+- International Simulation Football League (https://forums.sim-football.com)
+-- Forum: Community (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Discussion (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=33)
+---- Forum: Suggestion Box (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=34)
+----- Forum: Archived Suggestions (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=349)
+----- Thread: Add a Requirement to the Retirement Rule (/showthread.php?tid=8574)
Add a Requirement to the Retirement Rule - manicmav36 - 05-09-2018
In order to avoid situations like what occurred with @cosbornballboy and @Peterson, I suggest that you are not allowed to retire your player after a trade until you have played at least a full season with your new team. If you want to announce you will retire before the season is complete and recreate in the mean-time, that’s fine, but you must finish an entire season.
Add a Requirement to the Retirement Rule - Beaver - 05-09-2018
I don't know about this. I'm not wild about taking away player agency and don't want players to feel trapped/stuck for a season and possibly going inactive. Maybe we could add something like:
"By default a trades have a retirement protection condition that nullifies a trade if one of the players involved retires within x weeks unless both teams specifically agree to waive it."
I don't really like that because it has some glaring loopholes but those could likely be addressed. Or just treat it like when someone gets hired as a GM for a different team: work out fair compensation if a player involved in a trade retires within x weeks and let HO intervene if nothing can be reached.
Add a Requirement to the Retirement Rule - kckolbe - 05-09-2018
For trades AFTER offseason begins, I am all for this. I worry that mid-season trades contenders to acquire old vets may be affected unintentionally by this rule.
Add a Requirement to the Retirement Rule - manicmav36 - 05-09-2018
(05-09-2018, 10:22 AM)Beaver Wrote:I don't know about this. I'm not wild about taking away player agency and don't want players to feel trapped/stuck for a season and possibly going inactive.
Which is why I said that if players want to recreate in the meantime, they should be allowed to do so. Their old player would continue to operate for one season as if they went inactive. I agree, the last thing we want is for people to feel stuck with a player they no longer want.
(05-09-2018, 10:22 AM)Beaver Wrote:Maybe we could add something like:
"By default a trades have a retirement protection condition that nullifies a trade if one of the players involved retires within x weeks unless both teams specifically agree to waive it."
This is also a solid idea.
Add a Requirement to the Retirement Rule - SwagSloth - 05-09-2018
This seems like it could backfire. Retiring right after you're traded sucks, for sure, but hold people hostage to teams that they don't want to be on is likely to drive people to inactivity. I'd rather us lose a player rather than a user.
Something probably does need to be done, though. Maybe allow the affected team to reverse the trade if someone they're traded retires within 1 week (or 2 weeks) of being traded. (If the trade is made close to a draft and draft picks included in the trade were already used, the affected team can instead receive an equivalent round pick from the trading team of the treading team's choice from the next possible draft.)
Obviously, GMs can't predict player behavior, but it would encourage more GMs to double check with players to make sure they'll play for a team before trading them. Most GMs do this already, but we have had a few players say that they were traded without their consent.
EDIT: I missed the note on allowing them to still recreate. That does make the first suggestion a bit stronger.
Add a Requirement to the Retirement Rule - Beaver - 05-09-2018
(05-09-2018, 11:27 AM)manicmav36 Wrote:Which is why I said that if players want to recreate in the meantime, they should be allowed to do so. Their old player would continue to operate for one season as if they went inactive. I agree, the last thing we want is for people to feel stuck with a player they no longer want.Ah I misread that part. Wouldn't that give players in that scenario a leg up on other recreates, though?
Scenario:
Player is traded after week 8 (or 10 or whatever).
Can't retire until he's played a full season for his new team.
Announces he will retire after the following season and recreates.
Gains several weeks of TPE on anyone who is retiring conventionally.
Situations like this could definitely be addressed as we flesh out the rule so I'm not trying to torpedo the idea but I do think it's important we don't do more harm than good trying to fix this.
Add a Requirement to the Retirement Rule - Durden - 05-09-2018
Or, let them retire. The team retains the player for the remainder of the season.
User is allowed to re-create and play in the DSFL. Retired player won't be gaining TPE and it gets them away from the team.
It sucks, but it keeps people active and not held hostage by the team they hate.
Add a Requirement to the Retirement Rule - manicmav36 - 05-09-2018
(05-09-2018, 10:31 AM)SwagSloth Wrote:This seems like it could backfire. Retiring right after you're traded sucks, for sure, but hold people hostage to teams that they don't want to be on is likely to drive people to inactivity. I'd rather us lose a player rather than a user.
Something probably does need to be done, though. Maybe allow the affected team to reverse the trade if someone they're traded retires within 1 week (or 2 weeks) of being traded. (If the trade is made close to a draft and draft picks included in the trade were already used, the affected team can instead receive an equivalent round pick from the trading team of the treading team's choice from the next possible draft.)
Obviously, GMs can't predict player behavior, but it would encourage more GMs to double check with players to make sure they'll play for a team before trading them. Most GMs do this already, but we have had a few players say that they were traded without their consent.
I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself properly. The person could announce their retirement and recreate whenever they choose, just like they can now. However, the retired player would continue to exist as if the person had gone inactive, until their required season is complete. The player would then be retired. The person would have no control over the retired player during that season if they wish to recreate.
Add a Requirement to the Retirement Rule - manicmav36 - 05-09-2018
(05-09-2018, 10:33 AM)Durden Wrote:Or, let them retire. The team retains the player for the remainder of the season.
User is allowed to re-create and play in the DSFL. Retired player won't be gaining TPE and it gets them away from the team.
It sucks, but it keeps people active and not held hostage by the team they hate.
This is exactly what I'm trying to say.
Add a Requirement to the Retirement Rule - manicmav36 - 05-09-2018
(05-09-2018, 10:32 AM)Beaver Wrote:Ah I misread that part. Wouldn't that give players in that scenario a leg up on other recreates, though?
Scenario:
Player is traded after week 8 (or 10 or whatever).
Can't retire until he's played a full season for his new team.
Announces he will retire after the following season and recreates.
Gains several weeks of TPE on anyone who is retiring conventionally.
Situations like this could definitely be addressed as we flesh out the rule so I'm not trying to torpedo the idea but I do think it's important we don't do more harm than good trying to fix this.
Don't we have people doing this already though? @kckolbe announced Kushing would retire at the end of the season, and immediately recreated a QB who is now playing in the DSFL. Fairly certain multiple others have done this as well.