| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mojo
Joined: 10 May 2017
Posts: 233
Location: Texas
Back to top |
 Posted: 05/31/19 6:45 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| NYSports56 wrote: |
1) We reword the rules to reflect my original intent; e.g. only the team's first game of the week can be used to score points for the player.
2) We reword the rules so that it is the player's first game is used, but we don't require the player to play in exactly two games.
3) We stick with the badly worded and non-intuitive rule as written, because we should almost never change rules mid-season.
Let me know which option you all prefer. Whatever we choose will only be used to resolve situations in the future: J-Spoon's situation will be covered with the rules as literally written. |
As an impartial observer with a lot of experience in reading game rules, I would have read the intent of the rule as being #2. Team games aren't mentioned at all, so #1 would have seemed the least likely. And while I certainly wouldn't be above rules lawyering meaning #3 if it was to my advantage, it wouldn't be how I'd interpret the rule as a GM or ombudsman. |
In agreement #1 is least likely and that #2 is the direction the original rule seemed to be heading. Rule changes during the season, a tough call, but in this case a clarification with an addendum would be appropriate.
|
|
NYSports56
Joined: 03 Jul 2018
Posts: 1126
Location: New Jersey, USA
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/31/19 7:36 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| J-Spoon wrote: |
yeah after I posted I went and read the rules again and still wasn't sure
to make things easier
the rules also state that if a player does not play you can sub them out if the player subbing in has not played there first game
so in the interest of fairness I will sub out F Clark
and put in G/F Davis instead who plays her first game tomorrow |
J-Spoon, only do this if you really want to (or if it's too late to change now). I ruled that Clark would be able to play in your instance. It seems like that will be the ruling in the future as well, based on the initial reaction to this issue.
|
|
NYSports56
Joined: 03 Jul 2018
Posts: 1126
Location: New Jersey, USA
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/31/19 7:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Mojo wrote: |
| If a WNBA player is traded midweek, imagine the "what ifs" involved. |
OK, I am now completely convinced that option 2 is the right decision. My actual intent was option 1, but Mojo's example shows exactly what is wrong with that.
So it's going to be option 2. That's pretty much what the rules say already, the "two games played" thing notwithstanding. A player will earn points in the first game she steps on the court during a week. Period. I will modify the rules to reflect this clarification.
Again, J-Spoon, if it's not too late and you want to, put Clark back in.
|
|
J-Spoon
Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 6801
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/31/19 8:16 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| The game already started I will stick with my decision to swap her out for fairness
|
|
Admiral_Needa
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 10480
Location: Tiburon, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/31/19 8:52 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Mojo wrote: |
| The rule is ambiguous and complicated. Under the DNP portion of the rules, it could be read in such a way that Clark DNP her first game and would be eligible for the second or third game, somewhat like subbing Clark for Clark. Other examples that could come up: Cambage is on the roster, listed as probable, but what if she doesnt play the first game of a week, only the second game or third game. |
The rule is very odd, and the wording of the rule is even more odd.
Usually, in weekly basketball fantasy games, if a player plays 3 games in a week, you get points for all 3 games added to your weekly score. In this version, no matter how many games a player plays in one week, you only get points for one game, and it's the first game.
The rule is, as previously stated, worded rather foolishly. However, the rule itself is rather foolish. So, I had no reason to believe that the intent of the rule was different than what it was worded as.
So I am in agreement #1 is least likely and that #2 is the better direction to go, despite doing a mid-season rule change.
_________________
2002 WNBA Virtual GM Overall Winner
2006 WNBA Triple Threat Overall Winner
2007 NBA ESPN Fast Break Overall Winner
|
|
NYSports56
Joined: 03 Jul 2018
Posts: 1126
Location: New Jersey, USA
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/31/19 9:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Admiral_Needa wrote: |
| However, the rule itself is rather foolish |
Perhaps you prefer a game where the object is to manipulate the system so that you have as many players on your team who are playing multiple games as possible. This is a different type of game. Hopefully, artificial play like that is less prevalent this way, and a player's true worth is measured more accurately.
And far from being unusual, this is how most people I know who play weekly head to head fantasy leagues (for sports other than football) do things. Not everybody plays fantasy on ESPN.
|
|
Admiral_Needa
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 10480
Location: Tiburon, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/31/19 10:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Mojo wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| As an impartial observer with a lot of experience in reading game rules, I would have read the intent of the rule as being #2. Team games aren't mentioned at all, so #1 would have seemed the least likely. And while I certainly wouldn't be above rules lawyering meaning #3 if it was to my advantage, it wouldn't be how I'd interpret the rule as a GM or ombudsman. |
In agreement #1 is least likely and that #2 is the direction the original rule seemed to be heading. Rule changes during the season, a tough call, but in this case a clarification with an addendum would be appropriate. |
The way ESPN advises mid-season rule changes is that if there is unanimous vote, or at least a majority of participants vote for it, it should be OK to pass. Here, the proposal was passed with only 3 people having voted, 1 of which had an advantage to it being passed. Rules lawyering aside, still in agreement.
_________________
2002 WNBA Virtual GM Overall Winner
2006 WNBA Triple Threat Overall Winner
2007 NBA ESPN Fast Break Overall Winner
|
|
NYSports56
Joined: 03 Jul 2018
Posts: 1126
Location: New Jersey, USA
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/31/19 10:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Admiral_Needa wrote: |
| Mojo wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| As an impartial observer with a lot of experience in reading game rules, I would have read the intent of the rule as being #2. Team games aren't mentioned at all, so #1 would have seemed the least likely. And while I certainly wouldn't be above rules lawyering meaning #3 if it was to my advantage, it wouldn't be how I'd interpret the rule as a GM or ombudsman. |
In agreement #1 is least likely and that #2 is the direction the original rule seemed to be heading. Rule changes during the season, a tough call, but in this case a clarification with an addendum would be appropriate. |
The way ESPN advises mid-season rule changes is that if there is unanimous vote, or at least a majority of participants vote for it, it should be OK to pass. Here, the proposal was passed with only 3 people having voted, 1 of which had an advantage to it being passed. Rules lawyering aside, still in agreement. |
You are right--I agree that rules changes should be unanimous. If someone really wants the rule as written to stand, they should speak up before next week, because it won't be relevant until then. I can't imagine why someone would prefer to do it that way, but everyone should have a chance to veto.
I must point out that no one was given advantage by the passing of this rule. Before the vote, I declared that the rules as written would apply to J-Spoon, and that any rules change would only apply to future instances. Besides, either way, J-Spoon was allowed to start Clark.
|
|
calbearman76
Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 5155
Location: Carson City
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/31/19 10:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| NYSports56 wrote: |
| Admiral_Needa wrote: |
| However, the rule itself is rather foolish |
Perhaps you prefer a game where the object is to manipulate the system so that you have as many players on your team who are playing multiple games as possible. This is a different type of game. Hopefully, artificial play like that is less prevalent this way, and a player's true worth is measured more accurately.
And far from being unusual, this is how most people I know who play weekly head to head fantasy leagues (for sports other than football) do things. Not everybody plays fantasy on ESPN. |
I would hope that the back and forth between the two of you would be somewhat more civil. This is a fun league, no money involved. The issue of using one game rather than multiple games is completely appropriate in a GAME where there are head-to-head matchups between teams. If you are playing in a points league each player would have the opportunity to play 34 games over the course of the season, so the significance of playing multiple games in a week would not be as beneficial (or detrimental) in any particular week. I think we are all in this for fun and I also believe that people are acting in good faith as questions come up.
With regard to the specific issue of whether a player's points should be allowed for a team's second game if they (I also have no interest in political or grammatical correctness) have not played in the first, I believed the issue was clear, not so much by the wording in the rule but by some of the other discussion at the bottom of page 1. I believed it was clear that only the team's first game would count, but that a team could substitute another player if the original player did not play, provided the new player's team had not yet played a game. When the issue came up and I reread the rule itself I had no problem with the ruling for this week, even though it could have negatively affected me. But I was glad to see that J-Spoon chose to play another player. Going forward I would like the rule to be interpreted as written in #2 But whichever way is consensus is fine with me.
Once again, this a fun league. I hope everyone will act that way.
|
|
Admiral_Needa
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 10480
Location: Tiburon, CA
Back to top |
|
NYSports56
Joined: 03 Jul 2018
Posts: 1126
Location: New Jersey, USA
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/31/19 11:17 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| calbearman76 wrote: |
| I would hope that the back and forth between the two of you would be somewhat more civil. |
Me too. Perhaps I should look at myself in the mirror, but the way I see it, I think I've been pretty patient with Admiral Needa while enduring insults, ridicule, and pointless rules lawyering over theoretical examples.
With everyone else, talk about how the league should be run is a fun and interesting conversation. People disagree without calling me a fool or my ideas ridiculous, and we all share what we have to say.
I don't want to turn this into a referendum on who is to blame for all of this. No one should post about that. I'll do my best to keep things civil in the future by refusing to reply to any posts from the Admiral that I think go over the line.
|
|
calbearman76
Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 5155
Location: Carson City
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/31/19 11:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| On a separate issue while I will still be around for another week I have turned over control of the team to tbinta for the month of June.
|
|
WNBA 09
Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 12539
Location: Dallas , Texas
Back to top |
|
NYSports56
Joined: 03 Jul 2018
Posts: 1126
Location: New Jersey, USA
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/31/19 11:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| WNBA 09 wrote: |
| I will say the idea of players getting credit for all points during a weeks play does seem more intriguing. |
Yes, it does; I agree. I don't like the fact that sometimes, the players are out there on the court, and it can't count for my team. But making a player up to 3 times as valuable as an equal player during a given week is worse in my opinion.
A possibly better way would be to use a weekly average per game for each player instead of only the first game.
|
|
Mojo
Joined: 10 May 2017
Posts: 233
Location: Texas
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/01/19 12:37 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| calbearman76 wrote: |
| NYSports56 wrote: |
| Admiral_Needa wrote: |
| However, the rule itself is rather foolish |
Perhaps you prefer a game where the object is to manipulate the system so that you have as many players on your team who are playing multiple games as possible. This is a different type of game. Hopefully, artificial play like that is less prevalent this way, and a player's true worth is measured more accurately.
And far from being unusual, this is how most people I know who play weekly head to head fantasy leagues (for sports other than football) do things. Not everybody plays fantasy on ESPN. |
I would hope that the back and forth between the two of you would be somewhat more civil. This is a fun league, no money involved. The issue of using one game rather than multiple games is completely appropriate in a GAME where there are head-to-head matchups between teams. If you are playing in a points league each player would have the opportunity to play 34 games over the course of the season, so the significance of playing multiple games in a week would not be as beneficial (or detrimental) in any particular week. I think we are all in this for fun and I also believe that people are acting in good faith as questions come up.
With regard to the specific issue of whether a player's points should be allowed for a team's second game if they (I also have no interest in political or grammatical correctness) have not played in the first, I believed the issue was clear, not so much by the wording in the rule but by some of the other discussion at the bottom of page 1. I believed it was clear that only the team's first game would count, but that a team could substitute another player if the original player did not play, provided the new player's team had not yet played a game. When the issue came up and I reread the rule itself I had no problem with the ruling for this week, even though it could have negatively affected me. But I was glad to see that J-Spoon chose to play another player. Going forward I would like the rule to be interpreted as written in #2 But whichever way is consensus is fine with me.
Once again, this a fun league. I hope everyone will act that way. |
"The rule as written is rather foolish." These are your words, NYSports.
"The rule itself is rather foolish." In response, Admiral's words.
Nearly identical. The word foolish is an inaccurate, poor choice of words on both accounts.
"The rule is ambiguous and complicated." My words, yet I didn't get ridiculed as did Admiral for using different words that also call attention to a rule that could be worded more precisely for the betterment of the league.
It has become obvious that the two of you lack consideration for each other.
To the both of you, consider selective word choice that also pays respect to those who have remained silent and tolerant. Look in the mirror. I intend these words as concern to be helpful towards overcoming what appears to be your obvious disdain towards each other. And to our commissioner, I (we?) look for leadership qualities when resolving issues. If biasedness overcomes objectivity by suggesting to ignore another player's comments who nearly quoted you word for word, does that level of interaction also call attention to a contradiction of sorts for it to be ok for you to say it, but not Admiral, but ok when I avoid the word foolish when rewording the sentence?
|
|
Mojo
Joined: 10 May 2017
Posts: 233
Location: Texas
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/01/19 1:00 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Mojo wrote: |
| calbearman76 wrote: |
| NYSports56 wrote: |
| Admiral_Needa wrote: |
| However, the rule itself is rather foolish |
Perhaps you prefer a game where the object is to manipulate the system so that you have as many players on your team who are playing multiple games as possible. This is a different type of game. Hopefully, artificial play like that is less prevalent this way, and a player's true worth is measured more accurately.
And far from being unusual, this is how most people I know who play weekly head to head fantasy leagues (for sports other than football) do things. Not everybody plays fantasy on ESPN. |
I would hope that the back and forth between the two of you would be somewhat more civil. This is a fun league, no money involved. The issue of using one game rather than multiple games is completely appropriate in a GAME where there are head-to-head matchups between teams. If you are playing in a points league each player would have the opportunity to play 34 games over the course of the season, so the significance of playing multiple games in a week would not be as beneficial (or detrimental) in any particular week. I think we are all in this for fun and I also believe that people are acting in good faith as questions come up.
With regard to the specific issue of whether a player's points should be allowed for a team's second game if they (I also have no interest in political or grammatical correctness) have not played in the first, I believed the issue was clear, not so much by the wording in the rule but by some of the other discussion at the bottom of page 1. I believed it was clear that only the team's first game would count, but that a team could substitute another player if the original player did not play, provided the new player's team had not yet played a game. When the issue came up and I reread the rule itself I had no problem with the ruling for this week, even though it could have negatively affected me. But I was glad to see that J-Spoon chose to play another player. Going forward I would like the rule to be interpreted as written in #2 But whichever way is consensus is fine with me.
Once again, this a fun league. I hope everyone will act that way. |
"The rule as written is rather foolish." These are your words, NYSports.
"The rule itself is rather foolish." In response, Admiral's words.
Nearly identical. The word foolish is an inaccurate, poor choice of words on both accounts.
"The rule is ambiguous and complicated." My words, yet I didn't get called out as did Admiral for using different words that also call attention to a rule that could be worded more precisely for the betterment of the league.
It has become obvious that the two of you lack consideration for each other.
To the both of you, consider selective word choice that also pays respect to those who have remained silent and tolerant. Look in the mirror. I intend these words as concern to be helpful towards overcoming what appears to be your obvious disdain towards each other. And to our commissioner, I (we?) look for leadership qualities when resolving issues. If biasedness overcomes objectivity by suggesting to ignore another player's comments who nearly quoted you word for word, does that level of interaction also call attention to a contradiction of sorts for it to be ok for you to say it, but not Admiral, but ok when I avoid the word foolish when rewording the sentence? |
And to calbearman. Thanks for the comment. Because you were the opponent of the situation at hand, your opinion is one that should weigh heavily on any immediate clarifications. As far as the rule of head-to-head per week vs 34 games per season, I'm agreeing with calbearman logic. The reason I jumped in on the rule of player eligibility is because it was ambiguous and a rewording seemed appropriate. There are a couple of other wording loopholes that could come up, but for now I'm just going to sit back and see if they come into play.
|
|
NYSports56
Joined: 03 Jul 2018
Posts: 1126
Location: New Jersey, USA
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/01/19 1:16 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Mojo wrote: |
| calbearman76 wrote: |
| NYSports56 wrote: |
| Admiral_Needa wrote: |
| However, the rule itself is rather foolish |
Perhaps you prefer a game where the object is to manipulate the system so that you have as many players on your team who are playing multiple games as possible. This is a different type of game. Hopefully, artificial play like that is less prevalent this way, and a player's true worth is measured more accurately.
And far from being unusual, this is how most people I know who play weekly head to head fantasy leagues (for sports other than football) do things. Not everybody plays fantasy on ESPN. |
I would hope that the back and forth between the two of you would be somewhat more civil. This is a fun league, no money involved. The issue of using one game rather than multiple games is completely appropriate in a GAME where there are head-to-head matchups between teams. If you are playing in a points league each player would have the opportunity to play 34 games over the course of the season, so the significance of playing multiple games in a week would not be as beneficial (or detrimental) in any particular week. I think we are all in this for fun and I also believe that people are acting in good faith as questions come up.
With regard to the specific issue of whether a player's points should be allowed for a team's second game if they (I also have no interest in political or grammatical correctness) have not played in the first, I believed the issue was clear, not so much by the wording in the rule but by some of the other discussion at the bottom of page 1. I believed it was clear that only the team's first game would count, but that a team could substitute another player if the original player did not play, provided the new player's team had not yet played a game. When the issue came up and I reread the rule itself I had no problem with the ruling for this week, even though it could have negatively affected me. But I was glad to see that J-Spoon chose to play another player. Going forward I would like the rule to be interpreted as written in #2 But whichever way is consensus is fine with me.
Once again, this a fun league. I hope everyone will act that way. |
"The rule as written is rather foolish." These are your words, NYSports.
"The rule itself is rather foolish." In response, Admiral's words.
Nearly identical. The word foolish is an inaccurate, poor choice of words on both accounts.
"The rule is ambiguous and complicated." My words, yet I didn't get ridiculed as did Admiral for using different words that also call attention to a rule that could be worded more precisely for the betterment of the league.
It has become obvious that the two of you lack consideration for each other.
To the both of you, consider selective word choice that also pays respect to those who have remained silent and tolerant. Look in the mirror. I intend these words as concern to be helpful towards overcoming what appears to be your obvious disdain towards each other. And to our commissioner, I (we?) look for leadership qualities when resolving issues. If biasedness overcomes objectivity by suggesting to ignore another player's comments who nearly quoted you word for word, does that level of interaction also call attention to a contradiction of sorts for it to be ok for you to say it, but not Admiral, but ok when I avoid the word foolish when rewording the sentence? |
Thank you for your input and I will indeed look in the mirror. I'll hopefully close this page by saying that I don't feel that the two sentences were the same in context (one was about the rule, and the other was about the both that and the idea behind the rule), and that his history of giving me a hard time in condescending fashion should also be considered. However, enough-let's move on. If Admiral Needa would like to say something final in his defense, cool, but everybody else, enough said.
I said I would not respond to any of Admiral Needa's posts that I felt were toxic: I didn't say that I wouldn't read them.
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32336
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/01/19 11:09 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I find the head to head, one game per player, intriguing and a bit refreshing from the old game where all the stats from all the games counted, and where more manipulating of players occurred. (and which required even more time and effort on the part of the commissioner collecting all the data). While some of the rules have turned out to not be perfect or perfectly written, I think the game was well laid out from the beginning. People who signed up agreed to play with those rules, so I don't understand any major quibbling over changing them. Clarification yes, but major changes at this point no. If you want to play a different game with different rules, then find a league with those rules or start your own league.
Some people just like to be caustic and try to instigate. That's their style or raison d'etre. It's best to just move on.
_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32336
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/01/19 12:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Sadly, mojo/myrtle will waive Shenise Johnson and sign Betnijah Laney, both g's, Indiana.
_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
Admiral_Needa
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 10480
Location: Tiburon, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/01/19 1:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Mojo wrote: |
"The rule as written is rather foolish." These are your words, NYSports.
"The rule itself is rather foolish." In response, Admiral's words.
Nearly identical. The word foolish is an inaccurate, poor choice of words on both accounts.
"The rule is ambiguous and complicated." My words, yet I didn't get ridiculed as did Admiral for using different words that also call attention to a rule that could be worded more precisely for the betterment of the league.
It has become obvious that the two of you lack consideration for each other.
To the both of you, consider selective word choice that also pays respect to those who have remained silent and tolerant. Look in the mirror. I intend these words as concern to be helpful towards overcoming what appears to be your obvious disdain towards each other. And to our commissioner, I (we?) look for leadership qualities when resolving issues. If biasedness overcomes objectivity by suggesting to ignore another player's comments who nearly quoted you word for word, does that level of interaction also call attention to a contradiction of sorts for it to be ok for you to say it, but not Admiral, but ok when I avoid the word foolish when rewording the sentence? |
Thank You.
_________________
2002 WNBA Virtual GM Overall Winner
2006 WNBA Triple Threat Overall Winner
2007 NBA ESPN Fast Break Overall Winner
|
|
hoopmom
Joined: 11 May 2014
Posts: 141
Location: Atlanta
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/02/19 2:52 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Hoopmom lineup
G Chelsea gray
G - Odysee sims
F - Natasha Howard
F - Candace dupree
C - Marie guilich to replace Valdeva
|
|
tbinta
Joined: 29 May 2013
Posts: 656
Location: Bay Area
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/02/19 7:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
WEEK 3 Lineup
CALBEARMAN76/TBINTA
G- Jewell Loyd, G, SEA
G- Courtney Williams, G, CONN
F- Sancho Lyttle, F, PHO
F- Gabby Williams, F, CHI
C- Sylvia Fowles, C, MIN
_________________
The Bay Is iN The Area
|
|
WNBA 09
Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 12539
Location: Dallas , Texas
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/02/19 8:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Week 3
Vandersloot
Cloud
Thomas
Glory
Dolson
_________________
3-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-4-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
Last edited by WNBA 09 on 06/08/19 11:34 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
NYSports56
Joined: 03 Jul 2018
Posts: 1126
Location: New Jersey, USA
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/02/19 8:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| NYSports56 drops Stephanie Talbot, F, MIN and adds Rashanda Gray, F, NY
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32336
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/02/19 10:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| NYSports56 wrote: |
| NYSports56 drops Stephanie Talbot, F, MIN and adds Rashanda Gray, F, NY |
Now there's someone who has obviously put in a lot of work to improve. Always nice to see that pay off.
_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
|
|
