What are some OTHER badly written rules we can fix

[AdamS]

Everyone has strong feelings. Let's do something useful with them. Have you come across a rule that you felt was in need of improvement in the way it was worded or defined? Post it here. Let's work on the problems.

[Squamish]

I'll take a look at it over the next few days - I only work twice this week, so it'll be easy enough to do.

[bovovovo]

A. What is Tampering?
  1. Tampering is defined as a player or GM approaching a player under contract with another team or who's rights are owned by another team outside of the public forums, with the purpose of persuading them to join your team, request a trade, or hold out on contract negotiations.
  2. Doing draft scouting on a player in the upcoming draft who was claimed on waivers will not be considered tampering if the discussion is only about scouting for the draft.
  3. This includes any private discussion involving leaving the team with whom the player is under contract with the purpose of joining the offender’s team.

PBE had some shenanigans with a tampering definition similar to this, so I don't think it'd hurt to get this tweaked. Maybe remove the "outside of the public forums" bit.

Also what if a player approaches a GM and asks them to trade for him? That's happened before, and I would personally categorize that as tampering. Though it's weird... the player could just go to their own GM and ask to be traded.

  4. Tampering accusations may only be reported by the player who had been tampered with or his current GM or Co-GM

Not a big fan of this rule to be honest, doesn't make much sense to me but maybe I've just never had the reasoning for it explained to me

[tbone415]

PBE had some shenanigans with a tampering definition similar to this, so I don't think it'd hurt to get this tweaked. Maybe remove the "outside of the public forums" bit.

Also what if a player approaches a GM and asks them to trade for him? That's happened before.



Not a big fan of this rule to be honest, doesn't make much sense to me but maybe I've just never had the reasoning for it explained to me

Agreed on that

[Squamish]

3. GM Recreation Rules
- All re-creating General Managers (this includes Co-General Managers) must use their team's highest second (2nd) round pick in the proceeding NSFL Draft on their own player.
- If both the General Manager and Co-General Manager are recreating, the team must give up their own first (1st) round pick and their own second (2nd) round pick, if they wish to continue to GM that team.

Seems odd that in the first case, it's the highest 2nd, but in the second case, it's their own 1st and 2nd. I feel like something should go in here for a stipulation in the case where they don't have their own - trading for any 1st or 2nd in the draft as long as one of each are used, or they have to trade back for their own (and what to do if the team owning their pick refuses to trade it back to them, can they get a different pick, do they have to hold off on recreating, etc). Also just inconsistent that the rule is that it must be their own pick if both are recreating, but highest available if just one of the two.

[AzhekAhriman]

I don't know HO's reasoning for the 4th point in the tampering section but what it substantively does is make it so you have to not want to be tampered with in order to actually avoid tampering. For example (If god help me, I was tampering) if I go to Bovo on discord DMs and ask him to request a trade to my team, and Bovo wants to be on my team and acquiesces, the current structure ensures that nothing can or will happen because he's not going to report it, I'm not going to, and his former team's GM has no proof unless one or the other of us is sloppy. This is even though I may have induced his cooperation or brought the idea to the player.

[bovovovo]

3. GM Recreation Rules
      - All re-creating General Managers (this includes Co-General Managers) must use their team's highest second (2nd) round pick in the proceeding NSFL Draft on their own player.
      - If both the General Manager and Co-General Manager are recreating, the team must give up their own first (1st) round pick and their own second (2nd) round pick, if they wish to continue to GM that team.

Seems odd that in the first case, it's the highest 2nd, but in the second case, it's their own 1st and 2nd. I feel like something should go in here for a stipulation in the case where they don't have their own - trading for any 1st or 2nd in the draft as long as one of each are used, or they have to trade back for their own (and what to do if the team owning their pick refuses to trade it back to them, can they get a different pick, do they have to hold off on recreating, etc). Also just inconsistent that the rule is that it must be their own pick if both are recreating, but highest available if just one of the two.

Yeah that's pretty much how it's gone down, it's just not in the rule book.

Example would be when we (NOLA) had to draft my player, we didn't have a 2nd in the draft, just two 1sts, so we had to trade for a 2nd otherwise we would've had to use a 1st.

Also I think two seasons ago Liberty were in a situation where they didn't have any 1sts or 2nds and had a co-GM in the draft, so they ABSOLUTELY HAD to trade for at least a 2nd to draft him. I'm not sure what would have happened if they didn't though, they ended up deciding it was better for him to just retire and recreate.

[Squamish]

In the budget section, the only thing I can find about signing inactives is

5. Inactive players may be signed at the contract minimum for their TPE range.

I'm curious as to how the rest of it works - is there a chance for the team holding the inactive to sign him to an extension first, before the rest of the league gets a chance? If he reaches FA, since he can't choose a team (being inactive) is it first come first serve or can teams outbid others?

[Squamish]

- If a player changes positions they will be allowed to move 50% of their total TPE to new attributes. No attribute may go over the maximum value allowed with the new build, even if it was above it before the position switch.

TPE that is REQUIRED BY RULE to be moved (above the maximum) - does the user still get to choose to move an additional 50% other than that which is required, or is the required move part of the 50%?

Example:

Bob Smith - QB pays to move to RB. He has 800 TPE, and 80 in Intelligence. When he changes position, he joins an archetype for RB that has a 75 cap in Intelligence. Does he get to move 400 of the 800 TPE excluding that which he's required to move to get Intelligence down to 75, or including it?

[bovovovo]

@Squamish @ me when you’ve finished looking it over and I can answer things in one post just so this doesn’t get cluttered. All of the things you’ve brought up the GMs / HO have a set precedent way of going about but it just hasn’t made its way to writing in the rule book (for some reason). It’s good that you point it out though