View Single Post
12-04-2012, 12:04 AM
Student Of The Game
seventieslord's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,940
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
I am not in favor of trades that have to be "in advance." Trades are often made because something unexpected has happened shortly before your pick, and you need to make an adjustment.

I am also not a fan of telling people what they can and cannot do with their clock time. If we have agreed that the clock is a certain length what does it matter what people use their clock for?...discussing trades, research, personal matters, etc. I don't even like the penalty for trading on the the very least the rule should be amended so that people who make their trade at the beginning of their clock (some per-determined time, maybe the first quarter or third of their clock time) do not get punished at all. If you go past the threshold then the penalty can be administered.
I couldn't possibly agree more with you.

People are too uptight about the clock. It's your clock to use as you want.

this whole attitude about the clock is a symptom of the "go go go draft draft draft" mentality that has permeated most people here and if we toned that mentality down, the drafts wouldn't be any worse off.

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
If we allow trades at all, I would be against any rule that restricts trades of 3 assets at once. "I give you 2 later for 1 now" is one of the most common trades and it's usually very easy to rubberstamp. It's once you get past 3 assets that there are problems.

I think the idea of only allowing 2-on-2 or 3-on-3 trades if the pick is a high one might be a good idea.
I agree with your 1st part.

I don't really get the point of the 2nd part at all.

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Thanks for doing this. Seems like a limit of 8 trades per team would have affected 2 teams.

Interesting that only 5 teams made more than 4 trades. For me, it wasn't because of lack of trying, I probably would have made 6 trades if I could have found a partner
The first thing I noticed was that only 5 teams made more than 4 trades. a limit of 4 would have affected only the abusers - which is what we want.

seriously, if we're going to impose a limit, we want to say that 8 is acceptable?

Another possible idea (just throwing them out there because now's the time to do it) - vetoed trades count against the 6/8 trade limit.
Yes - absolutely. Whatever can be used as a deterrent to BS trades should be.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote