Handling Rule Violations

[billy]

We come across errors now and then, in how rules are either enforced, interpreted, or how other errors are identified. Things like a trade from weeks ago breaking the 125% rule has been discovered by our Special Counsel Jackie Kong, and then we end up oftentime rolling back multiple deals to fix the error. Sometimes we just ignore it. It's not desirable for me to have to make judgement calls in these situations, so I'd like to have a league policy.

I've put together a little poll that has three options. I've described them in the poll, but I'll describe each in more detail here.

There is Option 1, which is to roll back all transactions that could not have happened had the illegal transaction/error been made. This could involve a salary cap error, an MLE signing that couldn't happen, maybe cutting a player you weren't allowed to, or the commish telling you that you arent allowed to bid on a guy ;-|. With this option every deal that is dependent upon the error would be undone. Option 1 is the most stringent, but probably the most consistent and easiest to enforce. We'd go back to before the error and continue from that point.

Option 2, is a more lenient version of this. In this case only the transactions that at least one GM involved wants to roll back will be rolled back. Do not get confused the illegal trade or whatever will still be undone, but any trades after that, that say, involved that player that shouldn't be owned by a team. That both GMs in that trade don't care about the illegal player no longer being involved, wouldn't have to undo their trade. Even if their trade becomes "illegal" from the lack of the illegal player, since it WAS legal at the time of passing.

Option 3, is to just wave the hand and say "we must be more vigilant".

Discuss

[Steve Jobs]

I think Opt 2 seems pretty reasonable. It opens certain cans of worms that most of the time we’d have no reason to worry about as of now, and it IS on the league to be more vigilant about rules (and trade voters/PAs/etc. to enforce them well when wielding power), but ultimately there are plenty of moving parts involved in everything that happens here, and the point at which “rule-breaking” becomes an issue is typically only when it finally has an effect on a GM that can’t easily be reversed anyway. The sort of “conditional” reversal - “We took a wrong turn in this cave, can you deal with the way this plays out if we just sort of dig a tunnel from this point back to where we should be, or do we need to turn around to get fully back on track” - gives us a little more freedom to maneuver without diminishing a GMs right to feel wronged and request that things are walked back entirely.

[Deleted]

I say we just enforce hard core now! Whats done is done and lets move forward from today! Maybe assign 1 person to enforce all this from now starting today!

[Steve Jobs]

Aug 11, 2018 8:33:57 GMT -5 @xavier0717 said:

I say we just enforce hard core now! Whats done is done and lets move forward from today! Maybe assign 1 person to enforce all this from now starting today!

I respect this opinion, and obviously everyone involved at the top of this league WANTS to “enforce hard core,” but the logistics of this take are trash.

For starters, you’ve personally voted on trades and made trades that existed in this gray area and probably wouldn’t want any of them walked back completely. With an open voting policy on trades, it’s either on the GMs that vote to be FULLY, 100% versed in the rules before voting, or it rolls back to feeling like we have a dedicated TC due to only a certain handful having that direct knowledge about trades... Or, we can just acknowledge mistakes WILL happen no matter how diligent we try to be, and give ourselves a methodology to return to our intended course without tearing the league apart.

[Ron Artest(1x Champ)]

Aug 11, 2018 8:33:57 GMT -5 @xavier0717 said:

I say we just enforce hard core now! Whats done is done and lets move forward from today! Maybe assign 1 person to enforce all this from now starting today!

the irony

[Deleted]

Im cool with whatever you guys want!
Just sharing my opinion thats all!

[White Mamba]

I say option 3. Otherwise it's a complete mess

[Jackie Kong]

Thing that happened recently though was that players/picks traded in deals that were queued rathen than accepted were moved again in a short period of time. So it was more about timing rather than people not seing the errors. I mean, errors would have pop up in the process of updating the roster and draft tables.

Ideally, we wouldn't vote on trades that include GMs with pending trades. That would solve lot of problems.


About illegal trades in the accepted section, I would leave as it is for trades that fail the 125% rule. As for the rest of the cases, it would depend on how serious they are and how many other trades depend on them I suppose.

[Brian Scalabrine]

Aug 11, 2018 12:55:29 GMT -5 Jackie Kong said:

Thing that happened recently though was that players/picks traded in deals that were queued rathen than accepted were moved again in a short period of time. So it was more about timing rather than people not seing the errors. I mean, errors would have pop up in the process of updating the roster and draft tables.

Ideally, we wouldn't vote on trades that include GMs with pending trades. That would solve lot of problems.


About illegal trades in the accepted section, I would leave as it is for trades that fail the 125% rule. As for the rest of the cases, it would depend on how serious they are and how many other trades depend on them I suppose.

Seems like another solution might be no longer queing trades, and forcing GMs to wait to post the trade until the date that it can be done?

[Brian Scalabrine]

I'm going option 2 in memory of Paul Pierce's near recognition based on retroactively fixing trades.

I WANT to live in a D720 that follows all the rules, but if a lot of trades get 100% rolled back, we might become a salty mess. We're not as mature as we used to be.

Though, to be devil's advocate, option two might be bad in an example like this:

Brian made a trade with Billy that was illegal

It was a really good trade for Brian, but in retrospect Billy now realizes the Pelicans are marginally worse off because of the trade.

Billy decides to roll it back, Brian gets pissed and feels cheated.




I'm leaning toward option 2, but maybe option one is more fair, consistent, and will cause less immaturity and interpersonal conflict.

[DJ Jazzy Jeff]

Maybe a checklist of things you need to lookout for when making a deal would be helpful. I know we should all be aware of the rules, but somethings slip our mind in the heat of the moment. Checklists never fail!

[Penny Hardaway]

Just curious what trades etc were violations?

[Brian Scalabrine]

Aug 11, 2018 23:50:32 GMT -5 Penny Hardaway said:

Just curious what trades etc were violations?

I'm guessing we're not being told so that bias doesn't affect how we vote.

I'm a little nervous since I make lots of trades, and I hope that it's not going to affect my draft... But, I voted option one because I think it's the right thing.

[billy]

Aug 11, 2018 23:50:32 GMT -5 Penny Hardaway said:

Just curious what trades etc were violations?

None in particular. Sorry if it came off that way. This is a ‘moving forward’ league policy vote. Of course the final decision is up to commissioner discretion, due to large varieties in circumstances. However most issues will be handled with however this vote ends up.

[Penny Hardaway]

Aug 12, 2018 7:26:04 GMT -5 billy said:

Aug 11, 2018 23:50:32 GMT -5 Penny Hardaway said:

Just curious what trades etc were violations?

None in particular. Sorry if it came off that way. This is a ‘moving forward’ league policy vote. Of course the final decision is up to commissioner discretion, due to large varieties in circumstances. However most issues will be handled with however this vote ends up.

Whew thanks for the clear up lol, I for sure thought some of my trades might be coming back.