WXV Rules Discussion 2017

[Purple 77]

Everything kept anonymous, I can assure.

[GoLions]

Everything kept anonymous, I can assure.

[Torpedo10]

I'm confident there's been no wrongdoing, but when you get negged trades you are sent reasoning. Particular people around here have distinct tone.  :P

[crowls]

I'm confident there's been no wrongdoing, but when you get negged trades you are sent reasoning. Particular people around here have distinct tone.  :P

[color=rgb(135, 135, 135) !important]

synonyms:mood, quality, feel, style, note, air, attitude, character, spirit, flavour, grain, temper, humour, effect;

[/font][/size][/color]

[fanTCfool]

I'm confident there's been no wrongdoing, but when you get negged trades you are sent reasoning. Particular people around here have distinct tone.  :P

[color=rgb(135, 135, 135) !important]

synonyms:mood[/size][/font], quality, feel, style, note, air, attitude, character, spirit, flavour, grain, temper, humour, effect;

[/color]

Sometimes I wonder with you crowls...

[Purple 77]

Oh, and that's the other one.

WXV Rookie promotions?

I want to keep a rookie list still - sorry :P - but given now the AFL doesn't have to promote their rookies anymore to make them eligible for selection, should we?

[Purple 77]

Whilst I'm still interested to hear from Mexico City, Pacific and Christchurch

I count 11 people voting option A - keep as is.

For those that explained their choice, there seemed to be a feeling that you wouldn't mind me taking control to decide all trades (provided there was some kinda DRS or Hawkeye), but felt the current system was doing the job well.

And I do appreciate the faith :P but I also feel you'd all turn on me the moment I neg another Lee Spurr/Lewis Taylor* trade or McKernan + DVR FOR Pick 12 trade*  :P. FWIW, I reckon I would have stopped like, 4-5 more trades that were rejected in the last trade period, and probably passed 1-2 that were rejected. So I'd probably be a touch more stricter than the current system.



I'll send out another vote to review the "neg levels" in the next day or two.



*hand picked examples that brush my ego to this day

[Ringo]

Oh, and that's the other one.

WXV Rookie promotions?

I want to keep a rookie list still - sorry :P - but given now the AFL doesn't have to promote their rookies anymore to make them eligible for selection, should we?

Maybe just follow the AFL lead. Even though as Rookies can be named from Rd 1 they are still only on a list for 2 years. So we have the rookie list and draft but these players can only be listed as rookies for 2 years.

[Purple 77]

Oh, and that's the other one.

WXV Rookie promotions?

I want to keep a rookie list still - sorry :P - but given now the AFL doesn't have to promote their rookies anymore to make them eligible for selection, should we?

Maybe just follow the AFL lead. Even though as Rookies can be named from Rd 1 they are still only on a list for 2 years. So we have the rookie list and draft but these players can only be listed as rookies for 2 years.

Sounds fair to me

[Holz]

We have a system where 5 people out of 18 bring down a trade.

But 4/15 cant bring down the system.

Surely we need 9 negs to block a trade.

If we listen to the majority on voting for the right to vote the surely we need to listen to the majority on trades. Or is that logic flawed

[Levi434]

How does this new rookies thing work? If it passes does it mean we will have 45 players to choose from every week instead of 40? Or is it now that rookies and players can be freely promoted/demoted but to name them they'll still need to be on the main list?

I was a fan of the rookie promotion rule. How they go back to the rookie list after 6 weeks. I still recon you should have to demote someone in order to use a rookie. Perhaps just remove the LTI tag about who it is.

[Purple 77]

The proposal would mean you'd have 45 players to choose from. They're still on your rookie list, it's just that they'd be available for selection under the proposal.

[Holz]

calling it now

The majority of people will say we should vote by minority.
The minority of people will say we should vote by majority.

[Purple 77]

Ha

[Purple 77]

So, 17 out of 18 teams have voted.

Should we abolish/remove the need to promote rookies in order to play them mid-season?

Vote A or B

A) Yes
B) No

We had 16 "Yes" voters (a few did vote B, but all other evidence suggested they meant to vote A, so I counted them as such)

So gone are the days of promoting rookies in order to play them!

A) Keep as is
0-3 votes = auto-pass
4-5 votes = trade passes, but admin has power to overturn
6-7 votes = trade fails, but admin has power to overturn
8+ votes = auto-fail

B) Stricter
0-2 votes = auto-pass
3-4 votes = trade passes, but admin has power to overturn
5-6 votes = trade fails, but admin has power to overturn
7+ votes = auto-fail

C) More Lenient
0-4 votes = auto-pass
5-6 votes = trade passes, but admin has power to overturn
7-8 votes = trade fails, but admin has power to overturn
9+ votes = auto-fail

D) Majority Rules
0-7 votes = auto-pass
8 votes = trade passes, but admin has power to overturn
9 votes = trade fails, but admin has power to overturn
10+ votes = auto-fail

A) 8
B) 5
C) 2
D) 2

Found this vote quite interesting! There was as many people that wanted it stricter than those who wanted it more lenient. But, with 8 people voting to keep the way it is (and also the option that falls between B & C), I feel satisfied that A wins.

So will be keeping as normal :)