(10-15-2017, 08:02 PM)7hawk77 Wrote:- 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.
How much more "public forums" can the bank thread be? How about you read your own rules before posting them as justification.
(10-15-2017, 10:53 PM)Keyg_an Wrote:How much more "public forums" can the bank thread be? How about you read your own rules before posting them as justification.
How sure are you that they only talked about this in the bank thread? Are you sure they didn't talk about this privately before the bet was posted?
I think regardless of the verbage, if a player is forced to hold out or trade when they would normally not take those actions, it's wrong. Just like tampering has an outside force effecting a player's actions, so did this bet.
A banker was handling user bets because it was about betting money. I don't think he was equipped to make a decision about this kind of bet.
The HO should have stopped this earlier but really, that doesn't matter. The outcome would have been the same.
(10-15-2017, 09:09 PM)7hawk77 Wrote:How sure are you that they only talked about this in the bank thread? Are you sure they didn't talk about this privately before the bet was posted?
.
So much for innocent until proven guilty. Unless you can prove it was spoken about outside of the public forums how can you punish them for it?
(10-15-2017, 09:45 PM)7hawk77 Wrote:They were never punished. It's just not a legit bet.
Case closed.
How is veto'ing something using authority and power not punishing?
Dermott said the only reason the bet was nullified was because RFFO retired? Now it's because it was borderline tampering? You guys as a head office might want to set your stories straight before telling us why it happened.
and since it's clear that you did and said nothing until this event occurred, the continued bandying about of rules you weren't enforcing before doesn't hold weight with most people
the question of whether the bet was void under the circumstances of the salary cap issue has been public for days and your answer wasn't "the bet was never legal" then, just like it wasn't when the bet was made, the entire season in between then and now, or at any point until this ruling
"these rules were always there" doesn't mean shit as a reasoning when it's only used in hindsight based on the occurrence of a separate issue
just like it doesn't mean much to a lot of people if you quote the rule for tampering...but then instantly backpedal and dance around when it's pointed out that you clearly don't have the proof to back up the rule being broken, and in fact the event you're trying use it for was literally handled opposite to that, in public for all to see
while I'm at it...you said this
A player (KCKolbe) approached another player (RFFO) under contract with the purpose of creating a hold out/trade. Regardless if this was with a bet out in the open, it doesn't matter. It still is one person impacting the other and forcing them to hold out or trade based on the outcome of the bet.
...the player impacted is the one who created the bet by your account and it's disingenuous if not actually dishonest to put the onus on the 2nd person and claim they're impacting the person who's idea it was to begin with
now.....nothing like this has really happened....but there's a lot of pieces here and a lot of ways you can still go..you could defer punishment considering other teams have gone over the cap and gotten no punishment....creating a rule in the offseason will have just as much impact if not more than kicking a wounded animal when it's down, which is what you're currently doing to the Legion
to go back and reconsider and come back with the new ruling built on a clean slate would be good for everyone I think and it shows good faith for a team that did not do anything knowledgeably, did something others have been allowed by YOU to do, and didn't benefit
as for the bet, you made the right call.....not forcing KC to live up to it base don the circumstances is a fine decision that I doubt anyone would have a problem with....trying to justify it with rules YOU weren't following or enforcing before this was the bad move there...."whoops, sorry, won't happen again guys...we'll work on being consistent in the rules and how they apply and hey we make mistakes too" is a great way to go from here
now..you may choose not to do these things...you have the power after all..you can double down on the punishing of a team just because you can....lord knows it won't make a single iota of a greater impact.....and you can get tired of being argued with and recede into a "conversation over" mode that was already hinted at in the "case closed" response
It was nullified because we discussed the bet, voted on it and had consensus that it was unhealthy for the league.
I voted that it should be nullified because I think that the bet is unethical and goes against the spirit of competition. Regardless of who won that bet, if adds and subtracts power unfairly to a team. Tampering also unfairly adds and subtracts power to teams.
The others had their own reasoning.
Either way, I find this draining having to explain and defend our decision which I fully stand behind. I'm sorry if you disagree with it.
I'm sorry you're drained by pretending that it's the decision that has people upset, rather than the timing and circumstance of the decision that people keep ACTUALLY being upset about.
This will be MY personal last post on the subject. It's clear you're only reading what you want to see anyway.
Half this HO wasn't even in power before this season, but people are mad that they're enforcing a rule that should have been, but wasn't, enforced by the previous leaders? Since teams got away with it in S1 we're just supposed to never punish teams for going over the cap? They can't go back and retroactively punish teams for being over the cap 2 seasons ago.