Sign in to follow this  
NavinRJohnson

Urge another owner to use the Waiver Wire?

Recommended Posts

Anyway, I'm done with this topic, by now, it should be pretty clear where I fall on it...best of luck to the OP in securing a playoff berth...

Edited by the outlaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're wrong. The difference in your example is that Team A is asking for advice, whereby in the OP's circumstance, Team A is having unsolicited advice given to him (i.e.,being "urged" to set his lineup in a blatant attempt to defeat another opponent)...

 

Once again ... a discussion on who should start, who should be picked up is not collusion, even if the goal is to defeat that week's opponent (isn't that always the goal). When money or players change hands then you have collusion. It is irrelevant if the advice was solicited or not, still not collusion.

 

Now if the result of the discussion resulted in one team starting players on IR in order to throw the game then I would agree there is collusion even though money and/or players didn't change hands.

 

But anytime the discussion is how to put forward the best team with no exchange of money or players then you got advice, not collusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because somebody is butt hurt because he has to face an newly active team doesn't make it collusion.

 

You never answered my question ... once an owner becomes inactive do you prevent him from returning to active in the spirit of fairness and competitive balance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Finn - oh, and sorry man, I called you "absolutely ridiculous" in a prior post...I let my emotions get carried away because this situation has actually happened to me (albeit not at playoff time), and I was livid at the guy who did it (when he hadn't suggested it for anyone else). I guess I should have felt flattered that he was threatened enough by my team, and not anyone else's? LOL

I'm not sure if I'm reading this or taking it the right way but whether this guy hadn't suggested it to anyone else IMO is irrelevant. You can be mad about it sure but IMO there is nothing wrong with what he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Grits on this situation. Unless the OP calls this guy and says, hey I'll give you $20 if you pick up James White and set the line up I tell you to, there is no collusion here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I lied, as GaS has once again baited me to respond to his non-sense...but, this will be my last response on this thread...

 

Soliciting advice from an uninterested party (e.g., thru these forums) = NO collusion

 

An interested party providing unsolicited advice (e.g., "urging" a team to set his lineup, etc.) in an attempt to defeat another interested party, which may or may not have any monetary consequences = collusion, IMO (and there is likely nothing you can say that will sway my opinion on this)...

 

finally, to answer your question, it would depend upon the circumstances under which the inactive owner all of a sudden becomes "active"...

Edited by the outlaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I lied, as GaS has once again baited me to respond to his non-sense...but, this will be my last response on this thread...

 

Soliciting advice from an uninterested party (e.g., thru these forums) = NO collusion

 

An interested party providing unsolicited advice (e.g., "urging" a team to set his lineup, etc.) in an attempt to defeat another interested party, which may or may not have any monetary consequences = collusion, IMO (and there is likely nothing you can say that will sway my opinion on this)...

 

finally, to answer your question, it would depend upon the circumstances under which the inactive owner all of a sudden becomes "active"...

 

So some one above said that one of his league mates often asks him for advice on who to start. You think they are colluding?

 

The fact that the advice was "unsolicited" is not relevant. Are you saying if the inactive owner reached out and asked for the advice it is no longer collusion? So you think the important thing here is WHO initiated the discussion. That is silly.

 

And an example of you convoluted thinking is that you think there are circumstances where you would tell an owner that he can't return to active status; i.e. we no longer are interested in you setting your best lineup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're absolutely ridiculous if you can't see that...it's actually pretty black and white if you were in a court of law - "Team A conspires with Team B to "urge" Team B to "set their lineup," in an attempt to defeat Team C, whereby Team B otherwise would not. How is that NOT collusion? Some of you guys really need a reality check, especially when you talk out of both sides of your mouth to suit your own perspective...just sayin'...

 

He would be offering advice. It's not like he is taking over his team. He would be wise to do it via direct message or text and not on the league message board.

 

 

So, OP, what is the situation? Is the other owner a complete absentee guy who has been starting hurt players and players on bye all year, or is he just on the lazy end of the spectrum but still checks his team every week? This is a major distinction IMO.

Edited by BA Baracus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're absolutely ridiculous if you can't see that...it's actually pretty black and white if you were in a court of law - "Team A conspires with Team B to "urge" Team B to "set their lineup," in an attempt to defeat Team C, whereby Team B otherwise would not. How is that NOT collusion? Some of you guys really need a reality check, especially when you talk out of both sides of your mouth to suit your own perspective...just sayin'...

 

Sorry but I think you're the one that is being ridiculous. One owner giving some advice to another owner (even if they only do it in cases when it benefits them) is not wrong, and it is certainly not collusion.

 

You're the one that needs a reality check, and are biased because of something that happened to you. Talk about having your own perspective.

 

 

I'm just sayin' that if this happens to me (i.e., another team "reminds" my opponent to set his lineup in a specific attempt to defeat me, when such reminders haven't been made for any other match-ups all season), and I lose any money because of it, it would damn sure turn into a court case, as I would probably end up being arrested for assault...

 

Great another tough guy who is going to resort to assault over some petty dispute. You sound very irrational and angry, I'm going to chalk that up to still being pissed about the Redskins loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I lied, as GaS has once again baited me to respond to his non-sense...but, this will be my last response on this thread...

 

Soliciting advice from an uninterested party (e.g., thru these forums) = NO collusion

 

An interested party providing unsolicited advice (e.g., "urging" a team to set his lineup, etc.) in an attempt to defeat another interested party, which may or may not have any monetary consequences = collusion, IMO (and there is likely nothing you can say that will sway my opinion on this)...

 

finally, to answer your question, it would depend upon the circumstances under which the inactive owner all of a sudden becomes "active"...

You can say its collusion until the end of time, and you'll still be wrong. If you took it to a court of law you'd lose in proving it was collusion.

 

It is very clear you are biased because this happened to you and you didn't like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He would be offering advice. It's not like he is taking over his team. He would be wise to do it via direct message or text and not on the league message board.

 

 

So, OP, what is the situation? Is the other owner a complete absentee guy who has been starting hurt players and players on bye all year, or is he just on the lazy end of the spectrum but still checks his team every week? This is a major distinction IMO.

By advising him to do it some way other than the league message board, you are acknowledging that there is something shady about what he's doing. If there is nothing wrong with it, why not post it out front?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

He would be offering advice. It's not like he is taking over his team. He would be wise to do it via direct message or text and not on the league message board.

 

 

So, OP, what is the situation? Is the other owner a complete absentee guy who has been starting hurt players and players on bye all year, or is he just on the lazy end of the spectrum but still checks his team every week? This is a major distinction IMO.

 

 

B. just on the lazy end of the spectrum but still checks his team every week

 

He might even notice and fix it himself. I don't see why that has any bearing on the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By advising him to do it some way other than the league message board, you are acknowledging that there is something shady about what he's doing. If there is nothing wrong with it, why not post it out front?

Why not? I have actually done this before. People bitched at me once, but I don't care, I troll people all day long on the league boards. Lol.

 

To think it's collusion is laughable, everyone knows when you're up against that one guy that has an injured player currently starting we all cross our fingers and hope he makes the mistake. But who actually gets angry when they catch it and make a substitute? Ya'll be crazy, all the sports reporters are colluding with millions of fantasy players every day, those bastards.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL....I should just send him a text: "Sucks about Ingram".

Text him, call him, post it on the message boards, show up at his house.

 

Let him know he needs to pickup hightower or spiller or whatever, give him advice and then pat him on the back. If anyone gets mad at you, and I guarantee you it'd only be the one guy he's playing against, tell him to smoochie off.

 

Just don't bitch about not getting to play inactive owners and all is right in the world.

Edited by Inziladun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

B. just on the lazy end of the spectrum but still checks his team every week

 

He might even notice and fix it himself. I don't see why that has any bearing on the situation.

 

Because if everyone has been pounding on an empty team every week, it would be pretty whack for one team to now have to face him fully loaded in the last week of the season with a playoff berth on the line.

 

If he has been filling his lineup every week, then I don't see the harm in giving him some advice.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By advising him to do it some way other than the league message board, you are acknowledging that there is something shady about what he's doing. If there is nothing wrong with it, why not post it out front?

 

Why cause a bunch of drama and get the other guy all on the rag over it? People are so jumpy and testy about everything in fantasy at this time of year already.

 

I don't conduct trade discussions on the league message board. Is that shady?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why cause a bunch of drama and get the other guy all on the rag over it? People are so jumpy and testy about everything in fantasy at this time of year already.

 

I don't conduct trade discussions on the league message board. Is that shady?

 

No, it's not, but it also isn't the same thing as a third party reminding a guy to remove an inactive player from his lineup. For the record, I have used the matchup board to remind guys that I am playing to sub out inactive players, because I don't want an asterisk on my wins. When I beat you , I don't want to hear about how you would have won if you knew Ingram was injured. Having said that, I would never insert myself into someone else's matchup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, it's not, but it also isn't the same thing as a third party reminding a guy to remove an inactive player from his lineup. For the record, I have used the matchup board to remind guys that I am playing to sub out inactive players, because I don't want an asterisk on my wins. When I beat you , I don't want to hear about how you would have won if you knew Ingram was injured. Having said that, I would never insert myself into someone else's matchup.

 

Not to derail...but that is an easy response right there. Just tell the guy he shouldn't suck so bad at fantasy that he can't make a lineup change within 4 days of getting news about a player going to IR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.