Trade Crew Concerns

Okay i've been defending myself, and others on the trade crew with some of the trades that have been denied or approved.

I think everyone outside of the trade crew would agree. that we need a CLEARLY DEFINED series of things that we are to look at in a trade when determining whether to approve it or not. I am getting a bit tired, as are those not on the trade crew. Of making one decision, and then turning around and seeing someone do the complete OPPOSITE on their own trade, or the next trade they vote on.. It's getting a little ridiculous, i'm not pointing fingers, but this needs to be resolved.

when there are more trades rejected than approved theres an issue

Dman515 wrote:

when there are more trades rejected than approved theres an issue

I kinda hear you here, but i kinda disagree, i don't think it's about whether or not the trades are being denied more often than not. It's about the consistency of it. They all need to be denied or approved using the same guidelines

How about doing away with the trade crew and setting up something like this,
Trades will still be placed into Pending and agreed by both GMs. But now, we are placing the review of a trade in your hands.

This is how it will work, trades will be placed in pending and agreed by the GMs involved. Then a 1 day Processing period will be placed on the trade. During this 1 Day processing period, any GM has the chance to try and "deny" a trade. You do this by quoting the trade in question and stating your reasons of why you think it is unfair and should not be passed.

After a GM stated their case as to why the trade is unfair, the ADMINs will have a conference about the trade and make a final decision.

We have come to this decision because we believe that every GM in this league is very intelligent and competent, and that every team does a trade for a reason. No one here is out to ruin their team or the league, so we are putting more responsibility in your hands, while also giving you more lead way and freedom in trades.

eaglesfan90 wrote:

How about doing away with the trade crew and setting up something like this,
Trades will still be placed into Pending and agreed by both GMs. But now, we are placing the review of a trade in your hands.

This is how it will work, trades will be placed in pending and agreed by the GMs involved. Then a 1 day Processing period will be placed on the trade. During this 1 Day processing period, any GM has the chance to try and "deny" a trade. You do this by quoting the trade in question and stating your reasons of why you think it is unfair and should not be passed.

After a GM stated their case as to why the trade is unfair, the ADMINs will have a conference about the trade and make a final decision.

We have come to this decision because we believe that every GM in this league is very intelligent and competent, and that every team does a trade for a reason. No one here is out to ruin their team or the league, so we are putting more responsibility in your hands, while also giving you more lead way and freedom in trades.

While this is a good idea, i don't agre with the bolded line.

why? Cuz i don't think people should be able to trade a Tom Brady for a Chad Pennington or a Javon Walker for a Jabar Gaffney.

I realize what your'e saying but letting EVERYONE have a say.. I've tried "voting polls" and things of this nature and they seldom actually work.

eaglesfan90 wrote:

How about doing away with the trade crew and setting up something like this,
Trades will still be placed into Pending and agreed by both GMs. But now, we are placing the review of a trade in your hands.

This is how it will work, trades will be placed in pending and agreed by the GMs involved. Then a 1 day Processing period will be placed on the trade. During this 1 Day processing period, any GM has the chance to try and "deny" a trade. You do this by quoting the trade in question and stating your reasons of why you think it is unfair and should not be passed.

After a GM stated their case as to why the trade is unfair, the ADMINs will have a conference about the trade and make a final decision.
I hate the idea of a trade council cause I traded away Chad Johsnon in another league for defensive help and the trade wouldn't go through cause everybody overvalues WR's even though I was getting Kevin Williams and other pieces

We have come to this decision because we believe that every GM in this league is very intelligent and competent, and that every team does a trade for a reason. No one here is out to ruin their team or the league, so we are putting more responsibility in your hands, while also giving you more lead way and freedom in trades.

I never agreed with trade council cause I think the Gm's know what they're doing moreso with their teams than anybody else

frgttndragon8 wrote:

eaglesfan90 wrote:

How about doing away with the trade crew and setting up something like this,
Trades will still be placed into Pending and agreed by both GMs. But now, we are placing the review of a trade in your hands.

This is how it will work, trades will be placed in pending and agreed by the GMs involved. Then a 1 day Processing period will be placed on the trade. During this 1 Day processing period, any GM has the chance to try and "deny" a trade. You do this by quoting the trade in question and stating your reasons of why you think it is unfair and should not be passed.

After a GM stated their case as to why the trade is unfair, the ADMINs will have a conference about the trade and make a final decision.

We have come to this decision because we believe that every GM in this league is very intelligent and competent, and that every team does a trade for a reason. No one here is out to ruin their team or the league, so we are putting more responsibility in your hands, while also giving you more lead way and freedom in trades.

While this is a good idea, i don't agre with the bolded line.

why? Cuz i don't think people should be able to trade a Tom Brady for a Chad Pennington or a Javon Walker for a Jabar Gaffney.

I realize what your'e saying but letting EVERYONE have a say.. I've tried "voting polls" and things of this nature and they seldom actually work.

That is why there will be ADMIN review if needed, allowing more lead way in trades shows better trust in a GM, the Trade Council members that vote on certain trades are not GMs of the teams in the trade, meaning they may not and cannot be expected to know why both teams want to do the trade, unless someone is trying to ruin their team, they will not do a trade that does not benefit their team in someway.

eaglesfan90 wrote:

frgttndragon8 wrote:

eaglesfan90 wrote:

How about doing away with the trade crew and setting up something like this,
Trades will still be placed into Pending and agreed by both GMs. But now, we are placing the review of a trade in your hands.

This is how it will work, trades will be placed in pending and agreed by the GMs involved. Then a 1 day Processing period will be placed on the trade. During this 1 Day processing period, any GM has the chance to try and "deny" a trade. You do this by quoting the trade in question and stating your reasons of why you think it is unfair and should not be passed.

After a GM stated their case as to why the trade is unfair, the ADMINs will have a conference about the trade and make a final decision.

We have come to this decision because we believe that every GM in this league is very intelligent and competent, and that every team does a trade for a reason. No one here is out to ruin their team or the league, so we are putting more responsibility in your hands, while also giving you more lead way and freedom in trades.

While this is a good idea, i don't agre with the bolded line.

why? Cuz i don't think people should be able to trade a Tom Brady for a Chad Pennington or a Javon Walker for a Jabar Gaffney.

I realize what your'e saying but letting EVERYONE have a say.. I've tried "voting polls" and things of this nature and they seldom actually work.

That is why there will be ADMIN review if needed, allowing more lead way in trades shows better trust in a GM, the Trade Council members that vote on certain trades are not GMs of the teams in the trade, meaning they may not and cannot be expected to know why both teams want to do the trade, unless someone is trying to ruin their team, they will not do a trade that does not benefit their team in someway.

This is the kind of thing i want to stay away from. While we do need to find resolution, we need to stay away from Speculation.

That is the point of ADMIN review, to stop such things.

eaglesfan90 wrote:

That is the point of ADMIN review, to stop such things.

That is the point of a trade crew. We turn down bad trades. and quite frankly there has been several of them. We try to be lenient, but when a trade is SO bad, everyone knows it shouldn't pass, then it can't pass.

If you go into a trade thinking "i know this won't pass" then don't even post it.

I see what you mean, but why have a select few that are on the trade crew?, why can we not all be on the lookout for bad trades, that way, no one on the trade crew can get criticized.

No one should get criticized in the first place. That's the entire problem.

This is where speculation comes in. Speculation = I didn't get my way so i'm going to cause a ruckus.



That's the way it seems, as for the select few.. I really don't even know how some people were decided to be on the TC. What i do know is i put 2 people on it, Soxnats who seems to be a decent mind in making fair decisions. And Silva, who is also an admin of my site, a person i know i can rely on to get the job done.

Furthermore. What it sounds more like to me is, "why don't we make everyone administrators so that there isn't any control, restrictions, etc."

the Trade Crew is in place for the purpose of setting a standard.

frgttndragon8 wrote:

Furthermore. What it sounds more like to me is, "why don't we make everyone administrators so that there isn't any control, restrictions, etc."

Do not make assumptions, I never said anything of the sort, and I never said anything like that that could make you perceive it, I know that we need ADMINs, I am an ADMIN of two sites, I understand the need for them, but why does it have to be a bureaucracy?, why not allow members to get more involved and have more of a say.

eaglesfan90 wrote:

frgttndragon8 wrote:

Furthermore. What it sounds more like to me is, "why don't we make everyone administrators so that there isn't any control, restrictions, etc."

Do not make assumptions, I never said anything of the sort, and I never said anything like that that could make you perceive it, I know that we need ADMINs, I am an ADMIN of two sites, I understand the need for them, but why does it have to be a bureaucracy?, why not allow members to get more involved and have more of a say.

I wasn't talking about you. I was generalizing.

but still, why does it have to be a bureaucracy?, why not allow members to get more involved and have more of a say

My issue has been that the TC don't reach a consensus amongst themselves. One of my trades was turned down, but for different reasons. One believed I was getting too much for what I was offering, but the others thought I wasn't getting enough. If the TC can't come to a consensus amongst themselves, how can trades pass?

As for the TC, it seems that sometimes there are varying standards when it comes to processing one trade involving two teams compared to another involving their team. Not accusing anyone, but thats the impression given.

eaglesfan90 wrote:

but still, why does it have to be a bureaucracy?, why not allow members to get more involved and have more of a say

It's not an attempt to make it a beaucracy. But if we open the door to allow people to make bullshit trades, it WILL happen.

I'm not saying that's what you all want to do, i'm saying that if we open the door to it, eventually it'll be abused, I personally, am not confident to the contrary. But at the same time, i think we need to come up with a reasonable resolve. That doesn't involve all out freedom in trading, via a Voting poll that is conducted by all the gms

Ruskie89 wrote:

My issue has been that the TC don't reach a consensus amongst themselves. One of my trades was turned down, but for different reasons. One believed I was getting too much for what I was offering, but the others thought I wasn't getting enough. If the TC can't come to a consensus amongst themselves, how can trades pass?

As for the TC, it seems that sometimes there are varying standards when it comes to processing one trade involving two teams compared to another involving their team. Not accusing anyone, but thats the impression given.

Agreed, this is what i was trying to get at, this is what needs resolved, we need 1 written out standard for processing trades that needs to be obided by.

I know for a fact that soxnats is one of the best at trade councils and I"m in the trade council with him in another league. I never saw ocho cinco as trade council, but maybe putting soxnats as "head trade counciler" would be a good idea, and I know he's open to ideas and will help let this not get out of control

frgttndragon8 wrote:

eaglesfan90 wrote:

but still, why does it have to be a bureaucracy?, why not allow members to get more involved and have more of a say

It's not an attempt to make it a beaucracy. But if we open the door to allow people to make bullshit trades, it WILL happen.

I'm not saying that's what you all want to do, i'm saying that if we open the door to it, eventually it'll be abused, I personally, am not confident to the contrary. But at the same time, i think we need to come up with a reasonable resolve. That doesn't involve all out freedom in trading, via a Voting poll that is conducted by all the gms

That is not my idea, my idea is having trades posted, and if they are unfair, it allows any member to dispute the validity and fairness of the trade, then it will go into ADMIN review, and they decide the fate of the trade, do not get hung up on my last sentence where I said it allows more freedom and leadway in a trade.

Dman515 wrote:

I know for a fact that soxnats is one of the best at trade councils and I"m in the trade council with him in another league. I never saw ocho cinco as trade council, but maybe putting soxnats as "head trade counciler" would be a good idea, and I know he's open to ideas and will help let this not get out of control

The big problem i have with this is that part of this is irrelevant. I know of soxnats and i know his credentials that's why he's on the Trade Crew. I talked to him about this last night. As far as the "head council" With all do respect to everyone on it, i don't feel we need an "over seer" or someone with "supreme control" on the trade council. I also don't think anything is getting out of hand. I do not agree at all with allowing 32 teams to vote on trades.

The REASON i do not, is because i've seen so many leagues attempt this and it blow right back up in their face. It leaves just as much uncertainty.

I agree with making a "trade talk" forum where members can discuss their input on trades. I would CERTAINLY not have a problem with that, but i do feel it necessary to limit the amount of hands that a trade is handled by, so to speak.

How about making pending trades actually pending? The TC members go to that trade thread, then post whether they pass or deny it, and a short explanation of why. That way, the traders involved can see first hand, and possibly respond to reasons. Maybe make pending trades last 24 hours, to give the TC members time to look and evaluate, and if it doesn't look like it will pass, then in those 24 hours the trading GMs can try to sway the TC minds or else wait till it gets denied then start renegotiating. Too many of my trades are denied, and I must go to a person and annoy them, simply to figure out what went wrong.


Basically, from the moment it is posted, it is pending for 24 hours. TC evaluates and posts in that thread their vote and reason. If passing, wait out the 24 hour period. If not looking like it will pass, then GMs try to explain trade. I just feel that the lack of understanding behind a trade leads some TC members to vote no. If the GMs can't persuade the TC to pass within that 24 hour period, then the trade is denied. I figure 24 hours is enough time for people to check up, especially the TC, as they are supposed to be active.

Ruskie89 wrote:

How about making pending trades actually pending? The TC members go to that trade thread, then post whether they pass or deny it, and a short explanation of why. That way, the traders involved can see first hand, and possibly respond to reasons. Maybe make pending trades last 24 hours, to give the TC members time to look and evaluate, and if it doesn't look like it will pass, then in those 24 hours the trading GMs can try to sway the TC minds or else wait till it gets denied then start renegotiating. Too many of my trades are denied, and I must go to a person and annoy them, simply to figure out what went wrong.


Basically, from the moment it is posted, it is pending for 24 hours. TC evaluates and posts in that thread their vote and reason. If passing, wait out the 24 hour period. If not looking like it will pass, then GMs try to explain trade. I just feel that the lack of understanding behind a trade leads some TC members to vote no. If the GMs can't persuade the TC to pass within that 24 hour period, then the trade is denied. I figure 24 hours is enough time for people to check up, especially the TC, as they are supposed to be active.

Okay I agree with 99% of this. The one word i do not like and i'll explain why is persuade.

I don't like the idea of "influencing" decisions. I understand what that is not what you're saying. And if this type of thing can be done without Gm's attemtping to "influence" decisions. This could work. By influencing i mean , but overstating the value of something, etc. Saying what you need to just to get your trade passed.

frgttndragon8 wrote:

Ruskie89 wrote:

How about making pending trades actually pending? The TC members go to that trade thread, then post whether they pass or deny it, and a short explanation of why. That way, the traders involved can see first hand, and possibly respond to reasons. Maybe make pending trades last 24 hours, to give the TC members time to look and evaluate, and if it doesn't look like it will pass, then in those 24 hours the trading GMs can try to sway the TC minds or else wait till it gets denied then start renegotiating. Too many of my trades are denied, and I must go to a person and annoy them, simply to figure out what went wrong.


Basically, from the moment it is posted, it is pending for 24 hours. TC evaluates and posts in that thread their vote and reason. If passing, wait out the 24 hour period. If not looking like it will pass, then GMs try to explain trade. I just feel that the lack of understanding behind a trade leads some TC members to vote no. If the GMs can't persuade the TC to pass within that 24 hour period, then the trade is denied. I figure 24 hours is enough time for people to check up, especially the TC, as they are supposed to be active.

Okay I agree with 99% of this. The one word i do not like and i'll explain why is persuade.

I don't like the idea of "influencing" decisions. I understand what that is not what you're saying. And if this type of thing can be done without Gm's attemtping to "influence" decisions. This could work. By influencing i mean , but overstating the value of something, etc. Saying what you need to just to get your trade passed.

Ok, How about rather than influencing, during the same post as the trade, the first GM (who is posting the trade) explains their point of view of the trade. Then, when the 2nd GM agrees, they post their point of view on it. Then, based on the trade and the GM perspectives, the TC have 24 hours to evaluate, vote, and mention a short reason for their vote. Regardless of passing or failing, the trade must undergo the 24 hour period.

Ruskie89 wrote:

frgttndragon8 wrote:

Ruskie89 wrote:

How about making pending trades actually pending? The TC members go to that trade thread, then post whether they pass or deny it, and a short explanation of why. That way, the traders involved can see first hand, and possibly respond to reasons. Maybe make pending trades last 24 hours, to give the TC members time to look and evaluate, and if it doesn't look like it will pass, then in those 24 hours the trading GMs can try to sway the TC minds or else wait till it gets denied then start renegotiating. Too many of my trades are denied, and I must go to a person and annoy them, simply to figure out what went wrong.


Basically, from the moment it is posted, it is pending for 24 hours. TC evaluates and posts in that thread their vote and reason. If passing, wait out the 24 hour period. If not looking like it will pass, then GMs try to explain trade. I just feel that the lack of understanding behind a trade leads some TC members to vote no. If the GMs can't persuade the TC to pass within that 24 hour period, then the trade is denied. I figure 24 hours is enough time for people to check up, especially the TC, as they are supposed to be active.

Okay I agree with 99% of this. The one word i do not like and i'll explain why is persuade.

I don't like the idea of "influencing" decisions. I understand what that is not what you're saying. And if this type of thing can be done without Gm's attemtping to "influence" decisions. This could work. By influencing i mean , but overstating the value of something, etc. Saying what you need to just to get your trade passed.

Ok, How about rather than influencing, during the same post as the trade, the first GM (who is posting the trade) explains their point of view of the trade. Then, when the 2nd GM agrees, they post their point of view on it. Then, based on the trade and the GM perspectives, the TC have 24 hours to evaluate, vote, and mention a short reason for their vote. Regardless of passing or failing, the trade must undergo the 24 hour period.

This, i personally, could agree with.