Yeah it sounds like a lot of the disagreement is due to people confusing "collusion" with "incredibly lopsided". The former is malicious and is done with some sort of agreement that the team getting the better deal will split any winnings in return, or something like that. The latter doesn't involve any conspiracy, but is so unbalanced it jeopardizes the integrity of the league. Both should be vetoed, but there is a distinction. The point is that the idea that a trade should be vetoed "only if it's collusion" is a fallacy.

Collusion - Team A is in the playoffs and Team B is not. They make a trade where Team B gives his studs to Team A for scrubs, and if Team A wins it all, he gives Team B a portion for his troubles. This is the epitome of cheating and should be vetoed.

Lopsided - Team A gives the #1 RB to Team B for the #28 TE because Team A is retarded and thought he needed to do it to fill a bye week in his TE slot. This is not collusion, but is so ridiculous it should not be allowed. In no world is this arguable and Team A has no weird affiliation with this TE that he HAS to have this player no matter the cost. Team B gets the MVP for free basically. It should be vetoed, even though it is not collusion.

Thus, it follows that collusion is NOT the only reason for vetoing. Science.

This post was edited on 10/9/15 at 4:25 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by ehidal1

Chief Boot Knocka

Member since Dec 2007

37136 posts

Posted on 10/9/15 at 7:46 pm to Neauxla_Tiger

On that note, who's to say that Nate Washington will not outscored Bell? Sure, highly unlikely, but not impossible. What if Bell gets hurt? What if Mallett catches Fire and Nate is his guy? This falls under the snob I know better than you argument.

So what if the guy wants Nate because he went to Tiffin? He paid his money and it's his team.

ETA- and any good FF player would know if another guy went to Tiffin and tried to work a trade already. And since we are playing hypotheticals that guy would have drafted Nate if he's willing to trade Bell for him. If he's doing it cause he's in last place, then it's back to collusion. Don't play in leagues with idiots. It's pretty simple.

This post was edited on 10/9/15 at 8:26 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by bleedpurplengold

Member since Feb 2007

1374 posts

Posted on 10/9/15 at 10:55 pm to ehidal1

I vetoed my first trade ever the other day. Not bc it was unfair or collusion was involved, it was because they vetoed my fair trade last year cause my team would have been too good. Yes, I was still bitter

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by ehidal1

Chief Boot Knocka

Member since Dec 2007

37136 posts

Posted on 10/9/15 at 11:22 pm to bleedpurplengold

Thus the slippery slope...

I agree with you. If you side on the 'unfair' veto argument, then you can't complain about trade vetoes that others deem unfair. You open the box, then it's open. Collusion only and that subjective grey area is out of the equation.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by auisssa

Member since Feb 2010

4183 posts

Posted on 10/10/15 at 8:03 am to Lester Earl

quote:
what if the last place team trades Bell to the 1st place team for Nate washington? is that other owner still just dumb?

Well, he probably had about 15 rounds to pick NW in the draft. Why not use a 1st round pick on him if he is that important?

I've probably only vetoed 2-3 trades in 19 years of playing FF, but that one would be vetoed for the betterment of the league. Collusion or not.

And it's not always about collusion. I've had one owner give up on the season and send out random trade offers (no collusion since there was no prior communication between the owners) to everybody in the league. He was pissed at losing and was trying to disrupt the league.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by TIGERSTORM

parts unknown

Member since Feb 2009

4510 posts

Posted on 10/10/15 at 10:16 am to Mouth