Announcement Re: IFA

[recte44]

So when the five players were signed before they should have been, it took that spending out of the available funds for those teams. There is no where in the game I can edit this. I was hoping that it would reset itself on January 1st, unfortunately it didn't.

With that being said, the only fair ruling I can make it to reinstate those five signings back to those teams. The "penalty" for the early signings is that I won't put them in the International Complex, they will be placed in Rookie Ball.

[shoeless.db]

I'm going to respond to this respectfully and frankly, and I hope no retribution will fall upon me for simply expressing my views.

This situation was handled poorly. Several GMs unknowingly benefited from a loophole in the setup of the game, and instead of penalizing the three accidental offenders, the final decision was made to penalize the other 29 who played the game correctly. I understand there were no good ways within the game to fix the issue financially, but we manifest money all the time when we move bonus funds into in-game cash. Another solution could have been made that hurt the 29 less and the three more.

Honestly, we need to stop letting GMs benefit from loopholes. In this instance, instead of the (arguably) top four (completely fake, made-up, 1s and 0s generated) ballplayers in IFA being on the bidding block, the rest of the league is left to bid on the remaining scraps (if I sign anyone, don't let that player know I called him a scrap) with basically the same amount of money. If I land a player, I'll likely be getting less for much more, and with the year penalty for exceeding the cap, my penalty for playing correctly increases.

In regards to the comment on Discord of "punting IFA" (and I hate that I'm forced to quote one of my least favorite directors I've ever worked under .... sorry, that's an aside... haha), a person I worked for once said (paraphrased), "Put in place an environment assuming no one will take advantage of things, because, when you create rules to inhibit bad employees from doing bad things, you hurt good employees trying to do good things. We don't want that. Deal with the bad apples on their own."

IFA is fun. It's another facet of the game to strategize and mull over. It's a place for fat cats like myself to burn money on players who may or may not materialize in, likely, two real-life years. Don't take it away because it caused strife. Let's learn and move forward.

In the end, I'm going to continue to enjoy playing here. It's a great place. It's unique and fun. There's great people here. And it's wild what Recte has built here with his time, money, and effort. I just hate feeling cheated.

I'm moving on. Export for tomorrow is in.

[BaseClogger]

I agree with the above. I logged into the game on my personal laptop in the middle of the day to rescind my IFA offer. These GMs no doubt benefited from this. Those all looked like below market deals.

[aaronweiner]

There are no bad guys here. No good guys either.

But I agree that this is the wrong solution. IFA sim is January 1, and not before. A few GMs did the wrong thing, wittingly or unwittingly, and they shouldn't be rewarded. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

The correct solution here is an eye for an eye - in this case that would be draft picks. I'd recommend a second round pick for every IFA signed, which is the sort of middle ground that makes sense since they're gathering competition-free prospects illicitly. It also wouldn't require rewinding the game OR the money. And it's exactly the sort of penalties that major league teams get for things like this.

I should also point out that I like the idea of having those players start in Rookie League, too.

In regards to the comment on Discord of "punting IFA" (and I hate that I'm forced to quote one of my least favorite directors I've ever worked under .... sorry, that's an aside... haha), a person I worked for once said (paraphrased), "Put in place an environment assuming no one will take advantage of things, because, when you create rules to inhibit bad employees from doing bad things, you hurt good employees trying to do good things. We don't want that. Deal with the bad apples on their own."

IFA is fun. It's another facet of the game to strategize and mull over. It's a place for fat cats like myself to burn money on players who may or may not materialize in, likely, two real-life years. Don't take it away because it caused strife. Let's learn and move forward.

In the end, I'm going to continue to enjoy playing here. It's a great place. It's unique and fun. There's great people here. And it's wild what Recte has built here with his time, money, and effort. I just hate feeling cheated.

I'm moving on. Export for tomorrow is in.

[BaseClogger]

I like Aaron’s suggestion. I considered throwing out an additional 50% tax. I think they still come out ahead in either scenario but it closes the gap.

[bcslouck]

I'm in line with the other guys. Should of been something. We all know signing day is 1/1 and some of those guys would of signed for more. But I'll survive.

[shoeless.db]

The correct solution here is an eye for an eye - in this case that would be draft picks. I'd recommend a second round pick for every IFA signed, which is the sort of middle ground that makes sense since they're gathering competition-free prospects illicitly. It also wouldn't require rewinding the game OR the money. And it's exactly the sort of penalties that major league teams get for things like this.

Four out of the five players signed were top 15 draft picks, most signed for much less than slot.

In this case, the worst solution for fair play was chosen from an available list of not great options. Recte doesn't always get things right (GASP! ... he's fallible like the rest of us), despite what the royal guard may say in his defense.

I'll be at Denny's if anyone needs me. I feel at home there now.

[Edit: I know I said I was moving on, but this one just continues to sit poorly with me.]

[aaronweiner]

The correct solution here is an eye for an eye - in this case that would be draft picks. I'd recommend a second round pick for every IFA signed, which is the sort of middle ground that makes sense since they're gathering competition-free prospects illicitly. It also wouldn't require rewinding the game OR the money. And it's exactly the sort of penalties that major league teams get for things like this.

Four out of the five players signed were top 15 draft picks, most signed for much less than slot.

In this case, the worst solution for fair play was chosen from an available list of not great options. Recte doesn't always get things right (GASP! ... he's fallible like the rest of us), despite what the royal guard may say in his defense.

I'll be at Denny's if anyone needs me. I feel at home there now.

[Edit: I know I said I was moving on, but this one just continues to sit poorly with me.]

So your argument is first round, not second round picks. That’s a reasonable point of view if the players are that imbalancing and something reasonable minds can argue.

But something should be done for the sake of competitive balance.

[shoeless.db]

So your argument is first round, not second round picks. That’s a reasonable point of view if the players are that imbalancing and something reasonable minds can argue.

But something should be done for the sake of competitive balance.

The ability to sign additional IFAs should be absolutely out the window.

[aaronweiner]

So your argument is first round, not second round picks. That’s a reasonable point of view if the players are that imbalancing and something reasonable minds can argue.

But something should be done for the sake of competitive balance.

The ability to sign additional IFAs should be absolutely out the window.

I think this is also fair. One could make the argument that the system is now fully competitive, but the lack of competition in the early rounds does seem to warrant that.