 |
 |
Rules Proposal 23.2: Enforcing Starting Lineups |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raiden
Headbanger
3322 posts
|
|
|
 |
Posted - 2/16/2019 10:23:33 AM |
 |
 |
Rules Proposal 23.2: Enforcing Starting Lineups
|
|
|
|
This is something that I have idealistically resisted in the past, but I've changed my mind about it. Here is the official rules proposal:
"It is hereby proposed that Ragnarok enforce its high standards on a weekly basis, and in particular the integrity of everyone's starting roster. We are the best and we should take pride in being able to set a starting lineup each week.
When teams start players on bye weeks, or players which have been declared out due to injury well in advance, this gives an unfair competitive advantage to their opponent and conversely gives all other teams a competitive disadvantage.
Being that we have the best league, and being that we have high standards, and being that we want the most fair and truly competitive league, we need to put in consequences for when a team does not meet its Ragnarok obligations.
If a team does either of the following:
1) Start a player on a bye week
2) Start a player who was declared Out in Friday's official injury report
AND if that team has Megabucks and did not make any free agency attempts that week, then they will be subject to a league fine of $5 USD. Real cash. It is a $5 fine for the first offense, $10 for the second, and $15 for all subsequent violations.
This does not apply after roster lockdowns are in place.
In December, teams will have to pay any owed fines accrued during the season. There will be some way to do this online.
All of this money goes into a league account, a Superfund of sorts. At the end of the season, 1/3 this money will be used for the Choose Your Award option for next year's Ragnarok Champion. What is Choose Your Award? Please see Rules Proposal 23.4. The rest of the money rolls over to next season and the process resets itself. The rationale behind keeping 2/3 intact is because it is likely that the number of fines will diminish over time."
The result of this enforcement system is that we should see a much tighter and competitive landscape every week.
In addition, as the proposal is written this would also apply to Head Coaches. This could seem a little intense, and there could be a sub-discussion about whether or not Head Coaches should be exempt, but keep in mind that we do have TWENTY players on our roster. That's a pretty big roster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raiden
Headbanger
3322 posts
|
|
|
|
Posted - 7/31/2019 12:34:50 PM |
|
|
23.2: Enforcing Starting Lineups likely to not pass
|
|
|
|
With six YES votes and three NO votes, and this being a major change to the league, this proposal will be failing unless some or possibly all of the NO votes publicly change their minds. Any change to league dues should require all owners to either vote YES or NO OPINION.
Personally, I have mixed ideas about it. I've actually flip-flopped and voted against it but I could be persuaded to change my vote to NO OPINION. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 7/31/2019 12:54:14 PM |
|
|
Some thoughts...
|
|
|
|
| I like the idea of this rule, just not the details. Getting into real money fines is a slippery slope, IMO, and not something to be taken lightly even considering that starting inactive players is a cardinal sin in fantasy football. I wonder if simply making the fine in megabucks, with the potential for the fine to carryover to the following season (if a fine is greater than a team's remaining megabucks in the current season) would be sufficient--at least as a first step to see if it curbs these offenses? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 7/31/2019 1:58:58 PM |
|
|
Agreed
|
|
|
|
Honestly megabucks hold more value than real bucks during the regular season, IMO. And in using megabucks, the tier of infractions could be steeper, and would impact the owner in a more negative fasion. I personally, (though I don't do this) would feel the consequence more in that, than having to send a Lincoln down the road.
Who are you keeping??? Some of y'all got decisions to make! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 7/31/2019 2:00:50 PM |
|
|
Mega bucks Fer sure.
|
|
|
|
| Love the jacket idea Koo |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 7/31/2019 5:29:02 PM |
|
|
YES to jacket and YES to major & minor rule change designation
|
|
|
|
The jacket is fantastic.
Equally fantastic is Keith's use of 'major' and 'minor' rule change language, and designating different thresholds for passing major and minor changes. For example, 'minor' changes could need 7 yesses to pass, while 'major' changes need 10+ yesses or 100% yes/no opinion votes. I really like the clarity this brings. I can imagine some future situation where there's some debate about a potential new rule being major or minor, but otherwise I think Keith is on to a great idea here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 7/31/2019 5:46:20 PM |
|
|
Major Haha!
|
|
|
|
| And yes. I want a tacky goodwill jacket. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 8/11/2019 7:58:40 PM |
|
|
23.2: Enforcing Starting Lineups fails to pass
|
|
|
|
| There is not enough of a consensus for such a serious rule change. The rule fails to be approved by the legislature. |
|
|
|
|
|
