Finalized Rules

[patriot0103]

admin said:

ill gladly keep 12....AND trade before June 1st so that we can ruin the entire off-season.

I'd also rather keep 12, because I drafted the inaugural draft with the belief that we would be keeping 12. I probably would have made some different picks back then had I known we'd be keeping less. Since this seems like it's decided already then I guess it stands, but in my opinion it should be 12.

I also have no problem with the status of players changing during the season, but we have to realize if we do it that way it's much harder to keep track of everyone's status.

[Phil - Blue Jackets]

nossharks said:

I think the status should change throughout the year, real time effect. This adds another dimension to managing your team as was showcased with Derrick sending Ovechkin down before his status changed and also with myself sending Michalek down. Since we were seemingly operating under that rule during the season/playoffs I think it's only fair to keep it that way.

Games played status already changes throughout the year. Age does not. Derrick is in favor of both being variable, so the age status is what he was referring to. You implied in your post that the age variation has been in effect the entire year and the reason you and Derrick made your respective moves. This is evidenced by your "we operated under those rules throughout the season/playoffs" comment and argued that it should simply be kept that way. That is incorrect and the point of my previous post. I was merely pointing out that it wasnt that way so "keeping it that way would be only fair" shouldn't factor into anyone's decision making.

I didn't attack your opinion. I merely pointed out an error as you did in the trade veto poll. I didn't think it would be that big of a problem.

P.S. I'm going life shopping next week. I'll let you know how it turns out.

[Nos - Sharks]

First of all your post was filled with venom and was said in a condescending tone. "I think I'm the only one that's read the rule book" nonsense.

Second, I think you should stop talking for Derrick, he's his own man, and in his post that I was referencing he said both, so I reiterated my stance on the rule that was in effect, used an example of real time effect, and said I was fine with it the way it was.

Third, nothing I said was "incorrect".

P.S. Don't bother, you're already too far gone.

[Phil - Blue Jackets]

nossharks said:

First of all your post was filled with venom and was said in a condescending tone. "I think I'm the only one that's read the rule book" nonsense.

Second, I think you should stop talking for Derrick, he's his own man, and in his post that I was referencing he said both, so I reiterated my stance on the rule that was in effect, used an example of real time effect, and said I was fine with it the way it was.

Third, nothing I said was "incorrect".

P.S. Don't bother, you're already too far gone.

I need to stop speaking for people!? Hilarious

nossharks said:

Trades are allowed from now until the keeper deadline in order to improve your position. Basically what Mark said. Derrick should confirm this.

nossharks said:

Bummies, shhhh, you're wrong. Nowhere on the revised rules list does it say we can't resume trading after the season is over. Trades are halted for the rest of the season, after that's done everything can resume. Derrick has said that we can elsewhere, he should get in here and confirm as I'm sure that's the right course of action.

And then when you are shown to be wrong:

nossharks said:

Silly rule in my opinion. You're basically looking at it from a black and white perspective.

This happens all the time. If my previous post had a condescending tone, this was the reason. Many times you come on this forum and speak like you're the fucking authority on things and you know what's what and how it's going to be. Inevitably you are shown to be incorrect and then come up with excuse upon excuse.

Nos: "This is the rule."
Rational person X: "Actually the rule says this (copy and pastes actual rule)"
Nos: "Well, uh, it should say what I think it should say."
Rational person X: "But, it doesn't"
Nos: "Get a life."

Rinse and repeat.

This has happened regarding farm team qualifications, trading restricitions, and trade veto rules just to name a few. I have learned to tolerate what i consider to be opinions of yours that I think are wrong and arguments that are illogical. That's fine. I will not keep quiet when you say things that are simply incorrect. When you quote rules that aren't rules, misinterpret others' arguments (especially mine), or use purely fallacious arguments I will respond.

Your opinion on this topic is valid if for no other reason than its your opinion and you're enttled to it. However, your opinion isn't the way its been all year. That is false. That is the only thing i was correcting. The way farm qualifications have been all year is that games played is variable but the age status is determined on July 1st and carried throughout the year.

[Nos - Sharks]

Happens all the time? You're so up your own ass.

I was wrong once, even if Derrick told me otherwise, or perhaps I misinterpreted. I said it was silly because it is, others agree. If you look you'll see that I asked Derrick to confirm, it's not my problem that you perceive me to be some authority. I'm merely speaking my mind. What you perceive as fallacies are rules that have been made unclear by the league, as shown by the confusion some members have had towards some of the rules you listed. This is why we have an open forum, you know, to discuss such rules and solidify their place in the rulebook.

Also, was I not speaking of games played? I gave an example of games played (real time effect) and continued to say that I feel since we used this the whole year it would only be fair to continue to use this system. I would be all for keeping real time effect for both (games played, age) also. As I said, I was merely reiterating when asked. You jumped to conclusions.

Get a fucking life you bum.

[Derrick - Senators]

I just wish everybody would vote on the polls that have been up for over two weeks.

Talking about rules and debating points is useless in the end if we dont have every managers vote on the matter. There might as well not even have been a poll started. It seems to me some dont want to work for the betterment of the league or have a say so in the governing of the league they participate in. Im not going to write up a huge "writ of NAFHL" so that people can just skim through it and give their nod of approval without any input. its your money, you paid for it.

[Phil - Blue Jackets]

nossharks said:

Happens all the time? You're so up your own ass.

I was wrong once, even if Derrick told me otherwise, or perhaps I misinterpreted. I said it was silly because it is, others agree. If you look you'll see that I asked Derrick to confirm, it's not my problem that you perceive me to be some authority. I'm merely speaking my mind. What you perceive as fallacies are rules that have been made unclear by the league, as shown by the confusion some members have had towards some of the rules you listed. This is why we have an open forum, you know, to discuss such rules and solidify their place in the rulebook.

Also, was I not speaking of games played? I gave an example of games played (real time effect) and continued to say that I feel since we used this the whole year it would only be fair to continue to use this system. I would be all for keeping real time effect for both (games played, age) also. As I said, I was merely reiterating when asked. You jumped to conclusions.

Get a fucking life you bum.

"I said it was silly and others agreed." As if more people agreeing makes something correct. I certainly dont agree and the person you were speaking for certinly didnt agree. I think you're some authority? No, I don't. That's the way YOU present yourself sometimes, especially when dealing with rule discussions. Its just an obvservation.

The confusion managers have about the rules is understandable. They don't even read them to find out what they actually say. There can be no confusion about the current rules for trade vetos or farm team qualifications for players. Yes, some rules dont specifically spell out some things( like the rule that states managers cant go back on trades after they accepted them *cough, Winnepeg, cough*) but others are perfectly clear and unambiguous. The fact is they, like you, just dont like what the rules say. That's fine. We can have discussion and take polls to change them. I will not however just let blatant lies and misinterpretations go by uncontested.

In this thread I was merely pointing out something that could very well have been a mistake on your part. That was the way it came off in that context. If it was a mistake on my part in interpreting your post, all you had to do was clarify and I would have said "my bad." But, no. You started telling me to get a life and such. "Stop speaking for people." Whatever. It wasn't an attack post. It's ok to admit mistakes.

[Nos - Sharks]

Um, more people agreeing make the rule subject to a revision, which is what we're trying to get out of the way. You quoted me as if me disagreeing was some sin. Again, it's not my problem you see me that way, it's your own hang up, not mine. I present myself just fine with a stern and clear understanding of how I'd like to see things. If you've got a problem with that then, ah ha ha, tough titters.

Again, there are no lies or misinterpretations. The rules have been up for debate, changed, and weren't exactly written perfectly from the get go. This is what this thread if for, to discuss the rules and mold them, not to hold them in some conservative death grip.

I did clarify, not that I had to, I mean what I said was pretty clear to anyone with half a brain. You skimmed over what Derrick had asked for and started talking for him, saying what he did or didn't want when it was all right there in black and white to be read over and over if you saw fit. So don't sit there and play the victim here, you wanted to feel some kind of authoritative power by telling me and the others that we simply don't care enough about this league to keep the rule book in our front pocket to be followed down to a fucking T, even when the rules have been up for debate (in this very thread!) and subject to change.

I don't know why you felt this way. Maybe it's because your last girlfriend smacked you around a little, or maybe it's because you're not where you thought you'd be at 25, or maybe it's because your mom gave the last cupcake away to the boy next door and not to you. Whatever it is...don't bring it here.

By the way, this is an attack post because I'm sick of your shit.

[patriot0103]

This is still going?

It reminds me of some of my old battle s with Derrick on the original message board. Although, I think we probably stopped by this point.