Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Question about intent


Recommended Posts

I was recently offered AP for LT and "Plus 1st round pick for 2008" Now I assumed she meant she was giving a 1st, not asking for a 1st.

 

So I respond "If I am getting the 1st, I accept" and I clicked "accept" and it was processed for commish approval.

 

Commish responds, he needs to check that she meant she was giving her 1st. I agree it was in question, was she giving or getting.

 

She sends a new trade offer hours later. "That was a typo" "Can I amend that" " I meant you get a 3rd"

 

Now she's asking me, not the commish, if she can amend it.

 

Commish vetos the deal saying it was unclear what the first deal meant. After speaking with us he says we disagree on what the first deal meant. Now if she were saying she wanted my pick then fine veto it.

 

It seems clear to me, biased or not, that her intent was to offer a pick and at the very least it was a 3rd assuming her "TYPO" claim is true. It isn't, you don't mis-type 1st for 3rd. Commish says we disagree, which could mean she is telling him she meant she got my 1st. Also a lie.

 

When she said the first offer was a typo it confirms she was offering her first and I accepted through the website channels and feel she should be held to that offer. The commish at one point said if it were a typo he would hold her to it, but he felt we just disagreed on the meaning of the original offer.

 

Am I right or wrong...Judge it on the merits of the situation, please not on your opinion of the trade.

 

Thanks for listening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It all depends on how unbending and "by the rules" you want the league to be. If it is a friendly league, then the trade is negated because she did not mean it. If it is a super serious league then she offered and you accepted though she always has the out of "I meant you first rounder".

 

I would just let it go and tell her to make sure what she is doing in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It all depends on how unbending and "by the rules" you want the league to be. If it is a friendly league, then the trade is negated because she did not mean it. If it is a super serious league then she offered and you accepted though she always has the out of "I meant you first rounder".

 

I would just let it go and tell her to make sure what she is doing in the future.

 

That's probably about as perfect response as I can expect. The leagues I run are 99% black and white and I like that.

 

I guess I want to at least be right in my take. Even if the trade isn't allowed.

 

One last point, for me serious is fun. I enjoy the structure and adherence to the rules, written and implied.

 

In this case that attitude might not fly and I understand that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would I hate to be a commish for you and your lady trader. You're both at fault here. You accepted a trade offer, but you had to add a provision to your acceptance because you felt the original offer was unclear. Then your lady trader decides to reneg on her initial offer and change the terms of the deal after the deal has taken place. Then you both dump it in the commish's lap to clear up the whole thing. On top of that, you clearly imply that you are a ""FF lawyer".

 

The commish did the right thing. Negate the deal, screw both of you two, and when you two decide to get your sh#t together and come to a common agreement, make a deal in a straight forward and completely transparent manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Key words are "her" and "she". A league with women owners is doomed to collapse eventually.

Poles N' Holes has been running since 2001 and has a sister league that has been running since 2004. :wacko:

 

Fusion since 2002...

Edited by rajncajn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Key words are "her" and "she". A league with women owners is doomed to collapse eventually.

 

Bunz, Czarina, Devilwoman and Squeegie (do lesbians count?) to name a few would take your lunch money when it comes to Fantasy Football. :wacko:

 

But you keep telling yourself whatever you have to so you can sleep at night. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer the friendly route. If someone accidentally drops a player and then contacts me within a reasonable time, I undo it. In the situation the OP laid out, I'd also cancel the trade. The moral of the story is that you should try to discuss trades with the other team outside the system first, then propose something on the website. However, a trade isn't official until it's proposed and accepted on the website, even if the other owner agrees to the trade verbally or in email.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer the friendly route. If someone accidentally drops a player and then contacts me within a reasonable time, I undo it.

 

You've got a lot more fortitude than I do. You set a precedent for owners to reacquire dropped players within a reasonable time when their position could be altered dramtically in that time. That's a slippery slope that I don't have nearly enough balls to get on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a commissioner and I guess FF lawyer, you clearly imply that's somehow bad. I know the offer was written poorly an I tried to clear it up.

 

But everyone knows when she typed that offer out it was clear in her mind what she meant. We all have wriiten something and left a key word out, because we said the word loud and clear in our head. She was offering and got cold feet, paniced when I jumped on the offer, or worst case, and I don't think this happen, the commish said you're getting screwed and let her back out.

 

Of course if someone drops Peyton Manning for a kicker it was a mistake and should LIKELY be reversed. But she, me , and all of us should be held accountable for the buttons we push and offers we make.

 

In our system their is no draft pick box to check, unfortunatley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have repliedthat you ALSO had a typo, and that you didn't really mean to give up Adrian Peterson for LT and her 3rd. But that you actually meant to give up Chester Taylor for LT and her 3rd.

 

It was the other way...but I like your thinking. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would I hate to be a commish for you and your lady trader. You're both at fault here. You accepted a trade offer, but you had to add a provision to your acceptance because you felt the original offer was unclear. Then your lady trader decides to reneg on her initial offer and change the terms of the deal after the deal has taken place. Then you both dump it in the commish's lap to clear up the whole thing. On top of that, you clearly imply that you are a ""FF lawyer".

 

The commish did the right thing. Negate the deal, screw both of you two, and when you two decide to get your sh#t together and come to a common agreement, make a deal in a straight forward and completely transparent manner.

 

+1...if you were unclear on the trade, you should not have accepted it. Shoot her an email to confirm, this way you have her response in writing should she try to back off after the fact.

 

Commish had an easy decision, IMO.

Edited by The Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thought is once you typed "if I am getting the 1st, I accept" you counter offered. You indicated you like structure and order, so I would think that would make sense to you.

 

As the commish I would have agreed with you once I heard she made a typo (not sure how you solvethat problem maybe split the difference and award a 2nd instead. The lesson here is a simple email to clarify if you wee getting or receiving the #1 would have saved you a lot of problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've got a lot more fortitude than I do. You set a precedent for owners to reacquire dropped players within a reasonable time when their position could be altered dramtically in that time. That's a slippery slope that I don't have nearly enough balls to get on.

 

Well, It's always been pretty obvious when it's happened. Like if an ownder clicks the wrong check box and drops his #3 Rb by mistake. And when I say reasonable amount of time I mean that he calls or emails within a few hours. I guess it depends on the league you're in, mine is pretty laid back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, It's always been pretty obvious when it's happened. Like if an ownder clicks the wrong check box and drops his #3 Rb by mistake. And when I say reasonable amount of time I mean that he calls or emails within a few hours. I guess it depends on the league you're in, mine is pretty laid back.

 

It's not the blatant ones that are the concern. No one is going to drop Peyton Manning. It's the more in-between ones. Where do you draw the line? How about if someone dropped Kevin Jones 2 hours before he signed with the Bears, and then after news broke that he signed, the owner declares that he made a mistake and meant to drop a different RB instead and wants Jones reinstated? Now what do you do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly you're as much at fault as she is by clicking that accept button before the terms of the deal was cast in stone. If I were the commish, I would void the deal and tell you both to work out something solid before dragging me into your world of confusion again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information