WXV Rules Discussion 2018

[RaisyDaisy]

So basically

If it ain't broke...

[PowerBug]

But how many that "approve" a trade are indifferent about it? Because I feel like that would be a fair few people.

I'm fine with the current trade system. It's simple.

Team A wins
Neutral
Team B wins

There's been plenty of trades (infact probably everyone single one) where I've had an opinion on who won the trade, but that doesn't mean I will neg the trade.

[RaisyDaisy]

But how many that "approve" a trade are indifferent about it? Because I feel like that would be a fair few people.

I'm fine with the current trade system. It's simple.

Team A wins
Neutral
Team B wins

There's been plenty of trades (infact probably everyone single one) where I've had an opinion on who won the trade, but that doesn't mean I will neg the trade.

Exactly

Not like there's a scale that says what neutral exactly is either. Each coaches thoughts are different, hence we all vote to accommodate that, and for those reasons going with Holz suggestion doesn't change or improve anything

If anything it will just cause a lot more problems because every trade that someone thinks is marginally ahead will get voted or passed and not neutral, where as the current system allows marginal ones through and rightly so - we vote to just block the lopsided rorts

[Ringo]

How about we simplify further all trades pass. Admin has the right to review those he considers unbalanced and only send those for a vote.

[Purple 77]

How about we simplify further all trades pass. Admin has the right to review those he considers unbalanced and only send those for a vote.

Has merit.

[RaisyDaisy]

How about we simplify further all trades pass. Admin has the right to review those he considers unbalanced and only send those for a vote.

Has merit.

Where does he draw the line though? What admin might consider unbalanced, someone else might seem fine which would be fine as it would be sent to the vote, but the opposite is the concern in that admin could think a trade is perfectly fine and not even send it, where as someone else might not and they wouldn't even get a chance to vote

That's the only concern I have with a system that heavily relies on one individual

I think the current system we have works fine. It's not like we get heaps of negs each year, and when a trade does get negged we've all learnt (due to Purps previous warnings) not to react in a negative way, and to simply renegotiate and I think it's all been great

If anything, the only change I would like to see is in terms of the timeline to get votes in. Every coach knows to be on regularly during the trade period. When Admin sends the vote, replies should be given a time limit of 48 hours. If a coach doesn't respond with their vote within the 48 hours, their vote is null and void, and if they repeat offend then penalties apply. It's not a big ask to check in once every 48 hours during the trade period

[GoLions]

But how many that "approve" a trade are indifferent about it? Because I feel like that would be a fair few people.

I'm fine with the current trade system. It's simple.

Team A wins
Neutral
Team B wins

There's been plenty of trades (infact probably everyone single one) where I've had an opinion on who won the trade, but that doesn't mean I will neg the trade.

Exactly

Not like there's a scale that says what neutral exactly is either. Each coaches thoughts are different, hence we all vote to accommodate that, and for those reasons going with Holz suggestion doesn't change or improve anything

If anything it will just cause a lot more problems because every trade that someone thinks is marginally ahead will get voted or passed and not neutral, where as the current system allows marginal ones through and rightly so - we vote to just block the lopsided rorts

My interpretation of Holz's suggestion is when/if you neg a trade, you state which team is winning, and if the negs are split between either team winning fairly evenly, then that would cancel out and the trade would pass.

Under current system: 4 coaches neg and believe team A wins and 4 coaches neg and believe team B wins. 8 negs, trade is rejected

Under new system: 4 coaches neg and believe team A wins and 4 coaches neg and believe team B wins. 8 negs, but the split is 4-4, which means the trade is passed

[RaisyDaisy]

My interpretation of Holz's suggestion is when/if you neg a trade, you state which team is winning, and if the negs are split between either team winning fairly evenly, then that would cancel out and the trade would pass.

Under current system: 4 coaches neg and believe team A wins and 4 coaches neg and believe team B wins. 8 negs, trade is rejected

Under new system: 4 coaches neg and believe team A wins and 4 coaches neg and believe team B wins. 8 negs, but the split is 4-4, which means the trade is passed

Ah OK

Well, if that's the case I still don't see how that is better

The reason for the neg is somewhat irrelevant. Using that example, in both cases 8 coaches think the trade is not fair for one reason or another, but in that suggestion it would pass (with 8 overall negs) and in the current system it would fail, which is correct

Seems like that outcome is reason based, when the reason is just each coaches thoughts - it's only their vote that matters, not the reason, if that makes sense

[JBs-Hawks]

Keep as is

[DazBurg]

I don’t think anyway will be 100%
So probably best to leave as is

However I also think last trade period was very inconsistent imo on how things passed etc

Each trade is different I know but if a value is established for a played then goes for less in other deals is silly no consistency as I said

Also think there are a couple of loopholes in the system
Hard to stop probably cannot be but again makes it inconsistent

But overall besides a couple of inconsistencies it held up well like most years

[Holz]

6 - 6 = 0
5 - 0 = 5
Equity = Assets - Liabilities
Fairness of Trade = Team A wins - Team B wins

its not Fairness of Trade = Team A wins + Team B wins


Just make it that the teams involved in the trade cant vote on it.

The only way there is a loophole in the system then is if teams are favoring one team or being bribed in one way or another through changing their voting on that other teams trade.

Are we saying that teams do that?

If so then Voting should be scrapped.


So is the whole voting system corrupt if not, then there is no logical reason that (5*1) + (5*-1) + (8*0) = 10

[Purple 77]

Equity = Assets - Liabilities is a very inaccurate metaphor :P

[upthemaidens]

Why not just allow all trades to pass?  If a coach wants to do a bad trade then let them, they'll find a way to do it anyway.
  The Cap is in place to stop clubs becoming over powered.

[Holz]

Why not just allow all trades to pass?  If a coach wants to do a bad trade then let them, they'll find a way to do it anyway.
  The Cap is in place to stop clubs becoming over powered.

Approve

[meow meow]

Disagreed

I like the safety net. I mean I had a midfield of Ablett, Parker, Swallow, Higgins, Gibbs, Murphy, Liberatore and Scully and who knows what I may have ended up with if I was allowed to trade with no restrictions. That would surely end badly, but thanks to you guys I've gotten fair value for each and every one. Phew!