[FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST

[EricH]

Originally Posted by BrennanB

Why is there a scenario where you should be permitted to take zero teams? If I'm last pick in like. Shenzen (a weakish even that not many people know anything about) for example. If I just want an average and be guaranteed an average score.

I don't see a legitimate case where you wouldn't just take randoms. Randoms are more entertaining anyways. Maybe you get some killer teams maybe you don't.

I think FF should do everything in its power to incentivize actually picking teams and discourage people from not picking. I mean that's the whole point of this league is it not? We are here to pick teams not find some weird meta where it is better to not pick anybody.

There is a very, very specific scenario where it is to everybody's advantage for an FF player to either not have teams at an event, or not have the ability to know what teams they have. And I do mean everybody's advantage, both in FF and at the event. In some cases, simply taking randoms is acceptable--matter of fact, that's why I'm taking randoms in San Diego. I regard the no-team option as the option of last resort, and only to be used if that scenario is in play. Once we figure out how to handle the scenario, I'll post it.


It's been suggested that players taking the no-team option simply be assigned random teams after the event, during scoring. That's what we usually do to fill a hole that isn't previously filled, anyways--is that more workable?



I'm not trying to find a meta here, just so everybody's aware. I'm simply trying to screw over as few people as possible, including myself, while dealing with that very specific scenario that is creating an awkward situation. That scenario exists, and I plan to write it into any rules that are written to cover it, as well as a safeguard against misuse.

[TDav540]

Originally Posted by EricH

There is a very, very specific scenario where it is to everybody's advantage for an FF player to either not have teams at an event, or not have the ability to know what teams they have. And I do mean everybody's advantage, both in FF and at the event. In some cases, simply taking randoms is acceptable--matter of fact, that's why I'm taking randoms in San Diego. I regard the no-team option as the option of last resort, and only to be used if that scenario is in play. Once we figure out how to handle the scenario, I'll post it.


It's been suggested that players taking the no-team option simply be assigned random teams after the event, during scoring. That's what we usually do to fill a hole that isn't previously filled, anyways--is that more workable?



I'm not trying to find a meta here, just so everybody's aware. I'm simply trying to screw over as few people as possible, including myself, while dealing with that very specific scenario that is creating an awkward situation. That scenario exists, and I plan to write it into any rules that are written to cover it, as well as a safeguard against misuse.

I'm okay with that.

[Hitchhiker 42]

I know this is strange, but I kinda just follow FF itself. I'm trying to understand the rules better. Is the pdf uploaded here on CD updated for this year? Just tryin' to maybe see how it works so I could play next year maybe.

[EricH]

I do have a draft pick trade in my PM box for Shenzhen and later. At this time, no action will be taken either way.

I realize the teams involved would like a speedy resolution, and I would too, but I also want to make sure that we get the draft pick trade situation right, which may by default require a retooling of that trade. So, the timeline is going to be as follows:

Next 24 hours (or so): Discussion on trades. Probably around 7 PM Eastern tomorrow, I'll make a preliminary determination, and see if everybody's equally unhappy.
After a couple of hours (or so), a final determination will be reached. If necessary, it'll be an interim, and tagged as such, to last until the next break day.
Immediately after that, a determination will be made on any draft pick trades that are waiting (unless they're pulled back).
And THEN Shenzhen will be posted.

[JosephC]

I'll be waiting until Shenzhen gets posted to post Dallas, for the above reasons.

[TDav540]

Questionable Decisionmakers have engaged in a few draft trade talks, and have since discussed the implementation and logistics of such trades. This is a consensus opinion of our team.

We believe that draft pick trades implement an additional dimension to the SLFF universe which has not been present to the same extent in the past. Although both team trading and draft pick trading are trading potential, the potential in those two objects is vastly different in nature. We also believe it easier to trade draft picks than teams, because everyone evaluates teams differently, but evaluate draft picks along a similar scale.

With that in mind, we have a few concerns that we would like addressed with a future system.

First, we would like to see a way for Draft Runners to keep it organized. For example, using a google spreadsheet, we can keep track of any traded draft slot, and it will be an easy reference for draft runners to check before posting their draft.

Second, we would like to see the implementation of a committee of chosen representatives from each team. This would be a nine member committee (one from each team) designed to review potential trades for approval. At least four vetos (or 50% of the non-participating teams) would have to veto the trade for it to get blocked. Rough framework, I know, but that is what we would like to see.

Third, trades would have to be agreed upon and sent to the commissioner at least 24 hours in advance of the first affected draft, and a determination on the approval of all trades that affect a draft must be completed at least three hours before the start of that draft. An exception will be granted to any trades approved that involve Shenzhen or Dallas (since the trade restriction will likely be lifted within the 24 hour limit), but any trades involving those must be sent to the commissioner during the trade freeze.

Lastly, we would like the order for the next randomization determined at least two to three days before the opening of the first affected draft. This will allow teams to have time to analyze which picks they have, and make trades well in advance.

Again, this was a consensus opinion the members of Questionable Decisionmakers came to as a group. We think this will enhance the league, and are willing to volunteer to help implement any of these systems.

[BrennanB]

Trevor's post is well thought out and has definitely changed my outlook on spot trading.

I do however think that an appointed committee is a bit overboard for our purposes, and likely too clunky to work smoothly.

I think a pretty fair compromise is that going forward trades be restricted in tiers. Meaning if team A gets a better team one for regional 1, Team B gets a better team one for regional B. I'm no no fan of the potential abuse of strong teams making same delta trades but getting better first pick slots. The game then becomes who can befriend the weak teams the best and convince them they are getting a fair deal. Restricting trades from #1-#9, #10-#18, and #19-#27 both eliminates the need for any committee/supervision, doesn't screw anyone over, and still allows for some added (fair) depth to FF. both teams must receive a draft spot within the same grouping of draft spots.

These can be submitted like QD says via Google sheet. (Preferably google forms so it automatically timestamps the requests) 24 hours seems like a good time line for deadlines for trades.

Secondly TBC has been in contact with RFA and has begun to attempt to recreate the automated scorer. (it was deleted ) We will be giving progress updates as we continue work on it.

[EricH]

Agree on the committee being too clunky, and agree on use of a Google spreadsheet. I think there's an empty tab on the draft schedule sheet--kind of makes it a one-stop-shop for all your FF draft updates (I haven't started filling in the draft results sheet yet, though). (Now watch somebody fill it with a possible outline by the time Shenzhen and Dallas go up. ) Wouldn't hurt to have trades put up with a flag that can be set for approval/disapproval/"hey, commish, review this one further" (someone that isn't me doesn't like the trade).

I would also agree on a time restriction--maybe not 24 hours before the first affected draft, but certainly no less than 1 hour. TBD after further discussion. It actually isn't that hard to move times around, but some notice is needed.

The extra time on draft randomization is... up for debate. The primary way to do that is to generate a draft, and depending on who drew that particular draft, they could have two or three others to do ahead of time. Just something to consider.

[JosephC]

Randomizing the draft order a couple days in advance isn't that hard, you can just use a list randomizer, post it in the main thread, and whoever runs the draft thats supposed to randomize it just uses that list.(like this one https://www.random.org/lists/) EDIT - I would be in favor of this, I really see no reason not to, and it gives more times for trades.

For draft swaps, the committee does seem a little clunky(getting a response from 9 people an hour before the draft or so doesn't seem very easy). Eric's idea of just having people hit him up if they smell something fishy works, but Eric isn't going to be here for every draft, and if the limit gets set for an hour before the draft, thats a problem.

Possible solution, all trades HAVE to be approved by Eric.

Possible solution #2, we could have something with Eric, and 2 other people(possibly whoever is running the most amount of drafts outside of Eric, and both can't be on the same team). If eric says its fine, it goes through, if Eric is not available, those two people would decide, it would take both of those people vetoing it to prevent the trade from going through. Could do it via the sheet thats being set up to manage trades. Just have 3 boxes, one for each person.

[TDav540]

As noted by Eric above, someone has been working on setting a record of everyone's picks up . Our team has tracked the picks made by each team at each event so far. We'll be placing those into the Draft Schedule document.

Our team agrees with Joseph's second plan: Eric can be the main decisionmaker, along with a committee of three people (based on the number of drafts run and the teams which they are on, would include JosephC, MARS_James, and myself) who can also veto a trade.

1 hour deadline seems late to submit trades. I'd go with three hours (trades submitted by 4pm, approved by 6pm), but that's all details, not implementation.

With a screening panel, we do not believe in the idea of a hard cap on trades via a tier system. We think that limits activity between teams in a way that unreasonably restricts talks. However, we also have no problem with one or more of the members of the veto committee using it as a basis for their veto/acceptance, if they think that is the best way to evaluate a trade.

Randomization well ahead of time does not seem like a serious obstacle and can be tackled in a variety of ways, none of which is a detriment to the operation of the league. Therefore, we are firmly among those who would like to see that happen.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by TDav540

With a screening panel, we do not believe in the idea of a hard cap on trades via a tier system. We think that limits activity between teams in a way that unreasonably restricts talks. However, we also have no problem with one or more of the members of the veto committee using it as a basis for their veto/acceptance, if they think that is the best way to evaluate a trade.

I would argue that there is nothing saying that you cannot trade multiple slots--but as has been pointed out, there is a significant difference between moving up in round 1 vs moving up in round 2, or round 3. Round 1, there's a pretty fair chance you move up into picking one of the top teams at the event. Round 2, you might get lucky. Round 3? Hopefully it's a deep event.

What if... We could agree (somewhat) on an equivalence system? Just as a thought, let a Round 1 pick be worth 3 points/slot moved, round 2 be 2 points, and Round 3 be 1 point. Up/down are +/-. So if you trade earlier, you get + points. Then just set an overall cap on allowable points spread--just to pick a number, -3 to +3--and any trade that ends up with all teams within that cap is fair game by default. (And if we were really sneaky, there would be another number, say -10 overall, that would signal that it was time for an intervention.)

Just an idea, I don't think it'll be too popular.

[JosephC]

I'd be okay with that eric, although it totally breaks in deep event like FIM, where second tier picks might as well be 1st tier.

[TDav540]

I feel like that system has the potential to work for some events and absolutely fail for others. As Joseph pointed out, district events are exceptionally deep, along with a large number of California and Midwest events. So I don't mind putting in a theoretical value for each pick, but I don't see it as the end-all-be-all for determining if a trade is fair or not.

[EricH]

After seeing the discussions, and pending any responses to my most recent suggestion, there are some things that I know for sure. (I know I'm a bit late here... sorry about that.) This is going to be a long post.

1) Rules change (proposed):
Conflict of Interest Drafting
It may happen that players, either individually or as a team, determine that they may have a conflict of interest when playing FF and also volunteering at a particular event, depending on their particular volunteer role, and that having knowledge of their FF teams previous to the event has the possibility of creating uncomfortable situations. If the players determine that they cannot handle this by having another team member handle the draft, they have two options:
A) Randomize their picks. This is the preferred option, and will cover the vast majority of cases.
B) Request a Conflict of Interest draft (COI) by contacting the league commissioner, the draft runner for that draft, and one other draft runner (not either of the above), with the event and volunteer position. The draft runner for that draft and either one of the other two must both approve.
Approval guidelines: The player needs to be in a position that has the capability to directly affect either FF points or event outcome, or both, a list that includes but is not limited to refs and judges. Also, there needs to be a reasonable expectation that existing countermeasures may not be enough to deflect questions should they be asked. Existing countermeasures may include non-FF-playing volunteers in higher positions, or enough non-FF-playing volunteers, or even other FF-playing volunteers from other FF teams at the event.
COI Draft Implementation: Upon approval, the draft runner will place "COI" in the player's draft slots, and the draft will skip over those slots. The player is not allowed to fill those slots by any means--no trading, no waiver picks, and no selections. During scoring of the event, those slots will be filled by random teams after all other open slots are filled, and scores will be tabulated as normal.
COI Denied: If a complete COI draft is denied, the player will be assigned random teams during the draft, unless they make a pick.

2) Draft Slot Trading
I believe that we can agree on the following:
--A Google Spreadsheet, or similar, will keep track of proposed trades. There's one set up on the schedule sheet that works.
--A group comprised of the commissioner and the 3 most prolific draft runners, no two of whom are on the same FF team, will be the approval committee for trades. Currently, that would be myself, JosephC, Mars_James, and TDav540--BrennanB would be eligible but is on JosephC's team. [Fine print: commissioner's approval is automatic approval, otherwise 2 draft runners that are not involved with the trade must agree. That's why there's 4 persons.]
--Trades must be approved 1 hour prior to the draft start time, but must be submitted no later than 3 hours prior to the draft start time.
--Any player may raise a question about a trade between submission and approval.

I think that this would be a reasonable interim solution, to become more permanent if it works.

[TDav540]

Originally Posted by EricH

....

Sounds all reasonable and good to me. Do we want to develop a Google Form to submit trades through that will end up in the proposed trades sheet? Or just let players post them in the sheet without going through a form?