Footballjoe Posted September 14, 2012 Author Share Posted September 14, 2012 Maybe I'm old school - but I still fail to see the purpose of Proposing a trade or Accepting a trade offer - then having to post a message confirming that you did actually Send or Accept the trade? Why the unnecessary 2nd step? Aren't you agreeing to it when you click "Send" or "Accept"? It's things like that that open up loop holes and then create unnecessary issues such as the one you have on your hands.. If you agree to a trade by sending or accepting, there should be no reason to have to agree to it again regardless of how you have to do it - cause you've already done it... I have had to confirm trades in the forum in every league I have ever been in. Always wondered why but guess its for a reason like this. Others and myself stated they have accepted a trade they did not mean to. Mistakes happen. I like the idea of having to do it but the rules need to be clearer on whats suppose to be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Maybe I'm old school - but I still fail to see the purpose of Proposing a trade or Accepting a trade offer - then having to post a message confirming that you did actually Send or Accept the trade? Why the unnecessary 2nd step? Aren't you agreeing to it when you click "Send" or "Accept"? It's things like that that open up loop holes and then create unnecessary issues such as the one you have on your hands.. If you remove the need to agree to a trade by sending or accepting, there should be no reason to have to agree to it again - you've already done it... The question was not "is this a good rule", whihc as I said to you before it is ill-conceived, but the intent of the rule is nonetheless to confirm the trade and make it official. When coupled with the fact that it was in fact a clear mistake he immediately tried to rectify, the rules are definitely on his side. I really don't have a problem at all with doing it this way, but a clear mistake (or someone accepting before the other owner had an opportunity to pull the offer on an injured player) should be included as the only reasons that someone can back out of a trae they accepted on the site. Hitting "agree" is not synonomous with both parties agreeing to the trade, which is why you have a rule like this. Learn from your mistake and move on. It is only FF and Britt for DJax for crying out loud. Our life is so easy that something as meaningless as this gets us worked up. Couldn't you say the same for the jerk who refuses to acknowledge an honest mistake? It just seems so childish, akin to me accidentally dropping a dollar and you saying "finders-keepers". To me it's more the principle, and of course a proper interpretation of the rules. That is a commish's job, not to just say "drop it, it's no big deal that you got slighted". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Maybe I'm old school - but I still fail to see the purpose of Proposing a trade or Accepting a trade offer - then having to post a message confirming that you did actually Send or Accept the trade? Why the unnecessary 2nd step? Aren't you agreeing to it when you click "Send" or "Accept"? Because mistakes happen. People aren't perfect, I have hit the accept button before when I meant to hit reject, and I have also confused what teams I have which players in. This isn't a big deal, it's a no harm no foul situation to be notified 2 minutes later that there was a misunderstanding. It's not like the other owner lost anything as a result of the non-completion of the trade, he's exactly where he would be if the owner had just declined it in the first place. Had he waited, or the other owner did a follow-up trade or pickup based on the assumption the first one went through that's different, but when a guy literally instantly wants to change his mind you cut him a break. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorttynaz Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 (edited) I get the point here.. Mistakes happen.. The initial post was misleading - coming across as one owner sent, another owner accepted, and the commish approved. In the league's eyes, this was a done trade, players were already moved. That's not what happened though. What happened was one owner sent, another owner accepted when he meant to decline. The commish had not made his final approval on the league site yet. <--- This info in the original post would have saved about 60 subsequent posts.. This IS an honest mistake. No harm, no foul. Tell the commish what happened and ask that he decline it.. If the dude who sent the trade got all pissy about it - well then maybe he should still be sitting at the little boys table.. Honest mistake - and decline the trade. Edited September 14, 2012 by Shorttynaz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 There is a lot here. The intent of the rule IMO to notify the commish was to be done in the forum which was never done by my brother. To say I was notified because I was speaking to him on the phone could be an argument but there was always an understanding the notification is to be done in the forum. "understandings" are difficult to enforce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballjoe Posted September 14, 2012 Author Share Posted September 14, 2012 I get the point here.. Mistakes happen.. The initial post was misleading - coming across as one owner sent, another owner accepted, and the commish approved. In the league's eyes, this was a done trade, players were already moved. That's not what happened though. What happened was one owner sent, another owner accepted when he meant to decline. The commish had not made his final approval on the league site yet. <--- This info in the original post would have saved about 60 subsequent posts.. This IS an honest mistake. No harm, no foul. Tell the commish what happened and ask that he decline it.. If the dude who sent the trade got all pissy about it - well then maybe he should still be sitting at the little boys table.. Honest mistake - and decline the trade. English writing was never my strong suit. LOL 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskey Pimp Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 What happened was one owner sent, another owner accepted when he meant to decline. The commish had not made his final approval on the league site yet. This is not true. The other owner meant to accept, he just thought he was getting the opposite player than the one he actually got. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 (edited) "understandings" are difficult to enforce Rules aren't difficult to enforce, nor is the normal procedure the league uses. What "thread" do you think they're referring to here? 10.4 When a trade is made, BOTH owners must notify the commissioner to make the trade official. The trade will be approved or denied at the TUDL site. Owners should have the trade in the system at TUDL prior to posting a thread. You seem to be actively trying to find a reason to uphold this trade, when the more information we get, the more clear that it was a mistake, and the mroe clear that there's simply no other way to interpret the rules to make a trade "official". I certainly do not think screaming SNICKERS into the phone as you immediately realize your mistake can be construed as notifying the commish of your intention. There would literally be no other need for both owners to notify the commish, if it wasn't to declare their intention. As I argued with you earlier, making it official has absolutely nothing to do with the veto process that happens afterwards, so I think you're looking for a conlclusion that suties your view (and to a certain extent my view too), when that's not what the rules say. Edited September 14, 2012 by delusions of grandeur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e5volcano Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 (edited) Hi all, I have a question, playing in a ESPN standard scoring 8 man league, no WW, but you can add FA as you want but players lock when game time starts and they unlock at 3AM Tuesday. As most of you know, Forte got injured, so Bush will be a hot pickup next week. On to my question: Bush was locked before and during game time yesterday and he was available. I wake up and see this on league activity (By LM)XXX added Michael Bush, Chi from FA to BE He's the Commish and LM, is it possible for him to do break the rule and add Bush to his bench? If so that would be totally unfair, and probably is worthy of dealing with. I emailed him and his response was that it's a glitch that he added Bush right before game time and that it wouldn't process until now. BS or truth? Edited September 14, 2012 by e5volcano Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Hi all, I have a question, playing in a ESPN standard scoring 8 man league, no WW, but you can add FA as you want but players lock when game time starts and they unlock at 3AM Tuesday. As most of you know, Forte got injured, so Bush will be a hot pickup next week. On to my question: Bush was locked before and during game time yesterday and he was available. I wake up and see this on league activity He's the Commish and LM, is it possible for him to do break the rule and add Bush to his bench? If so that would be totally unfair, and probably is worthy of dealing with. I emailed him and his response was that it's a glitch that he added Bush right before game time and that it wouldn't process until now. BS or truth? Ummm, almost definitely BS. Is there nromally a waiting period to process FA pickups? If not, then timestamps are there to tell you that he's full of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 I'm always leary of a commish doing something that didn't seem possible for others and then saying "it was a glitch on the site". If there no waiver wires, then a player should be added as soon as he makes the move. I guess it depends on if you know/trust the commissioner and that kind of stuff. As a commissioner anything you do in the league should be above board and not able to be questioned. Most leagues are setup to lock players once their game (or the first game of the week, first game on Sunday) starts. So if the player was listed as a free agent during the game and locked, I'd guess that your commish used his commissioner status (knowingly or not) to add that player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Rules aren't difficult to enforce, nor is the normal procedure the league uses. What "thread" do you think they're referring to here? 10.4 When a trade is made, BOTH owners must notify the commissioner to make the trade official. The trade will be approved or denied at the TUDL site. Owners should have the trade in the system at TUDL prior to posting a thread. You seem to be actively trying to find a reason to uphold this trade, when the more information we get, the more clear that it was a mistake, and the mroe clear that there's simply no other way to interpret the rules to make a trade "official". I certainly do not think screaming SNICKERS into the phone as you immediately realize your mistake can be construed as notifying the commish of your intention. There would literally be no other need for both owners to notify the commish, if it wasn't to declare their intention. As I argued with you earlier, making it official has absolutely nothing to do with the veto process that happens afterwards, so I think you're looking for a conlclusion that suties your view (and to a certain extent my view too), when that's not what the rules say. I responded to his post that said "it has always been understood that owners would use the league site to notify" ... saying it is an "understanding" is NOT the same as saying "its in black and white in the rules" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 I responded to his post that said "it has always been understood that owners would use the league site to notify" ... saying it is an "understanding" is NOT the same as saying "its in black and white in the rules" Oh, so you're just trying to play gotcha, rather than interpret the rules correctly. Carry on then. Seriously, there are plenty of "understandings" of how we do things in my leagues that aren't even included in the rules, but are accepted practice because it's just the way we've always done things, and everyone knows it. But in this case, understanding is even an understatement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e5volcano Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Ummm, almost definitely BS. Is there nromally a waiting period to process FA pickups? If not, then timestamps are there to tell you that he's full of it. No, pickups from FA are always instant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Oh, so you're just trying to play gotcha, rather than interpret the rules correctly. Carry on then. Seriously, there are plenty of "understandings" of how we do things in my leagues that aren't even included in the rules, but are accepted practice because it's just the way we've always done things, and everyone knows it. But in this case, understanding is even an understatement. I get that ... but when you have procedures/rules covered by "understandings" and not documented in the rules you are opening the door for problems later when somebody does something against the grain and correctly states that it isn't covered by the rules. I wasn't actually making a reference to the trade in question ... but making a general statement about the problem with "understandings" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTed46 Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Was it like Steve Smith STL instead of Steve Smith CAR? 1 owner in my league drafted both wanted to drop the STL POS and dropped CAR. He notified me and I reversed it. If it's something like that, it's a no brainer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 (edited) He's the Commish and LM, is it possible for him to do break the rule and add Bush to his bench? If so that would be totally unfair, and probably is worthy of dealing with. I emailed him and his response was that it's a glitch that he added Bush right before game time and that it wouldn't process until now. BS or truth? It says right on it he used LM permissions. Open a ticket with them and they will show the transaction log of when it was executed. Oh, and not cool hijacking someone else's thread. Start a separate one for your issues. Edited September 14, 2012 by flemingd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Was it like Steve Smith STL instead of Steve Smith CAR? 1 owner in my league drafted both wanted to drop the STL POS and dropped CAR. He notified me and I reversed it. If it's something like that, it's a no brainer. No it was Desean Jackson for Kenny Britt, but do to confusion with mutiple leagues (including most of the people from the two leagues being in both) he thought the trade was going the other way. (I forgot which way, but that's not the point.) I agree it should be a no brainer, but to some of the cut throat win at all costs crowd it's SO SAD, TOO BAD YOU'RE SOL ONCE YOU CLICK ACCEPT BUTTON. Thank God for more friendly leagues and reasonable/trusted commissioners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcmast Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Couldn't you say the same for the jerk who refuses to acknowledge an honest mistake? It just seems so childish, akin to me accidentally dropping a dollar and you saying "finders-keepers". To me it's more the principle, and of course a proper interpretation of the rules. That is a commish's job, not to just say "drop it, it's no big deal that you got slighted". Sure. I just meant, since the other guy said no, the guy who made the mistake should just move on and take it as a lesson to double/triple check the trade next time. If I was the other guy and it came out that fast, I would have said sure, no worries reverse the trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electricrelish Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 I think most here fail to remember that this is a game...no wonder the world is what it is: there are a bunch of people with some sticks pretty far burried in the rectal cavity. Dude made a mistake in accepting a trade, notified the person he traded with and the commish immediately....and the rules state the trade isn't official until all parties agree OUTSIDE of the site. One party is not agreeing to it...thus, the trade is not consummated. Man, I would hate to be in a league with some of you geeks. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChampSampson Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 overturn agree 100% with "Swami" and "delusions of grandeur" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.