Fantasy Football Ethics

ExperiencedRookie

ExperiencedRookie

Well-Known Member
bodey24 said:
After watching Alfred play he wasn't comfortable making him his #1 Rb which is understandable. Or maybe he just realized trading Bell for Steve Smith is a terrible trade for him. Shaking on a trade is stupid IMO anyway. You guys should have accepted the trade on the site and just let the commish know not to process it until after this week, that way there is no way either of you can go back on it.
Click to expand...
So what if we had done that? We accept the trade on the site, and tell the commish not to process it until Tuesday. On Monday this guy has the revelation of not wanting to do the trade anymore. He calls the commish and tells him not to process it cause he changed his mind. Does that decision now somehow become an egregious one??

I'm really shocked at the responses here. This is such a dirty move in my eyes. I told this guy flat out that I was going to be picking up Blount off the waiver wire last week already and basically molded the bottom of my roster after this deal and he gives me the go ahead.

I don't know what's more upsetting, that this dude dicked me over or that every response has to it has been "no big deal"
 
cctekguy

cctekguy

Staff member
I'm sure that a lot of responses are of a generic nature and maybe don't fully understand your specific circumstances.

If you shook the guy's hand then you obviously know him IRL. Maybe friends or work mates. If a "friend" did that to me then yes. I suppose I would feel cheated or at the least, betrayed. Playing in a league full of avatars and screen names, maybe we expect less in the way of ethics.
 
Phicinfan

Phicinfan

Expert on nothing, opinionated on everything
Administrator
Rules are in place for a reason. In my HG league here, until you hit accept on site, and post confirmation here, the trade isn't real. It allows the owner to change their mind if for some reason they want or need to.

Yeah, it sucks, he backed out of a deal. But it isn't shady, its just cold feet. Is it that owners fault or yours for not protecting for what may happen?

By the way, on the waiver "truce" or sorry "collusion" cause that is what it is, that is just to me as morally questionable as this not trade thing.
 
Bubba

Bubba

Well-Known Member
I don't see anything wrong with the trade truce offer since the two teams in question were playing each other and both obviously had the same needs. It would not have affected any other teams. You may have been looking out for yourself, in that there was a chance that you lost the bid to get Miami, but you were also giving your opponent the same safety if you were to win the bid.
 
jjtweeks

jjtweeks

Moderator
have to disagree, by making a truce you are leaving players on the wire for others that had you not made the truce would possibly be on one of the 2 teams making the truce. So with that being said to me it actually affects the whole league.
A butterfly fluttering it'swings on the east coast could cause a sunami on the west o_O
 
Bubba

Bubba

Well-Known Member
So, you're saying that if my roster is set and my opponents roster is set and neither of us makes a roster move then we are affecting the outcome of the others in the league? Seems the same as agreeing to not make a move that we both actually need.
 
ExperiencedRookie

ExperiencedRookie

Well-Known Member
Well after a week of back and forth, the dude has officially hit the reject button on the website. His posted comments read as follows. (Paraphrasing)

"So sorry, but I can't do the deal. I can no longer trust Alfred Morris to be my RB1. I know we shook on it, but I was wearing a protective coating on my hand which prevented our skin from making contact. Haha. ;)"

I'm not laughing! If you think there's even a 1% chance that you're gonna back out of a deal, you don't use words like "100%" when referencing the trade and you certainly don't offer to shake on it.
 
jjtweeks

jjtweeks

Moderator
Bubba said:
So, you're saying that if my roster is set and my opponents roster is set and neither of us makes a roster move then we are affecting the outcome of the others in the league? Seems the same as agreeing to not make a move that we both actually need.
Click to expand...
if you guys are saying your making a truce to stay out of waivers, yes. If you didnt make a truce you would obviously be taking someone off waivers that week and if you did other teams would not get "said" player but if you make a truce that player you might have taken is now on another team and maybe that team is now much better and therefore has a better chance of beating his opponent in "said" week. I tried not to use the word but that is as close to the definiton of collusion as you will come
 
ExperiencedRookie

ExperiencedRookie

Well-Known Member
When I think of collusion, it's 2 people trying to screw over the rest of the league. No matter what, 1 of you is going to win, and 1 of you is going to lose. If anything, it aids the rest of the league by both of you scoring less points, if that's a tie breaker for standings.

If someone else's fantasy season is hinging upon whether my opponent and I drop Grif Whalen and Jacoby Jones..well then those teams have bigger fish to fry.
 
jjtweeks

jjtweeks

Moderator
doesnt matter the severity. lets say you didnt make the truce and you dropped jacoby jones for someopne on waivers and some guy picked him up and he scores more than the player he would have had to put in and wins his game by 2 points. Then he makes it into the playoffs by that very game that he won and by default knocking someone else out. Same thing goes for if you made the truce, a similar outcome could have happened.
So know matter how small of a move you may think it is it does have the possiblity to change a alot
I think you see many people have frowned on it and some have down right called it collusion and others think it's no big deal so we all have our opinions. I guess in the future just don't tell anyone what you do and no one will ever know :rolleyes:
Not trying to harp on ya but that's how i feel about it and of course it always easier to judge when it's not you:D
 
ExperiencedRookie

ExperiencedRookie

Well-Known Member
jjtweeks said:
doesnt matter the severity. lets say you didnt make the truce and you dropped jacoby jones for someopne on waivers and some guy picked him up and he scores more than the player he would have had to put in and wins his game by 2 points. Then he makes it into the playoffs by that very game that he won and by default knocking someone else out. Same thing goes for if you made the truce, a similar outcome could have happened.
So know matter how small of a move you may think it is it does have the possiblity to change a alot
I think you see many people have frowned on it and some have down right called it collusion and others think it's no big deal so we all have our opinions. I guess in the future just don't tell anyone what you do and no one will ever know :rolleyes:
Not trying to harp on ya but that's how i feel about it and of course it always easier to judge when it's not you:D
Click to expand...
I see your point. I really do. My issue is with calling it collusion.

In my eyes, if someone is colluding it's an act done with intent to gain an unfair advantage over the rest of the league, and that's the most likely outcome of the action.

What you're proposing here is a long shot scenario of someone picking up a complete garbage discarded player and using him to gain a win. That's not the situation the 2 "colluders" are trying to avoid, nor is it even close to the most likely outcome. Sometimes intent truly does matter. If I alone forgot to go pick up a defense for the week, which also kept Grif Whalen on my team and away from anyone else, is that no longer colluding because I didn't maliciously plan it out with intent?

Lastly, to the point I made earlier, and this also speaks to how unlikely this waiver truce is to effect anyone else. If your starting lineup/bench is so horrendous that you would pick up Grif Whalen and play him over ANYONE else that you have at WR, you're NEVER going to win a fantasy game. This is a league with a 24 player roster. It's just not feasible or even remotely likely.
 
mudloggerone

mudloggerone

Outlaw
Administrator
To me anytime two or more owners get together and decide to do something (or not do something) in tandem that will effect the WW player pool it has to be collusion. By the two of you not picking up a defense for the week another owner could possibly grab a defense that one of you may have taken that ends up scoring 20 plus points, winning a game that they would have lost if one of you had of taken that defense and making the playoffs simply because you acted together in not making a WW move. IF I had been knocked out of the playoffs because the two of you worked as a team leaving the available defense on the WW I would not be a happy camper.
 
ExperiencedRookie

ExperiencedRookie

Well-Known Member
mudloggerone said:
To me anytime two or more owners get together and decide to do something (or not do something) in tandem that will effect the WW player pool it has to be collusion. By the two of you not picking up a defense for the week another owner could possibly grab a defense that one of you may have taken that ends up scoring 20 plus points, winning a game that the would have lost if one of you had of taken that defense and making the playoffs simply because you acted together in not making a WW move. IF I had been knocked out of the playoffs because the two of you worked as a team leaving the available defense on the WW I would not be a happy camper.
Click to expand...
Understood. I'll ask you this then:

Which type of league is going to be easier to win?
League 1: there are multiple dudes who in the league who routinely don't use the waiver wire, that forget to grab a bye week K or D, and generally don't participate a ton.

OR
League 2: Everyone participates and plays aggressively on the wire. Never overlooking a K or D on a bye week, and always filling those positions in.

??

So basically..if 2 dudes who don't pay attention are facing eachother, both have a D on a bye, and neither uses the waiver wire...you're fine with it. BUT if they both agreed to not use the waiver wire...now it's collusion?? If the outcome is the exact same as 2 owners not even managing their teams, then no one stands to gain or lose anything..outside of the long shot scenario.

So again, I come back to intent. There is NO intent to do harm to anyone else or the rest of the league, and 99% of the time there won't be. In fact, it's basically the exact same recourse as 2 owners not paying attention.
 
mudloggerone

mudloggerone

Outlaw
Administrator
Except the "two" neglectful owners are not working together as a "team" in a joint effort as you agreed to do. Is an accidental death the same as a purposeful murder? Sure, in either case the victim is dead but I see the planned offense as a more serious and thusly wrongful killing then the accidental one. Two owners getting together and scheming the system is a conspiracy of sorts and certainly falls under collusion in my book.

Not trying to argue with you and I know you to be a straight up person here on the forum but I strongly think that you are wrong in this case.
 
mudloggerone

mudloggerone

Outlaw
Administrator
Oh I much prefer League two in the example above because it levels the field for everyone. Guys that neglect their team tend to give easy wins to my competitors but somehow show up the week that they play me. :D
 
bodey24

bodey24

Staff member
ExperiencedRookie said:
Understood. I'll ask you this then:

Which type of league is going to be easier to win?
League 1: there are multiple dudes who in the league who routinely don't use the waiver wire, that forget to grab a bye week K or D, and generally don't participate a ton.

OR
League 2: Everyone participates and plays aggressively on the wire. Never overlooking a K or D on a bye week, and always filling those positions in.

??

So basically..if 2 dudes who don't pay attention are facing eachother, both have a D on a bye, and neither uses the waiver wire...you're fine with it. BUT if they both agreed to not use the waiver wire...now it's collusion?? If the outcome is the exact same as 2 owners not even managing their teams, then no one stands to gain or lose anything..outside of the long shot scenario.

So again, I come back to intent. There is NO intent to do harm to anyone else or the rest of the league, and 99% of the time there won't be. In fact, it's basically the exact same recourse as 2 owners not paying attention.
Click to expand...
Owners should only worry about the team they are running. When an owner gets with another owner and says if you don't use the waiver wire this week then I won't either that is collusion. If the player/team one of you two would have picked up is the difference in the game then it affects the whole league. Someone may have needed you to lose to make the playoffs but since you two worked together and he didn't pick that player/team up that other person then misses the playoffs because of an agreement between two other owners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top