|
|
Post by delap on Sept 1, 2021 7:20:23 GMT -5
Looks like we have an overwhelming majority for options 1/3.
Do we want a new poll with only those choices or do we present this to the commish and say, "go ahead, pick one of these"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Herby New Year! on Sept 1, 2021 7:22:17 GMT -5
I voted for 2, but would strongly prefer 3 to 1 (and HATE 4).
Seems like we're not going to have any overwhelming majority between 1 and 3 though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fason on Sept 1, 2021 7:26:39 GMT -5
Can we have an anything but 4 option?
|
|
|
|
Post by delap on Sept 1, 2021 7:39:09 GMT -5
I'm honestly for any of 1-3, which seems to be the vast majority of us. At this point I don't think anyone wants to drag this out and we'd all prefer an immediate rule change for clarity. To that end, my proposal would be to present the vote to the commish and let him pick between 1/3 and we go from there.
Can we have a 2nd vote that makes this rule immediate and applicable to the contraction of the Magic?
|
|
|
|
Post by delap on Sept 1, 2021 7:52:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Sept 1, 2021 9:02:23 GMT -5
having an overwhelming majority for two options that are the exact opposite of each other is not actionable. since we have almost perfect anti-consensus, it seems more productive to look at what specifically people don't like about the contraction waiver system
for example, in shout just now trofie suggested that a team acquiring a player through contraction waivers wouldn't be able to trade them for a season. what do people think about a change like that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sapular on Sept 1, 2021 9:08:02 GMT -5
for example, in shout just now trofie suggested that a team acquiring a player through contraction waivers wouldn't be able to trade them for a season. what do people think about a change like that? I think this is a great solution. I also understand that "inflation" happens when teams are contracted however I am not one that believes "inflation" is good at all, especially if it avoidable. My idea, which I understand may be difficult if not impossible, would be to have a set amount of players that are eliminated but inside of that have it broken down to 50% are "bad" 30% are meh and 20% are the "good/elite". The challenge is how do we determine that and I do not have that answer. |
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Sept 1, 2021 9:13:04 GMT -5
having an overwhelming majority for two options that are the exact opposite of each other is not actionable. since we have almost perfect anti-consensus, it seems more productive to look at what specifically people don't like about the contraction waiver system for example, in shout just now trofie suggested that a team acquiring a player through contraction waivers wouldn't be able to trade them for a season. what do people think about a change like that? I do not mind the contraction setup and think the current situation is something we are unlikely to see again. We will likely never lose this many GMs in a short amount of time and this is similar to the great contraction from 5.0. Ultimately things will settle down and we will see the talent even out over the next couple years. We will likely still see some GM turnover but it will more likely be a GM every added and lost over a 10-ish year period. I do like the idea of adding a trade rule to any contracted player and think 1 full season is a reasonable timeframe. I would vote to add that rule to the contraction process. |
|
|
|
Post by Ankly on Sept 1, 2021 9:15:37 GMT -5
Just put them in the FA pool. That won 17-3 in a poll up against the current crummy system.
We can discuss handling inflation afterwards. But that's a separate problem than the current one which is the garbage contraction waivers system which we need to fix ASAP.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fason on Sept 1, 2021 9:17:05 GMT -5
Changed my vote from 3 to 1 to make sure we get a resolution and for bk reasons.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2021 9:18:38 GMT -5
I support option 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Odin on Sept 1, 2021 9:19:46 GMT -5
1. cant trade for a year
2. if you claim a player you get moved to the bottom of the waiver order in thw follwing season (if theres another contraction)
youre welcome
|
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Sept 1, 2021 9:21:31 GMT -5
1. cant trade for a year 2. if you claim a player you get moved to the bottom of the waiver order in thw follwing season (if theres another contraction) youre welcome This 100% I would vote yes to both of these. |
|
|
|
Post by Ankly on Sept 1, 2021 9:40:31 GMT -5
stop introducing new ideas. We need to organize behind one of the change options and be done with it (for now).
|
|
|
|
Post by Ankly on Sept 1, 2021 9:53:37 GMT -5
having an overwhelming majority for two options that are the exact opposite of each other is not actionable. since we have almost perfect anti-consensus, it seems more productive to look at what specifically people don't like about the contraction waiver system for example, in shout just now trofie suggested that a team acquiring a player through contraction waivers wouldn't be able to trade them for a season. what do people think about a change like that? There is a consensus to be rid of the current system. That's shown in this poll and in the previous poll. So the contraction waiver system should immediately be scrapped. In terms of new systems, we have a majority of votes for option 1 of the poll. |
|
|
|
Post by 20s on Sept 1, 2021 10:49:22 GMT -5
I switched to 1 because most of all I want a change from the current system. Waivers are stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by 20s on Sept 1, 2021 10:50:02 GMT -5
1 of 17 votes are to keep waivers. The previous poll was 17-3. Make the change.
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Sept 1, 2021 15:10:42 GMT -5
having an overwhelming majority for two options that are the exact opposite of each other is not actionable. since we have almost perfect anti-consensus, it seems more productive to look at what specifically people don't like about the contraction waiver system for example, in shout just now trofie suggested that a team acquiring a player through contraction waivers wouldn't be able to trade them for a season. what do people think about a change like that? There is a consensus to be rid of the current system. That's shown in this poll and in the previous poll. So the contraction waiver system should immediately be scrapped. In terms of new systems, we have a majority of votes for option 1 of the poll. there's often a consensus to go from current to new, because each person imagines "new" being the thing they like most. when it comes time to actually define the new thing, we often find that those things are not the same and can even expressly conflict, and that has happened here, so rushing into a hasty change only ensures that we have the same arguments the next time everyone remembers they care about this as such, it should be clear to everyone that we're discussing this change until we get it right. we have multiple proposals in this thread that do not involve the fa problem that has proved so divisive, if seems to me like those warrant further discussion |
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Sept 1, 2021 15:17:53 GMT -5
Seems to me we have 2 options currently.
Option 1:
All contracted players going into FA at the conclusion of the current year.
Option 2:
Contraction Waivers based on previous years record with 2 stipulations:
1. Claimed player cannot be traded for 1 full season
2. If a team claims a player you get moved to the bottom of the waiver order in the follwing season (if theres another contraction)
|
|
|
|
Post by Herby New Year! on Sept 1, 2021 15:53:55 GMT -5
What if we just keep the teams in tact with the players under contract, auto FAs to fill their roster after day 5, and let the CPU set the depth chart.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ankly on Sept 1, 2021 16:07:33 GMT -5
There is a consensus to be rid of the current system. That's shown in this poll and in the previous poll. So the contraction waiver system should immediately be scrapped. In terms of new systems, we have a majority of votes for option 1 of the poll. there's often a consensus to go from current to new, because each person imagines "new" being the thing they like most. when it comes time to actually define the new thing, we often find that those things are not the same and can even expressly conflict, and that has happened here, so rushing into a hasty change only ensures that we have the same arguments the next time everyone remembers they care about this as such, it should be clear to everyone that we're discussing this change until we get it right. we have multiple proposals in this thread that do not involve the fa problem that has proved so divisive, if seems to me like those warrant further discussion It should also be clear that people aren't going to stand for the existing waiver system to be used for the Heat and Magic. Everyone hates it so don't use it again. So long as "further discussion" accounts for that, I'm fine with it. We also have 14 votes currently for 1 of the options. So the poll is more decided than it is divisive. |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Sept 1, 2021 16:54:13 GMT -5
What if we just keep the teams in tact with the players under contract, auto FAs to fill their roster after day 5, and let the CPU set the depth chart. two issues with this is that there is no auto FAs button, and the CPU depth chart routinely scumbags and tries to (for example) put PF to SF and so on fixing DC is easy rule wise and since i would be setting their DC manually as a minor league team anyway it would not be a change in what i do the auto FA thing is also reasonably soluble by just taking FAs off the bottom after every human team has signed on day 1 (and the same non binding for preseason). we know the cpu ratings can be iffy but giving every human a crack at the list first i think would be an amenable way forward, if that's the way we want to go |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Sept 1, 2021 16:58:42 GMT -5
there's often a consensus to go from current to new, because each person imagines "new" being the thing they like most. when it comes time to actually define the new thing, we often find that those things are not the same and can even expressly conflict, and that has happened here, so rushing into a hasty change only ensures that we have the same arguments the next time everyone remembers they care about this as such, it should be clear to everyone that we're discussing this change until we get it right. we have multiple proposals in this thread that do not involve the fa problem that has proved so divisive, if seems to me like those warrant further discussion It should also be clear that people aren't going to stand for the existing waiver system to be used for the Heat and Magic. Everyone hates it so don't use it again. So long as "further discussion" accounts for that, I'm fine with it. We also have 14 votes currently for 1 of the options. So the poll is more decided than it is divisive. i cannot have been more clear about post facto changes, so if the heat and magic contraction is that important to you, ank, you need to get a majority of the league to agree on one person to be the next commish obviously i also recommend you make sure that person agrees on what you, ank, want to happen to those players |
|
|
|
Post by Fason on Sept 1, 2021 17:36:01 GMT -5
All good fellas, I got us an insurance policy in the event things don't work out as we planned.  |
|
