Writing these up as they happen.
1. teams should only be able to take their supplement picks ie if lists are 41 they get their 42nd 43rd player after everyone has 41 on their list. Teams lose picks they do not use, this means they should trade their value before the draft and that teams arent getting better players with supplement picks then actual real list spots.
alternatively we draft to 41 and then have players left over.
2. live trading untill the PSD where list lodgement and desliting does not occur till after the nat. We have live trading of pick and players during the national draft then a break and PSD later. this means teams can actually do moves during the draft and not limited to players. it also makes the PSD more relevant.
3. remove flood and attack
-If a rule has been voted on, it can't be voted on again the following year.
Stops voting on the same thing every season.
-The number of clubs involved in a single trade should be capped. Maybe 4 or 5 max.
With majority of clubs involved in a one multi trade, it basically can never be blocked.
Hey all :D
The majority has revealed itself with a resounding 'yes' (about 70%) for rule discussion, so lets get stuck into it :o
ANYONE can nominate a rule change, and it will be voted on. However, be sure there is adequate explanation to validate your proposed change.
Every now and then throughout the year, someone has brought up something they'd like Worlds to do differently. Now is the time to bring that up, and it WILL be voted on. We only have 3 weeks of the year to discuss rules and change them, so use this time wisely. Once the rules have been voted on, THAT IS IT for the next 12 months! (except for the review on the trade voting process that is held after the trade period).
We need all rule changes approved/rejected by Monday the 23rd of August, which probably means I'll leave the final PM no later than August 21st.
As always...
THERE WILL BE A SALARY CAP! It is the only thing that I will enforce, even if against the majority. The only thing I'll entertain is what kind of cap system we implement. It will not go away whilst I'm admin, so suggestions to get rid of it entirely are fruitless.
So with the above in mind, I'll leave the floor open for rule suggestions :)
I'm just gonna put this one out there, just because, why not?
We have no control over how many points are scored vs us, so I'm tabling the idea that we scrap % and Points Against from the ladder
Ladder to be sorted by Premiership Points, and then Points For/Scored to sort the order
In the very rare instance that we have 2+ teams on the same Premiership Points and exact same Points For/Scored, we'd need to come up with something to decide who sits above who, but that would only really need to be factored if it happened at the very last round of the season, which you would think the chances of happening are extremely low (Perhaps the team that won their matchup during the season gets the nod)
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 05, 2021, 08:49:04 PM
I'm just gonna put this one out there, just because, why not?
We have no control over how many points are scored vs us, so I'm tabling the idea that we scrap % and Points Against from the ladder
Ladder to be sorted by Premiership Points, and then Points For/Scored to sort the order
In the very rare instance that we have 2+ teams on the same Premiership Points and exact same Points For/Scored, we'd need to come up with something to decide who sits above who, but that would only really need to be factored if it happened at the very last round of the season, which you would think the chances of happening are extremely low (Perhaps the team that won their matchup during the season gets the nod)
Agree the opposition score already counts for the win and loss
you don't need it doubled up with %.
I hate that idea because generally only x amount of teams really compete through their ability to score more points and therefore get more wins than losses. As a middle table/bottom half team, half the fun for me is my team causing chaos through my team's ability to impact others depending on how tight the win or loss is. Not to mention that the % battles that happen often enough make things interesting.
This isn't me getting personal, but I find it hard to believe this isn't at least partially some sour grapes on New York missing the 8 on % and comfortably having the worst of any team outside the bottom 4 (and even Church's is better).
And of course Holz agrees, he runs Euros which doesn't do % and he's only ever been about building a scoring machine.
We had so many years of WXVs being great for so many reasons, including the impact % has had on teams throughout its rich history, I don't get why we'd throw that away. If it ain't broke...
Quote from: Holz on August 06, 2021, 09:48:31 AM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 05, 2021, 08:49:04 PM
I'm just gonna put this one out there, just because, why not?
We have no control over how many points are scored vs us, so I'm tabling the idea that we scrap % and Points Against from the ladder
Ladder to be sorted by Premiership Points, and then Points For/Scored to sort the order
In the very rare instance that we have 2+ teams on the same Premiership Points and exact same Points For/Scored, we'd need to come up with something to decide who sits above who, but that would only really need to be factored if it happened at the very last round of the season, which you would think the chances of happening are extremely low (Perhaps the team that won their matchup during the season gets the nod)
Agree the opposition score already counts for the win and loss
you don't need it doubled up with %.
Looking at this years table the only effect would be the Armadillos woulds have replaced Wolves in the 8 and positions 11 to 14 would have changed effecting draft order, Also no team scored the exact same number of points.
That being said do we need to change what has been in place since comp started and used by the AFL deciding positions on the ladder,
Quote from: Ringo on August 06, 2021, 10:25:44 AM
Quote from: Holz on August 06, 2021, 09:48:31 AM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 05, 2021, 08:49:04 PM
I'm just gonna put this one out there, just because, why not?
We have no control over how many points are scored vs us, so I'm tabling the idea that we scrap % and Points Against from the ladder
Ladder to be sorted by Premiership Points, and then Points For/Scored to sort the order
In the very rare instance that we have 2+ teams on the same Premiership Points and exact same Points For/Scored, we'd need to come up with something to decide who sits above who, but that would only really need to be factored if it happened at the very last round of the season, which you would think the chances of happening are extremely low (Perhaps the team that won their matchup during the season gets the nod)
Agree the opposition score already counts for the win and loss
you don't need it doubled up with %.
Looking at this years table the only effect would be the Armadillos woulds have replaced Wolves in the 8 and positions 11 to 14 would have changed effecting draft order, Also no team scored the exact same number of points.
That being said do we need to change what has been in place since comp started and used by the AFL deciding positions on the ladder,
The difference in this and the AFL is in the AFL you can physically stop the opposition scoring.
We cant in this comp but that's part of the game, however that's already taken into account in the win and losses.
A good case is Dublin, Say i had a super easy draw and because of that I picked up 1 more win. Im now tied with a team like PNL who scored way more then i did. The soft draw got me 11 wins and it could also get me a % boost. PNL should be the ranked higher as they were the signficantly better team, i already would have got my luck in the weak draw.
I'd like future pick trading discussed.
I think allowing future 1st's to be traded, given the inherently volatile nature of fantasy football scoring, and with changing coaches from time to time would be irresponsible. However, I'd like to float the idea of future 2nd rounders onwards from the next year being available to use.
We obviously don't want another meow situation, but a couple of extra picks provides greater flexibility for coaches to do deals imo.
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 22, 2019, 06:45:41 PM
... But you can't control how much points you score either? You draft a list based on probability of players scoring highly. You don't control how much they score, just the probability of them scoring highly.
It's all luck. And how much your opposition scores is just amplifying that luck.
Makes for a boring game if you ask me.
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 22, 2019, 06:49:18 PM
No different to copping a loss with a better list every single week either. Otherwise we could just say whoever scores the most points wins the premiership, regardless if they win or not.
Apologies for bluntness, but I kinda feel strongly about that. Control is an illusion. Everything in this game is luck.
I still echo slurpa's sentiments from 2 years ago on the topic of percentage, it's all part of the fun and the storyline, not about the points I'd be very against a change.
Quote from: Koop on August 06, 2021, 10:55:27 AM
I'd like future pick trading discussed.
I think allowing future 1st's to be traded, given the inherently volatile nature of fantasy football scoring, and with changing coaches from time to time would be irresponsible. However, I'd like to float the idea of future 2nd rounders onwards from the next year being available to use.
We obviously don't want another meow situation, but a couple of extra picks provides greater flexibility for coaches to do deals imo.
I'm all for this.
Quote from: Koop on August 06, 2021, 11:10:25 AM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 22, 2019, 06:45:41 PM
... But you can't control how much points you score either? You draft a list based on probability of players scoring highly. You don't control how much they score, just the probability of them scoring highly.
It's all luck. And how much your opposition scores is just amplifying that luck.
Makes for a boring game if you ask me.
quote author=Purple 77 link=topic=113439.msg1997665#msg1997665 date=1566463758]
No different to copping a loss with a better list every single week either. Otherwise we could just say whoever scores the most points wins the premiership, regardless if they win or not.
Apologies for bluntness, but I kinda feel strongly about that. Control is an illusion. Everything in this game is luck.
I still echo slurpa's sentiments from 2 years ago on the topic of percentage, it's all part of the fun and the storyline, not about the points I'd be very against a change.
[/quote]
Remembered this comment after I posted my reply earlier but couldn't remember exactly when/where it came to find it.
Quote from: Pkbaldy on August 06, 2021, 11:12:16 AM
Quote from: Koop on August 06, 2021, 10:55:27 AM
I'd like future pick trading discussed.
I think allowing future 1st's to be traded, given the inherently volatile nature of fantasy football scoring, and with changing coaches from time to time would be irresponsible. However, I'd like to float the idea of future 2nd rounders onwards from the next year being available to use.
We obviously don't want another meow situation, but a couple of extra picks provides greater flexibility for coaches to do deals imo.
I'm all for this.
building off the point of the fun and the storyline.
Having another teams pick adds another layer of it. Like if someone had Moscow 1st rounder this year it would have been a great story line.
Quote from: Nige on August 06, 2021, 10:13:08 AM
This isn't me getting personal, but I find it hard to believe this isn't at least partially some sour grapes on New York missing the 8 on % and comfortably having the worst of any team outside the bottom 4 (and even Church's is better).
Can categorically say, hand on heart that it didn't even enter my mind because of that
Do you really think I think I would have made a difference if I made the 8?
You're right on the 2nd part of what you said though - I had close to the worst % simply because I had teams putting up huge scores vs me, and had close to the most points scored against - nothing I can control, hence the suggestion
I'm not fussed if it passes or doesn't - was nothing more than a suggestion
Quote from: Holz on August 06, 2021, 12:07:36 PM
Quote from: Pkbaldy on August 06, 2021, 11:12:16 AM
Quote from: Koop on August 06, 2021, 10:55:27 AM
I'd like future pick trading discussed.
I think allowing future 1st's to be traded, given the inherently volatile nature of fantasy football scoring, and with changing coaches from time to time would be irresponsible. However, I'd like to float the idea of future 2nd rounders onwards from the next year being available to use.
We obviously don't want another meow situation, but a couple of extra picks provides greater flexibility for coaches to do deals imo.
I'm all for this.
building off the point of the fun and the storyline.
Having another teams pick adds another layer of it. Like if someone had Moscow 1st rounder this year it would have been a great story line.
Agreed. It can be difficult to engage with keeper leagues when you're out of contention with nothing to gain by winning. Having your pick in another team's hands discourages tanking and, as Holz says, leaves you with a reason to remain invested with the competition until the end of your season. I actually don't see the need to restrict movement of first rounders, but perhaps a rule preventing trading first rounders in consecutive years (like the AFL and NBA have I believe) such that every team must take a first round selection within a 2 year period, even if it isn't your own. Whether or not first rounders are moveable I'd still be in favour of this change.
If trading picks should only be 1 year though not the nba where you can give up you 2022 2024 2026 etc..
*Bump*
We have an issue with our strict 'no emergency loopholing' rule. Essentially, you cannot purposely name a known donut on the field. However, sometimes this prohibits you from naming your preferred XV if circumstances OUTSIDE of the Thursday night game change.
I'll use an example I had earlier with GL.
Context:
- It is just before Thursday bounce
- Miers plays Friday night
- Nank is in doubt on Friday, but currently named
- Current submission is: Flood, R1 Nank, F3 Chol, E4 Miers (only forward emergency), U1 & U2 both mids
- The intention is to have Chol back-up as a ruck if Nank doesn't play. But, that can't happen if he is named as a forward (a feature I would like to keep)
- The preference is to have Nank & Chol play, if Nank plays. Else, the preference is to have Chol and Miers play, if he doesn't.
- In the current setup, GL is trapped if Nank doesn't play. He can't move Chol to R1 on Friday, because Miers has played. Under our no loopholing rules, you cannot purposely name an known donut on the field, which would allow Miers to come on. This looks especially bad if say, he tonned.
- This is a problem because it prevents an innocent intention to play your preferred side.
My proposition:
- I'd like to propose the ability to name a 'Bench warmer'
- A 'Bench warmer' is literally no one. It's a purposeful gap in your first XV only (no emergencies)
- You can name 1 'Bench warmer' per round where a partial lockout applies.
- If you name a 'Bench warmer', you get 1 extra emergency.
So, how would it apply to GL?
- He would name a 'Bench warmer' at F3, Chol E4 and Miers at the new E5
- If Nank plays, Chol would move into F3 to fill the spot currently taken by the bench warmer.
- If Nank doesn't play, Chol will replace Nank at R1, and Miers will fill the spot currently taken by the bench warmer.
- This allows us not to break our black/white rule of not naming a donut on purpose.
So in summary, I would like:
- The bench warmer; or
- Allow loopholing again :)
Assuming using the example you would have to specify the position the bench warmer is being used for. Usually will be ruck but could be M/F eg Zorko could be named as F but bench warmer for mid.
I would be against getting an extra emergency given the example named here. So happy with 4 emergencies or Bench warmer with three emergencies,
I could go either way really, somewhat going cold on the idea.
I pretty much just want the issue acknowledged so that I can refer to this discussion when a coach is faced with this situation.
I'm happy with the 'tough luck' argument too
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 16, 2021, 04:39:07 PM
I could go either way really, somewhat going cold on the idea.
I pretty much just want the issue acknowledged so that I can refer to this discussion when a coach is faced with this situation.
I'm happy with the 'tough luck' argument too
I think this is the way to go personally
Yep, for how rare that instance actually arises, I don't think we need to implement a new rule just for it
+1 for tough luck
Quote from: Holz on December 08, 2020, 11:19:26 AM
1. teams should only be able to take their supplement picks ie if lists are 41 they get their 42nd 43rd player after everyone has 41 on their list. Teams lose picks they do not use, this means they should trade their value before the draft and that teams arent getting better players with supplement picks then actual real list spots.
alternatively we draft to 41 and then have players left over.
Discuss if you haven't already (Discord or here). I reckon people aren't giving it enough attention.
Personally, I don't want it. I don't think it's right that a team with say, 6 national picks, whom fills their team after 4 picks, keeps two in reserve just in case I extend list sizes, only to have them moved to the end of the PSD if I do end up extending list sizes.
Minimising your backend draft picks is ENTIRELY controllable; you trade for more picks. In my opinion, this suggestion encourages lazy list management, but I'll entertain being told otherwise.
Quote from: PowerBug on September 23, 2020, 12:25:16 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 23, 2020, 12:17:55 PM
Quote from: PowerBug on September 23, 2020, 11:53:00 AM
Can we vote on allowing loopholing in partial lockout rounds?
Also there’s discussion on discord about flood/attack in general (and “smallâ€). Will we be voting on that?
The flood/attack stuff was never mentioned on this thread, so no - the time has passed for that.
Partial lockout suggestion I guess I might entertain given it's a follow-up discussion based on a rule that just passed... but I'm inclined to not want to, given we're about to kick off the trade period.
If two more people want to discuss that, say so here and we'll do it. But I'm no longer entertaining brand new suggestions until next year.
I mentioned loopholing back in August in the general discussion thread before this thread was a thing :(
Will set a reminder to wait for this specific thread next year, I thought new rule ideas were still being taken :’(
@PowerBug, you didn't set the reminder ;)
Please please please, everyone put forward the little frustrations you've held onto, because you only have a couple days left to put changes forward.
I strictly don't engage with rule talk at any other time in the year.
Oh! I'm finally gonna do it.
Early Concessions void a win, should you go on to score more points than your opponent that week.
Lets make it happen.
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 15, 2021, 09:46:03 PM
*Bump*
We have an issue with our strict 'no emergency loopholing' rule. Essentially, you cannot purposely name a known donut on the field. However, sometimes this prohibits you from naming your preferred XV if circumstances OUTSIDE of the Thursday night game change.
I'll use an example I had earlier with GL.
Context:
- It is just before Thursday bounce
- Miers plays Friday night
- Nank is in doubt on Friday, but currently named
- Current submission is: Flood, R1 Nank, F3 Chol, E4 Miers (only forward emergency), U1 & U2 both mids
- The intention is to have Chol back-up as a ruck if Nank doesn't play. But, that can't happen if he is named as a forward (a feature I would like to keep)
- The preference is to have Nank & Chol play, if Nank plays. Else, the preference is to have Chol and Miers play, if he doesn't.
- In the current setup, GL is trapped if Nank doesn't play. He can't move Chol to R1 on Friday, because Miers has played. Under our no loopholing rules, you cannot purposely name an known donut on the field, which would allow Miers to come on. This looks especially bad if say, he tonned.
- This is a problem because it prevents an innocent intention to play your preferred side.
My proposition:
- I'd like to propose the ability to name a 'Bench warmer'
- A 'Bench warmer' is literally no one. It's a purposeful gap in your first XV only (no emergencies)
- You can name 1 'Bench warmer' per round where a partial lockout applies.
- If you name a 'Bench warmer', you get 1 extra emergency.
So, how would it apply to GL?
- He would name a 'Bench warmer' at F3, Chol E4 and Miers at the new E5
- If Nank plays, Chol would move into F3 to fill the spot currently taken by the bench warmer.
- If Nank doesn't play, Chol will replace Nank at R1, and Miers will fill the spot currently taken by the bench warmer.
- This allows us not to break our black/white rule of not naming a donut on purpose.
So in summary, I would like:
- The bench warmer; or
- Allow loopholing again :)
So just on this, the situation i was in wouldn't have necessarily mattered if there was a partial lockout or not. If say it was a regular Friday game, and the Tigers played on a Saturday or Sunday, i would have still wanted to name a donut F3 so that Chol could cover either position. I guess the issue was that, because of the Cats playing on a Thursday night, people may think i was loopholing.
My suggestion would just be that you can purposefully name a donut, partial lockout or not. We obviously can't loophole in a regular round, so i dont see how that aspect would be an issue. And then up to Purps if he wants to allow it in partial lockouts as well (and up to admin if loopholing or not), or just disallow purposeful donuts during partial lockout.
At the end of the day you're sacrificing an emg spot which is a risk and could cost you, and if only allowed in standard lockouts, can't be abused for loopholing.
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 16, 2021, 08:06:36 PM
Oh! I'm finally gonna do it.
Early Concessions void a win, should you go on to score more points than your opponent that week.
Lets make it happen.
Yes please!
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 16, 2021, 08:42:35 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 16, 2021, 08:06:36 PM
Oh! I'm finally gonna do it.
Early Concessions void a win, should you go on to score more points than your opponent that week.
Lets make it happen.
Yes please!
PNL for bottom 4 confirmed
Quote from: GoLions on August 16, 2021, 08:45:31 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 16, 2021, 08:42:35 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 16, 2021, 08:06:36 PM
Oh! I'm finally gonna do it.
Early Concessions void a win, should you go on to score more points than your opponent that week.
Lets make it happen.
Yes please!
PNL for bottom 4 confirmed
;D ;D ;D
Quote from: fanTCfool on August 06, 2021, 05:13:19 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 06, 2021, 12:07:36 PM
Quote from: Pkbaldy on August 06, 2021, 11:12:16 AM
Quote from: Koop on August 06, 2021, 10:55:27 AM
I'd like future pick trading discussed.
I think allowing future 1st's to be traded, given the inherently volatile nature of fantasy football scoring, and with changing coaches from time to time would be irresponsible. However, I'd like to float the idea of future 2nd rounders onwards from the next year being available to use.
We obviously don't want another meow situation, but a couple of extra picks provides greater flexibility for coaches to do deals imo.
I'm all for this.
building off the point of the fun and the storyline.
Having another teams pick adds another layer of it. Like if someone had Moscow 1st rounder this year it would have been a great story line.
Agreed. It can be difficult to engage with keeper leagues when you're out of contention with nothing to gain by winning. Having your pick in another team's hands discourages tanking and, as Holz says, leaves you with a reason to remain invested with the competition until the end of your season. I actually don't see the need to restrict movement of first rounders, but perhaps a rule preventing trading first rounders in consecutive years (like the AFL and NBA have I believe) such that every team must take a first round selection within a 2 year period, even if it isn't your own. Whether or not first rounders are moveable I'd still be in favour of this change.
Dunno if a conclusion was reached on this, but I also think future pick trading would be a positive addition for the same reasons previously mentioned. Including the 1st rounder caveat Ryno suggested of course.
Get better depth imo.
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 16, 2021, 08:47:14 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 16, 2021, 08:45:31 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 16, 2021, 08:42:35 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 16, 2021, 08:06:36 PM
Oh! I'm finally gonna do it.
Early Concessions void a win, should you go on to score more points than your opponent that week.
Lets make it happen.
Yes please!
PNL for bottom 4 confirmed
;D ;D ;D
actually i think you'll find we are one of the few i never actualy say we are going to lose
i might say we are playing crap or the other team are putting in a big effort
if that counts as conceding then NY as perma wooden spoons
Quote from: DazBurg on August 17, 2021, 07:07:58 AM
if that counts as conceding then NY as perma wooden spoons
Please Daz, I'm nowhere near your level
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 17, 2021, 10:06:14 AM
Quote from: DazBurg on August 17, 2021, 07:07:58 AM
if that counts as conceding then NY as perma wooden spoons
Please Daz, I'm nowhere near your level
I complain we are scoring crap not that we will lose
Except against Seoul I said we would before the weekend even started
You go back and look even purps said lead to believe PNL was scoring poorly
Not losing
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 16, 2021, 08:01:37 PM
Quote from: PowerBug on September 23, 2020, 12:25:16 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 23, 2020, 12:17:55 PM
Quote from: PowerBug on September 23, 2020, 11:53:00 AM
Can we vote on allowing loopholing in partial lockout rounds?
Also there’s discussion on discord about flood/attack in general (and “smallâ€). Will we be voting on that?
The flood/attack stuff was never mentioned on this thread, so no - the time has passed for that.
Partial lockout suggestion I guess I might entertain given it's a follow-up discussion based on a rule that just passed... but I'm inclined to not want to, given we're about to kick off the trade period.
If two more people want to discuss that, say so here and we'll do it. But I'm no longer entertaining brand new suggestions until next year.
I mentioned loopholing back in August in the general discussion thread before this thread was a thing :(
Will set a reminder to wait for this specific thread next year, I thought new rule ideas were still being taken :’(
@PowerBug, you didn't set the reminder ;)
I'm in favour of allowing no restriction loopholing. You take the risk by missing out on emergency slots and missing late outs and copping 25% scores.
10 votes in (including mine)
9. Ability to name 'Bench warmer' (see post)
A) No
B) Yes
[to be clear, under current rules you are able to name a donut BEFORE a partial lockout, but not after. If you edit your submission after partial and leave a donut on the field, this counts as naming a donut AFTER submission and is against the rules]
A resounding 'No' on this one
11 votes in
Another option has received 10 votes...
3. Remove flood and attack
A) No
B) Yes
"No" has received 10 votes, so Flood/Attack stays.
Teams to vote:
- Christchurch
- London
- Rio de Janeiro
- Tokyo
14 votes in, the officially decided votes are:
1. Timing of additional draft pick allocation
Context: I tell you how many players should be in your list lodgement. Often, as AFL lists are finalised, more players become available to draft and thus I get you all to draft more players, beyond the number I told you in the list lodgement. In regards to the allocation of these picks, please vote:
A) Keep as is - I activate your next available draft pick; or 11
B) Allocate at the end of the draft, only after everyone has filled their list with the number of players I indicated at time of list lodgement. 3
3. Remove flood and attack
A) No 12
B) Yes 2
4. If a rule has been voted on, it can't be voted on again the following year.
A) No 11
B) Yes 3
5. The number of clubs involved in a single trade to be capped at 5
A) No 10
B) Yes 4
6. Ladder to be sorted by Premiership Points, and then Points For/Scored to sort the order
A) Keep as is - decided by % (points scored divided by points against) 11
B) Change to total points scored only 3
9. Ability to name 'Bench warmer' (see post)
A) No 13
B) Yes 1
10. Ability to Loophole emergencies on partial lockouts only
A) No 11
B) Yes 3
Votes in dispute
2. This suggestion:
Quote
live trading untill the PSD where list lodgement and desliting does not occur till after the nat. We have live trading of pick and players during the national draft then a break and PSD later. this means teams can actually do moves during the draft and not limited to players. it also makes the PSD more relevant.
A) No
B) Yes
7. Future trading of draft picks (2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th round draft picks)
A) No
B) Yes
8. Future trading of draft picks (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th round draft picks), where you cannot trade a future 1st in consecutive years
A) No
B) Yes
11. Early Concessions void a win, should you go on to score more points than your opponent that week.
A) No
B) Yes. I'll do this. Don't think I won't.
A reminder that the trade period will not start whilst we have rules still in dispute
Two more teams to vote.
One more rule has been decided
7. Future trading of draft picks (2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th round draft picks)
A) No 6
B) Yes 10
1 more team to vote
2. This suggestion:
Quote
live trading untill the PSD where list lodgement and desliting does not occur till after the nat. We have live trading of pick and players during the national draft then a break and PSD later. this means teams can actually do moves during the draft and not limited to players. it also makes the PSD more relevant.
A) No 10
B) Yes 7
8. Future trading of draft picks (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th round draft picks), where you cannot trade a future 1st in consecutive years
A) No 10
B) Yes 7
Given rule 11 doesn't effect trading, I'll go ahead and declare opening trading season on trades!
Can future picks be traded in the 2nd trade period?
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 28, 2021, 02:45:11 PM
Can future picks be traded in the 2nd trade period?
Good point.
Normally there is a range of players on a list, for example, 44 to 46 players.
Provided that any trade you do results in your list falling within this range, then yes, future picks can be traded in the 2nd trade period.
with the PSD draft being severely weakened.
I will put it up that the National Draft should only be for players taken in the national draft.
Pre-Listed Players
SSP & Mid-Season Draftees
Delisted WXV Players
Should all go to the PSD
Quote from: Holz on December 03, 2021, 02:45:21 PM
with the PSD draft being severely weakened.
I will put it up that the National Draft should only be for players taken in the national draft.
Pre-Listed Players
SSP & Mid-Season Draftees
Delisted WXV Players
Should all go to the PSD
Withe rookie draft being diluted by teams rorting the system by re-selecting de-listed players and thus decreasing the number of players available in PSD maybe it is time to do away with the PSD draft and just have one draft with all available players.
Quote from: Ringo on December 03, 2021, 09:47:24 PM
Quote from: Holz on December 03, 2021, 02:45:21 PM
with the PSD draft being severely weakened.
I will put it up that the National Draft should only be for players taken in the national draft.
Pre-Listed Players
SSP & Mid-Season Draftees
Delisted WXV Players
Should all go to the PSD
Withe rookie draft being diluted by teams rorting the system by re-selecting de-listed players and thus decreasing the number of players available in PSD maybe it is time to do away with the PSD draft and just have one draft with all available players.
yeah agree thats another alternative either strenghen the PSD or a simpler option is get rid of it all together.