Press conference

-- 70 S 50 d.
Another very important topic is trades, FPC and trades’ restrictions.
Let's start with a bit of statistics:

How many trades have been made in a season:
70 - 243
69 - 232
68 - 196
67 - 292
66 - 129

How many trades have been reverted
70 - 12
69 - 16
68 - 6
67 - 8

Thanks to TheCoach and some other active members of the community this season quite many fake teams were closed.
If you notice someone who is cheating by borrowing/lending players use “report unfair behavior' function which is in each teams`s page. Don`t forget to write all the details why you think so!

There are many questions regarding trades.
The biggest question and the most important question right now is:
Can we leave the current trades’ restrictions unchanged or should we make them more strict?

The recommendation that I got from FPC members was to restore initial restrictions which were in the first season after the inclusion of the new trades’ system.
In this case trades will be more restricted and the community will have a bit less reasons to argue with FPC about the reverted trades.
On the other hand, trades is one of the most FUN parts of the game. We need to find a way to restrict them as little as possible for users who do not cheat.

Few weeks ago I promised such update (returning strict restrictions) for the most active FPC members but now I am not so sure about this - as some of them announced resignation from the FPC.
I think that cheating over trades is very limited now, and this update would not be meant for stopping cheating but for making less fights between the community and FPC.

I try supporting FPC as much as possible, even when I have a different opinion. They are doing a very difficult job, and the community does not appreciate it enough. That makes everything even more difficult.

My current proposal is not to change trades’ restrictions for the next season. Community, its leaders, and FPC members should have a dialog to find out what you want from FPC, what is good and what is wrong. Such dialog can`t be productive during the “trades” period. So my advice is to do this now.

If the community will not find a way to work with FPC, we will have no other option but to increase trades’ restrictions and reduce workload for FPC members.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+1
As I did not make any trade this season, I do not want any new restrictions to the trade system, I support FPC as I am a trustworthy user, and I trust FPC and game administration that they do much about unfair users and behaviours, thanks to all FPC members... -- 70 S 50 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+6
Some other reality you are living in, Darius. No other explanation to this post.
You are saying that you are supporting FPC as possible, but do not listen to their opinion. That is why members are leaving, there are no other reasons. To leave to deal with all that stuff to less experienced and new members of FPC is absolutely not support of FPC but opposite. -- 70 S 50 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+7
Most active FPC members invested way more time to analyze trades/unfair behavior in the game. They have my trust to try and make this game more fair for everyone. I don't believe some of them would resign if they saw that their effort and time isn't wasted for nothing -- 70 S 50 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+3
benislovas:
You are saying that I don`t listen to FPC opinion... Yes... right...
After the first season FPC asked to reduce restrictions - I did that.
After the second season FPC asked to increase restrictions a bit - I did that.
Now FPC is asking to increase restrictions even more (to the first version).

I expressed a few times that I don`t support this idea, but I was ready to do this just to maintain FPC leaders in the committee. Even if my opinion sometimes was different to theirs, they did a GREAT JOB and I really wanted them to continue.

But as FPC leaders are resigning, we might have a different FPC opinion next season. I don`t want to do opposite changes each season. And I don`t think that community wants to have such restrictions in the game.

So I will give one more season to the community and FPC to find a way to work together. If this does not work and the FPC still wants this - we will change restrictions next season again... -- 70 S 51 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+1
这不再有趣了 -- 70 S 51 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+3
Just like a Court system, the decisions must be fully transparent and disclose the vote outcomes and at least a short reason as to why the trade was deemed fair or not fair. Otherwise, too many unanswered questions will lead to users losing faith in the powers that be.

I do think more than a warning should be an option when the FPC sees a flagrant violation. If they do not have this option then they are not going to be effective in fighting cheating. -- 70 S 51 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+3
There should not be any arguing on overturned trades, period, end of story....Everyone has the ability to become a member of FPC so people need to stop whining if you disagree with their decisions or ruling. They are doing things within a decided ruleset, if your trade doesn't fit that then so be it......Conduct detrimental to the community is arguing when you don't get your way. I don't see the rational.....Asking for more transparency like what TheWizardKs suggests could be a way to move forward to help prevent such behavior.

As to your points Darius....While you are right that FPC is asking for changes to trade restrictions etc, you are still tweaking things about the game all of the time and it is silly to think that the job of the FPC is any different. It is impossible to know the best rules / settings from the get go....you settle into a sweet spot that seems to work for all partys. Because of the turnover in the FPC maybe the active members should put it to a vote, Since they are now the acting committee? -- 70 S 51 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+3
This is unfair when the player can dominate the deal, or even a player with a double standard subjective consciousness. -- 70 S 51 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+1
I'll be unpopular. But I'm going to accept with restrictions. While I was in FPC there was some trades where users explained, that it is fun to trade so that's why it was done. It is silly explanation, also if you don't think while making trade offer, maybe it is time to restrict number of trades per season (not to 1, but maybe in range 3-5). It would help to think before making a deal. Also number of trades per season could be coherent with trading level, way better trading level way more trades per season you can make (it means you are trustworthy user) -- 70 S 51 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+6
Not a member of the FPC anymore, but I don’t see a purpose to having a dialogue with the community. Only members of the FPC have an idea of what they see and do, honestly community members, though they think they have an idea, in general neither them nor even Darius really understands what we deal with. -- 70 S 51 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+0
What they deal with as I am not a member anymore :D -- 70 S 51 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+0
I am trying to look at this question throught the logic and numbers. If we'll see that this season we had only less than 5% of trades reverted - I think it's very good result.

Do we want to have better results next seasons? Than maybe let's punish unfair clubs by decreasing restriction level?

I still do not understand the main reason of this offer. How can there be too many disputes if there were only 12 trades reverted?

My trade history is 0, so I really donot care too much about this decision, but I do not see the light in the end of the tunnel too when we are reducing players quantiti to be borrowed in two seasons and we still want to reduce quantity of trades. -- 70 S 51 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+4
The numbers do not tell the whole story: Only 28 may have been reverted the last 2 seasons, but 129 (!) reported: that is every 4th trade. It is the workload more than anything that makes the trades hard to control and decisions very difficult. It takes time to analyze every trade and also effort. So inconsistency issues arise and less time for other things.

A more "automatic" system (Coach has a good concept) would allow users to understand the limits of trading better and make it easier for the FPC.

For me it is the workload more than anything why I will leave the FTC next season. FTC work took more time for me the ladt 2 seasons than the game. It's not so much the attacks. -- 70 S 51 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+1
The FPC has a lot of work, and such update would reduce that.
The community with harsh reactions to FPC decisions also makes everything more difficult.

The FPC and federations do not work as I expected, I have to admit that.
Some federations do not do their work in other areas as well. And at some point we have to deal with that.
One of the way is to assign "bonuses" and "fines" for federations according to their activity.

I also thought that FPC members will reduce trade restrictions' level often. However, this season restrictions' level was reduced only for one trade.

So increasing trades' restrictions for everybody would make everything a bit less complicated. But I think that we should try following a bit different direction. Let's try to find a way to reduce work for FPC without reducing trades for the whole community.

Few quick ideas:
1. more often reduce trades' restriction level.
2. after trade report is created send message to both teams that their trade is on investigation and they should write the reasons why this trade was good for their teams.
3. reduce the required amount of votes to make a decision.

P. S.
This season only 33 trades were reported, last season - 95. So, the count of reports this season is three times smaller than in the last season. I am not sure if this is really the biggest issue. -- 70 S 51 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+1
RaZeev, but why any player should care about the "concept" which noone knows, about the things which never been presented..?

I could only partially agree that this discussion should be closer between Darius and FPC, as you are saying that there are too less people working on FPC (or otherwise there are too many trades).
On the other hand I could agree with Darius, that if FPC memebers changes next season, maybe it's worth to look how they'll see the system before making changes or introducing something like "new concept". -- 70 S 51 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+1
Darius:
1. perfect
2. perfect
3. I don't know how many votes are needed now.
My idea would be to make a concept like this:

Criteria No. 1: 50-60% of FPC members must vote to get results.

Criteria No. 2: 66%-80% of votes must be either "for" or "against" to pass the vote.

Criteria No. 3: if vote results split pretty equally after 50-60% of FPC members have voted, than all FPC memebers must vote for that trade evaluation. -- 70 S 51 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+1
Also in addition Darius, there should be point 4. Manager who reported trade should write what is bad with that deal. While I was in FPC there was so many reported trades without any description, it took time to search a problem (if it exist). If FPC will see why trade was reported it will be easier to answer for community why trade was confirmed/canceled -- 70 S 51 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+3
Season 67 the first season of the FPC has the highest number of trades, and the second lowest number of trades broken. I believe had it stayed on the path of season 1 methods the results would be far better, but the system put in place with hurt efforts as the new method of they way it had been getting done is worse than it was before. When it was a small group that took the position seriously, when restrictions didn’t allow some of the obscene trades seen this season, when their was far more consistency, when there was an option when reverting to state why. What you propose here Darius doesn’t seem to make the workload better or less work on the members of the FPC, it looks like more work where every manager will end up seeking but pre-approval before making trades. Your numbers do not count the number of trades we look at before being conducted that the FPC looks at to helps keep users from having reverted trades.

Reducing trade levels is something I have been pushing to have the FPC do this season, after 4 seasons they should be familiar enough on trading to allow this.

Agree that a simple majority for voting if a trade is fair or not has to go. If it is 11 members and it is 6 to 5 against the trade, the trade should go through, only the more obvious trades should be reverted.

The other item, members of the FPC have a great understanding of what will work and what wont work. I don’t think it is fair to them to dictate how they will volunteer their time when they have a grasp of what will work or what won’t. I for one, do not want to use my time volunteering in a system that I don’t see as working the way it should/could. -- 70 S 52 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+1
FPC doesn’t just look at reported trades, they look at trades community memebers send for pre-approval, they look at other unfair reports on users, yes it does take up a lot of time, they spend useless time in the press conferences discussing the trades. Really most of the press conferences discussions shouldn’t be there anyways and should be in PM with the FPC. Usually the press conference posts are about trying to create drama more than anything. -- 70 S 52 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+2
Also complaints from users who do not see and refuse to see the big picture and responding to them. -- 70 S 52 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+1
Basically Darius, you know nothing about the FTC. We discuss, talk, exchange ideas. Again and again. I think we know what is happening here and you don't. Sorry maybe you don't want to read this, but it is the true. If you want to keep this system, maybe you should analize all the trades by yourself alone or with Ramune... -- 70 S 52 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+3
There is one more point why number of reverted trades decreased and it does not show in any statistics - FPC had huge number of requests before the trades asking if they will pass or not. You can't see this anywhere but it increases workload also.
Even now, between seasons, FPC is discussing requests of possible trades done on the 1st day of upcoming season. -- 70 S 52 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+3
benislovas:
There you made a good point. I have had this issue as well.
At one moment I tried to give my quick opinion in similar situations. But after some seasons I decided that this takes too much effort, and my standart answer became:
"If you have any doubts - don`t do that trade".

Maybe this is also one of the ways how FPC can save some time.

What part consumes the most time for FPC?:
1. analyzing and voting official trade reports
2. un-official trade reports (when users asked in advance)
3. interacting with community and explaining decisions
4. Other reports (unfair users' behaviour)

TheCoach:
We can`t compare the current system with the first season. That season was completely different in many aspects. It was after a few seasons without trades at all. The overall "emotion" was completely different in the game and that affected all parts.
Also do not forget that the first season users were afraid to make stupid trades because restrictions' level could be decreased.. -- 70 S 52 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+1
What took the most time the last 2 seasons (in that order):
1) Analyzing official trade reports
2) Other reports or own investigations (when looking at possible multi-teams)
3) Unofficial trade reports
4) Interaction (but this depends on whom you ask, as committee chair I had more to do with that than others for example)

1) takes a big amount of time that I think would be better spent on 2). That is the main issue I think, plus that all parts of the job together take too much time (at least I felt so). Unofficial reports (3) are some work, but we can handle it in general - if we think the trade is too problematic and would take too much time to analyze, we advice to better not do it.

So for next season I think that two measures would be good:
1) removing the least active fpc members and replacing them with active ones (no matter the country; for example +2 lithuanians +1 american ... when there are activ users from smaller countries at a point in the future, they get back their seat)
2) as has been suggested more trade level reductions. This is a tough decision for the FTC though as it involves a lot of dissatisfaction in the community. I won't be there to do it, so I can only tell my opinion, though: restricting trades a bit more seems like the better idea for me than allowing more trades by the system but then reverting with reducing levels. -- 70 S 52 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+4
There are aspects of the first season that were very good, that made things better, but if we will just continue to disregard everything, I guess there is no point in making any comments. -- 70 S 53 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+2
Guys, I just was reminded of one more thing which should be carefully thought about at this point of FPC offer.
Do not forget that concept of trade system was to be able to level up to level 9 restrictions(for all users). Except that players who donated for this update and have level 10 restrictions.
At present time we have a gap between 7 ant 10 without a possibility to be increased, and you want to lower the level, so also increase this gap. I truthly beleave it would be unfair, wouldn't it? -- 70 S 55 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+1
Not in the FPC anymore, but stormtrooper, where do you get your “fake news” from? -- 70 S 55 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+0
lowering the level doesn't increase the gap. In the beginning most everyone started with level 6, some higher. Going back to original restrictions but with current levels would mean that they would be level 8 with the old restrictions which would allow still much more trading that the first season (highest total amounts of trades made since the FPC) Also the level 10 trade level would see their restrictions back to the original. Currently level 10 has zero restrictions, which is really ridiculous, but that is the way it is. With old original system, level 10 would have some restrictions. Going back to original record breaking trades made restrictions, with managers now with higher trade level 8 vs previous 6, wouldn't increase the gap, it would lower the gap between them. Level 10 would also go back to original settings. -- 70 S 58 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+2
level 8 trade level original season was much more flexible than level 6.

Here is another issue, trade level of 10. How does an independent body govern - no restrictions?

do they treat level 10 the same as level 6 when looking at trades? If so, then why have different trade levels.

I support fourkings in creating a player trade value system that could possibly help in this situation and others. I have played with the idea and have a rough draft rubric that I created. It still needs work, and even if perfect, I don't believe it would be implemented.

currently it is very solid for 1 for 1 trades where you can adjust player differences in % based on a manager's trade level. It stops certain trades from happening, but allows some trades that currently can't be done.

Trades of 2 for 1, 3 for 1, and 3 for 2 are a bit trickier to do.

But if something like this doesn't happen, I still strongly believe trade restrictions need to be tighter to make the process of judging trades more consistent. -- 70 S 58 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+2
I worked on making a mathematical trade system and it is possible on paper. Once the main formula is drafted, you can add a 'trade value' per year that teams can 'spend' to go over the hard formula. So if the formula says Player A for Player B is 3 points too many, you can spend them from your pool. The other team would recieve them as compensation. And a limit on saved points would prevent blatant cheating. Now the hard part would be converting the current Basketpulse site's programming into the new part, which would take a good amount of Darius's time. -- 70 S 59 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+1
system I was toying with gave each player a value depending on their current projected max rate (utilizing jump data), health, salary, length of contract, position combined with height, age the player was scouted, current age of the player, and inner potential type with respect to natural position of the player. Idea was to allow a variance of 5% for 1-1 trades, but trade levels could factor here to adjust from the 5%.

Also 2-2 trades would allow 6-7% total difference, while 3-3 trades would allow 7-8% total difference.

Again 2-1, 3-1, and 3-2 would be a bit trickier. -- 70 S 59 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+1
:D -- 70 S 59 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+0
Too bad your ignorant comments Kick Ash blocks people from seeing some ideas on a trade system. -- 70 S 59 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+1
It was an idea that myself and https://www.basketpulse.com/en/Klubas-aprasymas-25693_SacramentoKings.htm have discussed. -- 70 S 59 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+0
He doesn't have a brain in his head. Please forgive him because he is too naive. -- 70 S 59 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+1