Buds Board Keepers League

KapG wroteCOLON

kyuss wroteCOLONPlayers' positions (W/C) have been updated for the last time this season:

http://bbkl.ca/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3663 ... 84#p239084

Please point out if I missed any players whose role needs to be updated, it's more probable than possible so please check your players for that (threshold is FOR 0.45, 20/10 GP).


Remember to update your lineup for Week #20 accordingly with the new positions of your players!
(if any change occurred to your team)

ugh, just got home from work to post my lineups only to see brad richards is now a winger ffs. Been so busy working nights all weekend that none of this crossed my mind regarding a sefond position change!

can someone move brad richards to the wing for me? this wasnt done on purpose or anything and he hasnt played a game yet. if not ill understand...

if CC will agree, I'll move Richards to wing in your lineup: since you have an open spot at W the lineup would stay the same which means the illegal roster made legal would not give you any advantage. Also, the update only happened on Sunday which is closer to the roster lock than it was supposed to be.

Still, the fact we have two updates is well known, and it's not the first season either...
it's also been announced again this season: http://bbkl.ca/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1206 ... 00#p232297
and after the update in the latest announcent this was bolded:
"Remember to update your lineup for Week #20 accordingly with the new positions of your players! "
http://bbkl.ca/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1206 ... 00#p239085

furthermore, this was anticipated weeks ago in the dedicated thread: http://bbkl.ca/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3663 ... 20#p237694

I know, I should have been aware of a second positional change. It just slipped my mind :/. Plus like you said yourself, the update just happened on Sunday which is kinda short notice . I didn't see said update update until I got home at like 730 yesterday.


Anyways, would just suck to have 4 0-16s because I forgot to switch Richards to the wing....

it won't be the case if other CC members agree with me. Hopefully they chime in soon on the subject in the CC board

kyuss wroteCOLONit won't be the case if other CC members agree with me. Hopefully they chime in soon on the subject in the CC board

I await the verdict

I'm ok with moving him to W with no penalty, and I'm playing Rangers this week too...so I'd like it to be fair when I beat him

I tried to stay out of this but not accepting 6:20 or 6:37 is a joke when many thought we had until roster lock.

Not to mention 5:25. Who cares if the change isn't on fantrax before lock. That's our own loss for not being able to use said players for that week. Shouldn't affect the whole remainder of season.

Please guys. No comments in this thread.

Handsome&FairMike wroteCOLONNot to mention 5:25. Who cares if the change isn't on fantrax before lock.

That's one weird point considering the deal was not confirmed on the forums either until after 8 p.m.

Mik it was obviously confirmed between the two parties or it wouldn't have been posted. You can check the PMs... Yes, I should have gotten back on to "sign it off" or done the deal earlier to have had it confirmed (I was seeing patients and time slipped by), but seriously to need to me to show the league that I "agree" to the trade, when the only way it is posted by 1 party is that I agreed in our messages, makes my "public agreement" null (i.e. it doesn't fuckin matter).

But again, you guys made your decision so no biggie. I'll keep my 4th - really was a steal for Arian anyways.

Deals should need to be posted pre-deadline, but confirmed by say 6pm pacific time, so everyone has a chance to get off of work to confirm.

If you can negotiate a deal...I think confirming the deal in a timely manner isn't a stretch.

In the case of Shiv and me, our deal was confirmed via pm around 4:30 by him, but I was out until 6pm and only saw his pm to post at around 6:20 and did so promptly thinking we were still good as every other week of the year the deadline was roster lock. Like others have said if you're negotiating and happen to have a busy day there can be slip ups or difficulties getting to a computer where you can post properly.

Handsome&FairMike wroteCOLONMik it was obviously confirmed between the two parties or it wouldn't have been posted.

it doesn't matter if privately it was indeed done or not (I don't even doubt it). Should we start caring about private stuff now?
We get already into enough troubles with clear cut things, like this situation is showing.
Allowing that to be legal would only open up room for more troubles and create a bad precedent. No idea why we would be supposed to kick ourselves in the nuts like that.

TBH mik it's the same thing as your the deal you had last year that you brought up in another thread. Didn't confirm it til after the deadline because it was posted incorrectly, yet it still got passed through.

In my mind, if one of the two is posting the deal on the league site its a completed deal, unless the one party has done it without the consent of the other, which can be easily reconciled by looking at PMs. There is no need to get into "private stuff" as it was posted publicly.

It's pretty straight forward if you ask me. Especially considering the rule of judgement the CC just completed wasn't confirmed prior to the trades, the decision was made after the trade. Yes i agree set precedent going forward, but for a deal posted before the deadline, I think its an obvious answer. No need to be kicking anyone in the nuts Mik - quit making this sound like a bigger deal than it is.

Handsome&FairMike wroteCOLONTBH mik it's the same thing as your the deal you had last year that you brought up in another thread.

if you want to be honest, it is not the same thing at all.
The deal of mine the CC approved last season was confirmed 15 minutes after the deadline and 45 minutes before roster lock (on fantrax as well).
Your deal was confirmed more than 2hrs after the deadline and more than 1 hour after roster lock.

It's pretty straight forward if you ask me. Especially considering the rule of judgement the CC just completed wasn't confirmed prior to the trades, the decision was made after the trade.

what? the rule of judgement the CC just completed wasn't confirmed prior to the trades?
the rule has always been there, the ruling on GMs' complaints trying to have their deals approved despite being clearly against the set rules was indeed only completed after the trades.. cause you know, would be hard to rule on something before it exists.

Yes i agree set precedent going forward, but for a deal posted before the deadline, I think its an obvious answer. No need to be kicking anyone in the nuts Mik - quit making this sound like a bigger deal than it is.

setting a precedent where you allow someone to go clearly against the rule, and against one of the few limits we have never allowed to break (roster lock) is indeed a big deal, at least for those who are in CC and will be forced to deal with crap like this in the future like today.
For example, should I post a deal like 2 hrs after roster lock next year I'd expect it to be approved just like it happened this year...

its fine Mik - I've seen enough guys beat their head against the wall trying to convince you of something before. Not worth it.

I don't think its fair to treat this as mik's decision because he's the only member to publicly address questions and I for one appreciate his efforts and think the decision makes sense

for what is worth, I didn't even take part on the decision on the DAL-LAK deal, cause I personally think that deal content was crap and bias could have been part of my decision, but it was the only deal where you could have the base to argument for it to be approved.

On the other deals, I was part of the CC decision, but I think those were no brainers anyway (and what others have said on the CC board confirmed that feeling)

Handsome&FairMike wroteCOLONits fine Mik - I've seen enough guys beat their head against the wall trying to convince you of something before. Not worth it.

I think if you had been part of the CC and dealing with problems for yrs, you probably wouldn't try to convince me it would be wise to set a terrible precedent to please a couple of GMs.

As for the fact the two deals you compared are clearly different cases, that's a fact and not something you can try to convince anyone about.
Not to mention, convincing me wouldn't help your case since all other CC members and admins were against those deals.