Ethics - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

Ethics

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby Bowie » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:24 am

Flux wrote:For those of you who think this is perfectly fair...where do you draw the line?

If its ok for him to do this w/ one player, is it ok for him to do it w/ 2 or 3 or 4? Would he then be allowed to churn the entire WW?

Its really hard to guage what this owner is thinking, but if he is doing this on a weekly basis something needs to be said or done. He will just continue to push the limits and for all we know he may not even think/know what he is doing could be thought of as wrong.

Since Yahoo rules were brought up earlier, I will use them here. In Yahoo leagues, if I pick up a player and drop him the same day, the system will not allow me to then drop the next player I picked up until the next day. Theoretically, if I have a 16 man roster, I could churn 16 players in a day, but only if I was willing to expose my entire roster to the waiver wire. So you see, the system has built in penalties for this behavior. If someone is willing to dump their whole roster just to mess with mine, so be it.
I am so smart. S-M-R-T
Bowie Beginner
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1594
Joined: 20 Jul 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Panama

Postby Flux » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:29 am

Bowie wrote:
Flux wrote:For those of you who think this is perfectly fair...where do you draw the line?

If its ok for him to do this w/ one player, is it ok for him to do it w/ 2 or 3 or 4? Would he then be allowed to churn the entire WW?

Its really hard to guage what this owner is thinking, but if he is doing this on a weekly basis something needs to be said or done. He will just continue to push the limits and for all we know he may not even think/know what he is doing could be thought of as wrong.

Since Yahoo rules were brought up earlier, I will use them here. In Yahoo leagues, if I pick up a player and drop him the same day, the system will not allow me to then drop the next player I picked up until the next day. Theoretically, if I have a 16 man roster, I could churn 16 players in a day, but only if I was willing to expose my entire roster to the waiver wire. So you see, the system has built in penalties for this behavior. If someone is willing to dump their whole roster just to mess with mine, so be it.



Put Yahoo rules aside. This is whether its 'right' or not to do. If you were capable to churn the whole WW would that also be fair by your reasoning?
Image
Flux
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 6113
Joined: 7 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Bowie » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:50 am

Flux wrote:Put Yahoo rules aside. This is whether its 'right' or not to do. If you were capable to churn the whole WW would that also be fair by your reasoning?

By "right", I assume you mean ethically permisable? In that case, sure. FF is about competition. If the system allows it, and there are no rules against it, I can't see any reason to suggest roster churning is not ethically permissable. I would agree that this would be highly obnoxious, but that is a whole different argument (opening a whole new set of subjective criteria).

Edit: I suppose I would have to ask you a similar question. Where would you draw the line? If Owner A needs a player, then that player obviously has some value. There is therefor nothing wrong with Owner B picking up that player. Bench spots are for insurance and / or trade bait purposes, so any player is valuable to everyone as long as he is valuable to anyone.

Once Owner B has this player, how long would you suggest he has to hold him? Can he try to trade him, and if that fails, then drop him? Does he have to hold onto him through that week's games? What constitutes proper value in your eyes?

Maybe you think this question revolves around intent. How do you judge that intent? Owner B may intend on dropping the player in question until he recieves a good trade offer from Owner A. If he accepts the trade, Owner B has clearly helped his team despite his original intent to drop the player (which you seem to think is immoral). Can the actions of others change the ethical status of an action after that action has already taken place? I doubt you want to argue for this premise.

Again: Where do you draw the line?
I am so smart. S-M-R-T
Bowie Beginner
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1594
Joined: 20 Jul 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Panama

Postby Flux » Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:57 am

Bowie wrote:
Flux wrote:Put Yahoo rules aside. This is whether its 'right' or not to do. If you were capable to churn the whole WW would that also be fair by your reasoning?

By "right", I assume you mean ethically permisable? In that case, sure. FF is about competition. If the system allows it, and there are no rules against it, I can't see any reason to suggest roster churning is not ethically permissable. I would agree that this would be highly obnoxious, but that is a whole different argument (opening a whole new set of subjective criteria).


Im not sure what you mean by "ethcially permisable." To me it sounds like you are going back to saying that if its in the rules, you are allowed to do it. Ethics is not bound by a set of rules or regulations. Its whether something is right or wrong. In the NFL you are, according to the rules, allowed to chop block. So a player does it and isnt fined or penalized for doing this maneuver, yet ends a players career. He knows there is a good chance he could injure this player, and he knows that the block is dirty. To me, that move is not ethical, and I believe 90% of the NFL players would agree



Bowie wrote:Edit: I suppose I would have to ask you a similar question. Where would you draw the line? If Owner A needs a player, then that player obviously has some value. There is therefor nothing wrong with Owner B picking up that player. Bench spots are for insurance and / or trade bait purposes, so any player is valuable to everyone as long as he is valuable to anyone.

Once Owner B has this player, how long would you suggest he has to hold him? Can he try to trade him, and if that fails, then drop him? Does he have to hold onto him through that week's games? What constitutes proper value in your eyes?

Maybe you think this question revolves around intent. How do you judge that intent? Owner B may intend on dropping the player in question until he recieves a good trade offer from Owner A. If he accepts the trade, Owner B has clearly helped his team despite his original intent to drop the player (which you seem to think is immoral). Can the actions of others change the ethical status of an action after that action has already taken place? I doubt you want to argue for this premise.

Again: Where do you draw the line?


I agree that it completely has to do w/ intent. If the person in question picks up a player, w/ the intent to use them, and then for whatever reasons (perhaps a game time decision doesnt work and you need a fill in), circumstances arise where that player no longer can fill a roster spot and must be dropped (even on a saturday/sunday) then that would be fine, b/c your original intent was to keep them on your roster and/or play them.

But the thing is, in a situation where there is a repeated pattern of the owner adding a player to just drop them later in the week, then there is a problem, b/c this owners 'intent' is obviously not to use the player, but to just prevent others from getting him. I think it is perfectly fine to pick up a player and try and trade them, but I also think that if you pick them up, they probably should be on your roster for that week if you are unable to move them (unless of course you pick up a backup to a game time decision, to later find out that the starter is fine to play and then that player basically is not worth anything for the week or a similar situaiton). If the owner is unable to explain why they added and then dropped the player, there is also a problem.

Basically anytime you exploit a rule or lack of a rule or even if you need to question the rule, it most likely means something isnt right


So basically, wheres the line? Its drawn immediately unless a valid answer is given by the owner who is doing it.
Image
Flux
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 6113
Joined: 7 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Bowie » Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:52 pm

Flux wrote:Im not sure what you mean by "ethcially permisable." To me it sounds like you are going back to saying that if its in the rules, you are allowed to do it. Ethics is not bound by a set of rules or regulations. Its whether something is right or wrong. In the NFL you are, according to the rules, allowed to chop block. So a player does it and isnt fined or penalized for doing this maneuver, yet ends a players career. He knows there is a good chance he could injure this player, and he knows that the block is dirty. To me, that move is not ethical, and I believe 90% of the NFL players would agree.

I changed 'right' to 'ethically permissable' because you were making the argument harder on yourself than necesary. Whereas 'right' implies a moral imperative, 'ethically permissable' implies only that someting is not immoral. In other words, right vs. not wrong. As for the chop block example, you are on the right track in two ways:
1. Ethics don't necesarily have anything to do with these rules. I never argued against this.
2. They are personal and relative (as evidenced by your "to me...").
Flux wrote:I agree that it completely has to do w/ intent...

Basically anytime you exploit a rule or lack of a rule or even if you need to question the rule, it most likely means something isnt right

1. Basing morality entirely on intent is very dangerous. This is about the time in ethics class when we would have broken out the intent vs effects of the Nazis. That seemed a bit extreme in this case, so I gave the example at the end of my previous post instead. Regardless, I will say that if all morality was based on intent, we could justify some pretty horrible things and condemn some very good ones.
2. You contradict yourself here with a renued dependance on the rules. Are they or aren't they important?

I realize that this has swung way outside the range of a FF discusion, so I am going to stop here after reiterating what I've already said. Ethics has nothing to do with FF. What we are really talking about is actions vs. rules (both written and percieved) and consequences. If ethics were something concrete that everyone could agree upon, then all leagues would have the same rules to protect these fixed ethical standards. As they don't, and they aren't, there is no point in arguing them. I have personal difficulty saying a FF roster move is ethically anything. This is something we, again, will have to agree to disagree on. As I have already said, it would probably be a bad idea to churn, but only because others do look down on the practice and in most cases FF is not worth the conflict this would cause.

Sorry for the rant, I'll try to stick to injury reports and roster ratings for awhile.
I am so smart. S-M-R-T
Bowie Beginner
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1594
Joined: 20 Jul 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Panama

Postby Flux » Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:08 pm

2 things before I bow out as well

1) as for the rules, they are important to an extent. They can be used as a guideline as to what is right or wrong or whatever comparison you want to make. Perception of the rules, as you mentioned, is a whole other can of worms

2) I would also agree that the words "ethics" or "ethical" really arent the appropriate term to use. I used it as it was the topic, but as I was writing my responses, putting those words in just didnt feel right and didnt make much sense. I still hold true though, that there is something (for lack of a better term) "wrong" with any sort of churning


You do make some very valid points Bowie
Image
Flux
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 6113
Joined: 7 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Bowie » Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:23 pm

Flux wrote:You do make some very valid points Bowie

Thanks, you too. I'm pretty sure our positions were seperated more by the words we were using than anything else. Regardless, that was more fun than most threads here (although almost useless as far as FF).
I am so smart. S-M-R-T
Bowie Beginner
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1594
Joined: 20 Jul 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Panama

Postby latraffic » Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:04 pm

This post was a good read on a lazy Friday.

My question in case anyone still cares at this point - is this that much different than hording players on your bench? I know a guy in the league who likes to grab starting QBs during the bye weeks in order to keep the other manager's from being able to fill roster spots. We all bitch at him for doing it however we don't force him to do otherwise because the advantage he gains is really minimal in the long run. We all consider it his hairbrained strategy and leave it at that. I'd think this thread's original question deserves a similar stance.
Thank God for Football Season.
latraffic
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerEagle EyeCafecasterSweet 16 SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 1710
Joined: 22 Aug 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Currently in Dallas, Oregon

Postby ferris182 » Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:49 pm

Rat Pack wrote:Yes, this is unethical IMO.


I agree
ferris182
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff

User avatar

Posts: 132
(Past Year: 2)
Joined: 20 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Chicago

Postby matmat » Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:04 pm

latraffic wrote:This post was a good read on a lazy Friday.

My question in case anyone still cares at this point - is this that much different than hording players on your bench? I know a guy in the league who likes to grab starting QBs during the bye weeks in order to keep the other manager's from being able to fill roster spots. We all bitch at him for doing it however we don't force him to do otherwise because the advantage he gains is really minimal in the long run. We all consider it his hairbrained strategy and leave it at that. I'd think this thread's original question deserves a similar stance.


I think it is different. The guy who uses bench spots for QBs like that has to release some players that others may wish to pick up. He is sacrificing something, namely his bench.
the people that pick up players with the sole intention of dropping them to change their WW status are, imo, cheating.
How is my typing? Call 1-555-382-5968
Many posters could benefit from this.
Image
matmat
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1816
Joined: 12 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Hovering over a keyboard.

PreviousNext

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 10:35 hours
(and 39 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact