The Criteria Draft - The Drafts

MJJ said:
That would make sense in a normal draft, not a criteria draft. No one here would consider popescu for the three country rule as quite obviously there are much better players available. So no one would have him in their back up,etc. Kinda like how crappy was allowed to withdraw his bid for totti in the auction draft.
Click to expand...

Speculative. Rules must be black and white, rule is once the next guy picks you are committed. Simple.

And I didnt change my mind, I asked rpit. if he wanted popescu for his over 30 ranking criteria and thats when he pointed it out to me that he wasnt eligible.
Click to expand...

I know, it's irrelevant though. Honest mistake, tough. I agree though that it shouldn't be a sheep but a 13th round leftover pick as sufficient punishment for the feckup.
 
antohan said:
Because shit happens and so long as it doesn't affect further picks it's best to accomodate or we would have regular meltdowns and people stuck with suboptimal picks which really isn't the objective of it all.

The moment a pick is set in stone it is info that affects decision-making thereafter so it can't be changed, else the whole thing turns into a chaotic shambles. I don't think anyone here is trying to punish you or picking on you, it's just you need to uphold the integrity of the process. It just so happens you are the one affected, but it would be the same with anyone else.
Click to expand...

Which this situation clearly doesnt do.

As I keep pointing out no one had to change their plans due to my pick. So I dont see why I get punished for my mistake while others dont.

So you have this rule that you can change your pick as long as it doesnt affect further picks but it doesnt apply because a certain time period has passed despite it having no affect on further picks?
 
antohan said:
Speculative. Rules must be black and white, rule is once the next guy picks you are committed. Simple.



I know, it's irrelevant though. Honest mistake, tough. I agree though that it shouldn't be a sheep but a 13th round leftover pick as sufficient punishment for the feckup.
Click to expand...

If a rule doesnt make sense or follow simple logic, it should be changed/updated. Not use terms like "tradition" because you know you have no defense but still want to argue its not fair
 
MJJ said:
So you have gone from it having no impact to it being tradition? Again, what impact does it haven i if I withdraw my bid 10/15 picks later than immediately other than me losing out on other sides. None.
Click to expand...

I never said it had no impact. In your case it clearly has potential impact if you're allowed to change your pick ten or fifteen turns down the line. Hence the tradition of allowing a manager to change his pick before the next in line has had his say - but not after ten or fifteen managers have all had their say.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing for - or against - anymore. The tradition? Do you think no changes should be allowed no matter what? That's a fair point of view - but clearly most people here think the traditional way of doing it works well enough.

If you're still arguing that you have been discriminated against, however, you're just plain mistaken. And I won't dress up the reason for this - which has been pointed out to you multiple times by various people now - in yet another garb.

You're pissed off - and you're not reasonable about this at all. As I suggested to you earlier - forget the damn thing. Do something else.
 
MJJ said:
So you have this rule that you can change your pick as long as it doesnt affect further picks but it doesnt apply because a certain time period has passed despite it having no affect on further picks?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Otherwise we might as well just say "any manager can change his picks any time as long as the other managers are not affected by it". A line has to be drawn somewhere.
 
kps88 said:
Yes.

Otherwise we might as well just say "any manager can change his picks any time as long as the other managers are not affected by it". A line has to be drawn somewhere.
Click to expand...

That would make sense if I had wanted to change my pick for the heck of it. I wanted to change it as he isnt eligible for my team, if he had fit any other criteria I would have accepted it. In fact, I didnt mind having the sheep till I saw others are allowed to change their picks at will.

Chesterlestreet said:
I never said it had no impact. In your case it clearly has potential impact if you're allowed to change your pick ten or fifteen turns down the line. Hence the tradition of allowing a manager to change his pick before the next in line has had his say - but not after ten or fifteen managers have all had their say.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing for - or against - anymore. The tradition? Do you think no changes should be allowed no matter what? That's a fair point of view - but clearly most people here think the traditional way of doing it works well enough.

If you're still arguing that you have been discriminated against, however, you're just plain mistaken. And I won't dress up the reason for this - which has been pointed out to you multiple times by various people now - in yet another garb.

You're pissed off - and you're not reasonable about this at all. As I suggested to you earlier - forget the damn thing. Do something else.
Click to expand...

What potential impact it had if no one else wanted popescu for that criteria or was considering him as a backup?

Did I make someone change his team plans? Nope.

Did I make someone rethink his strategy? Nope.

So what impact did it have?

I think you guys should stay consistent, whether mistakes should be punished for all or everyone should be allowed to change his pick if it doesnt fit any of the criterias. Not look at the person's username and then decide.
 
kps88 said:
Yes.

Otherwise we might as well just say "any manager can change his picks any time as long as the other managers are not affected by it". A line has to be drawn somewhere.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. At least there's a trading system now so you can possibly rectify a feck up. Back in the (like 1-2 years ago) there wasn't even that option. Hell, we didn't even have the 12th man.
 
MJJ said:
That would make sense if I had wanted to change my pick for the heck of it. I wanted to change it as he isnt eligible for my team, if he had fit any other criteria I would have accepted it. In fact, I didnt mind having the sheep till I saw others are allowed to change their picks at will.



What potential impact it had if no one else wanted popescu for that criteria or was considering him as a backup?

Did I make someone change his team plans? Nope.

Did I make someone rethink his strategy? Nope.

So what impact did it have?

I think you guys should stay consistent, whether mistakes should be punished for all or everyone should be allowed to change his pick if it doesnt fit any of the criterias. Not look at the person's username and then decide.
Click to expand...
Whoa whoa. Don't go overboard now. We've been consistent. No one is ganging up on you. The rules have been consistently followed. Even though you don't agree with said rule you cannot deny its consistency.
 
Snow said:
Whoa whoa. Don't go overboard now. We've been consistent. No one is ganging up on you. The rules have been consistently followed. Even though you don't agree with said rule you cannot deny its consistency.
Click to expand...

As I have argued over the past couple of pages, they really havent been.
 
MJJ said:
That would make sense if I had wanted to change my pick for the heck of it. I wanted to change it as he isnt eligible for my team, if he had fit any other criteria I would have accepted it. In fact, I didnt mind having the sheep till I saw others are allowed to change their picks at will.
Click to expand...

No, they are allowed because the next player hasn't picked, otherwise they would be in the same boat as you.

What potential impact it had if no one else wanted popescu for that criteria or was considering him as a backup?

Did I make someone change his team plans? Nope.

Did I make someone rethink his strategy? Nope.

So what impact did it have?

I think you guys should stay consistent, whether mistakes should be punished for all or everyone should be allowed to change his pick if it doesnt fit any of the criterias. Not look at the person's username and then decide.
Click to expand...

The rule is consistent. In fact, that's the entire point, you may be right that it didn't affect anyone but there's no clear cut objective way of establishing that 100%. You are asking for an inconsistency that becomes a precedent for future meltdowns, I'm not even playing mate, but I can see it's just not on.
 
MJJ said:
What potential impact it had if no one else wanted popescu for that criteria or was considering him as a backup?

Did I make someone change his team plans? Nope.

Did I make someone rethink his strategy? Nope.

So what impact did it have?

I think you guys should stay consistent, whether mistakes should be punished for all or everyone should be allowed to change his pick if it doesnt fit any of the criterias. Not look at the person's username and then decide.
Click to expand...

What to do, then? Decide on a case-by-case basis whether a withdrawn pick has any impact at point X down the line? Surely you can see that this isn't practical?

As for the bit in bold - I don't know what to say.
 
antohan said:
No, they are allowed because the next player hasn't picked, otherwise they would be in the same boat as you.



The rule is consistent. In fact, that's the entire point, you may be right that it didn't affect anyone but there's no clear cut objective way of establishing that 100%. You are asking for an inconsistency that becomes a precedent for future meltdowns, I'm not even playing mate, but I can see it's just not on.
Click to expand...

Somehow I doubt that.

Stobzilla said:
Any non-researched pick should be punished accordingly.
Click to expand...

Take stobzilla's post here. The gist of the argument at that time was that I should be punished as the other made their mistakes due to ambiguity not due to a failure of researching properly. Paceme makes the latter mistake and surprise surprise he is allowed to change and the argument changes.
Chesterlestreet said:
What to do, then? Decide on a case-by-case basis whether a withdrawn pick has any impact at point X down the line? Surely you can see that this isn't practical?

As for the bit in bold - I don't know what to say.
Click to expand...

Using your common sense seems to be a good criteria. Am not withdrawing a pick because I changed my mind but because I made a mistake w.r.t criteria and cant fit him in.
 
To be fair, the only reason I'm arguing against him is because he posted in the WWE thread that one time.

Seriously though, if I were running a draft I'd just scrap the rule and make it known that every pick is final. If you picked an invalid player, you get an extra turn at the end to finish your squad. I'd also ban assistant managers and asking people for help via PM. But I'm mean like that.
 
kps88 said:
To be fair, the only reason I'm arguing against him is because he posted in the WWE thread that one time.

Seriously though, if I were running a draft I'd just scrap the rule and make it known that every pick is final. If you picked an invalid player, you get an extra turn at the end to finish your squad. I'd also ban assistant managers and asking people for help via PM. But I'm mean like that.
Click to expand...
You wouldn't even let other people take part. You'd just make up 16 teams by yourself!
 
I'm struggling as to why would you be targeted @MJJ by each and every one of us?
 
KM said:
I'm struggling as to why would you be targeted @MJJ by each and every one of us?
Click to expand...
Stobzilla said:
Any non-researched pick should be punished accordingly.
Click to expand...

VivaJanuzaj said:
I don't mind too much, but I really do believe that if you made that pick without a proper research it's your fault. I don't see any difference between changing it now or before your next turn, as it might hurt us at the same manner.
I think if he is to get to change it, it can go ahead now and not wait, but I still believe it shouldn't be changed, lucky for you we get 12 picks so one mistake doesn't screw us over and you can still work a team around this mistake.
Click to expand...

Chesterlestreet said:
Doesn't matter to me, really - but it does strike me as a bit odd if you can change a pick that was made several rounds ago. Sort of defeats the purpose of the thing, no? If it was based on a misunderstanding of some kind, some genuinely ambiguous thing which came to light only now - then that would be different. But this is a mistake, pure and simple - and you have to pay for those in any kind of game, it's the nature of the...game.

@BorisDeLeFora is up, right?

Not been around since yesterday, I think.
Click to expand...

If not, please explain why none of this applies to paceme's bid but does to mine?
 
kps88 said:
Seriously though, if I were running a draft I'd just scrap the rule and make it known that every pick is final. If you picked an invalid player, you get an extra turn at the end to finish your squad. I'd also ban assistant managers and asking people for help via PM. But I'm mean like that.
Click to expand...
If you run the next draft, I'm in.
 
MJJ said:
Take stobzilla's post here. The gist of the argument at that time was that I should be punished as the other made their mistakes due to ambiguity not due to a failure of researching properly. Paceme makes the latter mistake and surprise surprise he is allowed to change and the argument changes.
Click to expand...

Is that what this is about? But it clearly isn't the case - the argument isn't about whether you (or anyone else) has done poor research. It's simply about WHEN you registered your desire to change the pick. If you had done so immediately, you would've been allowed to change it - you don't doubt that, do you? Do you think people would've said, "nah, it stands - because your username has three letters and you're a poor researcher..."?

The only hypothetical case in which I'd say a manager should be allowed to change his pick at some point after the normal picking has resumed, is when there's a genuine issue with the rules/conditions/criteria posted by the host. In all other cases it's a matter of the manager fecking up in one way or another - and he can't be allowed to correct such feck-ups after business as usual has been resumed. It would be anarchy - obviously.
 
MJJ said:
Somehow I doubt that.
Click to expand...

You are just wrong then.

Take stobzilla's post here. The gist of the argument at that time was...
Click to expand...

Are you serious? No one in their right mind would take Stob's opinion as the letter of the law. Half the time he doesn't even know what is going on. No slight, but the point is the opinion expressed by any one manager on how something should/shouldn't be dealt with is no basis for all this. Some agree with the rule, some may not, but that's how it's been for some time now and, ultimately, it's up to the GameMaster.

See? That's precisely why I ducked out of running another draft, too many cooks these days. One chap runs the draft, he sets the rules, and where they aren't clear or don't seem to have been clearly established his decision is final. Period.

Christ, I even had plans for certain player combinations resulting in bust-ups/red cards, etc. There was a power card whereby winning a challenge you could pick any one player from another team (while all players had a bodyguard power they could use on one but only one of their players to avoid the whole setup falling apart, bluffs and double-bluffs, etc).

Imagine the meltdowns if something as simple as this has been running for several pages...
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Is that what this is about? But it clearly isn't the case - the argument isn't about whether you (or anyone else) has done poor research. It's simply about WHEN you registered your desire to change the pick. If you had done so immediately, you would've been allowed to change it - you don't doubt that, do you? Do you think people would've said, "nah, it stands - because your username has three letters and you're a poor researcher..."?

The only hypothetical case in which I'd say a manager should be allowed to change his pick at some point after the normal picking has resumed, is when there's a genuine issue with the rules/conditions/criteria posted by the host. In all other cases it's a matter of the manager fecking up in one way or another - and he can't be allowed to correct such feck-ups after business as usual has been resumed. It would be anarchy - obviously.
Click to expand...
Chesterlestreet said:
Doesn't matter to me, really - but it does strike me as a bit odd if you can change a pick that was made several rounds ago. Sort of defeats the purpose of the thing, no? If it was based on a misunderstanding of some kind, some genuinely ambiguous thing which came to light only now - then that would be different. But this is a mistake, pure and simple - and you have to pay for those in any kind of game, it's the nature of the...game.

@BorisDeLeFora is up, right?

Not been around since yesterday, I think.
Click to expand...

So all of that was just bs?

Like I said, you guys have now shifted the goal posts.
 
antohan said:
You are just wrong then.



Are you serious? No one in their right mind would take Stob's opinion as the letter of the law. Half the time he doesn't even know what is going on. No slight, but the point is the opinion expressed by any one manager on how something should/shouldn't be dealt with is no basis for all this. Some agree with the rule, some may not, but that's how it's been for some time now and, ultimately, it's up to the GameMaster.

See? That's precisely why I ducked out of running another draft, too many cooks these days. One chap runs the draft, he sets the rules, and where they aren't clear or don't seem to have been clearly established his decision is final. Period.

Christ, I even had plans for certain player combinations resulting in bust-ups/red cards, etc. There was a power card whereby winning a challenge you could pick any one player from another team (while all players had a bodyguard power they could use on one but only one of their players to avoid the whole setup falling apart, bluffs and double-bluffs, etc).

Imagine the meltdowns if something as simple as this has been running for several pages...
Click to expand...

I have posted posts of two others as well who expressed the exact same opinion including chester who is now arguing that the when matters more than the why. Should we put him under the doesnt know whats going on umbrella as well? What about VJ, where does he belong?
 
MJJ said:
If not, please explain why none of this applies to paceme's bid but does to mine?
Click to expand...

The difference is people were discussing the merit of your claim as a standalone request for an exception. When you decide to compare to paceme that's when the hard and fast rule comes to the fore and all those deliberations are irrelevant. Context.
 
MJJ said:
If not, please explain why none of this applies to paceme's bid but does to mine?
Click to expand...

See above. I was referring to something positively illogical or contradictory in the criteria themselves. If this was discovered - then, yes, a manager who had suffered from this should be allowed to change his pick. This isn't what we're talking about here, though - as you know perfectly well.

If you're implying that I'm only arguing against you because I think you've done poor research (whereas others have suffered from ambiguities), then you're wrong. I've got nothing against you - and I thought that should've been obvious enough.
 
article-0-02375E3D00000578-946_468x543.jpg
 
antohan said:
You are just wrong then.



Are you serious? No one in their right mind would take Stob's opinion as the letter of the law. Half the time he doesn't even know what is going on. No slight, but the point is the opinion expressed by any one manager on how something should/shouldn't be dealt with is no basis for all this. Some agree with the rule, some may not, but that's how it's been for some time now and, ultimately, it's up to the GameMaster.

See? That's precisely why I ducked out of running another draft, too many cooks these days. One chap runs the draft, he sets the rules, and where they aren't clear or don't seem to have been clearly established his decision is final. Period.

Christ, I even had plans for certain player combinations resulting in bust-ups/red cards, etc. There was a power card whereby winning a challenge you could pick any one player from another team (while all players had a bodyguard power they could use on one but only one of their players to avoid the whole setup falling apart, bluffs and double-bluffs, etc).

Imagine the meltdowns if something as simple as this has been running for several pages...
Click to expand...

It is funny because it is true.
 
antohan said:
The difference is people were discussing the merit of your claim as a standalone request for an exception. When you decide to compare to paceme that's when the hard and fast rule comes to the fore and all those deliberations are irrelevant. Context.
Click to expand...

So the hard and fast rule which makes no sense comes to the fore and the argument changes to the when from the how? Sorry, if I dont think thats fair.

Chesterlestreet said:
See above. I was referring to something positively illogical or contradictory in the criteria themselves. If this was discovered - then, yes, a manager who had suffered from this should be allowed to change his pick. This isn't what we're talking about here, though - as you know perfectly well.

If you're implying that I'm only arguing against you because I think you've done poor research (whereas others have suffered from ambiguities), then you're wrong. I've got nothing against you - and I thought that should've been obvious enough.
Click to expand...

From this it follows that if a manager makes a mistake(like me and paceme) he shouldnt be allowed to change(only me). Like you said its the nature of the game or something.
 
1. VivaJanuzaj & Crappy - Messi, Sammer, Lahm, Zambrotta, Etoo, Cocu, F. de Boer
2. MJJ/mani-Ronaldinho, Henry, Cafu, Kaka, Hierro, Popescu, Effenberg
3. Annahnomoss - Ronaldo 9, Thuram, Cannavaro, Ribery, Lizarazu, Pirlo, Essien
4. Cutch - Maldini, Savicevic, Zanetti, Kohler, De Rossi, Benarrivo, Camoranesi
5. NoPace - Ronaldo 7, R. Baggio, Senna, Schweinsteiger, Thomas Hassler, Rooney, Aldair
6. Stobzilla / KM - Zidane, Davids, Robben, Irwin, Signori, Ferrara, Van Der Sar
7. FromTheBench/Theon - Romário, Makélélé, Gerrard, Totti, Blanc, Sagnol, Samuel
8. EDogen - Keane, Scholes, Weah, Evra, Beckham, Bale, Gallas
9. BigDunc9 - Xavi, Iniesta, Shevchenko, Albertini, F. Couto, Claudio Lopez, Baines
10. rpitroda - Nedved, Seedorf, Deco, Ferdinand, Luis Enrique, Guardiola, Zabaleta
11. BorisDeLeFora - Nesta, Vieira, Matt Le Tissier, Lucio, Lampard, Villa, Ginola, van Bronckhorst, Voronin
12. Chesterlestreet - Stoichkov, Mendieta, Des Walker, Prosinečki, Ibrahimovic, Kahn, Bergkamp, Adams
13. Paceme - Figo, Rui Costa, Batistuta, Vidic, Del Piero, Cambiasso, Yaya Toure, Abidal
14. NM / Snow - Redondo, Giggs, Ayala, Ballack, Fabregas, Ljungberg, Buffon, Costacurta
15. Aldo - Rivaldo, Desailly, Stam, Hagi, Simeone, Van Persie, G. Neville, Mascherano
16. Edgar Allan pillow - Roberto Carlos, Litmanen, Pepe, Arteta, Gamarra, Gattuso, Di Maria, Cazorla
 
Issue 1: I pick Kluivert @BigDunc9
Issue 2: I resent the idea that I have treated anyone unfairly in this draft. MJJ, I find it strange because in PM you initially accepted it was different and that you would accept any decision. I simply said post in the thread and let's get a consensus as I'm unsure.

I take great issue at the idea you feel we or I have discriminated against you. I would have said and done the exact same thing if someone else was in the same scenario. And let's be clear, no one else has been in this scenario. The key fact here is your mistake wasn't found out until a number of other managers had made their picks.

This is the key here, irrespective of whether it was flagged or not. Simply put, the other managers were lucky that someone realised the mistake they made. If they hadn't they'd be in the same position as you. However, it is vitally important to realise they specified the criteria it was for or it was evident what they were picking. Neither factors were present in your pick.

Ultimately it your responsibility to ensure your pick is correct so the notion we are discriminating is frankly insulting to me.
 
SHIT, I already have Lucio for that criteria, can I change before someone else picks?

Edit: OMFG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.