Fantasy ethics

[travelocity 0]

I will admit, this has been quite informative for me. I would never have expected this to be so openly accepted. I really, truly, thought not starting a complete/valid lineup every week was one of the biggest Fantasy No No's out there. If this thread is any indication, that is clearly not the case. But, how would you respond to what poster #31 said?

 

"Honestly... that's bush league stuff. Even though he won... in a 13-14 game season... single games are important. Had the other team got a cheap win, such actions affect the dynamics of the whole league and the standings."

 

This is a major concern for me. A partial lineup doesn't just affect the game that week, but the whole league via the ripple effect.

 

Also, what if let's say I have a playoff spot wrapped up by week 8 (or close to it). I play a team that I deem not very good, but they're neck and neck with some other teams I find more threatening. Can I submit a lineup with bye week players in the hopes that I get beat...effectively giving the "weaker" team a win and hopefully helping them get into the playoffs? That doesn't seem right to me, but why can't I start bye week players as part of a strategy, if someone in week 6 did? Those are the kind of issues I worry about.

 

Put it up for vote at the end of the season. You have no tanking rules, no bye week roster rules... you can be "concerned" about it all you want, but it has zero relevance.

 

You posted your league rules -- it had no definitive language... there's nothing for you to debate.

[Ravens 03 0]

I will admit, this has been quite informative for me. I would never have expected this to be so openly accepted.

Also, what if let's say I have a playoff spot wrapped up by week 8 (or close to it). I play a team that I deem not very good, but they're neck and neck with some other teams I find more threatening. Can I submit a lineup with bye week players in the hopes that I get beat...effectively giving the "weaker" team a win and hopefully helping them get into the playoffs?

 

Do whatever you want.

You can be a doosh if you like.

 

Most guys will play the year out trying to win.

 

 

[and see the post about weekly high points payout]

[jerryskids 5,232]

I will admit, this has been quite informative for me. I would never have expected this to be so openly accepted. I really, truly, thought not starting a complete/valid lineup every week was one of the biggest Fantasy No No's out there. If this thread is any indication, that is clearly not the case. But, how would you respond to what poster #31 said?

 

"Honestly... that's bush league stuff. Even though he won... in a 13-14 game season... single games are important. Had the other team got a cheap win, such actions affect the dynamics of the whole league and the standings."

 

This is a major concern for me. A partial lineup doesn't just affect the game that week, but the whole league via the ripple effect.

 

Also, what if let's say I have a playoff spot wrapped up by week 8 (or close to it). I play a team that I deem not very good, but they're neck and neck with some other teams I find more threatening. Can I submit a lineup with bye week players in the hopes that I get beat...effectively giving the "weaker" team a win and hopefully helping them get into the playoffs? That doesn't seem right to me, but why can't I start bye week players as part of a strategy, if someone in week 6 did? Those are the kind of issues I worry about.

I would respond that that poster doesn't understand the dynamics of dynasty or deep keeper leagues. Transactions are just flat out fewer in such leagues because it is a marathon and not a sprint. If you want owners to just make decisions based on this year, change it to a redraft. Look, I apologize for the "laugh" comment, as I sense this is important to you. But really, take a step back and look at the situation, and I'll make some presumptions here based on your comments, or lack of responses. You guys know each other well, at least from an internet perspective if not in real life. He's been in the league a while. There is in general no controversy in your league. Through whatever sequence of events, he has no 2nd QB on his roster. He still fielded a team good enough to win so obviously he is not tanking. I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill here. Do you really want to throw this guy out for this?

[jaxjag 43]

You're making much to do about nothing.

 

I worry about <this>. What if someone bent the rules to do <that>. Enough already... Give it a rest.

 

Guys get zeroes at times; maybe its a bye or even an injury. It happens. You don't need to take this example (where the guy seems to be playing it straight up) and turn it into a possible precedent for every conceivable scenario.

[Knowsome Bobarino 0]

Do whatever you want.

You can be a doosh if you like.

 

Most guys will play the year out trying to win.

[and see the post about weekly high points payout]

 

 

To be clear, I'm not saying I would actually do this. I'm just pointing out a scenerio where allowing bye week player starts could become a real issue. And yes, if a team actually did what I suggested in my scenerio, they'd be a real duche, IMO. You mentioned that most guys will play out the year trying to win-which is probably true. But what about the guy that doesn't? That's where the issue lies.

[Knowsome Bobarino 0]

I would respond that that poster doesn't understand the dynamics of dynasty or deep keeper leagues. Transactions are just flat out fewer in such leagues because it is a marathon and not a sprint. If you want owners to just make decisions based on this year, change it to a redraft. Look, I apologize for the "laugh" comment, as I sense this is important to you. But really, take a step back and look at the situation, and I'll make some presumptions here based on your comments, or lack of responses. You guys know each other well, at least from an internet perspective if not in real life. He's been in the league a while. There is in general no controversy in your league. Through whatever sequence of events, he has no 2nd QB on his roster. He still fielded a team good enough to win so obviously he is not tanking. I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill here. Do you really want to throw this guy out for this?

 

You make some good points. And no need to apologize for the laugh comment, I can see where things like this may appear silly or simplistic! Your asssumptions are pretty much spot on. We're a pretty close group of guys. We want to win, we play to win, and we talk smack any chance we can. But we also have a good group of guys that understand that this is a hobby and we're not out for blood in the win at all costs type way. The guy in question is an accountant, so it's no real suprise that he's the guy that is always challenging the rules, and finding loop holes to exploit. If we have anyone in the league that is a little more on the "shady" side, it'd be him. But for the most part, he falls in line. And no, I wouldn't kick him out over this, I just needed to put in the rules that we could if we deemed it necessary. I don't kick anyone out, per say. Never have had to. We've had people move on, but it's always been amicable. The core of the league has been together from the beginning.

 

I do apprecaite everyone's comments. They definately give me a lot to think about as we go forward as a league.

[travelocity 0]

You mentioned that most guys will play out the year trying to win-which is probably true. But what about the guy that doesn't? That's where the issue lies.

 

It's none of your business to determine intent. Every owner has the right to conduct business on their team as the rules allow. You have no bylaws about intent, no reasonable league's constitution is modified midseason.

 

Hence, it's a non-issue.

[Knowsome Bobarino 0]

It's none of your business to determine intent. Every owner has the right to conduct business on their team as the rules allow. You have no bylaws about intent, no reasonable league's constitution is modified midseason.

 

Hence, it's a non-issue.

 

 

There are no rules when it comes to collusion either. Or at least in written verbage, since collusion is subjective. But at the same point you can't allow collusion to happen...hence bringing on intent. I would argue that determining intent is very much a part of a commissioner's job.

[travelocity 0]

There are no rules when it comes to collusion either. Or at least in written verbage, since collusion is subjective. But at the same point you can't allow collusion to happen...hence bringing on intent. I would argue that determining intent is very much a part of a commissioner's job.

 

You have no bylaws for this. You are steward of your league's rules, nothing more.

 

A responsible commissioner puts up for vote changes to league rules to fully define actionable items. D0uchebag commissioners act on non-deterministic assertions of intent, or worse, create moral hazards by enacting rule changes mid season.

[jaydawg-vt 0]

given the wording I think you have your bases covered but the question is do you really want to kick him out based on his actions, or are you worried about the potential for others to follow suit? Seems to me you are more worried about the latter, I would announce that the rule will be clarified in the off-season that starting bye week players is not allowed, but the potential for expulsion still remains and would be enforced if/when it appears it is being done to gain a competitive advantage by losing.

 

Seems mostly like an non-issue though, people who want to tank a season could easily pick up a few garbage players or backups with little shot a PT and start them weekly but keep most of their roster in tact as opposed to trying to throw games by starting bye-week players. Maybe you have rules preventing that too, but I think the bye week thing isn't all that bad IMO. Just address it in the off-season so there's no question about the rules (or their intent) next time around.

[Knowsome Bobarino 0]

You have no bylaws for this. You are steward of your league's rules, nothing more.

 

A responsible commissioner puts up for vote changes to league rules to fully define actionable items. D0uchebag commissioners act on non-deterministic assertions of intent, or worse, create moral hazards by enacting rule changes mid season.

 

 

It sounds like you and I would probably be butting heads if we were in the same league as our philosophies are pretty different. If you were in my league and tried to collude with another team because the rules weren't clear or explicit enough, I would certainly step in and rule based on interpretation on the rules and on what I feel the intent of what you're up to (that I find illegal). I don't care how vague the rules are, if there's collusion in my league, I'm stepping in.

 

And I'd just like to point out because you've mentioned it a few times now, I am not even suggesting to change or modify the rules until after the season as I agree with you, you can't do that mid-season.

 

Let's just agree to disagree.

[First_And_Long 0]

I agree with most that this particular scenario is not an issue. Your motivation for enforcing that rule is to keep everyone as active as possible during the season. In this case, particularly if it's a deep league with a relatively shallow FA pool, it likely was better in the long run for that team to start a bye week player as opposed to acquiring a 1-week fill-in. All you can ask is that each owner plays his team in his best interest. If anything, regarding that rule, I might add verbiage to enforce them to start a player if they have options in their current roster (i.e. he must start a bench QB for one on a bye). Good luck!

[RamslovaMartzhata 3]

Your league must suck and your advice is bad.

 

You recommend that another commish assign a loss to a team based on the rules of YOUR league. Try basing your advice on the rules that apply to the situation at hand. Does this league have a rule where a team is assigned a loss when he doesn't field a full lineup? The answer is NO, so you don't go down that route.

 

The fact is that this owner made a judgement call that worked out for him. If it's not explicitly against the rules everyone should chalk it up to an owner running his team the way he damned well wants to. That should be his right as an owner. And it's the commissioner's responsibility to let owners make their own choices. A commish should step in when rules are broken, not when he disagrees with an owners call.

 

If the league doesn't like this kind of thing you can either expel the owner (that's the OP's rule) or fix things in the offseason.

 

And don't bring things to a vote about anything mid-season. That's the worst possible scenario. Go by your rules, and let your owners run teams as they see fit. Treat your owners like adults even when you don't like their decisions.

 

 

I don't know how you guys can be saying that there isn't a rule for this. Whether or not this is a dynasty league has no relevance to me on this (even though I am well aware that players are very hard to come by). If they go by the rules already in place... they can kick the guy out of the league for what he did. It is as simple as that. Sure the rule is not well defined and too drastic in my opinion... but there clearly is a rule that states you must field a complete line-up. It obviously was a very important rule because it has the most DIRE of consequences for breaking it. To let it go completely unpunished is completely ignoring the rule already in place. Now I assume you don't want to kick the guy out for this (which is why I suggested what I did). Quite simply though, the guy purposely and knowingly broke rules already in place, and deserves punishment.

 

To do nothing would be amending the rules as well. You clearly are saying that the rule in place is null and void. So this whole you can't amend the rules mid-season argument that some of you are putting out there is playing towards your opinion of the matter, not the rules in place. There clearly has to be some clarification / amending of the rule EITHER WAY.

 

The problem in my mind is whatever happens sets precedent for future actions (even if it's only this year) that in my opinion would very likely be a factor down the line. Let's take a look at this hypothetical situation:

 

And all the people against doing somethign about this have yet to answer the question about people throwing games towards the end of the year by starting injured players. It is to their benefit to get a higher draft pick. You give alternatives and rules changes... but that doesn't help this year. Deals can be made to have teams throw games so another team can get into the playoffs.

 

Simply.. the rules were already in place to prevent such a case, and this guy blatantly ignored them. To do nothing would be letting him get away with it. He needs to be made an example of so it doesn't happen again.

[Knowsome Bobarino 0]

I don't know how you guys can be saying that there isn't a rule for this. Whether or not this is a dynasty league has no relevance to me on this (even though I am well aware that players are very hard to come by). If they go by the rules already in place... they can kick the guy out of the league for what he did. It is as simple as that. Sure the rule is not well defined and too drastic in my opinion... but there clearly is a rule that states you must field a complete line-up. It obviously was a very important rule because it has the most DIRE of consequences for breaking it. To let it go completely unpunished is completely ignoring the rule already in place. Now I assume you don't want to kick the guy out for this (which is why I suggested what I did). Quite simply though, the guy purposely and knowingly broke rules already in place, and deserves punishment.

 

To do nothing would be amending the rules as well. You clearly are saying that the rule in place is null and void. So this whole you can't amend the rules mid-season argument that some of you are putting out there is playing towards your opinion of the matter, not the rules in place. There clearly has to be some clarification / amending of the rule EITHER WAY.

 

The problem in my mind is whatever happens sets precedent for future actions (even if it's only this year) that in my opinion would very likely be a factor down the line. Let's take a look at this hypothetical situation:

 

And all the people against doing somethign about this have yet to answer the question about people throwing games towards the end of the year by starting injured players. It is to their benefit to get a higher draft pick. You give alternatives and rules changes... but that doesn't help this year. Deals can be made to have teams throw games so another team can get into the playoffs.

 

Simply.. the rules were already in place to prevent such a case, and this guy blatantly ignored them. To do nothing would be letting him get away with it. He needs to be made an example of so it doesn't happen again.

 

This was my biggest issue with what the guy did. It opens the door to all kinds of underhanded dealing and scenerios. Luckily, we have great guys in my league, so I have no reason to think these would ever happen...but they could. And that is my point.

 

My other issue was the potential of his opponent getting a cheap win, and that affecting the teams in his division and the playoff race. I know I wouldn't be happy if I missed the playoffs because the team above me got a cheap win as a result of a team he played earlier in the year not starting a QB.

[First_And_Long 0]

To me, that is two totally separate issues. He did field a "complete" line-up. It's not like he tried to bench his only defense due to an abysmal matchup. Not wanting to weaken your team for a 1-week filler and intentionally throwing a game are very different (in fact, didn't the OP mention that this guy still won?). I've never fielded a player on a bye but I've been tempted a few times in a few deeper leagues. For that reason, I wouldn't make an example of this guy to prevent cheating toward the end of the season. After all, byes are done after week 10, so any lineup weirdness can be more easily spotted and handled at that point... but that's another discussion.

[RamslovaMartzhata 3]

Actually, after thinking about it... the way I think this should be handled is to make a rule and set precedent going forward. The whole concept is to not allow for another team to have a cheap win, and to not have the ability for teams to throw games at the end of the season. Luckily... none of which happened in this instance. Just make an in-season rule clarification, and explain why the rule is ion effect. I see no reason why in season rule making is a bad thing so long as the league agrees to it.

 

Something like, "Due to the actions of (the team who started Manning on bye), we have clarified the rules as such. Every team must start a complete line-up. Intentionally starting a player on a bye or known to be out with injury does not constitute a complete line-up... and will result in an automatic forfeiture of the game in question AND the following year's 1st round draft pick. Said punishment can be rescinded at the league's discretion in a league vote."

[Stewburtx8 67]

Actually, after thinking about it... the way I think this should be handled is to make a rule and set precedent going forward. The whole concept is to not allow for another team to have a cheap win, and to not have the ability for teams to throw games at the end of the season. Luckily... none of which happened in this instance. Just make an in-season rule clarification, and explain why the rule is ion effect. I see no reason why in season rule making is a bad thing so long as the league agrees to it.

 

Something like, "Due to the actions of (the team who started Manning on bye), we have clarified the rules as such. Every team must start a complete line-up. Intentionally starting a player on a bye or known to be out with injury does not constitute a complete line-up... and will result in an automatic forfeiture of the game in question AND the following year's 1st round draft pick. Said punishment can be rescinded at the league's discretion in a league vote."

 

 

To make an in-season change like this you better have unanimous league support. If one person is against the change, you simply CAN NOT do it in-season. To play by one set of rules and ramifications and then just change them in season is a bad idea in my opinion. While you say its a "clarification," other people may not see it that way. If "complete lineup" was not discussed and understood by everyone before the season, then it is open to interpretation, because it is somewhat vague and does not specifically say you can not start a bye week player.