World 15 Discussion

[My Chumps]

With you on extending trade week, and agree with the finals home ground

... BUT the finals home advantage was put up for a vote, and voted down. So we will have a home ground advantage, but not in finals.

Results were:

12 in favour of a home ground advantage, 3 against

Of those 12, 7 wanted no home ground advantage in finals.

Overrule them all Ossie :P

[Maca24]

Home ground advantage in finals must be implemented if we are having it for normal season.

[c4v3m4n]

Home ground advantage in finals must be implemented if we are having it for normal season.

But we already voted on it...  :-\

...and I don't think we should be overturning any previous vote. Otherwise what's the point?

[Maca24]

Well we could have another vote?

We did with your PS/Rookie thing :P

I didnt vote last time so if I voted it would have just about been 50/50.

[c4v3m4n]

Well we could have another vote?

We did with your PS/Rookie thing :P

I didnt vote last time so if I voted it would have just about been 50/50.

But there was never an original vote about splitting the PSD/RD, it was due to a different interpretation of the rules. There was an original vote about home ground advantage.

Ultimately, it would be like me asking for a re-vote on splitting the PSD/RD.  :-\

[Maca24]

Well how is it fair to have a rule that decides games for the whole year, then change it for finals?
Bloody stupid. If you finish top 4 you deserve some rewards..

[ossie85]

Well how is it fair to have a rule that decides games for the whole year, then change it for finals?
Bloody stupid. If you finish top 4 you deserve some rewards..

The only logic I'd see in revotting this rule, would be that the 3 'no' votes didn't get a say on how the home rule should be run. But I would probably not do this... Cos I do agree with c4 and decision was made.

I will run a survey again with other issues though :) Anything else?

Sub rule just won also, so that's another one that could be reviewed. Though the preseason trial is a good idea.

[Maca24]

Well no advantage in finals only just won if you count my vote..

[meow meow]

Have a vote to see if once when all the drafts are done, that we can make ONE trade before the season starts. Involving a maximum of 2 players leaving/joining your club. 3 way trades are permitted but you have to keep the same number of players on your list. People might regret picking someone or have had to change their drafting strategy half way through the draft, or have a hole that needs to be filled. Or just really really really want someone that they weren't able to grab in the draft.

[Maca24]

Have a vote to see if once when all the drafts are done, that we can make ONE trade before the season starts. Involving a maximum of 2 players leaving/joining your club. 3 way trades are permitted but you have to keep the same number of players on your list. People might regret picking someone or have had to change their drafting strategy half way through the draft, or have a hole that needs to be filled. Or just really really really want someone that they weren't able to grab in the draft.

Maybe.. we would definitely need an adjudicator though to make sure trades are fair.

[ossie85]

Have been toying with that also meow, and very similar ideas. Strictly player for player, and has to be approved (or rejected) by majority... Not sold either way

[c4v3m4n]

Have a vote to see if once when all the drafts are done, that we can make ONE trade before the season starts. Involving a maximum of 2 players leaving/joining your club. 3 way trades are permitted but you have to keep the same number of players on your list. People might regret picking someone or have had to change their drafting strategy half way through the draft, or have a hole that needs to be filled. Or just really really really want someone that they weren't able to grab in the draft.

Maybe.. we would definitely need an adjudicator though to make sure trades are fair.

I'd be happy for something like this to occur.

[bomberboy0618]

Have been toying with that also meow, and very similar ideas. Strictly player for player, and has to be approved (or rejected) by majority... Not sold either way

I think we need a sole adjucator, as I dont think we can fairly determine what trades are fair, we will only have our own interests at heart and thus a large majority of trades will be vetoed.

[ossie85]

Indeed.

We need to find Prospector ;)

[Maca24]

Trades would have to be even.

Eg. Swan for Pendlebury, Coniglio for Wingard, Leunberger for McEvoy.