Another tanking on purpose issue - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

Another tanking on purpose issue

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby Kensat30 » Sat Dec 02, 2006 10:50 pm

From dictionary.com:

col·lu·sion [kuh-loo-zhuhn]
–noun 1. a secret agreement, esp. for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy



Looks pretty cut and dried to me.
Kensat30
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Writer
Posts: 6427
Joined: 2 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Postby jdogg_ffc » Sat Dec 02, 2006 11:39 pm

Kensat30 wrote:From dictionary.com:

col·lu·sion [kuh-loo-zhuhn]
–noun 1. a secret agreement, esp. for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy

It's just plain wrong man!!!!!

Deal with it or your league could be toast by next yr.





Looks pretty cut and dried to me.
First the Shock, then the Pistons can the Lions be next?

Well maybe next yr.

PS I didn't lose a paper bag challenge but somehow as a Lion's fan it just feels right.
jdogg_ffc
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1090
Joined: 9 Oct 2002
Home Cafe: Football
Location: G.R. Mi.

Postby Azrael » Sat Dec 02, 2006 11:40 pm

Kensat30 wrote:From dictionary.com:

col·lu·sion [kuh-loo-zhuhn]
–noun 1. a secret agreement, esp. for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy



Looks pretty cut and dried to me.


Explain your point. What is cut and dried about it? I know what collusion is. I already posted the definition earlier. Collusion originally came about to describe the only reason a trade should be vetoed. It has now apparently evolved, according to some, as the reason why not trying to win is wrong for 2 or more people but ok for 1. Because to some it seems, 1 person losing on purpose is considered strategy because he's not colluding with anyone.

What I'm saying, for the 3rd time now, is people are missing the true issue. It's not collusion in this instance. But attempting to achieve a goal by fixing a game, whether by yourself or with someone else.

I guess, let's assume as the majority says, it is wrong, people should be kicked out of the league, yadda yadda if you collude.

Please explain to me then why it is ok for one person to tank a game on purpose. I'm not buying the excuse "because you can do it without colluding, that makes it ok".
Image
Azrael
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 8283
(Past Year: 7)
Joined: 29 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Keeping da cafe sucka free for 9 years straight

Postby dgan » Sun Dec 03, 2006 12:33 am

I already explained it.

Your league has to be in agreement. Most leagues would say tanking a game is NOT ok. You play to win each week, and that maintains the integrity of the league. Our league goes by this code of ethics. If an owner violated that, it would not be "against the rules" - we would simply not invite that owner back next year.

Some leagues will say tanking your own game is ok. As long as all the owners operate under this same understanding and agree to abide by the consequences, I guess that is up to them. Some leagues are more cut throat than others, and will accept the "by an means necessary" strategies that other leagues frown upon.

Under no circumstances in any league is it OK to collude with another team to determine the outcome of a game. Period. I would challenge anyone to find a league where a majority of the owners would define this as anything other than collusion. And that IS against the rules, which means action could be taken against both the offending teams. In our league, both would be booted out of the playoffs for their actions, and the next two teams in line would take their place.

EDIT: The gray area, which I'm not sure if it was addressed, is if you put in a competitive lineup, but not your best lineup. This is essentially trying to disguise your desire to lose the game. As long as it is competitive, no one can really accuse you of tanking on purpose. You're just hoping to.

I actually did this last year when I got knocked out in the first round of the playoffs. The two teams knocked out then play a meaningless game to determine the 5th and 6th pick the following year, and we both put in somewhat laughable lineups. However, since that game was mostly meaningless and did not affect any payouts or anyone else's draft status other than the two of us, that is an entirely different situation. Plus we all had a good laugh about it. That's the benefit of playing with friends you like and trust.
Image
dgan
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Eagle Eye
Posts: 2941
Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: The frozen tundra of Lambeau Field

Postby Matthias » Sun Dec 03, 2006 2:23 am

Azrael wrote:Please explain to me then why it is ok for one person to tank a game on purpose. I'm not buying the excuse "because you can do it without colluding, that makes it ok".


First, I don't think that one person doing this on their own is, "ok" or universally acceptable. It's definitely questionable and gets a variety of opinions when the question is raised. Some people think it's ok. Others say it's the kind of bogus crap that should get you booted from your league.
And when you keep pushing the limits of questionable things eventually you have to draw a line in the sand. When you add in two people colluding that line has been crossed. The last resort defense of the people defending the practice for one person is that it's your team and you have a right to manage it as you see fit. There's no such right to conspire with another player to screw up your league. That right just does not exist.

And you're mischaracterizing when you say that collusion started as only a reason to veto a trade and then grew from there into something else. That something else has always been there, whether you were aware of it or not. It's just that in trades is when it arises most often and so that's when it gets discussed. It's not that collusion in everything else is fine. Or ever has been considered so.

Like it or not, collusion is the issue.

But whatever. This thread has played itself out. The entire Cafe, it seems, is against your viewpoint or your, "devil's advocate" stance. You refuse to accept it. Somehow, I don't think another five pages of argument is going to change that.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 2398
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby ampant » Sun Dec 03, 2006 10:45 am

Tanking on purpose is wrong. If it didn't affect anybody's playoff status, fine. But in this case, the guy who is in 7th is being denied his fair opportunity to win into the playoffs. I am sure this similar sort of playoff scenario has happened before in real life. Can you imagine what the NFL would do if the Steelers and Chargers intentionally just ran out the clock and punted back and forth just so that they could both face each other in the playoffs? Can you imagine the lawsuits that the Chiefs would file (sucessfully) if they were the team on the bubble that was denied a playoff spot?

That's rediculous, and it's wrong. Just because your league doesn't have a specific rule against this, doeasn't make it acceptable. Any rule against "collusion" should suffice (collusion does not apply only to trades, and this is definitely collusion). It's unethical, and not at all in the spirit of fair play.

One way we avoid this in my league is to require a valid roster. If you are missing a player or have too many players on your roster, you lose. So the only way for two teams to field valid lineup of players who are guranteed not to play (to get 0 point) would be to drop quality players for 6th stringers.

Anyhow, If dudes in my league were doing this crap, I would demand my money back, and leave. I hope that one of the two jackelopes doing this screws the other guy with a last minute start.
Image
It's time to put down the crack-pipe and step away from the keyboard.
ampant
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Eagle EyeMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 4938
(Past Year: 16)
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: All stressed up with no place to go

Postby niblet » Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:00 am

I say you let them pull their lineups and tie, and then, come playoffs, you make them start no one again, seeing as they like to field a roster of no starters.
niblet
Defensive Assistant
Defensive Assistant

User avatar

Posts: 456
Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: I-O-W-A

Postby Azrael » Sun Dec 03, 2006 1:05 pm

You are missing the point in my statement about collusion.

People are taking this

"A trade should only be vetoed if there is collusion" and making the jump to this

"Attempting to not win a game on purpose is only wrong if there is collusion"

There's 2 different issues.

Collusion = the only reason to veto a trade (according to the vast majority of the cafe)

Now if I asked this question.

Do you think working against the spirit of competition is wrong? Almost everyone, and maybe everyone, would say yes.

Does losing on purpose work against the spirit of competition? Yes.

CLEARLY, the issue is not collusion. Collusion is wrong but not the only wrong. Working against the spirit of competition is THE wrong.

This thread has obviously gotten off point but has turned out to be a learning experience for me and I hope other people. It's made me think differently about someone losing on purpose by himself to better their playoff position.
Image
Azrael
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 8283
(Past Year: 7)
Joined: 29 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Keeping da cafe sucka free for 9 years straight

Postby Kensat30 » Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:15 pm

Azrael wrote:
Kensat30 wrote:From dictionary.com:

col·lu·sion [kuh-loo-zhuhn]
–noun 1. a secret agreement, esp. for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy



Looks pretty cut and dried to me.


Explain your point. What is cut and dried about it? I know what collusion is. I already posted the definition earlier. Collusion originally came about to describe the only reason a trade should be vetoed. It has now apparently evolved, according to some, as the reason why not trying to win is wrong for 2 or more people but ok for 1. Because to some it seems, 1 person losing on purpose is considered strategy because he's not colluding with anyone.

What I'm saying, for the 3rd time now, is people are missing the true issue. It's not collusion in this instance. But attempting to achieve a goal by fixing a game, whether by yourself or with someone else.

I guess, let's assume as the majority says, it is wrong, people should be kicked out of the league, yadda yadda if you collude.

Please explain to me then why it is ok for one person to tank a game on purpose. I'm not buying the excuse "because you can do it without colluding, that makes it ok".


MY point was that the two teams are colluding in tanking the game. They are colluding! It's that simple. Bogus trades are not the only form of collusion. I posted the definition to clarify that point: "Secret agreement for fraudulent purposes, conspiracy" = collusion. Their actions are the definition of collusion. Are they not forming a secret agreement? ("Don't tell anyone"). And is it for fraudlent purposes? (both making the playoffs when it would be impossible for them to do so otherwise). Is it a conspiracy (again, two people made this agreement between themselves)?

Yes.
Yes.
and Yes.

And it's my opinoin that collusion = cheating. Doesn't matter if it takes place in a bogus trade, or any other situation. Collusion is grounds for being kicked from a league regardless of whether or not it's in the rules (written rules). Just because cheating is not in the rules, doesn't make it ok. Hope you made it clear to those jackasses before they tried to pull this stant.

Personally, I would have threatened them with physical violence, but that is just me. I can't stand cheaters.
Kensat30
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Writer
Posts: 6427
Joined: 2 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Matthias » Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:15 am

Collusion = Cheating

Azrael wrote:People are taking this

"A trade should only be vetoed if there is cheating" and making the jump to this

"Attempting to not win a game on purpose is only wrong if there is cheating"


Do you need it any clearer?
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 2398
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dawinner127, Google Adsense [Bot] and 5 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 6:15 hours
(and 41 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


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