtual Sports. (B) Adopt UF's positions at start of the season.**Note saying if this gets voted in, would then require another vote on to "Allow In-Season Updates."
Players Positions. Voting Results:
8. Play through the bye rounds, Play through or have all these nominated bye rounds off. Wording added "all these" to implement any others that may occur.
Play through bye rounds. Voting Results:
9. Leadership Group, In the week leading up to the first round of the season, each team must nominate 5 players on their list to form their leadership group. The Captain, Vice-Captain or Co-Captain's you select on any given game, MUST come from this group.
Leadership Group. Voting Results:
Have resent for voting Rule 2 to the coaches that have currently not voted.
Rules 3 4 & 5 feel that these need to be implemented prior to the seasons ending, so when the results from Rule 2 are in will send out rule 3.
With 4 rounds to go for the seasons end & then finals, these rules above will need to be voted on prior to trading & drafts.
Know that being harped on, but this way trading & drafting won't be held up.
Quote from: nas on July 06, 2017, 06:21:42 PM
Quote from: nas on June 09, 2017, 08:32:17 AM
Quote from: nas on January 09, 2017, 10:46:06 AM
Looking at what has been discussed so far in this thread http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,108074.0.html thinking that we should set out a list in preparation for discussion prion to this 2017 seasons completion.
1: Removal of Rookie List, meaning squad of 46 players. Saying if this gets up will also mean removal of the LTI thread also.
Rookie list to be removed. Voting Results: Remove 10. Keep 5. Other 1. Total Votes 16.
2: National Draft rule 2hr & 24hr remains, but for the first round, if it goes over, you get the next allocated AFL drafted player. Also if you log on prior to the next coach pick, you can change the allocated pick.
National Draft rule 2hr & 24hr remains. Voting Results: Yes 10. No 4. Awaiting Votes 2
3. Points Cap, tho previously discussed & defeated.
Points Cap. Voting Results:
4. Finalise squads after AFL Draft, meaning if players (who are currently on a AXV list) are delisted and get picked up. AXV Clubs will know before finalising.
Finalise squads after AFL Draft. Voting Results:
5. Bidding process for returning AFL players, returning players who have been out of the AFL system for at least one year. They will not be on a current AXV list. The Club who last owned that player will get to match any bid prior to the AXV Nat draft.
Bidding process for returning AFL players. Voting Results:
6. Team Submission, (A) Keep the current naming of team. (B) Submit the traditional way & as well use UF.
Team Submission. Voting Results:
7. Players Positions, (A) Maintain the current Virtual Sports. (B) Adopt UF's positions at start of the season.**Note saying if this gets voted in, would then require another vote on to "Allow In-Season Updates."
Players Positions. Voting Results:
8. Play through the bye rounds, Play through or have all these nominated bye rounds off. Wording added "all these" to implement any others that may occur.
Play through bye rounds. Voting Results:
9. Leadership Group, In the week leading up to the first round of the season, each team must nominate 5 players on their list to form their leadership group. The Captain, Vice-Captain or Co-Captain's you select on any given game, MUST come from this group.
Leadership Group. Voting Results:
Have resent for voting Rule 2 to the coaches that have currently not voted.
Rules 3 4 & 5 feel that these need to be implemented prior to the seasons ending, so when the results from Rule 2 are in will send out rule 3.
With 4 rounds to go for the seasons end & then finals, these rules above will need to be voted on prior to trading & drafts.
Know that being harped on, but this way trading & drafting won't be held up.
Rule 2 has gone over by a majority & passed & will be implemented for the upcoming draft.
What is this points cap??
what about a vote on some sort of penalty for not voting on rule changes!!
:)
Progressing along, 6 5 4 coaches remaining to vote on the rules: #3, #4, & #5.
Can we get rid of the leadership groups? I dont see much benefit to them and they are just a little extra work?
Quote from: iZander on August 04, 2017, 06:12:55 PM
Can we get rid of the leadership groups? I dont see much benefit to them and they are just a little extra work?
Will be in the next batch to be sent & voted on. Still need 4 Coaches to vote as per above your post!
We have leadership groups? ???
Quote from: Nige on August 04, 2017, 08:13:36 PM
We have leadership groups? ???
No a vote (#9) to be asked whether we have one or not.
Quote from: nas on August 01, 2017, 09:02:05 PM
Quote from: nas on July 06, 2017, 06:21:42 PM
Quote from: nas on June 09, 2017, 08:32:17 AM
Quote from: nas on January 09, 2017, 10:46:06 AM
Looking at what has been discussed so far in this thread http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,108074.0.html thinking that we should set out a list in preparation for discussion prion to this 2017 seasons completion.
1: Removal of Rookie List, meaning squad of 46 players. Saying if this gets up will also mean removal of the LTI thread also.
Rookie list to be removed. Voting Results: Remove 10. Keep 5. Other 1. Total Votes 16.
2: National Draft rule 2hr & 24hr remains, but for the first round, if it goes over, you get the next allocated AFL drafted player. Also if you log on prior to the next coach pick, you can change the allocated pick.
National Draft rule 2hr & 24hr remains. Voting Results: Yes 10. No 4. Awaiting Votes 1
3. Points Cap, tho previously discussed & defeated.
Points Cap. Voting Results: No 11. Yes 4. Awaiting Votes 2.
4. Finalise squads after AFL Draft, meaning if players (who are currently on a AXV list) are delisted and get picked up. AXV Clubs will know before finalising.
Finalise squads after AFL Draft. Voting Results: Yes 9. No 5. Awaiting Votes 2.
5. Bidding process for returning AFL players, returning players who have been out of the AFL system for at least one year. They will not be on a current AXV list. The Club who last owned that player will get to match any bid prior to the AXV Nat draft.
Bidding process for returning AFL players. Voting Results: Yes 10. No 4. Awaiting Votes 2.
6. Team Submission, (A) Keep the current naming of team. (B) Submit the traditional way & as well use UF.
Team Submission. Voting Results:
7. Players Positions, (A) Maintain the current Virtual Sports. (B) Adopt UF's positions at start of the season.**Note saying if this gets voted in, would then require another vote on to "Allow In-Season Updates."
Players Positions. Voting Results:
8. Play through the bye rounds, Play through or have all these nominated bye rounds off. Wording added "all these" to implement any others that may occur.
Play through bye rounds. Voting Results:
9. Leadership Group, In the week leading up to the first round of the season, each team must nominate 5 players on their list to form their leadership group. The Captain, Vice-Captain or Co-Captain's you select on any given game, MUST come from this group.
Leadership Group. Voting Results: Yes 1. No 10. Awaiting Votes 5
Have resent for voting Rule 2 to the coaches that have currently not voted.
Rules 3 4 & 5 feel that these need to be implemented prior to the seasons ending, so when the results from Rule 2 are in will send out rule 3.
With 4 rounds to go for the seasons end & then finals, these rules above will need to be voted on prior to trading & drafts.
Know that being harped on, but this way trading & drafting won't be held up.
Rule 2 has gone over by a majority & passed & will be implemented for the upcoming draft.
Rule 3 Defeated for the 2nd year in a row now.
Rule 4 Finalise squad after the Draft is in.
Rule 5 Bidding on players after a year out of system
PM will be sent out soon for voting on #6, #8 & #9.
**Note #7 is a 3 part vote so will be the last one sent.
Thanks for all that have responded.
Can I just try and clarify, what #6 is trying to go between?
We currently do what B says dont we?
Quote from: SydneyRox on August 06, 2017, 11:10:36 PM
Can I just try and clarify, what #6 is trying to go between?
We currently do what B says dont we?
So the way AXVs currently holds team submissions
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
vs
The way literally every other comp does
xxxx
xxxx
x
xxxx
xx
xxx
oh, is that all?
thanks nige!
I kinda like the different!
Quote from: nas on August 04, 2017, 09:13:33 PM
Quote from: nas on August 01, 2017, 09:02:05 PM
Quote from: nas on July 06, 2017, 06:21:42 PM
Quote from: nas on June 09, 2017, 08:32:17 AM
Quote from: nas on January 09, 2017, 10:46:06 AM
Looking at what has been discussed so far in this thread http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,108074.0.html thinking that we should set out a list in preparation for discussion prion to this 2017 seasons completion.
1: Removal of Rookie List, meaning squad of 46 players. Saying if this gets up will also mean removal of the LTI thread also.
Rookie list to be removed. Voting Results: Remove 10. Keep 5. Other 1. Total Votes 16.
2: National Draft rule 2hr & 24hr remains, but for the first round, if it goes over, you get the next allocated AFL drafted player. Also if you log on prior to the next coach pick, you can change the allocated pick.
National Draft rule 2hr & 24hr remains. Voting Results: Yes 10. No 4. Awaiting Votes 1
3. Points Cap, tho previously discussed & defeated.
Points Cap. Voting Results: No 11. Yes 4. Awaiting Votes 2.
4. Finalise squads after AFL Draft, meaning if players (who are currently on a AXV list) are delisted and get picked up. AXV Clubs will know before finalising.
Finalise squads after AFL Draft. Voting Results: Yes 9. No 5. Awaiting Votes 2.
5. Bidding process for returning AFL players, returning players who have been out of the AFL system for at least one year. They will not be on a current AXV list. The Club who last owned that player will get to match any bid prior to the AXV Nat draft.
Bidding process for returning AFL players. Voting Results: Yes 10. No 4. Awaiting Votes 2.
6. Team Submission, (A) Keep the current naming of team. (B) Submit the traditional way & as well use UF.
Team Submission. Voting Results:
7. Players Positions, (A) Maintain the current Virtual Sports. (B) Adopt UF's positions at start of the season.**Note saying if this gets voted in, would then require another vote on to "Allow In-Season Updates."
Players Positions. Voting Results:
8. Play through the bye rounds, Play through or have all these nominated bye rounds off. Wording added "all these" to implement any others that may occur.
Play through bye rounds. Voting Results:
9. Leadership Group, In the week leading up to the first round of the season, each team must nominate 5 players on their list to form their leadership group. The Captain, Vice-Captain or Co-Captain's you select on any given game, MUST come from this group.
Leadership Group. Voting Results: Yes 3. No 12. Awaiting Votes 1
Have resent for voting Rule 2 to the coaches that have currently not voted.
Rules 3 4 & 5 feel that these need to be implemented prior to the seasons ending, so when the results from Rule 2 are in will send out rule 3.
With 4 rounds to go for the seasons end & then finals, these rules above will need to be voted on prior to trading & drafts.
Know that being harped on, but this way trading & drafting won't be held up.
Rule 2 has gone over by a majority & passed & will be implemented for the upcoming draft.
Rule 3 Defeated for the 2nd year in a row now.
Rule 4 Finalise squad after the Draft is in.
Rule 5 Bidding on players after a year out of system
PM will be sent out soon for voting on #6, #8 & #9.
**Note #7 is a 3 part vote so will be the last one sent.
Thanks for all that have responded.
Update: #6 & #8 are in the balance.
#9 Leadership group is defeated.
Damn, i like the leadership group concept
Quote from: Ricochet on August 09, 2017, 01:17:44 PM
Damn, i like the leadership group concept
You and one other. :P
Quote from: nas on August 08, 2017, 08:15:02 AM
Quote from: nas on August 04, 2017, 09:13:33 PM
Quote from: nas on August 01, 2017, 09:02:05 PM
Quote from: nas on July 06, 2017, 06:21:42 PM
Quote from: nas on June 09, 2017, 08:32:17 AM
Quote from: nas on January 09, 2017, 10:46:06 AM
Looking at what has been discussed so far in this thread http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,108074.0.html thinking that we should set out a list in preparation for discussion prion to this 2017 seasons completion.
1: Removal of Rookie List, meaning squad of 46 players. Saying if this gets up will also mean removal of the LTI thread also.
Rookie list to be removed. Voting Results: Remove 10. Keep 5. Other 1. Total Votes 16.
2: National Draft rule 2hr & 24hr remains, but for the first round, if it goes over, you get the next allocated AFL drafted player. Also if you log on prior to the next coach pick, you can change the allocated pick.
National Draft rule 2hr & 24hr remains. Voting Results: Yes 10. No 4. Awaiting Votes 1
3. Points Cap, tho previously discussed & defeated.
Points Cap. Voting Results: No 11. Yes 4. Awaiting Votes 2.
4. Finalise squads after AFL Draft, meaning if players (who are currently on a AXV list) are delisted and get picked up. AXV Clubs will know before finalising.
Finalise squads after AFL Draft. Voting Results: Yes 9. No 5. Awaiting Votes 2.
5. Bidding process for returning AFL players, returning players who have been out of the AFL system for at least one year. They will not be on a current AXV list. The Club who last owned that player will get to match any bid prior to the AXV Nat draft.
Bidding process for returning AFL players. Voting Results: Yes 10. No 4. Awaiting Votes 2.
6. Team Submission, (A) Keep the current naming of team. (B) Submit the traditional way & as well use UF.
Team Submission. Voting Results: Current 8. Traditional 8
7. Players Positions, (A) Maintain the current Virtual Sports. (B) Adopt UF's positions at start of the season.**Note saying if this gets voted in, would then require another vote on to "Allow In-Season Updates."
Players Positions. Voting Results:
8. Play through the bye rounds, Play through or have all these nominated bye rounds off. Wording added "all these" to implement any others that may occur.
Play through bye rounds. Voting Results: Play through 8. Have off 8.
9. Leadership Group, In the week leading up to the first round of the season, each team must nominate 5 players on their list to form their leadership group. The Captain, Vice-Captain or Co-Captain's you select on any given game, MUST come from this group.
Leadership Group. Voting Results: Yes 3. No 12. Awaiting Votes 1
Have resent for voting Rule 2 to the coaches that have currently not voted.
Rules 3 4 & 5 feel that these need to be implemented prior to the seasons ending, so when the results from Rule 2 are in will send out rule 3.
With 4 rounds to go for the seasons end & then finals, these rules above will need to be voted on prior to trading & drafts.
Know that being harped on, but this way trading & drafting won't be held up.
Rule 2 has gone over by a majority & passed & will be implemented for the upcoming draft.
Rule 3 Defeated for the 2nd year in a row now.
Rule 4 Finalise squad after the Draft is in.
Rule 5 Bidding on players after a year out of system
PM will be sent out soon for voting on #6, #8 & #9.
**Note #7 is a 3 part vote so will be the last one sent.
Thanks for all that have responded.
Update: #6 & #8 are in the balance.
#9 Leadership group is defeated.
Rule #6 has come in even, so the current way of naming teams stays.
Rule #8 has come in even so we play through the bye rounds.
Rule #7 will be sending out soon to be voted on.
Wow.
Quote from: Nige on August 12, 2017, 12:27:59 PM
Wow.
The way the question was written was worded poorly, why does UF only have to be updated if we swap naming formats?
Quote from: iZander on August 12, 2017, 12:39:16 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 12, 2017, 12:27:59 PM
Wow.
The way the question was written was worded poorly, why does UF only have to be updated if we swap naming formats?
The wording across the board for all questions has been shocking, barely understandable in some cases.
Quote from: fanTCfool on August 12, 2017, 01:07:07 PM
Quote from: iZander on August 12, 2017, 12:39:16 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 12, 2017, 12:27:59 PM
Wow.
The way the question was written was worded poorly, why does UF only have to be updated if we swap naming formats?
The wording across the board for all questions has been shocking, barely understandable in some cases.
mmm, id like to get a vote to either keep current naming format or name it the normal way would be great
Have a vote on whether the questions need to be re-worded :P
Why wait till 9 questions to be answered before highlighting the 'wording' of the questions?
If people needed clarification then just ask on the thread.
My read on the question:
6. Team Submission, (A) Keep the current naming of team. (B) Submit the traditional way & as well use UF.
(A) Keep it the way it is which is easy for me to update UF because UF structure is the same
(B) If people wanted to go to the usual def def def def etc team naming, then it should be mandatory that they update UF as well.
I do not see any issue with the wording of the question.
Quote from: Rids on August 12, 2017, 01:44:07 PM
Why wait till 9 questions to be answered before highlighting the 'wording' of the questions?
If people needed clarification then just ask on the thread.
My read on the question:
6. Team Submission, (A) Keep the current naming of team. (B) Submit the traditional way & as well use UF.
(A) Keep it the way it is which is easy for me to update UF because UF structure is the same
(B) If people wanted to go to the usual def def def def etc team naming, then it should be mandatory that they update UF as well.
I do not see any issue with the wording of the question.
If you need to break a question down with your take on things, obviously it is not clear enough 8)
Quote from: fanTCfool on August 12, 2017, 01:55:53 PM
Quote from: Rids on August 12, 2017, 01:44:07 PM
Why wait till 9 questions to be answered before highlighting the 'wording' of the questions?
If people needed clarification then just ask on the thread.
My read on the question:
6. Team Submission, (A) Keep the current naming of team. (B) Submit the traditional way & as well use UF.
(A) Keep it the way it is which is easy for me to update UF because UF structure is the same
(B) If people wanted to go to the usual def def def def etc team naming, then it should be mandatory that they update UF as well.
I do not see any issue with the wording of the question.
If you need to break a question down with your take on things, obviously it is not clear enough 8)
I never wrote the question. I just read it and answered it. I am just sharing my understanding on what the question was and why it was worded that way.
Quote from: Rids on August 12, 2017, 01:58:17 PM
Quote from: fanTCfool on August 12, 2017, 01:55:53 PM
Quote from: Rids on August 12, 2017, 01:44:07 PM
Why wait till 9 questions to be answered before highlighting the 'wording' of the questions?
If people needed clarification then just ask on the thread.
My read on the question:
6. Team Submission, (A) Keep the current naming of team. (B) Submit the traditional way & as well use UF.
(A) Keep it the way it is which is easy for me to update UF because UF structure is the same
(B) If people wanted to go to the usual def def def def etc team naming, then it should be mandatory that they update UF as well.
I do not see any issue with the wording of the question.
If you need to break a question down with your take on things, obviously it is not clear enough 8)
I never wrote the question. I just read it and answered it. I am just sharing my understanding on what the question was and why it was worded that way.
What part of that contradicts anything I just said?
Quote from: fanTCfool on August 12, 2017, 02:00:03 PM
Quote from: Rids on August 12, 2017, 01:58:17 PM
Quote from: fanTCfool on August 12, 2017, 01:55:53 PM
Quote from: Rids on August 12, 2017, 01:44:07 PM
Why wait till 9 questions to be answered before highlighting the 'wording' of the questions?
If people needed clarification then just ask on the thread.
My read on the question:
6. Team Submission, (A) Keep the current naming of team. (B) Submit the traditional way & as well use UF.
(A) Keep it the way it is which is easy for me to update UF because UF structure is the same
(B) If people wanted to go to the usual def def def def etc team naming, then it should be mandatory that they update UF as well.
I do not see any issue with the wording of the question.
If you need to break a question down with your take on things, obviously it is not clear enough 8)
I never wrote the question. I just read it and answered it. I am just sharing my understanding on what the question was and why it was worded that way.
What part of that contradicts anything I just said?
The questions understandable, except it doesnt ask what was actually raised in the rule change thread...it has extra steps to it, which were tacked on.
Quote from: fanTCfool on August 12, 2017, 02:00:03 PM
Quote from: Rids on August 12, 2017, 01:58:17 PM
Quote from: fanTCfool on August 12, 2017, 01:55:53 PM
Quote from: Rids on August 12, 2017, 01:44:07 PM
Why wait till 9 questions to be answered before highlighting the 'wording' of the questions?
If people needed clarification then just ask on the thread.
My read on the question:
6. Team Submission, (A) Keep the current naming of team. (B) Submit the traditional way & as well use UF.
(A) Keep it the way it is which is easy for me to update UF because UF structure is the same
(B) If people wanted to go to the usual def def def def etc team naming, then it should be mandatory that they update UF as well.
I do not see any issue with the wording of the question.
If you need to break a question down with your take on things, obviously it is not clear enough 8)
I never wrote the question. I just read it and answered it. I am just sharing my understanding on what the question was and why it was worded that way.
What part of that contradicts anything I just said?
Not sure why this discussion is really required. A question was asked why it was worded that way and I replied.
I also covered your issue by saying if there is any problems or clarification required to post.
Quote from: iZander on August 12, 2017, 02:02:50 PM
Quote from: fanTCfool on August 12, 2017, 02:00:03 PM
Quote from: Rids on August 12, 2017, 01:58:17 PM
Quote from: fanTCfool on August 12, 2017, 01:55:53 PM
Quote from: Rids on August 12, 2017, 01:44:07 PM
Why wait till 9 questions to be answered before highlighting the 'wording' of the questions?
If people needed clarification then just ask on the thread.
My read on the question:
6. Team Submission, (A) Keep the current naming of team. (B) Submit the traditional way & as well use UF.
(A) Keep it the way it is which is easy for me to update UF because UF structure is the same
(B) If people wanted to go to the usual def def def def etc team naming, then it should be mandatory that they update UF as well.
I do not see any issue with the wording of the question.
If you need to break a question down with your take on things, obviously it is not clear enough 8)
I never wrote the question. I just read it and answered it. I am just sharing my understanding on what the question was and why it was worded that way.
What part of that contradicts anything I just said?
The questions understandable, except it doesnt ask what was actually raised in the rule change thread...it has extra steps to it, which were tacked on.
Then address that before the question has been asked. This question has been sent out and voted on already. If there was any confusion there should have been a message or post asking for clarification.
Quote from: Rids on August 12, 2017, 02:12:52 PM
Quote from: iZander on August 12, 2017, 02:02:50 PM
Quote from: fanTCfool on August 12, 2017, 02:00:03 PM
Quote from: Rids on August 12, 2017, 01:58:17 PM
Quote from: fanTCfool on August 12, 2017, 01:55:53 PM
Quote from: Rids on August 12, 2017, 01:44:07 PM
Why wait till 9 questions to be answered before highlighting the 'wording' of the questions?
If people needed clarification then just ask on the thread.
My read on the question:
6. Team Submission, (A) Keep the current naming of team. (B) Submit the traditional way & as well use UF.
(A) Keep it the way it is which is easy for me to update UF because UF structure is the same
(B) If people wanted to go to the usual def def def def etc team naming, then it should be mandatory that they update UF as well.
I do not see any issue with the wording of the question.
If you need to break a question down with your take on things, obviously it is not clear enough 8)
I never wrote the question. I just read it and answered it. I am just sharing my understanding on what the question was and why it was worded that way.
What part of that contradicts anything I just said?
The questions understandable, except it doesnt ask what was actually raised in the rule change thread...it has extra steps to it, which were tacked on.
Then address that before the question has been asked. This question has been sent out and voted on already. If there was any confusion there should have been a message or post asking for clarification.
The question was raised in the discussion thread previously, im just asking that it be sent out
Quote from: iZander on August 12, 2017, 02:18:32 PM
Quote from: Rids on August 12, 2017, 02:12:52 PM
Quote from: iZander on August 12, 2017, 02:02:50 PM
Quote from: fanTCfool on August 12, 2017, 02:00:03 PM
Quote from: Rids on August 12, 2017, 01:58:17 PM
Quote from: fanTCfool on August 12, 2017, 01:55:53 PM
Quote from: Rids on August 12, 2017, 01:44:07 PM
Why wait till 9 questions to be answered before highlighting the 'wording' of the questions?
If people needed clarification then just ask on the thread.
My read on the question:
6. Team Submission, (A) Keep the current naming of team. (B) Submit the traditional way & as well use UF.
(A) Keep it the way it is which is easy for me to update UF because UF structure is the same
(B) If people wanted to go to the usual def def def def etc team naming, then it should be mandatory that they update UF as well.
I do not see any issue with the wording of the question.
If you need to break a question down with your take on things, obviously it is not clear enough 8)
I never wrote the question. I just read it and answered it. I am just sharing my understanding on what the question was and why it was worded that way.
What part of that contradicts anything I just said?
The questions understandable, except it doesnt ask what was actually raised in the rule change thread...it has extra steps to it, which were tacked on.
Then address that before the question has been asked. This question has been sent out and voted on already. If there was any confusion there should have been a message or post asking for clarification.
The question was raised in the discussion thread previously, im just asking that it be sent out
We can revisit after the remainder of the questions have been completed and the finals series has finished. There is a lot to be done before the first trade period opens.
Quote from: nas on August 12, 2017, 12:08:29 PM
Quote from: nas on August 08, 2017, 08:15:02 AM
Quote from: nas on August 04, 2017, 09:13:33 PM
Quote from: nas on August 01, 2017, 09:02:05 PM
Quote from: nas on July 06, 2017, 06:21:42 PM
Quote from: nas on June 09, 2017, 08:32:17 AM
Quote from: nas on January 09, 2017, 10:46:06 AM
Looking at what has been discussed so far in this thread http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,108074.0.html thinking that we should set out a list in preparation for discussion prion to this 2017 seasons completion.
1: Removal of Rookie List, meaning squad of 46 players. Saying if this gets up will also mean removal of the LTI thread also.
Rookie list to be removed. Voting Results: Remove 10. Keep 5. Other 1. Total Votes 16.
2: National Draft rule 2hr & 24hr remains, but for the first round, if it goes over, you get the next allocated AFL drafted player. Also if you log on prior to the next coach pick, you can change the allocated pick.
National Draft rule 2hr & 24hr remains. Voting Results: Yes 10. No 4. Awaiting Votes 1
3. Points Cap, tho previously discussed & defeated.
Points Cap. Voting Results: No 11. Yes 4. Awaiting Votes 2.
4. Finalise squads after AFL Draft, meaning if players (who are currently on a AXV list) are delisted and get picked up. AXV Clubs will know before finalising.
Finalise squads after AFL Draft. Voting Results: Yes 9. No 5. Awaiting Votes 2.
5. Bidding process for returning AFL players, returning players who have been out of the AFL system for at least one year. They will not be on a current AXV list. The Club who last owned that player will get to match any bid prior to the AXV Nat draft.
Bidding process for returning AFL players. Voting Results: Yes 10. No 4. Awaiting Votes 2.
6. Team Submission, (A) Keep the current naming of team. (B) Submit the traditional way & as well use UF.
Team Submission. Voting Results: Current 8. Traditional 8
7. Players Positions, (A) Maintain the current Virtual Sports. (B) Adopt UF's positions at start of the season.**Note saying if this gets voted in, would then require another vote on to "Allow In-Season Updates."
Players Positions. Voting Results: Maintain 9. Adopt 6. Not Voted 1.
8. Play through the bye rounds, Play through or have all these nominated bye rounds off. Wording added "all these" to implement any others that may occur.
Play through bye rounds. Voting Results: Play through 8. Have off 8.
9. Leadership Group, In the week leading up to the first round of the season, each team must nominate 5 players on their list to form their leadership group. The Captain, Vice-Captain or Co-Captain's you select on any given game, MUST come from this group.
Leadership Group. Voting Results: Yes 3. No 12. Awaiting Votes 1
Have resent for voting Rule 2 to the coaches that have currently not voted.
Rules 3 4 & 5 feel that these need to be implemented prior to the seasons ending, so when the results from Rule 2 are in will send out rule 3.
With 4 rounds to go for the seasons end & then finals, these rules above will need to be voted on prior to trading & drafts.
Know that being harped on, but this way trading & drafting won't be held up.
Rule 2 has gone over by a majority & passed & will be implemented for the upcoming draft.
Rule 3 Defeated for the 2nd year in a row now.
Rule 4 Finalise squad after the Draft is in.
Rule 5 Bidding on players after a year out of system
PM will be sent out soon for voting on #6, #8 & #9.
**Note #7 is a 3 part vote so will be the last one sent.
Thanks for all that have responded.
Update: #6 & #8 are in the balance.
#9 Leadership group is defeated.
Rule #6 has come in even, so the current way of naming teams stays.
Rule #8 has come in even so we play through the bye rounds.
Rule #7 will be sending out soon to be voted on.
Rule #7: We maintain using the current.
What tha?? Did people understand what they were voting for??
How do you maintain the Virtual sports positions, when virtual sports dont exist??
We would use what ever UF says for new players surely, so at some point the VS ones will be dead anyway?
Quote from: SydneyRox on August 17, 2017, 07:20:20 PM
What tha?? Did people understand what they were voting for??
How do you maintain the Virtual sports positions, when virtual sports dont exist??
We would use what ever UF says for new players surely, so at some point the VS ones will be dead anyway?
VS do exist, they're the company behind both the DreamTeam and Supercoach platforms.
Both them and AF get their positions from Champion Data. AF introduces DPP's throughout the year, SC and DT don't.
UF use their own positions (may use CD but with some alterations, not sure on specifics, but there is some differences).
So the vote essentially was
A. Keep the fixed Champion Data positions that VS uses across their platforms from the start of the year (IE no one changes throughout the year.
B. Use UF positions
If B won, then another vote was going to be sent out regarding whether to lock positions at the start of the year, or incorporate UF's DPP positions throughout the year.
BXV use UF positions locked at the start of the year. For example, I was able to name Daniel Rich as a defender in BXV because he was given D status by UF from the outset. He did not have D status in any of the classic competitions. As such nas (I think?) was only able to use him as a midfielder in AXV this year.)
I voted to maintain, less discrepancies I have to remember as I mainly focus on the classic competitions. :P
Question probably could've been phrased as Champion Data positions, but I assume most people understood what the vote was. :)
By VS I meant the scoring platform, which we used to use not the company, which is why we went to UF to make life easier
Quote from: Koop on August 17, 2017, 08:33:51 PM
I voted to maintain, less discrepancies I have to remember as I mainly focus on the classic competitions. :P
wouldn't it be easier to use the platform that the teams are all stored on?
who is managing/maintaining the position differences now?
VS = Virtual Sports who run DreamTeam and SuperCoach. I wanted to differentiate between those 2 comps and AFL Fantasy who also have mid season position changes.
UF has the option to choose either those positions or to use UF positions hence the question. And another option to incorporate mid season position changes.
It really isn't that difficult.
UF is only being used as a tool for the mods to finalise the weekly scoring/match-ups, create draws and maintain ladders throughout the season.
Quote from: Rids on August 18, 2017, 02:31:37 PM
UF is only being used as a tool for the mods to finalise the weekly scoring/match-ups, create draws and maintain ladders throughout the season.
Exactly. We're not an Ultimate Footy competition.
Quote from: Rids on August 18, 2017, 02:29:14 PM
UF has the option to choose either those positions or to use UF positions hence the question. And another option to incorporate mid season position changes.
now this i didnt realise, thought that once on UF, thats the positions that came through.
so it cancels out my arguments against, thanks Rids.
Not that I mind playing through the Byes, a few ideas that could be considered if Coaches want to make it easier to field a full team.
Teams only have to name 13 players or) Teams still name 15, but players can be named in any position.
Personally don't see an issue, it tests playing depth. No salary cap, so no reason not to be prepared for them.
Weaker Clubs can get a few upset wins against undermanned bigger Clubs and I think that's a good thing.