Press conference
Trade/Lending players:
Team made a trade offer
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
Started to play in a new team after a trade
--
75 S
28 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
Started to play in a new team after a trade
--
75 S
28 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
Trade offer accepted
--
75 S
28 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
The trade was reported - all I want to say is that Trump is behind all this, with his ban on Europeans travelling to the US. Though I expected he would make an exception to a fellow Republican Gov. Schwarzenegger.
Otherwise, a terribly unfair and unbalanced trade, I have nothing to add. -- 75 S 28 d.
Otherwise, a terribly unfair and unbalanced trade, I have nothing to add. -- 75 S 28 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+4
Trade has been reverted by the "Fair play" committee
--
75 S
29 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
The Fair play committee decided that the trade is unfair and teams are given a warning.
--
75 S
29 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
How the Fair Play Committee members voted:<br />
- volunteers voted "Revert and punish": 0<br />
- volunteers voted "Revert": 6<br />
- volunteers voted "Fair": 2<br />
<br />
These reasons were chosen by the volunteers during voting:<br />
4 - Trade constitutes a "hidden lending" (player(s) that changed team went back to the original team)<br />
<br />
2 - Other reasons. Volunteers wrote explanations: <br />
--- Guy Schwarzenbach was traded on day 1 between same two teams. This can be seen as "hidden lending" by the community. Both managers are experienced so should understand that such cases have to be reverted to avoid similar situations used as loopholes for cheating.<br />
--- Guy Schwarzenbach was traded on day 1 between same two teams. This can be seen as "hidden lending". Even if it is not, such cases have to be reverted to avoid similar situations happening in the future.<br />
-- 75 S 29 d.
- volunteers voted "Revert and punish": 0<br />
- volunteers voted "Revert": 6<br />
- volunteers voted "Fair": 2<br />
<br />
These reasons were chosen by the volunteers during voting:<br />
4 - Trade constitutes a "hidden lending" (player(s) that changed team went back to the original team)<br />
<br />
2 - Other reasons. Volunteers wrote explanations: <br />
--- Guy Schwarzenbach was traded on day 1 between same two teams. This can be seen as "hidden lending" by the community. Both managers are experienced so should understand that such cases have to be reverted to avoid similar situations used as loopholes for cheating.<br />
--- Guy Schwarzenbach was traded on day 1 between same two teams. This can be seen as "hidden lending". Even if it is not, such cases have to be reverted to avoid similar situations happening in the future.<br />
-- 75 S 29 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
This is stupid. I’m near bankrupticy, I just want to save 4,5k and get a younger player. I can give all messages between Wilt and me, you’ll see we never spoke about it
--
75 S
29 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+9
Oh yes, a terrible unfair trade, well done, six smart members of FPC! I was trying to understand what is the reason for this trade being reverted, and guess what - no one knows and can explain what hidden lending is!
What me and other users expect - if there is a trade rule, it has to be clear. Talking about hidden lending (whatever it is):
• There is no mention of it in Trade rules in Help page.
• FPC can say it is hard to change the rules in Help page, ok - post a press conference to inform the community! No one in the community was informed about this made up rule.
• FPC Members themselves don't know what the rule is and when it applies - see screenshot of a conversation after Ronas' trade was stupidly reverted last season for 'hidden lending'.
https://imgur.com/a/9n9936v
I have also asked in a chat with 6 FPC members on 23rd Feb: "Question to FPC members: is it now forbidden to trade for the player you traded away the same season?" No one replied - no one really knows! :D
We have a situation where no one in the community knows about the rule, majority of FPC doesn't know what the rule means and we have 1 or 2 vocal members of FPC encouraging others to revert trades based on the non-existent, incorrectly applied rule! A disgrace!
I think it is time to question the work and legitimacy of the FPC. All we need from them is consistency, but what we get are consistently WRONG decisions without a knowledge of what the reasons for reverting mean.
Terrible 3 5pots and a 6 pot for an 8pot - a great trade!
https://www.basketpulse.com/en/Trade/information/988754
9+8pot for a 10pot - no no no, very bad trade https://www.basketpulse.com/en/Trade/information/986363
9+7pot for 10pot - no no no, bad trade
https://www.basketpulse.com/en/Trade/information/986141
8+8pot for 10pot? Sure, fair trade! #Consistency
https://www.basketpulse.com/en/Trade/information/985866
Three 5-6pots for a 9pot? Sure, a great trade.
https://www.basketpulse.com/en/Trade/information/985090
A direct violation of trade rule no. 4 - who cares, trade is fair.
https://www.basketpulse.com/en/Trade/information/976424
The list keeps on going. Consistency is great, but being consistently wrong is as bad as it gets. -- 75 S 29 d.
What me and other users expect - if there is a trade rule, it has to be clear. Talking about hidden lending (whatever it is):
• There is no mention of it in Trade rules in Help page.
• FPC can say it is hard to change the rules in Help page, ok - post a press conference to inform the community! No one in the community was informed about this made up rule.
• FPC Members themselves don't know what the rule is and when it applies - see screenshot of a conversation after Ronas' trade was stupidly reverted last season for 'hidden lending'.
https://imgur.com/a/9n9936vI have also asked in a chat with 6 FPC members on 23rd Feb: "Question to FPC members: is it now forbidden to trade for the player you traded away the same season?" No one replied - no one really knows! :D
We have a situation where no one in the community knows about the rule, majority of FPC doesn't know what the rule means and we have 1 or 2 vocal members of FPC encouraging others to revert trades based on the non-existent, incorrectly applied rule! A disgrace!
I think it is time to question the work and legitimacy of the FPC. All we need from them is consistency, but what we get are consistently WRONG decisions without a knowledge of what the reasons for reverting mean.
Terrible 3 5pots and a 6 pot for an 8pot - a great trade!
https://www.basketpulse.com/en/Trade/information/9887549+8pot for a 10pot - no no no, very bad trade
https://www.basketpulse.com/en/Trade/information/9863639+7pot for 10pot - no no no, bad trade
https://www.basketpulse.com/en/Trade/information/9861418+8pot for 10pot? Sure, fair trade! #Consistency
https://www.basketpulse.com/en/Trade/information/985866Three 5-6pots for a 9pot? Sure, a great trade.
https://www.basketpulse.com/en/Trade/information/985090A direct violation of trade rule no. 4 - who cares, trade is fair.
https://www.basketpulse.com/en/Trade/information/976424The list keeps on going. Consistency is great, but being consistently wrong is as bad as it gets. -- 75 S 29 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+11
Now that we are all enjoying less busy times without trades and most of us - no competitive games, let's discuss this 'hidden' lending rule and its clueless application.
Hidden lending, as I understood from further FPC explanations, relates to a movement of players which signifies a help to one of the teams; examples I heard:
- Team with confidence to make Top16 trades a strong player to help a weaker team get to Top16 and then gets the player back for playoffs.
- Team which is no longer fighting that season trades a strong player to help a team in playoffs, then gets the player back next year.
- Team trades a young player to shed salary, then gets him back next year.
- Team trades a young player to get a jump, then gets him back next year.
- Team trades a player to another team which uses an extension on him and then sends him back.
All of these cases should be punished and I fully agree on it. Yet, it cannot be treated as a blanket ban to all the trades with a player which takes place in the same season (in the consecutive 2/3/4 seasons?).
In the context of this trade, I agree that a hidden lending would have taken place if I traded back Walter, as it would constitute the case in the first bulletpoint, where a STRONGER player was traded back and forth. With Schwarz, there are no similarities to any of the hidden lending cases as he was a weaker player from the first trade and it was a result of a BLANKET BAN imposed by FPC on trades with the same player in the same season. It is not fair to do that and it was not communicated anywhere, I demand that this clueless judgment is discontinued from next season.
If not, go ahead and include this blanket ban in the games rules, FPC reasons for reverting the trade and articulate it with all players. Then do the same with trades where a player is traded back in two years (to tackle bulletpoints 3 & 4), so ban all trades with the same player for two years, then don't stop there, extend it to 5 years. It doesn't matter that it makes no sense.
Don't forget that being consistently wrong is a lot worse than being flexible and treating trades on a case-by-case basis. -- 75 S 58 d.
Hidden lending, as I understood from further FPC explanations, relates to a movement of players which signifies a help to one of the teams; examples I heard:
- Team with confidence to make Top16 trades a strong player to help a weaker team get to Top16 and then gets the player back for playoffs.
- Team which is no longer fighting that season trades a strong player to help a team in playoffs, then gets the player back next year.
- Team trades a young player to shed salary, then gets him back next year.
- Team trades a young player to get a jump, then gets him back next year.
- Team trades a player to another team which uses an extension on him and then sends him back.
All of these cases should be punished and I fully agree on it. Yet, it cannot be treated as a blanket ban to all the trades with a player which takes place in the same season (in the consecutive 2/3/4 seasons?).
In the context of this trade, I agree that a hidden lending would have taken place if I traded back Walter, as it would constitute the case in the first bulletpoint, where a STRONGER player was traded back and forth. With Schwarz, there are no similarities to any of the hidden lending cases as he was a weaker player from the first trade and it was a result of a BLANKET BAN imposed by FPC on trades with the same player in the same season. It is not fair to do that and it was not communicated anywhere, I demand that this clueless judgment is discontinued from next season.
If not, go ahead and include this blanket ban in the games rules, FPC reasons for reverting the trade and articulate it with all players. Then do the same with trades where a player is traded back in two years (to tackle bulletpoints 3 & 4), so ban all trades with the same player for two years, then don't stop there, extend it to 5 years. It doesn't matter that it makes no sense.
Don't forget that being consistently wrong is a lot worse than being flexible and treating trades on a case-by-case basis. -- 75 S 58 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+1
2.2
Is it possible to vote for Wilt100 as a president for Lithuania federation?
--
75 S
58 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+1
Probbably it is fist time when I can support FPC by 100%. Not because of this trade, but because of "hidden lending" rule which everyone knows.
I think what must be corrected asap - firstly, this rule must be included in help menu "trade rules".
And the second part, if it's possible to do from technical side - player which was traded this season, should be disabled in trade meniu when selecting players for the period of time "hidden lending" rule applies. -- 75 S 58 d.
I think what must be corrected asap - firstly, this rule must be included in help menu "trade rules".
And the second part, if it's possible to do from technical side - player which was traded this season, should be disabled in trade meniu when selecting players for the period of time "hidden lending" rule applies. -- 75 S 58 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+3
Press message hidden by federation volunteer or administrator
--
75 S
58 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+3