• Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.

2018 Forum Mock: Discussion Thread

Anyone who bids in the final 5 minutes does not need to quote the highest bid. However anytime prior to 6:55 the bids need to be quoted.
 
I for one (and I'm sure there are others) will never be able to match any final five bids then. I am going to try to work through Mania and authorize him to bid for me in Final Five and the 15 minutes after, but I will never be on during that time if I am not notified since I am still at work then. I do not understand why there is no quoting done for final five. There has to be some kind of notification sent out to the person that is being passed so that they know they have to request a bid-off. If I am notified I can hop on for a quick message/post. If I'm not notified, I assume I won. It makes no sense that no notification is made at all.

In this case it is a kicker and punter that I literally lost at exactly 6:59PM because I was never notified. That's bullshit.

Next time it could be a position that matters more. It makes no sense at all for someone to lose out on players just because they aren't online for a 15 minute window. Give it 24 hours at least to handle the whole process of requesting a bid-off and making bids if you're not going to have anyone notified at all.
 
I mean seriously, we get 12 hours to make a pick or pick a team (with being tagged and notified), but we get 15 minutes to make a request to bid-off. That makes no damn sense.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps in the final 5 (or make it a final hour or two) nobody should be able to bid on a player they haven't already bid on? That way instead of basically giving people who show up for that 5 minute window the advantage for any player they want, they actually have to give other people time to counter. Then in that last hour or two there can be a bid-off declared, and the teams involved can then work it out over the next 12-24 hours.
 
Giants56Ravens52 said:
Perhaps in the final 5 (or make it a final hour or two) nobody should be able to bid on a player they haven't already bid on? That way instead of basically giving people who show up for that 5 minute window the advantage for any player they want, they actually have to give other people time to counter. Then in that last hour or two there can be a bid-off declared, and the teams involved can then work it out over the next 12-24 hours.
Click to expand...
This.

Can we vote to replace the entire committee with @Giants56Ravens52 ? Lol
 
DeVito52 said:
This.

Can we vote to replace the entire committee with @Giants56Ravens52 ? Lol
Click to expand...

I absolutely do not have the desire or time to do that, nor is it the intent of this post. I truly enjoy this game, and I definitely want to say that I understand the time and efforts of the guys who are running this and thank them.

I am posting to offer constructive criticism, especially when there is such an easily exploitable feature that is very easily fixed with almost no effort. There is no reason that people should be rewarded for showing up late to the party and purposely waiting until 6:59 to post (without quoting or notifying who they pass at all), especially when they're one of the main people running this thing. @Truth
 
Giants56Ravens52 said:
I absolutely do not have the desire or time to do that, nor is it the intent of this post. I truly enjoy this game, and I definitely want to say that I understand the time and efforts of the guys who are running this and thank them.

I am posting to offer constructive criticism, especially when there is such an easily exploitable feature that is very easily fixed with almost no effort. There is no reason that people should be rewarded for showing up late to the party and purposely waiting until 6:59 to post (without quoting or notifying who they pass at all), especially when they're one of the main people running this thing. @Truth
Click to expand...
Yeah I was just joking around. The CoCo is good at what the do and I appreciate all you guys. I do like what you have to say though and think they should take it into account.
 
DeVito52 said:
Yeah I was just joking around. The CoCo is good at what the do and I appreciate all you guys. I do like what you have to say though and think they should take it into account.
Click to expand...

I know you were joking :p. I just wanted to make sure that I clarified my intent.

That being said, I think this needs to be changed immediately. If anything I would think it would actually make it much easier on the CoCo since it would eliminate an exploit, and give more time for them to react to things.
 
Obviously, I have no bearing this year, but I can speak to a couple of the points being a former member of the council that ran the game.

As for the bid-offs, the 15 minute rule was implemented after unsuccessfully using no limit, and if I remember correctly, an hour limit. The no limit thing was a complete disaster where we had people negotiating trades to clear cap space to bid higher and it taking multiple days to sort it out in some cases. The hour rule hurt our overseas compadres when there needed to be a second bid-off and they were already off to bed, thus losing. The 15 minute increments were implemented because we wanted to capture the people that were around for the end of the bidding. We realized we couldn't include everyone - you never can with the varying schedules and time zones.

Second, and what could eliminate the need for bid-offs entirely, would be a new FA system. The FA and final five thing is probably the number one complaint each year. A few of us got together mid-game last year and proposed a new FA bidding process. We had even planned to trial it after the draft was complete. However, not long after, the notice that the boards were closing came out and obviously, that talk and process took a backseat and likely dissipated with the move and a few guys involved in that no longer here, myself included until just before the game.
 
Giants56Ravens52 said:
I absolutely do not have the desire or time to do that, nor is it the intent of this post. I truly enjoy this game, and I definitely want to say that I understand the time and efforts of the guys who are running this and thank them.

I am posting to offer constructive criticism, especially when there is such an easily exploitable feature that is very easily fixed with almost no effort. There is no reason that people should be rewarded for showing up late to the party and purposely waiting until 6:59 to post (without quoting or notifying who they pass at all), especially when they're one of the main people running this thing. @Truth
Click to expand...
There are solid points above about the bid-off process, especially concerning the bid-off deadline of 15 minutes. It helps to provide context, so I'll explain the creation in detail. The main reason for its creation with a condensed time span was in order to avoid giving teams a prolonged opportunity to secure cap-saving moves prior to submitting their bid. It's not unrealistic for a team to release a player in order to create space for a run at a specific free agent. However, a time period of several additional hours would allow teams to make extensive moves after the fact such as securing trades as cost-cutting measures; given that our free agency is built upon a deadline-based bidding period, the cushion was given a short window for mainly that reason. Since the deadlines are made aware well in advance with strict rules, it was presumed that whomever is interested in participating during the period in question will be available at the time. We had less than a handful of issues last year with respect to time schedules, but it's a concern, then it's worth addressing. That being said, in theory, we could simply enforce a deadline that would lock the available cap spaces for both teams, which would satisfy that concern. That would allow for us to follow through on your idea of extending the bid-off period to a significantly longer period of time, perhaps 3, 6 or even 12 hours. We'll address the matter immediately and hopefully come down with a satisfactory ruling prior to the end of the upcoming period. Personally, I find this to be a feasible concession.

With respect to the quoting, a deadline-based bidding process innately creates a burst of bids towards the end of each deadline. Given that we have strict and specific rules in place that immediately invalidate bids, enforcing quoting throughout inevitably leads to scenarios with multiple compounding invalid bids. That's one of the biggest issues that led to its creation. It came about because we had multiple FAs in each period with winners who were outbid multiple times but won regardless. Say there are seven members bidding for a top-tier talent, the allotted time is winding down, and the incoming flurry is at hand. The first two teams submit their bids correctly. The third team either quotes the second team correctly but submits the same bid amount, misspells the name of the player, etc. The remaining three members begin quoting that invalid bid, thereby invalidating their own bids. Now imagine this happening a multitude of times as multiple teams scramble through the search bar, potentially looking for a bid that will be outbid while they're searching for it, making their following bid invalid. You have teams who had the cap space, submitted their bids, but lost regardless because of a compounded error. To put it bluntly, in practice, it was an absolute shit show. The idea of eliminating this concession to appease a far less common concern is akin to breaking down the flood gate for material to cover a pot hole. Especially since there's a rule in place to give challenging rights to the highest bidder before the quoting requirements are eliminated specifically to account for the lesser concern. It should be noted that there will likely be a long, hard look at whether the FA process is reinvented altogether.

I do feel compelled to address the latter as it's a significant mischaracterization. I was by no means rewarded for showing up late to the party. I was rewarded because a returning member wasn't aware of a rule that's been around for the majority of the FMs existence. You placed a minimum bid for one of the better kickers and punters in the league, and were unsurprisingly outbid. You had the Final Five rights, I had literally zero additional cap space, meaning I was essentially dead in the water. If I was challenged, I would've been forced to relinquish both players. You posted shortly after the bid-off rights expired, thinking that you had won on a technicality, which I did, hence the complaint. That's having your cake and eating it too. The outcome of this specific situation falls squarely on comprehension of the rules instead of the rules themselves. I definitely do agree that a concession could be made in order to provide a sensible middle ground, with your idea about expanding the bid-off process potentially being the best answer. But we are all subject to the same rules and each strategy comes with its own risk. I attempted to sneak in two bids separate bids at the end of two different periods last season only to be beaten out by Cleveland moments thereafter, dying by the sword, which is the risk I ran for not bidding prior to the Final Five. The entire FA process is built specifically on timed deadlines, so we are all subject to the same exact advantages and disadvantages, myself included. Let's not pretend that the current process gives me a semblance of a leg up given that I'm working off the same exact clock. That unsubstantiated insinuation is rather uncalled for.
 
Simba said:
Obviously, I have no bearing this year, but I can speak to a couple of the points being a former member of the council that ran the game.

As for the bid-offs, the 15 minute rule was implemented after unsuccessfully using no limit, and if I remember correctly, an hour limit. The no limit thing was a complete disaster where we had people negotiating trades to clear cap space to bid higher and it taking multiple days to sort it out in some cases. The hour rule hurt our overseas compadres when there needed to be a second bid-off and they were already off to bed, thus losing. The 15 minute increments were implemented because we wanted to capture the people that were around for the end of the bidding. We realized we couldn't include everyone - you never can with the varying schedules and time zones.

Second, and what could eliminate the need for bid-offs entirely, would be a new FA system. The FA and final five thing is probably the number one complaint each year. A few of us got together mid-game last year and proposed a new FA bidding process. We had even planned to trial it after the draft was complete. However, not long after, the notice that the boards were closing came out and obviously, that talk and process took a backseat and likely dissipated with the move and a few guys involved in that no longer here, myself included until just before the game.
Click to expand...

What would be wrong with the system I proposed? It would solve all the issues you mentioned and give ample time for all involved without adding any extra work. The final 5 does not work, at all, and makes me not want to even try to play right now since all of the cap space I have is now completely meaningless. It makes the rest of the period almost completely irrelevant, and basically allows anyone online at that 5 minute time free reign to sign anyone they have room for without any possibility for someone who is offline to counter since they don't have to even quote or message their competition (nevermind the fact that 15 minutes is a tiny window).

There is absolutely no logical reason to have it this way except to cheat and game the system. And yes, I am accusing those who wait until the last minute of cheating and gaming the system. It's abuse and ruins the game for those of us who actually want to play and can't be on for the final five. Seriously, who in their right mind thought that 5 minutes was a good amount of time for this, followed by 15 minutes to respond without any prompt or notifications? Yet draft picks and picking teams are 12 hours per pick? It makes no damn sense, and this rule should be updated immediately.
 
Giants56Ravens52 said:
What would be wrong with the system I proposed? It would solve all the issues you mentioned and give ample time for all involved without adding any extra work. The final 5 does not work, at all, and makes me not want to even try to play right now since all of the cap space I have is now completely meaningless. It makes the rest of the period almost completely irrelevant, and basically allows anyone online at that 5 minute time free reign to sign anyone they have room for without any possibility for someone who is offline to counter since they don't have to even quote or message their competition (nevermind the fact that 15 minutes is a tiny window).

There is absolutely no logical reason to have it this way except to cheat and game the system. And yes, I am accusing those who wait until the last minute of cheating and gaming the system. It's abuse and ruins the game for those of us who actually want to play and can't be on for the final five. Seriously, who in their right mind thought that 5 minutes was a good amount of time for this, followed by 15 minutes to respond without any prompt or notifications? Yet draft picks and picking teams are 12 hours per pick? It makes no damn sense, and this rule should be updated immediately.
Click to expand...

You're preaching to the choir lol. This has long been a point of contention and the answer in all honesty is probably a complete rehaul of the FA process, which was being discussed in the middle of last year's game before the boards shutting down shifted priority. I think it was literally brought up a day or two before the notice so obviously, not much talk went into it other than putting together an idea before presenting it.

It's worth mentioning that this is quite a cumbersome game to be played in a forum format. It's obviously never going to be perfect, but there are certainly efforts to make it better each year. I can't tell you how much the game has evolved from my first year playing it.
 
Truth said:
There are solid points above about the bid-off process, especially concerning the bid-off deadline of 15 minutes. It helps to provide context, so I'll explain the creation in detail. The main reason for its creation with a condensed time span was in order to avoid giving teams a prolonged opportunity to secure cap-saving moves prior to submitting their bid. It's not unrealistic for a team to release a player in order to create space for a run at a specific free agent. However, a time period of several additional hours would allow teams to make extensive moves after the fact such as securing trades as cost-cutting measures; given that our free agency is built upon a deadline-based bidding period, the cushion was given a short window for mainly that reason. Since the deadlines are made aware well in advance with strict rules, it was presumed that whomever is interested in participating during the period in question will be available at the time. We had less than a handful of issues last year with respect to time schedules, but it's a concern, then it's worth addressing. That being said, in theory, we could simply enforce a deadline that would lock the available cap spaces for both teams, which would satisfy that concern. That would allow for us to follow through on your idea of extending the bid-off period to a significantly longer period of time, perhaps 3, 6 or even 12 hours. We'll address the matter immediately and hopefully come down with a satisfactory ruling prior to the end of the upcoming period. Personally, I find this to be a feasible concession.

With respect to the quoting, a deadline-based bidding process innately creates a burst of bids towards the end of each deadline. Given that we have strict and specific rules in place that immediately invalidate bids, enforcing quoting throughout inevitably leads to scenarios with multiple compounding invalid bids. That's one of the biggest issues that led to its creation. It came about because we had multiple FAs in each period with winners who were outbid multiple times but won regardless. Say there are seven members bidding for a top-tier talent, the allotted time is winding down, and the incoming flurry is at hand. The first two teams submit their bids correctly. The third team either quotes the second team correctly but submits the same bid amount, misspells the name of the player, etc. The remaining three members begin quoting that invalid bid, thereby invalidating their own bids. Now imagine this happening a multitude of times as multiple teams scramble through the search bar, potentially looking for a bid that will be outbid while they're searching for it, making their following bid invalid. You have teams who had the cap space, submitted their bids, but lost regardless because of a compounded error. To put it bluntly, in practice, it was an absolute shit show. The idea of eliminating this concession to appease a far less common concern is akin to breaking down the flood gate for material to cover a pot hole. Especially since there's a rule in place to give challenging rights to the highest bidder before the quoting requirements are eliminated specifically to account for the lesser concern. It should be noted that there will likely be a long, hard look at whether the FA process is reinvented altogether.

I do feel compelled to address the latter as it's a significant mischaracterization. I was by no means rewarded for showing up late to the party. I was rewarded because a returning member wasn't aware of a rule that's been around for the majority of the FMs existence. You placed a minimum bid for one of the better kickers and punters in the league, and were unsurprisingly outbid. You had the Final Five rights, I had literally zero additional cap space, meaning I was essentially dead in the water. If I was challenged, I would've been forced to relinquish both players. You posted shortly after the bid-off rights expired, thinking that you had won on a technicality, which I did, hence the complaint. That's having your cake and eating it too. The outcome of this specific situation falls squarely on comprehension of the rules instead of the rules themselves. I definitely do agree that a concession could be made in order to provide a sensible middle ground, with your idea about expanding the bid-off process potentially being the best answer. But we are all subject to the same rules and each strategy comes with its own risk. I attempted to sneak in two bids separate bids at the end of two different periods last season only to be beaten out by Cleveland moments thereafter, dying by the sword, which is the risk I ran for not bidding prior to the Final Five. The entire FA process is built specifically on timed deadlines, so we are all subject to the same exact advantages and disadvantages, myself included. Let's not pretend that the current process gives me a semblance of a leg up given that I'm working off the same exact clock. That unsubstantiated insinuation is rather uncalled for.
Click to expand...

It is gaming the system. It is definitely sound strategy with the current rules, but it is gaming the system. I posted shortly after because I logged on through my phone while out of the house because I had no power at home due to the storm. If it wasn't a Sunday I wouldn't have even been on. Stop trying to rationalize your bullshit rule that you are able to take advantage of. It's a terrible rule and is very easily fixed with the idea that took me literally less than 5 minutes to think of. Having 24 hour FA periods that are almost entirely meaningless due to a dumb final 5 rule that basically says if you're not online in that window you're SoL makes no sense. Give people time to respond. We have lives. You did purposely wait until the last minute. Don't try to rationalize it with a terrible rule that nobody likes.

Why don't you make draft picks 15 minutes each then to not allow people to make moves? You say you don't want to give people time to move their roster around to make bigger bids, but that's exactly reflective of NFL FA. It's much better that way than someone scooping up players over people who aren't able to be there.

This is only my second year, and I never had the issue come up for me last year because I was the Steelers and didn't have much in the way of cap space to spend.
 
Simba said:
You're preaching to the choir lol. This has long been a point of contention and the answer in all honesty is probably a complete rehaul of the FA process, which was being discussed in the middle of last year's game before the boards shutting down shifted priority. I think it was literally brought up a day or two before the notice so obviously, not much talk went into it other than putting together an idea before presenting it.

It's worth mentioning that this is quite a cumbersome game to be played in a forum format. It's obviously never going to be perfect, but there are certainly efforts to make it better each year. I can't tell you how much the game has evolved from my first year playing it.
Click to expand...

I get it, but at least extend the time to seek a bid-off, and don't allow people who haven't bid on a player to bid on players that already have bids within an hour of the end. That would solve literally almost every issue. People have lives, and last minute bids being placed without any notifications going out makes it gaming the system. It's within the rules, but it doesn't make it right.
 
Giants56Ravens52 said:
I get it, but at least extend the time to seek a bid-off, and don't allow people who haven't bid on a player to bid on players that already have bids within an hour of the end. That would solve literally almost every issue. People have lives, and last minute bids being placed without any notifications going out makes it gaming the system. It's within the rules, but it doesn't make it right.
Click to expand...

For what it’s worth, a longer time to initiate a bid off was in place a couple of years back, and I can confirm Truth’s words in that it was a “shitshow.”
 
Simba said:
For what it’s worth, a longer time to initiate a bid off was in place a couple of years back, and I can confirm Truth’s words in that it was a “shitshow.”
Click to expand...
It does lengthen the schedule for us as well. But we could give it a shot so long as we have a cut-off for cost-cutting measures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top