WXV Rule Discussion 2021

[fanTCfool]

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.

[Holz]

If trading picks should only be 1 year though not the nba where you can give up you 2022 2024 2026 etc..

[Purple 77]

*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 :)

[Ringo]

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,

[Purple 77]

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

[Nige]

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

[RaisyDaisy]

Yep, for how rare that instance actually arises, I don't think we need to implement a new rule just for it

[Holz]

+1 for tough luck

[Purple 77]

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.

[Purple 77]

Can we vote on allowing loopholing in partial lockout rounds?

Also there’s discussion on discord about flood/attack in general (and “small”). 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 ;)

[Purple 77]

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.

[Purple 77]

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.

[GoLions]

*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.

[JBs-Hawks]

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!

[GoLions]

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