AXVs 2018 Rule Discussion

[iZander]

Wow.

The way the question was written was worded poorly, why does UF only have to be updated if we swap naming formats?

The wording across the board for all questions has been shocking, barely understandable in some cases.

mmm, id like to get a vote to either keep current naming format or name it the normal way would be great

[PowerBug]

Have a vote on whether the questions need to be re-worded :P

[Rids]

Why wait till 9 questions to be answered before highlighting the 'wording' of the questions?

If people needed clarification then just ask on the thread.

My read on the question:
6. Team Submission, (A) Keep the current naming of team. (B) Submit the traditional way & as well use UF.

(A) Keep it the way it is which is easy for me to update UF because UF structure is the same
(B) If people wanted to go to the usual def def def def etc team naming, then it should be mandatory that they update UF as well.

I do not see any issue with the wording of the question.

[fanTCfool]

Why wait till 9 questions to be answered before highlighting the 'wording' of the questions?

If people needed clarification then just ask on the thread.

My read on the question:
6. Team Submission, (A) Keep the current naming of team. (B) Submit the traditional way & as well use UF.

(A) Keep it the way it is which is easy for me to update UF because UF structure is the same
(B) If people wanted to go to the usual def def def def etc team naming, then it should be mandatory that they update UF as well.

I do not see any issue with the wording of the question.

If you need to break a question down with your take on things, obviously it is not clear enough  8)

[Rids]

Why wait till 9 questions to be answered before highlighting the 'wording' of the questions?

If people needed clarification then just ask on the thread.

My read on the question:
6. Team Submission, (A) Keep the current naming of team. (B) Submit the traditional way & as well use UF.

(A) Keep it the way it is which is easy for me to update UF because UF structure is the same
(B) If people wanted to go to the usual def def def def etc team naming, then it should be mandatory that they update UF as well.

I do not see any issue with the wording of the question.

If you need to break a question down with your take on things, obviously it is not clear enough  8)

I never wrote the question. I just read it and answered it. I am just sharing my understanding on what the question was and why it was worded that way.

[fanTCfool]

Why wait till 9 questions to be answered before highlighting the 'wording' of the questions?

If people needed clarification then just ask on the thread.

My read on the question:
6. Team Submission, (A) Keep the current naming of team. (B) Submit the traditional way & as well use UF.

(A) Keep it the way it is which is easy for me to update UF because UF structure is the same
(B) If people wanted to go to the usual def def def def etc team naming, then it should be mandatory that they update UF as well.

I do not see any issue with the wording of the question.

If you need to break a question down with your take on things, obviously it is not clear enough  8)

I never wrote the question. I just read it and answered it. I am just sharing my understanding on what the question was and why it was worded that way.

What part of that contradicts anything I just said?

[iZander]

Why wait till 9 questions to be answered before highlighting the 'wording' of the questions?

If people needed clarification then just ask on the thread.

My read on the question:
6. Team Submission, (A) Keep the current naming of team. (B) Submit the traditional way & as well use UF.

(A) Keep it the way it is which is easy for me to update UF because UF structure is the same
(B) If people wanted to go to the usual def def def def etc team naming, then it should be mandatory that they update UF as well.

I do not see any issue with the wording of the question.

If you need to break a question down with your take on things, obviously it is not clear enough  8)

I never wrote the question. I just read it and answered it. I am just sharing my understanding on what the question was and why it was worded that way.

What part of that contradicts anything I just said?

The questions understandable, except it doesnt ask what was actually raised in the rule change thread...it has extra steps to it, which were tacked on.

[Rids]

Why wait till 9 questions to be answered before highlighting the 'wording' of the questions?

If people needed clarification then just ask on the thread.

My read on the question:
6. Team Submission, (A) Keep the current naming of team. (B) Submit the traditional way & as well use UF.

(A) Keep it the way it is which is easy for me to update UF because UF structure is the same
(B) If people wanted to go to the usual def def def def etc team naming, then it should be mandatory that they update UF as well.

I do not see any issue with the wording of the question.

If you need to break a question down with your take on things, obviously it is not clear enough  8)

I never wrote the question. I just read it and answered it. I am just sharing my understanding on what the question was and why it was worded that way.

What part of that contradicts anything I just said?

Not sure why this discussion is really required. A question was asked why it was worded that way and I replied.

I also covered your issue by saying if there is any problems or clarification required to post.

[Rids]

Why wait till 9 questions to be answered before highlighting the 'wording' of the questions?

If people needed clarification then just ask on the thread.

My read on the question:
6. Team Submission, (A) Keep the current naming of team. (B) Submit the traditional way & as well use UF.

(A) Keep it the way it is which is easy for me to update UF because UF structure is the same
(B) If people wanted to go to the usual def def def def etc team naming, then it should be mandatory that they update UF as well.

I do not see any issue with the wording of the question.

If you need to break a question down with your take on things, obviously it is not clear enough  8)

I never wrote the question. I just read it and answered it. I am just sharing my understanding on what the question was and why it was worded that way.

What part of that contradicts anything I just said?

The questions understandable, except it doesnt ask what was actually raised in the rule change thread...it has extra steps to it, which were tacked on.

Then address that before the question has been asked. This question has been sent out and voted on already. If there was any confusion there should have been a message or post asking for clarification.

[iZander]

Why wait till 9 questions to be answered before highlighting the 'wording' of the questions?

If people needed clarification then just ask on the thread.

My read on the question:
6. Team Submission, (A) Keep the current naming of team. (B) Submit the traditional way & as well use UF.

(A) Keep it the way it is which is easy for me to update UF because UF structure is the same
(B) If people wanted to go to the usual def def def def etc team naming, then it should be mandatory that they update UF as well.

I do not see any issue with the wording of the question.

If you need to break a question down with your take on things, obviously it is not clear enough  8)

I never wrote the question. I just read it and answered it. I am just sharing my understanding on what the question was and why it was worded that way.

What part of that contradicts anything I just said?

The questions understandable, except it doesnt ask what was actually raised in the rule change thread...it has extra steps to it, which were tacked on.

Then address that before the question has been asked. This question has been sent out and voted on already. If there was any confusion there should have been a message or post asking for clarification.

The question was raised in the discussion thread previously, im just asking that it be sent out

[Rids]

Why wait till 9 questions to be answered before highlighting the 'wording' of the questions?

If people needed clarification then just ask on the thread.

My read on the question:
6. Team Submission, (A) Keep the current naming of team. (B) Submit the traditional way & as well use UF.

(A) Keep it the way it is which is easy for me to update UF because UF structure is the same
(B) If people wanted to go to the usual def def def def etc team naming, then it should be mandatory that they update UF as well.

I do not see any issue with the wording of the question.

If you need to break a question down with your take on things, obviously it is not clear enough  8)

I never wrote the question. I just read it and answered it. I am just sharing my understanding on what the question was and why it was worded that way.

What part of that contradicts anything I just said?

The questions understandable, except it doesnt ask what was actually raised in the rule change thread...it has extra steps to it, which were tacked on.

Then address that before the question has been asked. This question has been sent out and voted on already. If there was any confusion there should have been a message or post asking for clarification.

The question was raised in the discussion thread previously, im just asking that it be sent out

We can revisit after the remainder of the questions have been completed and the finals series has finished. There is a lot to be done before the first trade period opens.

[nas]

Looking at what has been discussed so far in this thread http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,108074.0.html thinking that we should set out a list in preparation for discussion prion to this 2017 seasons completion.

1: Removal of Rookie List, meaning squad of 46 players. Saying if this gets up will also mean removal of the LTI thread also.

Rookie list to be removed. Voting Results: Remove 10. Keep 5. Other 1. Total Votes 16.
     
2: National Draft rule 2hr & 24hr remains, but for the first round, if it goes over, you get the next allocated AFL drafted player. Also if you log on prior to the next coach pick, you can change the allocated pick.

National Draft rule 2hr & 24hr remains. Voting Results: Yes 10. No 4. Awaiting Votes 1

3. Points Cap, tho previously discussed & defeated.

Points Cap. Voting Results: No 11. Yes 4. Awaiting Votes 2.

4. Finalise squads after AFL Draft, meaning if players (who are currently on a AXV list) are delisted and get picked up. AXV Clubs will know before finalising.

Finalise squads after AFL Draft. Voting Results: Yes 9. No 5. Awaiting Votes 2.

5. Bidding process for returning AFL players, returning players who have been out of the AFL system for at least one year. They will not be on a current AXV list. The Club who last owned that player will get to match any bid prior to the AXV Nat draft.

Bidding process for returning AFL players. Voting Results: Yes 10. No 4. Awaiting Votes 2.

6. Team Submission, (A) Keep the current naming of team. (B) Submit the traditional way & as well use UF.

Team Submission. Voting Results: Current 8. Traditional 8

7. Players Positions, (A) Maintain the current Virtual Sports. (B) Adopt UF's positions at start of the season.**Note saying if this gets voted in, would then require another vote on to "Allow In-Season Updates."

Players Positions. Voting Results: Maintain 9. Adopt 6. Not Voted 1.

8. Play through the bye rounds, Play through or have all these nominated bye rounds off.  Wording added "all these" to implement any others that may occur.

Play through bye rounds. Voting Results: Play through 8. Have off 8.

9. Leadership Group, In the week leading up to the first round of the season, each team must nominate 5 players on their list to form their leadership group. The Captain, Vice-Captain or Co-Captain's you select on any given game, MUST come from this group.

Leadership Group. Voting Results: Yes 3. No 12. Awaiting Votes 1

Have resent for voting Rule 2 to the coaches that have currently not voted.

Rules 3 4 & 5 feel that these need to be implemented prior to the seasons ending, so when the results from Rule 2 are in will send out rule 3.

With 4 rounds to go for the seasons end & then finals, these rules above will need to be voted on prior to trading & drafts.
Know that being harped on, but this way trading & drafting won't be held up.

Rule 2 has gone over by a majority & passed & will be implemented for the upcoming draft.

Rule 3 Defeated for the 2nd year in a row now.
Rule 4 Finalise squad after the Draft is in.
Rule 5 Bidding on players after a year out of system

PM will be sent out soon for voting on #6, #8 & #9. 
**Note #7 is a 3 part vote so will be the last one sent.
Thanks for all that have responded.

Update: #6 & #8 are in the balance.
#9 Leadership group is defeated.

Rule #6 has come in even, so the current way of naming teams stays.
Rule #8 has come in even so we play through the bye rounds.

Rule #7 will be sending out soon to be voted on.

Rule #7: We maintain using the current.

[SydneyRox]

What tha?? Did people understand what they were voting for??

How do you maintain the Virtual sports positions, when virtual sports dont exist??

We would use what ever UF says for new players surely, so at some point the VS ones will be dead anyway?

[Koop]

What tha?? Did people understand what they were voting for??

How do you maintain the Virtual sports positions, when virtual sports dont exist??

We would use what ever UF says for new players surely, so at some point the VS ones will be dead anyway?

VS do exist, they're the company behind both the DreamTeam and Supercoach platforms.

Both them and AF get their positions from Champion Data. AF introduces DPP's throughout the year, SC and DT don't.

UF use their own positions (may use CD but with some alterations, not sure on specifics, but there is some differences).

So the vote essentially was

A. Keep the fixed Champion Data positions that VS uses across their platforms from the start of the year (IE no one changes throughout the year.
B. Use UF positions

If B won, then another vote was going to be sent out regarding whether to lock positions at the start of the year, or incorporate UF's DPP positions throughout the year.

BXV use UF positions locked at the start of the year. For example, I was able to name Daniel Rich as a defender in BXV because he was given D status by UF from the outset. He did not have D status in any of the classic competitions. As such nas (I think?) was only able to use him as a midfielder in AXV this year.)

I voted to maintain, less discrepancies I have to remember as I mainly focus on the classic competitions. :P

Question probably could've been phrased as Champion Data positions, but I assume most people understood what the vote was. :)

[SydneyRox]

By VS I meant the scoring platform, which we used to use not the company, which is why we went to UF to make life easier

I voted to maintain, less discrepancies I have to remember as I mainly focus on the classic competitions. :P

wouldn't it be easier to use the platform that the teams are all stored on?

who is managing/maintaining the position differences now?