Mainų informacija

This trade MUST be reverted. -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

FYI Numerous occasions teams have made 2 trades with the same team on the same day. There is no rule that says this cannot be done. This message does not mean that the trade is going to be deemed fair or reverted, I just wanted you to be aware if the fact that making two trades with the same teams the same day is not against the rules. -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

For example:

Team 1 has 3 players that team 2 wants however 5 players are not allowed in the trade. So team 1 makes a “fair” trade to team 2 of one trade that would be 1 for 1 and then another “fair” trade that is 2 for 1. In the past when these trades were made the FPC would look at the totality of the trade if one was reported. Often in cases like these, one team wins one trade while the other team wins the second trade, making it even.

This message is not for the intention of discussing the trade above, it is to inform you have the fact that it is quite possible to make “fair” trades with multiple trades with the same team as long as it is done the same day. -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

Yeah Choach, you're right. But in this case, first trade (in my opinion) is good, but the second one isn't, and it should be reverted. If both trades woud've been OK, than yeah, no discusions about reverting. -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

Exerpt from the Help page (aka. Official Rules of the Game)

https://www.basketpulse.com/en/Pagalba-sarasas.htm#hlpanc_2069

Rules - Players' trades
Record updated: 2019-05-15 14:32
Restrictions of trades (automatically applied when offering trades):
...
Bypassing these restrictions (by trading players that could not be traded in one trade or otherwise) is also considered to be cheating.

Trades' rules, that must be held and respected by all users:
3) Players' trade somehow has to benefit both teams (financially, in respect of team composition, etc).
You can trade a good but expensive player to a bit worse but cheaper player. You should not overuse this type of trade.
4) Players can be traded only to other players. Credits or other matters can not be included in a trade. For example, it is forbidden to trade a player to another player plus credits.
Trades' rules, that must be held and respected by all users: -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

the Officail Rules clearly states that:
rule 3) A trade must benefit both teams.
this one trade is a joke. It does NOT benefit both teams
rule 4) A player can be traded only to other players.
by theCoach own assertion, this trade was part of a previous trade, as FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS.
which is blatantly and specifically FORBIDDEN by the following section:
Bypassing these restrictions (by trading players that could not be traded in one trade or otherwise) is also considered to be cheating.

Given the above mentioned rules, this trade should be reverted. -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

You missed the point Frankebasta trying to hard to find something that breaks the rules.

Again not discussing this case

However there is no restriction that says you cannot make more than one trade with another team the same day. The restriction is the amount of players that can be made in one trade. If team A and Team B want to make two trades the same day that totals 8 players, there is no restriction to stop them, just that the trade(s) need to be fair. -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

evinelis

First trade good? You must be kidding Kipras :) Both trades have no sense, Snow Lions just cutting unnecessary players from his squad (he should release these players, not to trade it is against the rules). Also in first trade Snow Lions getting low SF (by the way his skill's doesn't look very good) and giving higher SF with better skills and well trained C. None of this trade doesn't look good for me. But of course it is not my problem, I believe FPC will take right decision ;) -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

Once again, none of my comments are in regard to this specific trade. I am speaking in general. Team A and team B can trade player 1,2,3,4 for player 5.6.7.8 in two separate trades, there is nothing that restricts this from offering/accepting this. The overall or individual “fairness” of the trade is something completely different. -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

there is also one more thing, which grates my ears!
TheCoach is the SUBSTITUTE MANAGER for the Philadelphia Warriors.
It looks like it was TheCoach who managed to do this trade.
Is it so?
Is it ALLOWED by the rules for a substitute manager to Change rosters? On the very last day of the trade deadline?
Is it ethically acceptable for a Member of the FairPlayCommittee to engage in such behaviour? -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

Wow Frankebasta :D. You don’t know that vacation assistant cannot make trades? ;D I had nothing to do with this trade. -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

Vacation assistants cannot make trades, didn’t have one clue that I would wake up and see this. Still nothing I have said has had one thing to do with this trade, you all assume too much, I could be under the same opinion as you all. -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

But I am glad now Frankebasta, now that you are aware that I cannot facilitate a trade as the vacation assistant that your ears are no longer grated :D -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

Y 1 TheCoach -- 14:22
You missed the point Frankebasta trying to hard to find something that breaks the rules.
so, now you're breaking rules and scold me for noticing?
the second trade, which is this thread tallking about, is BLATANTLY against the rules.
If anything, you're messing up with this thread by making OFF-TOPIC remarks.
You keep saying you're comments are not about this specific trade, but speaking in general.
We know the rules, thank you.
Stop cluttering the Thread, or BE ON TOPIC -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

For the record, so that everyone can see before it's deleted/modified:

Philadelphia Warriors
Activity: 2019-06-23 11:21:43
Username: Wilt100 User - Wooden BGuide
Team's manager is on holidays. He is substituted by: TheCoach

Trade was made on:
19-06-23 10:48 Warriors Snow Lions Rodney Ferrer (15 y.; 49 RT)
Julian Bedgberry (17 y.; 99 RT) -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

We are a 9 in the FTC. We will analize the trade that was reported as usual. Please wait and don't jump into conclusiones before we finish. Thanks -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

Lol try reading carefully Frankebasta, go back to the top and read very slowly and carefully.

1) there is no rule against making multiple trades with the same team if trades are fair.
2) vacation assistants are not allowed to make trades,
3) none of my statements have not included any judgement of “fair” or “revert” in the above trade. I was speaking in general terms.

There you have it, the cliff notes of what I previously have said, but I estill encourage you to go back up and read all the information written above :D -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

TheCoach: I count 5 _that is FIVE_ posts of yours in this trade and you keep saying:
>>>Again not discussing this case<<<

you've been petulant
same way as you repriminded the chinese users in previous theads, when they were complaining, same way I bother to tell you:
JUST STOP.

either you are discussing this one case, of a unlegal trade, or stop spamming.
You're off topic.
More, even if you're not personally responsible for this rule-breaking trade, you are BY ALL MEANS involved in this case with both feet, as the CURRENT manager of one of the offending parties.
It is obvious to me you should ABSTAIN from any comment -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

*3) none of my statement have passed judgement of “fair” or “revert” in the above mentioned trade.

I think if you read without being full of rage, maybe you will understand what it is that I typed. -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

I am not discussing if this trade is fair or a revert. -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

Nothing I have said has been specifically about this specific trade. -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

Make sure to go back and read the entire version or the summary. -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

2.2 2.2 vialis

1) there is no rule against making multiple trades with the same team if trades are fair.

but second trade is not fair :D -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

so, if you're not discussing this case, then you are spamming the thread.
In the same way you repriminded those chinese users in past threads, I suggest you to stop commenting on this one, because YOU EFFECTIVELY ARE AN INVOLVED PARTY IN THIS CASE, as the CURRENT manager of one of the offending parties.

I strongly recommend you to ABSTAIN from the current discussion,
and also STRONGLY ADVISE the FTC to SUSPEND TheCoach from its functions until this case is closed. -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

this thread is about the fairness of the trade in the Subject.
By his own admission, TheCoach comments, all of them, are not pertaining to this discusion.
I ask to the Press Release monitor to delete those comments on the grounds of being SPAM -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

Once again Frankebasta :D vacation assistants have no control over trades. Vacation assistants cannot offer trades, they cannot accept trades. In no way shape or form am I spamming, I am taking the opportunity to make sure that managers are aware that they can make multiple trades with the same two trades given that the trades are fair. Just trying to be helpful to the community, I am not sure you can see that being blinded by hate and rage. -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

Frankebasta.. Why are you so against Coach? Because he beat you? Haha -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

*same two teams given that the trade(s) are fair. I don't comment individually on any trades. While part of the FPC, I only speak about trades collectively as one FPC -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

Acers

While not relevant at all to the question of fairness for this trade, just commenting to say I had 0 interactions with Coach about it, didn't even ask him for his opinion on it. The only communication was with Wilt on Discord and given how late in the night we discussed this trade, I doubt he was discussing with Coach eithet. -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

Wilt100

Evinelis, FYI, Dong has 4 11 skills, while the two old 8pots have three 10s combined between the two. As a part of FPC, you should try to look deeper and not jump into conclusions... -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

evinelis

I'm not a part of FPC anymore. And most important players in your trade is 24 and 25 yo, which one of them you called old (all of them same age for me)? I just say what I see, that's all. It is not equal trade for me, also you made second trade where is no sense at all. I understand, Snow Lions just gifting players for you (these players isn't in his future plans anymore) and want to decrease his wages for next season. But does it legal and doesn't violate rules? I don't think so -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

Acers

Want to be clear on my end: no intent to gift players - I have never done that and if you look at my past I have dropped a lot of players both expensive from my main team as well as from my youth team. All good/decent players who didn't fit into my plans anymore or were too expensive cumulatively - and I just dropped them. -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

5) you are not allowed to just give away the “unnecessary” players to other clubs (you are not allowed to make any gifts, etc.). If you want to get rid of a player, you have to fire him.

Thats one paragraph of Rules about Trades, which is pertaining to this case.
But your wording, these players would qualify as "unnecessary". As such, you are prohibited by rule to trade them.
This is the rule -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

Wilt100

Evinelis, what is your opinion worth when you have no idea about players' skills? -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

7.64 8.59

Why are you looking at the past trade? We must talk about this trade. 8pot vs 5pot talents. How 5 pot talent is better choice than 8 pot player for Acers? Why does he need him? -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

5 pot player has amazing potencials . future 1wl beast :D -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

LavarBald

What if we just let the FPC do their job instead of complaining about situations that we don't know the full story about? They haven't even made a ruling yet, and some people are quick to talk about the inability of the FPC and how nothing they say can be trusted. I don't know if it has anything to do with personal grudges or anything else of the sort, but perhaps, before we get up in arms about something, we should let the FPC do what they were created for. -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

evinelis

Wilt, I see stats. Cod have way better stats in 3wl comparing with Dong (also playing in 3wl). Yes maybe he has some elevens, but I don't think he is such strong player and not worth so much (two 8pot players (one of them high C with good skills) enough strong to play in 3wl and one 7pot young player. You giving Dong and other players in both trades is just for worthless for Snow Lions (I think Dong is worthless too for him). That's all. You no need to prove me I am wrong, I have my opinion about this and you wont change it. I'm not in FPC, I can't vote so who cares what I'm thinking. I still believe FPC take a right choice and I will agree with any ending of this ;) -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

Wilt100

Schwarz has no skill higher than 9, so let's end the conversation of how well he is trained right there. -- 70 sez. 35 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

LavarBlad - it's players community here, so if players want to talk about the trades, it's their choise and there is nothing bad in that.

Talking in general, I think the trades message by Warriors team and all futher discussion shows one main point of the trades which is illegal - the try to bypass the trade rules.

As Frankebasta wrote:
Bypassing these restrictions (by trading players that could not be traded in one trade or otherwise) is also considered to be cheating.

So if the trades will be determined as unfair, penalties must be included. -- 70 sez. 36 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

bloomis

To what you are saying Stormtrooper a precedence needs to be set if this is to become the case. If you go back in trade history multiple times from other members / communities have completed multi-part trades. Going as far as posting 1/2 2/2 etc with the trades not being overturned by the FPC. If they were to overturn this trade on that basis then what separates this trade from the previous trades in that regard? If they are harsher on this fact going forward than this should be expressed to other members that this behavior is no longer be tolerated. To penalize people that are the 8th or 9th time this type of trade has been performed seems wrong to me....To say that moving forward if this happens from anyone else again a penalty will be implemented seems more fair. I make this comments without looking at the "fairness" of the trade itself but only the muti-part component. -- 70 sez. 36 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

bloomis

While I agree with you that it is circumventing the rules it has been aloud to occur previously. I also see the need for the rule to be in place despite not liking this aspect of the trade system. If I understand correctly it is there so that people don't abuse the salary difference that is in place....In an ideal world we wouldn't need any restrictions on trades, but to prevent things like cheating it is a necessary evil. -- 70 sez. 36 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

bloomis: if you've been aware of previous trades which were circumventing the rules, please explain why you didn't report it to FPC.

I didn't see any such trade labelled as 1/2, 2/2 before.
This is the first instance of such obvious misbehaviour, and I spoke against it.

By your logic, this trade should go through on the grounds that you did not report previous cheating, so for this one more time, they can cheat once again.

I respectfully disagree.
Cheating is cheating, First time it happens, or 10th times it happens. -- 70 sez. 36 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

bloomis

Frankebasta I could be mistaken (about it happening), but I thought multi-trades have occured previously and I never thought more about whether it was aloud or not until reading these press conferences. But to clarify, I was only commenting in response to StormTrooper saying this trade should result in a penalty. If this type of trade has been aloud previously, why should you all of a sudden penalize someone for a multi-part trade. I think the more appropriate response would be to say moving forward XYZ will happen if this type of behavior occurs again. -- 70 sez. 36 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

RaZeev

The FTC has allowed package trades on several occasions in the past seasons. This was an agreed-on consensus in the FTC in the past that we want to allow packages if they occur on the same day. Every trade still has to adhere to the game's restrictions in RT and salary, but we did then look more at the whole package in 3x3 or even larger trades. Of course the larger the package the more difficult to make a good trade for both sides.

But different to some user's opinion we do not want to be the trade police and forbid every trade just because we have the power. Our goal is consistency, so you know what trades work and which don't, plus to close loopholes for cheating teams with a lot of creative energy in using loopholes. Package deals *themselves* weren't seen as a critical loophole by us so far. -- 70 sez. 36 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

benislovas

Franke, you had not make a trade last 12 months. I am pretty sure, you even do not know how new system and it's restrictions work. It was allowed to make several trades as a part of one trade when player trading ranks were lower and teams could trade 1x1. And it stayed this way as FTC decided that it could be like this.
Now, when trading ranks increased it could be discussed again and will be explained from new season.
Italy was always encouraged to have his member in FPC but never found a member wanting to join. So better join the committee and be part of the decisions than rant in press conference. -- 70 sez. 36 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

Y 7 Frankebasta

I'm sorry to hear the FPC is applying rules of its own making instead of the Official Rules of the Game as Stated on the pages of the very same site.

I cited the Rules, by paragraph, as me and everyone else can read on the Help page.

What benislovas, RaZeev, and TheCoach are stating here is that the FPC will apply only the rules they see fit. When they see fit.
No need to remember that not farther than a few weeks ago, a member of the FPC was accused of targeting the Chinese community for being a bunch of cheaters and/or being a racist for doing so.

In my opinion, trades should not being allowed at all.
Otherwise, The Powers That Be makes a rule and stick to it.
And publish it (in good english) on the website.
Everything else is kangaroo court justice -- 70 sez. 36 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

I see this two parts trade first time also, that's why I offered a penalty to be included.I do not want to come back to discussion about previous trades (which I do not know), but if we have existing rules nowdays than all the teams should be equal against these rules. (Otherwise new teams will lose a chance to bypass the rules, because they do not know prehistory of system or FPC decisions. And the teams are not required to know that. So here comes the question - what is higher importance "the rule" or "the FPC decision"?)

I totally agree on Frankebasta opinion in this case. -- 70 sez. 36 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

There is no rule that stats that two teams cannot make more than one trade with each other in the same day.

Are you saying you want that to be a new rule :D ?

so when would these two teams be allowed to trade again? next day? next week? next month? next season? never? who is going to monitor that :D

Teams will still be allowed to make multiple trades with each other in the same day (if you all want us to analyze them separately, no problem, just makes trading more restrictive).

Franke, the real reason you try to jump into every conversation about the FPC is that because you don't trade, you don't want anyone else to be allowed to. Sorry, Franke, trades are not going away. Likely restrictions will get tighter soon, but not going away. -- 70 sez. 36 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

TheCoach we are talking not about the 2 trades in a day, but because of two traides which seperately in our eyes looks like unfair (not legit according to the rules).
We are talking about this topic, not about general situation. -- 70 sez. 37 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

^ -- 70 sez. 37 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

RaZeev

The rules of the game on trading are one thing. They were not broken here. The maximum is circumvented, but not broken. Now the FTC deals with circumventions and has leeway on how to interpret them. The strict stance would be to analyze trades seperately. The liberal stance to analyze them together.

This has nothing to do with rules, but with procedures and interpretations. Again: the rules are the restrictions by the system. Every trade that gets reported sticks to those rules on paper - but can be still unbalanced or an undesired ircumvention. Those cases are interpreted by the committee in the most consistent way possible. We strive for consiszency and sometimes fail, but we do our best.

As I said, in the past we were more liberal on the packahing point and if the whole package was balanced (which is very difficult to do, so it doesn't come to that often anyhow), we accepted it. Analyzing this trade accordingly is our duty for consistency. We are holding a vote rigjt now if we will continue. But really this is a very minor issue - as long as trades are not unbalanced, who cares how many players change teams in a package? It's like reading in the Bible that all Non-Believers should be killed ... do you do that? Or do you interpret the spirit of the Bible, emphasizing some points more than others according to the spirit that shall lie beneath it?

So come on guys. Let's reach each other a hand instead of fighting. Have a little trust in our job, we try our bes t to at the same time allow trades to be a cool part without having them as an easy cheating tool for users who don't know hpw to be successful without cheating. A delicate balance. Constructive criticism is good, but wild accusations lead only to frustration.

And now get back to your teams : D - I will, over and out. -- 70 sez. 37 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

I want to know if FPC member, Philadelphia Warriors acting Chairman, TheCoach is allowed to vote unto this breach of rules involving a close friend of his.

I also want to know the FPC opinion about how this situation is different from that of Chinese teams helping each other.

Is this trade, and subsequent comments, not a proof of a USA clique, trying to circumvent the rules of the game in order to help their community?

Which is exactly what RaZeev and TheCoach were saying, not as long as 2 weeks ago, while reverting trades made by Chinese users -- 70 sez. 37 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

bloomis

First and foremost thank you Razeev for not only serving on the FTC but also giving your opinion. While I have faith in the FTC to make an unbiased opinion, allowing rules to be left to interpretation is a slippery slope to multiple trades to enable aggregate salary dumping. While I don't think in the least snow lions or wilt are intentionally cheating I can understand where frankbaste and stormtrooper are coming from. I think it would be best moving forward to amend the rules such that it states explicitly any restrictions or limitations to trading, how the FTC determines the "fairness" of a trade, and examples of things that are not aloud. Clearly alot of people are upset by a ruling from FTC, but an explanation should not be needed if 5 of 7 people on the committee deemed it unfair. To my understanding the rules of trading havent been updated to these lengths since FTC was created and would help and preventing thos type of arguing over a game -- 70 sez. 37 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

Sąžiningo žaidimo komitetas

"Sąžiningo žaidimo" komiteto sprendimu mainai buvo anuliuoti -- 70 sez. 37 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

Sąžiningo žaidimo komitetas

Sąžiningo žaidimo komitetas nusprendė, kad šie mainai yra nesąžiningi ir komandos yra įspėjamos. -- 70 sez. 37 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

Here we go again going backwards. It would save so much time and energy if Franke, you would go back and read

You are talking about a discussion that happened about a trade between an Argentinian and a Chinese manager - not two Chinese managers, no where in there do any FPC member Target one community - words were “some communities”.

In regards to that conversation RaZeev was speaking of fake teams, do you comprehend what a fake team is? If so you will see that this is not fake teams. What we found this season is at least 35 teams in many communities that were fake. Not one community was targeted.

Quit being a history revisionist. Talk about specifics, quit twisting people’s words and situations how you want to see them so you can try to create some lame conspiracy theory to stop all trading, because you do not, it isn’t going to happen

Yes I voted

This trade and the other part of it was reverted, so now I will be happy to speak as to why it was reverted. It was not reverted due to what maybe some of you think.

Over the last four seasons, multiple trades by two teams on the same day were allowed on the basis that the final product was fair. The important part was fair. We worked with many managers of different communities to get this done, the first was two Chinese managers. On this case we as a team analyzed the final product of the trade and determined that obtaining 3 eight potential players for the 9 potential Chinese player Dong (though clearly the best player in the trade) and the 7 potential player (5 potential player was disregarded due to little value) was too much. We stayed within the framework of how things have been done the past four seasons, which I am sure you are completely unaware due to the fact that you don’t trade, but yet make tons of wild assumptions.

We discussed this practice over the last couple of days and will no longer do this n the next seasons, it was a trade friendly policy to help managers make most importantly fair trades (not cheating trades - fair trades). It is much easier for us if we don’t do this, so we will stop this, making trading more restrictive here as well as other restrictions to make the use of fake accounts and some actual real scams (not this) from happening to deter the practice.

I am not a clown Franke

I do not tolerate cheating. Of the 35 teams closed, at least one was a USA team that I turned in. I am so intolerant of cheating that I came close to quitting the game. I take my position seriously, and you really have no idea what I do to try and uphold the integrity of the game. You really should be grateful, but helpful instead of constantly trying to create conspiracy, drama, for whatever your personal appears to be selfish means are.

With that the trades season is closed, I am sure I am be hearing from you again next season :D. Until then - happy managing -- 70 sez. 37 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

Ok Coach. But why no penalties? When the FPC comittee started, EVERYONE got penalties if their trade was reverted. Now it's quite few seasons after FPC started. And now people don't get penalties. But Darius said in the introduction of FPC that we'll have no penalties at the beggining of FPC. -- 70 sez. 37 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

Bloomis in previous seasons, the FPC has provided a list of do’s and dont’s.

However I will try to give back some more examples later

Though someone (not saying any names :D ) might claim I am spamming.

Kipras- great question. The reason why the first season had all reverts with a reduction in trade level and few since then is that in season one the FPC has only two options
1) fair
2 unfair, revert and reduce trade level

After season 2 a third option was added which was to revert without reducing trade levels

Managers of the FPC are compassionate and did not want to reduce trade levels unless it was a absolute travesty of a trade.

This allowed members to familiarize themselves with the system, however in the future, next season, this will not be the case, teams will see their trade level reduced far more often than in the last few seasons for poor trades. The thoughts on that is that if two teams are making bad trades, and have little sense on what a “fair” trade is, they really should likely have their trade level reduced until they learn to make appropriate trades. Newbies would still get the benefit of doubt and likely in most cases would only get a warning. -- 70 sez. 37 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

Also Bloomis the FPC has always been very approachable if in question if a trade would be deemed fair or not. Again later today I will give more information on how players are looked at in trades, with example(s). -- 70 sez. 37 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

bloomis

Wasn't saying otherwise Coach, My comments were more pointed toward something written out in the rules section to hopefully add clarity to the situation so that this type of complaining every time a trade is overturned does not occur. -- 70 sez. 37 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

Ok Coach, now I understand. But i think it's quite unfair that people in first seasons got penalties and now people sometimes don't. But I know it's not FPC fault. -- 70 sez. 37 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

The following season all managers were all corrected to the same level. -- 70 sez. 37 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

Here are some of the criteria that the FPC looks at in analyzing trades for fairness.

Players rate/skills when the player reaches their prime

Current age

Scouted age

position

how size of player does in respect to their natural position (tall PG, short center, short PF, tall center)

players skills and/or inner potentials and how they match up with the players position

Salary

Length of contract -- 70 sez. 37 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

https://www.basketpulse.com/en/Trade/information/951236

This is a great trade to look into and now that you dumped Tyrell to state why it would be reverted.

Players at age 29 or older with 90% health or lower are not thought of as having value. At the time that you had offered this trade, there were 7 players that were on the market that were similar and all went for less money. Players like this usually are not valued more than what their salaries are worth, but the become necessities for teams to fill out their rosters with quality players.

Tyrell is a best a WL3 player, in WL2 he would struggle on a teams bench. The following season his health drops to 80% and instead of being a struggling WL2 player, he would then be a WL4 player within a couple of weeks when skills drop.

The players you were trying to obtain in return were one lower WL3 player, one future lower WL3 player, and a very possible future WL1 player.

Usually in trades where we see a team from the same community trying to give a "lift" to another we see one team trading trash for a better player (always gets reverted because trades should benefit both teams in some fashion) This trade at least you are getting talent, but Cripps is thought of as much higher value than Tyrell, especially when you look on the market and see a lot of Tyrell's that some don't even get offers, or offered less money than Tyrell, while you very seldomly see a Cripps, and if you do, their is a bidding war for him. There won't be a bidding war for Tyrell. Simply it would be way too much for a player that could have been found on the market with a little bit of patience.

You yourself recently told me that you would not trade a young 10 potential scouted player for 2 9's (in my opinion new teams it would be better to build up some quantity of talent as opposed to quality but to each his own on that. -- 70 sez. 37 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

Now let's discuss salary drops in trades.

Really we have little problem in allowing trades the reduce teams salary if quality talent is traded for quality talent.

We do not like it when it is trash for quality talent.

The reason is, that it would open a loop hole for players to make a lot of trades that could be cheating. A person could trade to their "friend" or fake team trash "to save money" for a quality player for the sole purpose of making one team great.

If a team trades and the only benefit to the team is that they dropped a lot of salary, that will get reverted, it opens a lot of doors for cheating.

I know it is done in real life, but this isn't real life. In real life the San Antonio Spurs do not have a fake team (the New Jersey Nets or some other team) to make trades with to stock the main team with all of the quality players.

In real life, GM and owners of teams (soon to be called Governors instead of owners) are about the bottom line - trying to win. Real money is involved, a lot of money. They don't make friendly trades with other teams for the sole purpose of making one team strong. Here some managers in the past, though far less now, have done this practice, and allowing straight up "salary dumps" with no other quality gained in a trade is opening the doors for cheating.

Really think about it, if a team wants to "save" money by making a trade where they send their stars for trash, how do they decide who gets the star player in this game? in real life? what dynamics are different.

I wish that this didn't happen, I wish we could all make and see trades like this happen in this game as it is in real life, however this is an internet game, where cheating can be done, and some people, a small amount really, ruin it for the rest. Just like real life, if everyone would do what is the right thing, guess what? we wouldn't have a reason for rules :D

So in conclusion, trades where salaries for one team are reduced is and has been always okay by the FPC, as long as it didn't involve trading talent for trash in order to save. -- 70 sez. 37 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

bloomis

I agree with your points, but I think one caveat should be included and that is situational circumstances. When making trade offers I look at the current situation of the team I am trading with; Flyers has a chance to promote this season to WL2 and so I looked at his roster and thought what could I trade him to bolster his roster to make a better push and in return get something that would help me long term (since I am in lame duck period for the rest of the season). I sent out multiple trade offers to people in bottom 16 struggling and top 16 looking like a good playoff team over the past couple of days using the same logic. Asking for a 9 potential player in return was probably too much, but I am just stressing how team situations should be included in assessing the fairness of a trade. Lastly, and to my original point, I think these sort of explanations and examples are great. However, not everyone reads every press conference and not everyone will have access to it (e.g. new members today probably are ignoring this conversation). That is why I suggested that this sort of thing be written up under the trade section in the rules. The thought was geared more towards addressing future complaining than past or current issues people are having. -- 70 sez. 37 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

"Team situation" could then easily be used to enable teams to gift players. This is a line we have to be careful of.

In this situation, it would be better for the Flyers to get one of the 7 players that were similar to Tyrell on the market within the week you made the offer (less price because all were going for near minimums) than to trade a player to get one that he could get on the market.

Think if you had the choice
A) keep your young talent, sign a player off the market of similar value of a proposed trade
or
B) Trade away your young talent for a player that you could have gotten that was similar off the market for less price

Option B would look like gifting the young player. Tyrell is a solid WL3, but nothing special at all. -- 70 sez. 37 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

bloomis

Careful yes, but you are simplifying the situation some. Flyers had a 10 man rotation, so one player needs to be cleared. In which case losing Garrad's contract (~10k) for Tyrell (~18k) can also be the cheaper option than outright releasing and hiring a market player. Lastly Tyrell was on an expiring contract which is favorable for a team looking to promote whereas Garrard is not, so his utility moving forward is more of a detriment if he was going all in. -- 70 sez. 37 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

The cost of a 20k euros worth a young talented player? We all know that we usually have to invest a lot more than 20k to get a young talent. Besides he could have just moved Garrad to his youth team. I am not simplifying it at all. -- 70 sez. 37 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

expiring contracts are favorable for teams looking to promote? Not really not really at all. -- 70 sez. 37 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

1.1 2.2 spikot

I agree with bloomis. Personally i've lost in the past good players (even 10 pot), because i had not the money to keep them. As long us the financials of the game are so complicated, every misstep could lead to blowing up a good team. Sometimes you have to trade good talent for ready players if you need to save the team from relegation, or give a boost to ascend. In both situations you are compensated for the loss of your talent with the more money the higher international league gives. -- 70 sez. 37 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

you all only are seeing it in your personal perspective, not the big picture, not how a trade or trades like this can exploit the system. Allow a 9 potential good potentials for a "1/2 season rental" is asking for all the managers that cheat to step forward and take advantage. I promise you this, if such a trade would pass, the entire community would claim cheat, and in some cases it will.

Once again I will write this statement. If every single team here was all about doing the right thing, not about having fake teams, not about helping their friend promote, because their friend is close, all kinds of trading could take place, in fact not a single restriction would even make sense in that make believe Utopian World. However, that world doesn't exist that I know of, and certainly does not here.

Quite a few have no clue as to how the fake teams go about circumventing the system to cheat. I suggest thinking very deeply about it.

Let's pretend for a minute Bloomis. Le'ts pretend that you scouted a nice 9 potential player this season. Next season you are looking to promote, you are close to promoting, but short a player. Would it make sense for me to sign a cheap inexpensive player off the market that you could have signed, and then trade this player, effectively getting a gift. Because you could have just as easily signed the player.

Curious spiknot, you agree on what point? That you should be allowed to what could basically be gifting players to other teams? Flyers could have signed a similar player and cut a player, cutting would cost much less in the long run that keeping the very difficult to get scouted 9 potential player (maybe 180k invested in order to obtain). Cutting a 10k player would cost 20-25k. So basically throwing away the 180k investment, a couple low WL3 players, for a unspectacular WL3 solid player? In this case however a player could have been simply sent to the youth instead. -- 70 sez. 37 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

so throwing the 180k invested player would be better than signing and cutting a player off the market, or transferring a player to the youth team.

I guarantee Bloomis if you received such a deal next season, you would erupt in the press conference, for good reason, because the other team is basically asking you to gift your 180k invested player to you. -- 70 sez. 37 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

RaZeev

As harsh as it sounds: To avoid cheating schemes, in this case you'd just have to fire away your young player and get a veteran from the Market. It is a criteria for us if a player that is traded for can be gotten easily on the market too, because this determines his trade value to a great degree.

Young strong talents are rare and expensive on the market = High trade value.
29yo 90% Veterans up to 270RT? Plenty on the market = Low trade value.

So if your situations is really that bad - you have to fire. Everything else is going in the direction of a gift and can be misused wildly. -- 70 sez. 37 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

RaZeev

Many arguments against the FTC are based on singular cases, always on a microperspective. We, however, have to always look at the macroperspective: if we allow XY, we'd have to allow similar trades too, some of them making use of gaping loopholes. Those loopholes can not, by the way, be fixed by just adding "rules" - the more rules are added, the harder trading gets in all other cases, too ... until it becomes nearly impossible. Collateral damages.

There were practically no loopholes with just 1 trade allowed per season. Great. Let's go back to those times again? I don't think so. Most trades are fair. Most reported trades are also considered fair. For the ones involved in a reverted trade this might seem difficult to see, but 95% of all trades pass.

So let's decide: Go back to a strict system and eliminate 80% of all trades we have today? Or just revert 5% of all trades we have today - and most of them without additional penalty?

But ... it's actually too late for this discussion. The system as it is was too much ungrateful work for the FTC, me included. I am stepping back as president to become a regular member. I plan to soon leave the committee for good as I just don't have the time and will to fight for a workable system against the anger of a few.

TheCoach has for now taken over, he still has energy. But to avoid the FTC getting drowned, trades will get harder and punishments too. And I am 100% with TheCoach on all the measures. We tried to create a balance between allowing mny trades and trying to prevent and detect cheating. We closed a lot of multi-teams this season, detected several cheating patterns, continue to monitor others. A small, but powerful minority cheats to go up, using many different means with trading/lending etc.
And then all this pretty unnecessary drama about side aspects of our decisions ... drains power.

I love this game, and how Darius, despite all criticism, is working to make it better, step by step. Seen a lot of other games where the Admins don't give a shit. This is very different, and it has a great engine, (mostly) great community and a GM who cares. I think that probably many are so angry at little things so often here, because they care about the game, too. This is a positive thought, and I will end it at that.

Now ... maybe I will open a Bpulse Instagram and post the funny faces of BBallzone : D But FTC, I will keep out of public discussions from now on. : ) -- 70 sez. 37 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

I like how this topic ends (The Coach thoughs), but I can't resis to comment RaZeev post.
RaZeev, do you really think that Bible is above the law? :D Just listen what you are saying...
The same comes when you are talking about circumventions... Just read the rules of this game, and as Frankebasta quated them: "Record updated: 2019-05-15 14:32
Restrictions of trades (automatically applied when offering trades):
....
Bypassing these restrictions (by trading players that could not be traded in one trade or otherwise) is also considered to be cheating."

Please stop intrepreting the rules which exists written black on white. Do you still think the rules were not broken? (I am not talking any more about penalties to be applied, I do not care about them already, I am glad that trades were cancelled, but do you really beleave in your words?)

And please stop comparing community discussion about game issues with your personal point of view. Sometimes it seems like FPC just want to work on issues where no questions comes out. And every time when community tries to say their opinion it comes to an anger.

Try to look at the bright side of this point - if you won't interpretate game rules - decisions will be easier to make. And if you start using penalties, probabbly there will be less trades (less work) because people will think twice before making a trade offer.

I didn't want to come with my personal example, but I think I must... After such an opinion from FPC member, I simply must ask which circumvention is less bad: if you make trade like this one we are discussion or if you brake the rule of trade when you trade players with RT difference of 46 instead of allowed 45 (in level 6)? I had such situation 2 seasons ago and I decided not to gamble with this because it was not in the range of allowed trades. But would it affected the game more than this trade? - My personal opinion is - no. But the rule is the rule. Otherwise why do we have those limits? -- 70 sez. 37 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

Well RaZeev I beat you out the door, I am stepping completely out of the FPC. Some changes I wanted to see happen don’t look possible and so being in that position wis impossible for me to continue as it is. Hopefully the next FPC will be able to police fake accounts and cheating by utilizing loop holes as well as we have. Best of luck future new FPC! -- 70 sez. 37 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

Storm - have you at least read the rules? There are a lot of "grey areas" for which FTC was created. And FTC is doing hell of the job trying to create a better environment for everybody.
Comments like "stick to the rules" simply shows that persons (you, Frankebasta) have no clue what FTC does and how trade system works. -- 70 sez. 37 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

benislovas, I am talking only about this situation (and situations similar/analogue to this one). Some of FPC members sais that it's part of your job to solve those "grey areas", but in this case there is no "grey are". It was already written by trading teams that there are 2 seperate trades and they expect that those trades will be evaluated as one unit.
But the rules leaves no "grey area" in this case, as there is a limit determining how many players can participate in one trade. -- 70 sez. 38 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)

benislovas

Rules are simple - if automatic rules allows trade, then it is legit. That is the rule.
But in reality it does not work like this. And no matter are we talking about this particular trade (system allowed to do that, it means it follows the rules) or talking about trade system in general. -- 70 sez. 38 d.

-- (Versti) (Versti EN)