Boards Division 4 Thread

D3PO

gufc21 wrote: »

Well tbh its clear cut, he missed draft and was inactive for first 4 weeks (3 is limit) if he doesn't log in before ko thurs gm should take over team

why is he even getting a chance then ? the rules were the rules we had a hell of a lot of back and forth agreeing them.

Tristram

Johnny_Fontane wrote: »

in other news cutlering the mustard is back in the game.

they made some lineup changes last week. After contacting the guy, I never heard anything back.

Their progress will be monitored carefully. They were inactive for what looks like 4 weeks, so any further periods of inactivity will result in the GM taking over their team.

This was posted a page or two back.

Tristram

D3PO wrote: »

why is he even getting a chance then ? the rules were the rules we had a hell of a lot of back and forth agreeing them.

What are the rules on this again?

Guffy

3 weeks inactive and you're out

Johnny_Fontane

Lads, I think its better to have him in there rather than not in there. If he starts an inactive again, he's gone.

I will tell him as much.

Does this make sense?

Tristram

Johnny_Fontane wrote: »

Lads, I think its better to have him in there rather than not in there. If he starts an inactive again, he's gone.

I will tell him as much.

Does this make sense?

Id actually prefer for him not to be here and for the GM to take over, as per the rules. Maybe that's just me through.

BigBadRob83

Tristram wrote: »

Id actually prefer for him not to be here and for the GM to take over, as per the rules. Maybe that's just me through.

Would second that.
Has had his chance, and has prior form

Johnny_Fontane

tricky one though, as he did change his team last week, so is now (technically) active again.

D3PO

the problem you have with the starting an inactive / player on a bye rule is if you ahve most of your guys have a bye in the same week or weeks an inactive can get by due to that technicality.

if your not active as per the rules then personally I think there should be zero tollerence. Thats why I thought we had a collective rule system made up by the majorities feedback here on boards ?

Look its your league so the GMs shoudl do what the league wants I jsut think a guy who has form, doesnt turn up to draft, has had 4 weeks of playing inactives / bye players doesnt deserve any leeway.

I dont have anythign personal against the guy, I dont even know who he is here on boards, my views are purely from the point of wanting all fantasy players to get enjoyment out of the game and thats best servers without inactives.

jester1980

Lost to a 0-4 team

Hangs head in shame

Tristram

If it was my team you really should be ashamed of yourself!

jester1980

ha ha no think it was the GM

im Swords Sharks

Johnny_Fontane

jester1980 wrote: »

ha ha no think it was the GM

im Swords Sharks

ha ha! you've just been getting away with it for weeks! my team has been a shocker though this year. you'd think a team with the 4th ranked quarterback (cutler), the no.1 draft pick (mccoy) and gronk would be enough to score more than 72 points in the first four weeks!!!!

Its all change now though....this team is going places.

Johnny_Fontane

Got offered Steven Ridley last night at about 11pm from Pillow Fighters for Zac Stacy.

I hope he has an explanation, but it was well known out there that Ridley had gone down with a knee injury that looked season threatening.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but that sort of **** has no place in division 4 (when I'm GM).

as it happens I probably wont be in Division 4 as I'm looking like I am getting relegated!

jester1980

HA HA THE SNAKE

Tristram

Johnny_Fontane wrote: »

Got offered Steven Ridley last night at about 11pm from Pillow Fighters for Zac Stacy.

I hope he has an explanation, but it was well known out there that Ridley had gone down with a knee injury that looked season threatening.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but that sort of **** has no place in division 4 (when I'm GM).

as it happens I probably wont be in Division 4 as I'm looking like I am getting relegated!

I'll make whatever trade offers I like. Feel free to accept/reject as you like.

BigBadRob83

Tristram wrote: »

I'll make whatever trade offers I like. Feel free to accept/reject as you like.

Obviously entitled to do that if you want to and up to the other owners to watch out for that kind of offer.

But personally that's not the type of person I'd like to be in a league with.

Johnny_Fontane

Tristram wrote: »

I'll make whatever trade offers I like. Feel free to accept/reject as you like.

10. Anyone who sets out to deliberately mess up a league by signing up and dropping all their players after drafting or offering very obviously one sided trades to make another team too strong will be banned from both the Fantasy Football Forum and the American Football forum as a whole permanently.

Any more of this and you're getting banned.:cool:

frostie500

Johnny_Fontane wrote: »

10. Anyone who sets out to deliberately mess up a league by signing up and dropping all their players after drafting or offering very obviously one sided trades to make another team too strong will be banned from both the Fantasy Football Forum and the American Football forum as a whole permanently.

Any more of this and you're getting banned.:cool:

If a user is making bad trades to help strengthen another team then report the trade and the mods will take action

D3PO

Tristram wrote: »

I'll make whatever trade offers I like. Feel free to accept/reject as you like.

you need to read the fantasy charter. These arent cash leagues so a win at all costs approch isnt tolerated.

Tristram

I am very disappointed by some of the recent posts in this thread. I would have thought that I have been in boards leagues and actively trading with members for long enough now that people would know what I am like as a player.

With a team at 1-5 I am scrambling to make trades and pick-ups to help my roster. Zac Stacy is a player I like but who isn't performing well and seems to have become the back-up RB with the Rams. So I proposed a trade of: Ridley - unknown injury, probably going to miss some time but much greater upside when fit, for, Stacy - much lower ranked RB and not the main man currently with some upside if Cunningham fecks off. At the time I considered this a reasonable proposal. I did NOT know that Ridley was gone for the season. NOONE knew. That was first confirmed by Ian Rapoport yesterday.

As with all trade proposals there are two owners making decisions. Unless they both agree trades don't happen. When you don't like trade proposals you reject or counter. I think this is the first time I've seen someone reject a trade and then come on boards and act like this. I don't ask other members to explain their trade proposals to me on boards, nor do I think it is right to do so. I simply accept, reject, or negotiate.

I don't know why Rule 10 of the charter was quoted as it is not applicable in this case, and I really don't understand being threatened with a ban by the GM when I did nothing wrong. To my mind this absolute non-event is made even more ridiculous given how the recent inactive was handled/not handled. I play in boards leagues because they are competitive and fun. Please believe me when I say reading and responding to this has been anything but fun.

TO.

I don't see the problem here with Tristram proposal. I don't believe either the rule should be used against him. That rule is to prevent those purposely trying to ruin the league not someone with genuine reasons. Come on lads Tristram has been a solid poster on here and seems like a top bloke. To accuse him of trying to make a trade to ruin the league is nonsense. I agree with him if you don't like the trade just reject it. Are we now going to witch hunt folk who propose silly trades in our own eyes? There is a difference between those ruining the league and those who are not.

Johnny_Fontane

TO. wrote: »

I don't see the problem here with Tristram proposal. I don't believe either the rule should be used against him. That rule is to prevent those purposely trying to ruin the league not someone with genuine reasons. Come on lads Tristram has been a solid poster on here and seems like a top bloke. To accuse him of trying to make a trade to ruin the league is nonsense. I agree with him if you don't like the trade just reject it. Are we now going to witch hunt folk who propose silly trades in our own eyes? There is a difference between those ruining the league and those who are not.

Look, he's not ruining the league, it would have been vetoed I imagine anyways. I felt the move was sly, but as stated yesterday, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I would have let it slide if I hadn't seen his post last night, which I felt was ignorant.

D3PO

Wouldnt be ruining the league but defo sly.

Even if you dont know the extent of the injury its questionable as to why at 11pm shortly after an unknown injury you would pull the trigger on the proposal. Perception is reality and I think even Tristam would have to admit that from the outside looking in it appears to be questionable behaviour.

I dont think you can argue that the trade wasnt influenced in someway by the injury even if the extent of it was unclear which certainly makes it dubious.

Dont get me wrong Tristam seems like a decent bloke Ive traded with him in the past and will do so again, but at best the trade proposal was ill advised and badly timed.

Johnny_Fontane

Tristram wrote: »

Zac Stacy is a player I like but who isn't performing well and seems to have become the back-up RB with the Rams. So I proposed a trade of: Ridley - unknown injury, probably going to miss some time but much greater upside when fit, for, Stacy - much lower ranked RB and not the main man currently with some upside if Cunningham fecks off. At the time I considered this a reasonable proposal.

Stacy was drafted 14th as opposed to Ridley's 33rd. I'm not sure that stacy was ever a 'much lower ranked rb' at any stage before or during this season to be fair.

TO.

Johnny_Fontane wrote: »

10. Anyone who sets out to deliberately mess up a league by signing up and dropping all their players after drafting or offering very obviously one sided trades to make another team too strong will be banned from both the Fantasy Football Forum and the American Football forum as a whole permanently.

Any more of this and you're getting banned.:cool:

This right here is why I used the word "ruin" or "ruined"

This rule is to stop muppets wrecking our leagues by deliberately making bogus trades with the intent to cheat guys out or disrupt the balance.

In this case Tristram made a trade to what he thought was fair. I honestly think if someone accepted that trade it would be worse as it would tell me the person accepting the trade isn't paying attention to their team or the NFL.

I could spend hours posting up laughable trades that guys have offered me. They are part of the game and lets try not confuse them and those trade attempts by guys clearly looking to con folk.

poldebruin

I face off against the 1-5 Blaque Power this week. I'm 3-3 and riding a 3 game winning streak. That said, I have only scored 20 points more the BP over 6 weeks, so I consider them unlucky thus far and it should be a good matchup.

Regarding the NFL projection figures. I don't know where they get them from but they are so way off every week it's laughable.
My WR corp of Quick (v Seattle), Sanders (v SF) and Jeffrey are predicted to go for 33 while BP's corp of Royal, Torrey Smith and Welker are down for 19.

I don't want to dredge it up again or anything, but I just wanted to say that I don't see anything wrong with Tristan's proposal, and in fact did something quite similar myself in another boards league this week. I also was completely unaware of Ridley's injury status. Bad timing, as someone mentioned. I would agree with Tristan's assertion that trades should just be rejected or accepted when there is no intent to distort the league. Up to receiving GM to do their due diligence on any trade imo.

Tristram

I don't know if this is true or not but I was told the projections are based off Madden game simulations.

Johnny_Fontane

poldebruin wrote: »

I face off against the 1-5 Blaque Power this week. I'm 3-3 and riding a 3 game winning streak. That said, I have only scored 20 points more the BP over 6 weeks, so I consider them unlucky thus far and it should be a good matchup.

Regarding the NFL projection figures. I don't know where they get them from but they are so way off every week it's laughable.
My WR corp of Quick (v Seattle), Sanders (v SF) and Jeffrey are predicted to go for 33 while BP's corp of Royal, Torrey Smith and Welker are down for 19.

I don't want to dredge it up again or anything, but I just wanted to say that I don't see anything wrong with Tristan's proposal, and in fact did something quite similar myself in another boards league this week. I also was completely unaware of Ridley's injury status. Bad timing, as someone mentioned. I would agree with Tristan's assertion that trades should just be rejected or accepted when there is no intent to distort the league. Up to receiving GM to do their due diligence on any trade imo.

ha ha, you're playing me so that means your kicker gets 18 points and brian quick has a 30 point week. Congratulations on your win.

The key stat is that I have conceeded nearly 40 points more than any other team and 140 points more than you in 6 games. #matchupfail

BizzyC

Great week to bench Watkins and White!
At least I'm still likely to win my game...

My coach rating at the end of this season is going to be terrible.