WXV Trade Talk

[meow meow]

Which WXV team did Mitch Brown (formerly Geelong) last belong to?

[Nige]

Which WXV team did Mitch Brown (formerly Geelong) last belong to?

Looks like New York.

[kilbluff1985]

The lack of drama is because most of the coaches in SC Americas aren't as passionate and invested as coaches here in Worlds are. The level of activity here is far greater than any other comp. We have a lot of regulars and big personalities around here which also contributes.

think that's the wrong way to put it

KB, I find your lack of passion disturbing

i find the lack of funny in your so called jokes/banter disturbing

[GoLions]

The lack of drama is because most of the coaches in SC Americas aren't as passionate and invested as coaches here in Worlds are. The level of activity here is far greater than any other comp. We have a lot of regulars and big personalities around here which also contributes.

think that's the wrong way to put it

KB, I find your lack of passion disturbing

i find the lack of funny in your so called jokes/banter disturbing

Who would've known that the guy who has watched basically every movie and tv show in the history of forever, didn't get the star wars reference.

[Purple 77]

Been good discussion in the last day and a bit... was a good read.

I'm glad a few see my view in that all these "issues" have been gravely over-exaggerated. I for one think the current system is fine, and gets a lot of unjust criticism.

I for one think a few issues we bring up don't really exist; but if people feel they are there then I suppose its real.

Always looking for ways to improve Worlds :) despite the crap days, as whole its fantastic.

And with only two rules introduced next year; the modified sub rule and Leadership group; the result was positive but perhaps the discussion was frustrating, but that seems to be general trend IMO, positive results stemmed from... conflicting discussion  ;)

[meow meow]

I for one think the current system is fine, and gets a lot of unjust criticism.

Agreed. Don't change anything. The wait isn't too long and all coaches are entitled to their opinions.

[upthemaidens]

Can I just add, I don't think Coaches should vote on rules.  Actually think it should be left up to the administrator to decide.
   Coaches have vested interests and shouldn't influence the fabric of the rules that are in place.

In saying that, the Admin should always take on board what is being said and adjust as he sees fit.   ..Just my two cents.  :)

[Holz]

I for one think the current system is fine, and gets a lot of unjust criticism.

Agreed. Don't change anything. The wait isn't too long and all coaches are entitled to their opinions.

how about when news comes out after a trade is agreed upon then that influences voting or when teams that are "losing the trade" walk away because of people bashing the deal or sniping even when you offer them more.

if you are deemed to be winning the trade too much i think negotiated between that person and an administrator would get a better result.

the cold feet issue is of great importance. have had 3-4 deals not go ahead after they failed from trivial things or I was winning too much. This should never happen its completely unfair. When a deal is locked in it should be locked in.

the only way it should be allowed to broken is if the team that has to give up more for it to pass doesn't want to pay more. Install this rule and i dont care what system you have.

[upthemaidens]

What about this.  If a trade is blocked the players involved can not be traded to anyone else for that following week.
   So in that Week either the deal is renegotiated or the players are locked.

It will make it harder to snipe wouldn't it?

Also think having a Wed/Sat deadline is a good idea.  If the Coach doesn't vote, it gets counted as a pass.
    Allow assistants to vote on trades, someone will be online often enough to get votes in more often than not.

.... If a trade is really bad, someone from a Club will manage to log in and voice their opinion I'm sure.   :)   :)

[Holz]

What about this.  If a trade is blocked the players involved can not be traded to anyone else for that following week.
   So in that Week either the deal is renegotiated or the players are locked.

It will make it harder to snipe wouldn't it?

Also think having a Wed/Sat deadline is a good idea.  If the Coach doesn't vote, it gets counted as a pass.
    Allow assistants to vote on trades, someone will be online often enough to get votes in more often than not.

.... If a trade is really bad, someone from a Club will manage to log in and voice their opinion I'm sure.   :)   :)

doesnt solve the cold feet issue .

the other thing is you shouldnt need to negotiate with the other team they already agreed to the deal. you need to negotiate with the people who rejected the trade which is the other 16 teams. thats the issue

[RaisyDaisy]

What about this.  If a trade is blocked the players involved can not be traded to anyone else for that following week.
   So in that Week either the deal is renegotiated or the players are locked.

It will make it harder to snipe wouldn't it?

Also think having a Wed/Sat deadline is a good idea.  If the Coach doesn't vote, it gets counted as a pass.
    Allow assistants to vote on trades, someone will be online often enough to get votes in more often than not.

.... If a trade is really bad, someone from a Club will manage to log in and voice their opinion I'm sure.   :)   :)

I don't think it would make it harder to snipe. If a trade gets negged, and then a new team comes in with an even better offer to one of those teams involved in the neg trade, the coach of that negged traded can easily avoid having to agree to a renegotiated offer and then a week later go with the "sniped" offer

I don't think Assistants should be voting. If you have an assistant that you trust to vote on your behalf, then promote them to Co-Coach

[RaisyDaisy]

the cold feet issue is of great importance. have had 3-4 deals not go ahead after they failed from trivial things or I was winning too much. This should never happen its completely unfair. When a deal is locked in it should be locked in.

Is it completely unfair though? The team has agreed to Deal A which got negged, so they are not obliged to have to agree to any other deal. Yes the opposing team should have first opportunity to renegotiate with them, but if they cant come to a deal then it should be open slather again I would have thought

[upthemaidens]

What about this.  If a trade is blocked the players involved can not be traded to anyone else for that following week.
   So in that Week either the deal is renegotiated or the players are locked.

It will make it harder to snipe wouldn't it?

Also think having a Wed/Sat deadline is a good idea.  If the Coach doesn't vote, it gets counted as a pass.
    Allow assistants to vote on trades, someone will be online often enough to get votes in more often than not.

.... If a trade is really bad, someone from a Club will manage to log in and voice their opinion I'm sure.   :)   :)

I don't think it would make it harder to snipe. If a trade gets negged, and then a new team comes in with an even better offer to one of those teams involved in the neg trade, the coach of that negged traded can easily avoid having to agree to a renegotiated offer and then a week later go with the "sniped" offer

I don't think Assistants should be voting. If you have an assistant that you trust to vote on your behalf, then promote them to Co-Coach

But having the players involved locked for a time period would have to impact on trades getting sniped as easily.
      If it was rejected, then the trade was unbalanced.  Fix it and move on.
If you are winning, pay that bit more to even the trade. If you are losing, you're getting some protection.

I would figure most Coaches would rather just renegotiate rather than have their player sitting there. 

...Then just make it any missed votes are treated as pass.  If a trade is badly uneven, 3 Coaches will voice their concerns in a 3/4 day period.
 

[Ringo]

Correct me if I am wrong and this relates to the older coaches who have been in the competition sine beginning. Did we not used to have a rule that if a trade was rejected players involved were embargoed for 48 hours to allow coaches to renegotiate the trade.

Not in the current rules though so may have got lost in some rule updates.

Regarding assistants voting think it should be allowed if Senior coach has advised Admin. There are instances when coach will be away and assistants may have to step up for a short period only.

[RaisyDaisy]

But having the players involved locked for a time period would have to impact on trades getting sniped as easily.
      If it was rejected, then the trade was unbalanced.  Fix it and move on.
If you are winning, pay that bit more to even the trade. If you are losing, you're getting some protection.

I would figure most Coaches would rather just renegotiate rather than have their player sitting there. 

...Then just make it any missed votes are treated as pass.  If a trade is badly uneven, 3 Coaches will voice their concerns in a 3/4 day period.

This goes on top of what Holz has been saying though, You cant just say fix it and move on, because one of the teams might not want to give any more or perhaps they cannot come to a new agreement. If you are winning, then you might not want to give more and would prefer to pass and look at other offers

With that being said I agree that most coaches would just renegotiate, but Holz is giving examples of when that hasn't been the case for him so we cant just assume that.

Not sure we can have passed votes either, because that means some trades could attract the scrutiny and reviewing of 15 teams one time, and then only 7 teams the other time, and that isn't fair

The same amount of people need to vote on every trade for balance and equality, hence all 18 teams or just a committee