Fantasy Scout - Discussion about player trading reform

[milivella]

Daniele officially submitted a reform proposal about trading players to the Fantasy Scout mailing list. I've vetoed it. The "official" reason is that I think that the proposal lacks some crucial details, but I also think that, by discussing it, we have the chance to write a rule that we all wil like more; finally (and maybe more importantly), I think that a reform of the voting system is due, so I'll open a new thread about the reform voting system reform soon, and I hope that we tackle that issue before anything else, trading players included (I'll explain why in that other thread).

I.e. I'd like to change the reform voting system (or decide to keep it as it is) first, and only then vote about Daniele's proposal. But maybe you have different priorities, and, even if you don't, it doesn't harm to start discussing Daniele's proposal now, i.e. while we tackle the reform voting system at the same time.

So below you can find Daniele's proposal, and you can reply to this thread to discuss it (I'm about to do it).

---

[Daniele's proposal:]

Proposal for a rule change, effective for the upcoming 5th cycle (2016-2018)

"Scouts are allowed to trade players between them after they have been
picked, as long as the players in question do not have any caps at the
time of the trade [*]"

I know that it is customary to have proper debate before making an
official proposal, but in this case: a) We already had this rule in
place during the first cycle; b) it's fairly harmless, because in
practice it is very rarely used -- scouts like to hang on to their
players. So why have it? Because there are cases in which scouts like to
have friendly FS-related bets...

[*] Why the restriction on only uncapped players. In fact, I see no
reason not to allow trades of all players. But maybe then it would
require a proper debate...

--
Cheers
milivella

[Futbolmetrix]

On 11/27/2015 5:06 PM, milivella wrote:
> Daniele officially submitted a reform proposal about trading players to the Fantasy Scout mailing list.

> I've vetoed it. The "official" reason is that ...

... you enjoy having debates about rules. I'm not sure which crucial
details are missing from the proposal, but I'll be happy to revise it
following other people's suggestions. The important thing is that we can
have The Bet No. 2 in the next cycle..

[milivella]

> [Daniele's proposal:]
>
> Proposal for a rule change, effective for the upcoming 5th cycle (2016-2018)

I have four questions, and some (preliminary?) remarks:

> "Scouts are allowed to trade players between them

Question: only one player for one player? only n players for the same number of players? or whatever number of players for whatever number of players (e.g. I give you two players, you give me five players)? (if it's the latter, I've an additional question)

Question: only players picked in the same cycle? or can I e.g. give you a player picked in the 5th cycle in exchange for a player picked in the 6th cycle?

> after they have been
> picked, as long as the players in question do not have any caps at the
> time of the trade [*]"

Question: even after the end of the picking cycle? I.e. can we trade in 2019 two uncapped players that we have picked during the 2016-18 cycle? (of course if the answer is negative, my second question above doesn't make sense)

> [*] Why the restriction on only uncapped players. In fact, I see no
> reason not to allow trades of all players. But maybe then it would
> require a proper debate...

Now that there's a proper debate, we can talk about this, too. :)

Question: what happens to the points already scored by the traded players? i.e. when player P moves from scout S to scout T (who of course will get all P's points from now on), does S keep all the points P has scored so far? or do the points move to T together with P?

> I know that it is customary to have proper debate before making an
> official proposal, but in this case: a) We already had this rule in
> place during the first cycle

The second, too.

> b) it's fairly harmless, because in
> practice it is very rarely used -- scouts like to hang on to their
> players.

Yeah, in five years and a half it was used only once, and only because of a bet. I'm not saying that nobody will ever trade players or that we should not have rules that aren't applied often, but I think twice before adding to the rulesets a point that probably won't be used.

> So why have it? Because there are cases in which scouts like to
> have friendly FS-related bets...

I can see one or more reasons to have player trading (see below)... but I'm not sure this kind of bets is one of them. I mean, such bets show that our FS players (or points, or ranks) are worth to us, but why shold we show it with bets? Because they make FS more exciting? I'd rather look for other ways to make the game more exciting...

Now, let me add some more remarks - random and even contradictory remarks (the proposal made me think, and I haven't sorted my thoughts yet):

- Good reason for having player trading: it can mean more activity - things are a bit slow lately, and I'd like to have more active scouts (Abubakr, MH, *Binder*, where are you?!).

- Why was player trading in the original ruleset? ...I confess I don't remember! I mean, I guess it seemed important to me, otherwise I would have pruned it: surely I wanted the ruleset to be minimal. I guess I thought trading players would be a way to keep estimating the future career of a player even after he had been picked. I.e. something like "the game is about estimating future careers, and trading allows for more estimating". Does this reason still apply? I don't know: FS has become something about picking, not about picking-and-trading (I mean: this happened before trading was removed from the ruleset); but of course if FS has changed its nature once, it can do it again.

- Why was player trading removed from the ruleset? If you don't remember how it happened, there could be a mini-twist here: the rule, introduced by me in the original ruleset, was removed because of a proposal by... me! Here is what I wrote:
"The reasons are maybe obvious:
- Nobody exchanges players anyway, so we'll have a lighter ruleset while not
changing anything.
- The trading rule could be used to cheat: one could sign up under two
different names and then transfer all the good player from name #2 to name
#1 in exchange for all name #1's failed picks (I know that nobody would do
it, but why to maintain this temptation?).
- Daniele will sooner or later exploit it again to fool me! (kidding...)"
Only Daniele commented about it: he wrote that maybe trading players would be fun - we couldn't knew because we never really tried. Do the reasons I adduced still apply? I guess so.

- If, after all these words, you still haven't a clear idea of my opinion about this reform, the reason is that... neither have I! This brings me to my final (for the time being...) point: let's say that I don't love the rule, so I'd like to express this opinion by voting. Right now I have three options:
- voting for: not what I want to do
- voting against: under the current rules, this means rejecting the proposal. But I don't dislike the rule so much that I feel fine being possibly the only cause of not having it!
- abstaining: it's practically the same as voting for
I would prefer being able to vote against without this meaning that the proposal is rejected. I.e. I'd like to say "I think the game is better without trading players, but if most of you like it, let's do it". But this means I'd like to change the reform voting system, so follow me to the next thread...

--
Cheers
milivella

[milivella]

Futbolmetrix:

> On 11/27/2015 5:06 PM, milivella wrote:
> > Daniele officially submitted a reform proposal about trading players to the Fantasy Scout mailing list.
> > I've vetoed it. The "official" reason is that ...
>
> ... you enjoy having debates about rules.

Now you're unjust to me: 152 blog posts, and none of them is about changing the rules! :)

[the blog I'm referring to is http://fantasyscoutblog.wordpress.com/ ]

--
Cheers
milivella

[Futbolmetrix]

On 11/27/2015 5:55 PM, milivella wrote:
>
> I have four questions, and some (preliminary?) remarks:
>
>> "Scouts are allowed to trade players between them
>
> Question: only one player for one player? only n players for the same number of players? or whatever number of players for whatever number of players (e.g. I give you two players, you give me five players)? (if it's the latter, I've an additional question)

Why have any restrictions? Whatever the scouts involved think is
mutually advantageous is fine by me.

>
> Question: only players picked in the same cycle? or can I e.g. give you a player picked in the 5th cycle in exchange for a player picked in the 6th cycle?

Here I would limit it to only players picked within the same cycle.

>> after they have been
>> picked, as long as the players in question do not have any caps at the
>> time of the trade [*]"
>
> Question: even after the end of the picking cycle? I.e. can we trade in 2019 two uncapped players that we have picked during
> the 2016-18 cycle? (of course if the answer is negative, my second question above doesn't make sense)

Yes, why not?

>> [*] Why the restriction on only uncapped players. In fact, I see no
>> reason not to allow trades of all players. But maybe then it would
>> require a proper debate...
>
> Now that there's a proper debate, we can talk about this, too. :)
>
> Question: what happens to the points already scored by the traded players? i.e. when player P moves
> from scout S to scout T (who of course will get all P's points from now on), does S keep all the points
> P has scored so far? or do the points move to T together with P?

Points already gained don't move. Only future points move.

>> I know that it is customary to have proper debate before making an
>> official proposal, but in this case: a) We already had this rule in
>> place during the first cycle
>
> The second, too.
>
>> b) it's fairly harmless, because in
>> practice it is very rarely used -- scouts like to hang on to their
>> players.
>
> Yeah, in five years and a half it was used only once, and only because of a bet. I'm not saying that nobody will ever
> trade players or that we should not have rules that aren't applied often, but I think twice before adding to
> the rulesets a point that probably won't be used.

OK, but I don't see having a ruleset that is as streamlined as possible
as an absolute priority.



[snip]

> - Why was player trading removed from the ruleset? If you don't remember how it happened, there
> could be a mini-twist here: the rule, introduced by me in the original ruleset, was removed
> because of a proposal by... me! Here is what I wrote:
> "The reasons are maybe obvious:
> - Nobody exchanges players anyway, so we'll have a lighter ruleset while not
> changing anything.
> - The trading rule could be used to cheat: one could sign up under two
> different names and then transfer all the good player from name #2 to name
> #1 in exchange for all name #1's failed picks (I know that nobody would do
> it, but why to maintain this temptation?).

Here's another twist that would go against trading: suppose that three
scouts (let's call them milivella, MH and Futbolmetrix) are in a tight
race in both cycles t and t+1. Without trades, milivella is projected to
win in both cycles (I said it was a hypothetical example). But MH and
Futbolmetrix could trade players in such a way that they both end up
with one cycle win, and milivella with zero.

Did I say "against" trading? I meant *in favor* of trading!

> - Daniele will sooner or later exploit it again to fool me! (kidding...)"

Maybe you were onto something...

[MH]

In that case why restrict it to players picked in the same cycle ? (BTW
I agree that the points already gained don't move, this makes it more
interesting and useful).

So I can offer you Özil, for instance (probably good for another 20-40
points in cycle one, which would guarantee you victory) for some current
young players who have not even been capped yet. Is that a problem ?
Well it COULD be with unscrupulous people colluding to do a biscotto
type of deal that gives one victory in cycle 1, and the other in cycle
2, at the expense of some other scout.

[milivella]

Futbolmetrix:

> On 11/27/2015 5:55 PM, milivella wrote:
> >
> > I have four questions, and some (preliminary?) remarks:
> >
> >> "Scouts are allowed to trade players between them
> >
> > Question: only one player for one player? only n players for the same number of players? or whatever number of players for whatever number of players (e.g. I give you two players, you give me five players)? (if it's the latter, I've an additional question)
>
> Why have any restrictions? Whatever the scouts involved think is
> mutually advantageous is fine by me.

Thanks for answering. I'll think about the now-detailed-reform and post any new opinion later. For the time being, here is the additional question:

What happens with the points the scout "paid" for the traded player(s)?

E.g. let's assume the following trade:
Andrea V. (100 points just before the trade) gives to Daniele:
- Player A, Andrea V.'s second pick of the cycle (no points paid)
- Player B, paid 8 points
- Player C, paid 8 points
Daniele (-200 points just before the trade) gives to Andrea V.
- Player Z, paid 8 points
How many points do Andrea V. and Daniele have after the trade?

> >> after they have been
> >> picked, as long as the players in question do not have any caps at the
> >> time of the trade [*]"
> >
> > Question: even after the end of the picking cycle? I.e. can we trade in 2019 two uncapped players that we have picked during
> > the 2016-18 cycle? (of course if the answer is negative, my second question above doesn't make sense)
>
> Yes, why not?

See below...

> >> [*] Why the restriction on only uncapped players. In fact, I see no
> >> reason not to allow trades of all players. But maybe then it would
> >> require a proper debate...
> >
> > Now that there's a proper debate, we can talk about this, too. :)
> >
> > Question: what happens to the points already scored by the traded players? i.e. when player P moves
> > from scout S to scout T (who of course will get all P's points from now on), does S keep all the points
> > P has scored so far? or do the points move to T together with P?
>
> Points already gained don't move. Only future points move.

Argh! I would have to change the spreadsheet! (kidding)

> >> b) it's fairly harmless, because in
> >> practice it is very rarely used -- scouts like to hang on to their
> >> players.
> >
> > Yeah, in five years and a half it was used only once, and only because of a bet. I'm not saying that nobody will ever
> > trade players or that we should not have rules that aren't applied often, but I think twice before adding to
> > the rulesets a point that probably won't be used.
>
> OK, but I don't see having a ruleset that is as streamlined as possible
> as an absolute priority.

Fine. Also consider that one more rule also means one more potential breaking point (again, nothing major, but again, we're talking about a feature of the game nobody used for more than five years).

> > - Why was player trading removed from the ruleset? If you don't remember how it happened, there
> > could be a mini-twist here: the rule, introduced by me in the original ruleset, was removed
> > because of a proposal by... me! Here is what I wrote:
> > "The reasons are maybe obvious:
> > - Nobody exchanges players anyway, so we'll have a lighter ruleset while not
> > changing anything.
> > - The trading rule could be used to cheat: one could sign up under two
> > different names and then transfer all the good player from name #2 to name
> > #1 in exchange for all name #1's failed picks (I know that nobody would do
> > it, but why to maintain this temptation?).
>
> Here's another twist that would go against trading: suppose that three
> scouts (let's call them milivella, MH and Futbolmetrix) are in a tight
> race in both cycles t and t+1. Without trades, milivella is projected to
> win in both cycles (I said it was a hypothetical example). But MH and
> Futbolmetrix could trade players in such a way that they both end up
> with one cycle win, and milivella with zero.

This is a fortiori a reason against allowing trades after the end of the picking cycle! (i.e. you answered your own question)

> Did I say "against" trading? I meant *in favor* of trading!

:)

> > - Daniele will sooner or later exploit it again to fool me! (kidding...)"
>
> Maybe you were onto something...

By the way, it's not like you need more ways to exploit me.

--
Cheers
milivella

[milivella]

MH:

> So I can offer you Özil, for instance (probably good for another 20-40
> points in cycle one, which would guarantee you victory)

You could be underestimating Gabbiadini...

--
Cheers
milivella

[Futbolmetrix]

On 11/27/2015 6:51 PM, MH wrote:
>
> In that case why restrict it to players picked in the same cycle ? (BTW
> I agree that the points already gained don't move, this makes it more
> interesting and useful).
>
> So I can offer you Özil, for instance (probably good for another 20-40
> points in cycle one, which would guarantee you victory) for some current
> young players who have not even been capped yet. Is that a problem ?
> Well it COULD be with unscrupulous people colluding to do a biscotto
> type of deal that gives one victory in cycle 1, and the other in cycle
> 2, at the expense of some other scout.

Unscrupulous? This is absolutely brilliant! You give me Oezil, I give
you Lacazette, Casemiro, Jese and Antonelli (still maybe worth 10-20
points in cycle 2).

Of course, milivella could try to persuade me *not* do this trade. But
his arguments would have to be very persuasive. Koke-level persuasive,
perhaps?

Yes, definitely trading can be a lot of fun...

[Futbolmetrix]

On 11/27/2015 6:56 PM, milivella wrote:
>
> Thanks for answering. I'll think about the now-detailed-reform and post any new opinion later. For the time being, here is the additional question:
>
> What happens with the points the scout "paid" for the traded player(s)?
>
> E.g. let's assume the following trade:
> Andrea V. (100 points just before the trade) gives to Daniele:
> - Player A, Andrea V.'s second pick of the cycle (no points paid)
> - Player B, paid 8 points
> - Player C, paid 8 points
> Daniele (-200 points just before the trade) gives to Andrea V.
> - Player Z, paid 8 points
> How many points do Andrea V. and Daniele have after the trade?

I never really saw it that player A costs 0 and player B costs 8. A
scout's score is Sum(Caps+Goals) - 8*(N-2). So in your example N_A drops
by 2, and N_D increases by 2, you plug those numbers into the formula
and you're done.

>>
>> Points already gained don't move. Only future points move.
>
> Argh! I would have to change the spreadsheet! (kidding)

Yes, that could be a problem, but not insurmountable. You have two lines

Player Scout Date_picked Date-traded Caps Goals
Mueller Daniele 16/9/2009 1/1/2016 68 31
Mueller Andrea V. 1/1/2016 -- 0 0

>
> This is a fortiori a reason against allowing trades after the end of the picking cycle! (i.e. you answered your own question)

I think that restricting trading to uncapped players would be enough to
prevent shenanigans. But I'm fine to restricting trading to the current
picking cycle if you prefer.

[MH]

On 2015-11-28 8:15 AM, Futbolmetrix wrote:
> On 11/27/2015 6:56 PM, milivella wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for answering. I'll think about the now-detailed-reform and
>> post any new opinion later. For the time being, here is the additional
>> question:
>>
>> What happens with the points the scout "paid" for the traded player(s)?
>>
>> E.g. let's assume the following trade:
>> Andrea V. (100 points just before the trade) gives to Daniele:
>> - Player A, Andrea V.'s second pick of the cycle (no points paid)
>> - Player B, paid 8 points
>> - Player C, paid 8 points
>> Daniele (-200 points just before the trade) gives to Andrea V.
>> - Player Z, paid 8 points
>> How many points do Andrea V. and Daniele have after the trade?
>
>
> I never really saw it that player A costs 0 and player B costs 8. A
> scout's score is Sum(Caps+Goals) - 8*(N-2). So in your example N_A drops
> by 2, and N_D increases by 2, you plug those numbers into the formula
> and you're done.

That does not seem quite right to me. You are keeping the points earned
from players, so you should still have to keep the cost of those
players. N should not go down, because your total number of players
whose points are counting towards your total score is still N

>
>
>>>
>>> Points already gained don't move. Only future points move.
>>
>> Argh! I would have to change the spreadsheet! (kidding)
>
> Yes, that could be a problem, but not insurmountable. You have two lines
>
> Player Scout Date_picked Date-traded Caps Goals
> Mueller Daniele 16/9/2009 1/1/2016 68 31
> Mueller Andrea V. 1/1/2016 -- 0 0
>
>
>
>>
>> This is a fortiori a reason against allowing trades after the end of
>> the picking cycle! (i.e. you answered your own question)
>
> I think that restricting trading to uncapped players would be enough to
> prevent shenanigans. But I'm fine to restricting trading to the current
> picking cycle if you prefer.

But shenanigans are such fun !

>
>

[Futbolmetrix]

On 11/28/2015 7:17 PM, MH wrote:
>> I never really saw it that player A costs 0 and player B costs 8. A
>> scout's score is Sum(Caps+Goals) - 8*(N-2). So in your example N_A drops
>> by 2, and N_D increases by 2, you plug those numbers into the formula
>> and you're done.
>
> That does not seem quite right to me. You are keeping the points earned
> from players, so you should still have to keep the cost of those
> players. N should not go down, because your total number of players
> whose points are counting towards your total score is still N

I can see your point, but if we restrict trading to only uncapped
players, the issue becomes irrelevant.

>>
>> I think that restricting trading to uncapped players would be enough to
>> prevent shenanigans. But I'm fine to restricting trading to the current
>> picking cycle if you prefer.
>
>
> But shenanigans are such fun !

I couldn't agree more!

[MH]

I always felt that in office hockey drafts etc, discussing and
speculating on trades was the most fun part, even if in the end a lot of
the trades never happened. So I would like to suggest that a no-holds
barred trading policy be adopted as follows:

1. You can trade any player or combination of players from any cycle for
any player or combination of players from any cycle.

2. All scouts keep the points their picks have earned so far, as well as
the cost (if any) of such picks.

3. If a trade results in an increase in total number of players owned by
a scout for a given cycle (after the first one), they are also assessed
an 8 point cost for those players, unless N is still not greater than 2.

4. Acquiring players in the currently active cycle by trading for them
using players from past cycles fulfills your duty to pick players in the
current cycle.

5. Proposed trades must be publicly announced a week before they take
effect, so that protests and counter offers from other scouts can be
entered.

[El Kot]

MH wrote:
>
> 1. You can trade any player or combination of players from any cycle for
> any player or combination of players from any cycle.
>
> 2. All scouts keep the points their picks have earned so far, as well as
> the cost (if any) of such picks.
>
> 3. If a trade results in an increase in total number of players owned by
> a scout for a given cycle (after the first one), they are also assessed
> an 8 point cost for those players, unless N is still not greater than 2.
>
> 4. Acquiring players in the currently active cycle by trading for them
> using players from past cycles fulfills your duty to pick players in the
> current cycle.
>
> 5. Proposed trades must be publicly announced a week before they take
> effect, so that protests and counter offers from other scouts can be
> entered.

I was going to propose something very similar myself (not that I play
actively in FS, heh). The only point I have any issue with is point 5. Surely
trades are supposed to be highly secretive, behind-the-scenes machinations. They
are not an open bidding affair! So I suggest point 5 goes away. Of course,
nothing should prevent somebody from openly offering some player(s) for trade
and accepting the highest bid, but they wouldn't /have/ to do that.

--
No, no, you can't e-mail me with the nono.

[milivella]

Futbolmetrix:

> On 11/27/2015 6:56 PM, milivella wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for answering. I'll think about the now-detailed-reform and post any new opinion later. For the time being, here is the additional question:
> >
> > What happens with the points the scout "paid" for the traded player(s)?
> >
> > E.g. let's assume the following trade:
> > Andrea V. (100 points just before the trade) gives to Daniele:
> > - Player A, Andrea V.'s second pick of the cycle (no points paid)
> > - Player B, paid 8 points
> > - Player C, paid 8 points
> > Daniele (-200 points just before the trade) gives to Andrea V.
> > - Player Z, paid 8 points
> > How many points do Andrea V. and Daniele have after the trade?
>
>
> I never really saw it that player A costs 0 and player B costs 8. A
> scout's score is Sum(Caps+Goals) - 8*(N-2). So in your example N_A drops
> by 2, and N_D increases by 2, you plug those numbers into the formula
> and you're done.

You're making it a bit easier than it is. As a matter of fact you're implying that N = "number of _owned_ players", while the current rules has it as "number of _picked_ player:
"Your score is the sum of the scores of the players you have picked in this picking cycle, minus 8 points for each picked player bar the first 2."
Consider this when you'll rephrase your proposal. Speaking of which... are you OK to vote about the switch from veto to majority before resubmitting your proposal?

> >> Points already gained don't move. Only future points move.
> >
> > Argh! I would have to change the spreadsheet! (kidding)
>
> Yes, that could be a problem, but not insurmountable. You have two lines
>
> Player Scout Date_picked Date-traded Caps Goals
> Mueller Daniele 16/9/2009 1/1/2016 68 31
> Mueller Andrea V. 1/1/2016 -- 0 0

I was really kidding! But thanks.

--
Cheers
milivella

[milivella]

MH:

> I would like to suggest that a no-holds
> barred trading policy be adopted as follows:
>
> 1. You can trade any player or combination of players from any cycle for
> any player or combination of players from any cycle.

Consider that we *cannot* change the rules for previous cycle (as we know, this is important!), and:
- the rule for cycles #1 and #2 was: you can only trade one player for one player
- the rule for cycles #3 and #4 was: no trading.

So the most liberal rule I can think of is:
"You can trade any player or combination of players from any cycle for any player or combination of players from any cycle that has the current rule in this exact form."

> 5. Proposed trades must be publicly announced a week before they take
> effect, so that protests and counter offers from other scouts can be
> entered.

This is a very good idea.

--
Cheers
milivella

[milivella]

El Kot:

> MH wrote:
> >
> > 5. Proposed trades must be publicly announced a week before they take
> > effect, so that protests and counter offers from other scouts can be
> > entered.
>
> I was going to propose something very similar myself (not that I play
> actively in FS, heh). The only point I have any issue with is point 5. Surely
> trades are supposed to be highly secretive, behind-the-scenes machinations. They
> are not an open bidding affair! So I suggest point 5 goes away. Of course,
> nothing should prevent somebody from openly offering some player(s) for trade
> and accepting the highest bid, but they wouldn't /have/ to do that.

I can see your point, but consider this: with public proposed trades, there would (hopefully) be more action. As I wrote,

"- Good reason for having player trading: it can mean more activity - things are a bit slow lately, and I'd like to have more active scouts (Abubakr, MH, *Binder*, where are you?!)."

So I see the rule version with public proposed trades as something that fulfills the meaning or (or more precisely: that I give to!) the rule better.

--
Cheers
milivella

[milivella]

Futbolmetrix:

> > Question: even after the end of the picking cycle? I.e. can we trade in 2019 two uncapped players that we have picked during
> > the 2016-18 cycle? (of course if the answer is negative, my second question above doesn't make sense)
>
> Yes, why not?

One more possible reason: because one could interpret the meaning of cycles as "you can improve your chance to win up to July 31 of the second year, then you can't do anything about it".

> > I'm not saying that nobody will ever
> > trade players or that we should not have rules that aren't applied often, but I think twice before adding to
> > the rulesets a point that probably won't be used.
>
> OK, but I don't see having a ruleset that is as streamlined as possible
> as an absolute priority.

One more reason for it to be maybe-not-absolute-but-quite-important-nonetheless priority: less rules means that the game is easier to understand, learn and remember for new scouts. And having some new scouts would not be bad...

--
Cheers
milivella

[milivella]

Futbolmetrix:

> Player Scout Date_picked Date-traded Caps Goals
> Mueller Daniele 16/9/2009 1/1/2016 68 31
> Mueller Andrea V. 1/1/2016 -- 0 0

So you'd like to have Higuain in your squad, wouldn't you? Thanks for the laughs.

NO. WAY.

--
Cheers
milivella

[milivella]

MH:

> 1. You can trade any player or combination of players from any cycle for
> any player or combination of players from any cycle.
>
> 2. All scouts keep the points their picks have earned so far, as well as
> the cost (if any) of such picks.
>
> 3. If a trade results in an increase in total number of players owned by
> a scout for a given cycle (after the first one), they are also assessed
> an 8 point cost for those players, unless N is still not greater than 2.
>
> 4. Acquiring players in the currently active cycle by trading for them
> using players from past cycles fulfills your duty to pick players in the
> current cycle.

I think you should make it clear how the scoring would work.

---

A not-too-unrelated note (I don't want to post one more message): I'm not sure whether one can trade a player picked in the 2nd cycle for a player picked in the 1st cycle (again, trades are not allowed in cycles #3 and #4). The rule (it's the same for the first two cycles) doesn't specify it:

"At any moment (even after the end of the picking cycle), you can buy one player from another scout, exchanging him with one player of yours.

The exchange will be official when both scouts will e-mail fantas...@yahoogroups.com .

The two players (the one that you've bought and the one that you've sold) are counted as one player only for the sake of the score: you keep the points scored by your former player while he was yours, and gain the points that your new player scores since you have bought him."

( http://fantasyscout.altervista.org/previousrules.htm )

Now I think it's a matter of interpretation. In my opinion the spirit of the rule is that only players from the same cycle can be traded: all the other cycle rules are about that cycle only, so this one should be, too. Thoughts about this?

--
Cheers
milivella

[Futbolmetrix]

On 12/2/2015 4:47 PM, milivella wrote:
>
> ---
>
> A not-too-unrelated note (I don't want to post one more message): I'm not sure whether one can trade a
> player picked in the 2nd cycle for a player picked in the 1st cycle (again, trades are not allowed in
> cycles #3 and #4). The rule (it's the same for the first two cycles) doesn't specify it:
>
> "At any moment (even after the end of the picking cycle), you can buy one player from another
> scout, exchanging him with one player of yours.
>
> The exchange will be official when both scouts will e-mail fantas...@yahoogroups.com .
>
> The two players (the one that you've bought and the one that you've sold) are counted as one player only
> for the sake of the score: you keep the points scored by your former player while he was yours,
> and gain the points that your new player scores since you have bought him."
>

Weren't trades permitted only for uncapped players?

> ( http://fantasyscout.altervista.org/previousrules.htm )
>
> Now I think it's a matter of interpretation. In my opinion the spirit of the rule is that only players from
> the same cycle can be traded: all the other cycle rules are about that cycle only, so this one should be, too.
> Thoughts about this?

I agree with your interpretation of the spirit of the rule. Cycles 1 and
2 should allow only within-cycle trades.

[Futbolmetrix]

On 12/2/2015 2:51 PM, milivella wrote:
>
> You're making it a bit easier than it is. As a matter of fact you're
> implying that N = "number of _owned_ players", while the current rules
> has it as "number of _picked_ player:
> "Your score is the sum of the scores of the players you have picked
> in this picking cycle, minus 8 points for each picked player bar
> the first 2."
> Consider this when you'll rephrase your proposal.

I would rephrase it as:

score = Sum (caps + points) - 8*(max(N_picked,N_owned)-2)

[Futbolmetrix]

On 12/2/2015 4:41 PM, milivella wrote:
> Futbolmetrix:
>
>> Player Scout Date_picked Date-traded Caps Goals
>> Mueller Daniele 16/9/2009 1/1/2016 68 31
>> Mueller Andrea V. 1/1/2016 -- 0 0
>
> So you'd like to have Higuain in your squad, wouldn't you? Thanks for the laughs.
>

Really? You wouldn't trade Gonzalo "borderline NT member" Higuain for
Thomas "he's so good they even have to invent new names for his role"
Mueller? You're just trolling...

[milivella]

Futbolmetrix:

> On 12/2/2015 4:47 PM, milivella wrote:
> >
> > ---
> >
> > A not-too-unrelated note (I don't want to post one more message): I'm not sure whether one can trade a
> > player picked in the 2nd cycle for a player picked in the 1st cycle (again, trades are not allowed in
> > cycles #3 and #4). The rule (it's the same for the first two cycles) doesn't specify it:
> >
> > "At any moment (even after the end of the picking cycle), you can buy one player from another
> > scout, exchanging him with one player of yours.
> >
> > The exchange will be official when both scouts will e-mail fantas...@yahoogroups.com .
> >
> > The two players (the one that you've bought and the one that you've sold) are counted as one player only
> > for the sake of the score: you keep the points scored by your former player while he was yours,
> > and gain the points that your new player scores since you have bought him."
> >
>
> Weren't trades permitted only for uncapped players?

No (even though the only trade involved two uncapped players).

> > ( http://fantasyscout.altervista.org/previousrules.htm )
> >
> > Now I think it's a matter of interpretation. In my opinion the spirit of the rule is that only players from
> > the same cycle can be traded: all the other cycle rules are about that cycle only, so this one should be, too.
> > Thoughts about this?
>
> I agree with your interpretation of the spirit of the rule. Cycles 1 and
> 2 should allow only within-cycle trades.

Thanks for the feedback.

(I guess that if you and I [mortal enemies!] agree, everyone would agree. ;) )

--
Cheers
milivella

[milivella]

Futbolmetrix:

Wikipedia's data about the goals they scored:
Player Club NT Tot
Higuain 206 25 231
Mueller 156 31 187

Now, if math is not an opinion...

--
Cheers
milivella