JD Fantasy Football 2005

[Famine]

A fair call on your part Rob, though you could have made an exclusive claim to Johnson, when the waiver thing was first shifted.

Kevin

[Rob]

Thanks Kevin.

My thinking was that it'd be easier to hope that no one noticed the waiver claim and wait for it to go through than to scream to everyone in the room "Hey, I want this guy, I call dibs" and then just hope that everyone agreed.

[Dressel Rebel]

I see it differently Rob.  The waiver wire was supposed to be last place gets priority 1-12 as you approach the top of the standings since Day 1.  Yahoo didn't keep up with it, or a setting was off at enrollment. At any rate,  I stated that rule on August 2nd and everyone knew what it was before the draft started.

The error was caught when it was caught, and changed immediately to reflect and enforce the way the rule was stated to be before the draft started.  Everyone drafted under this pretense.

Again, if anyone feels they had priority on a free agent in Week 2 or 3 and lost the waiver claim, I'll research that claim and make the appropriate changes if necessary.  So far, nobody had any problem.

The waiver wire standings will remain as is, your win in the claim to Johnson was never valid in the first place because that was the incorrect waiver wire order.  I know none have yet, but if any mistakes surface from weeks 2 or 3, then those will be corrected as well.  But you can't claim a player using an incorrect waiver wire order, that makes no sense whatsoever.

[Rob]

That's crap Dressel, of course you see it differently because it benefits you.

Since you made a change to the status quo, it needs to take place AFTER outstanding waiver claims are completed.

Anything less would be an abuse of your commissioner status and I'd appreciate it if you would fix this asap because I have every intention of starting Andre Johnson tomorrow and he should have cleared waivers as of today.

[Dressel Rebel]

That's crap Dressel, of course you see it differently because it benefits you.

Since you made a change to the status quo, it needs to take place AFTER outstanding waiver claims are completed.

Anything less would be a blatant abuse of your commissioner status and I'd appreciate it if you would fix this asap because I have every intention of starting Andre Johnson tomorrow and he should have cleared waivers as of today.

Sorry according to the rules outlined in the beginning of the season, your waiver wire was never valid to start with, and it won't be now.

[Rob]

You can't just happen to catch and error and change it at a time that it undercuts my team and helps you greatly.  Invalidating my claim on a player of this caliber at this stage in the season could illegitimize the entire league's results.

Change it please.

[Famine]

Lets put the e-brakes on right now.

A spade is a spade here, Matt.

From what I understand, Rob applied for Johnson before the waiver rule was changed. Rob was in a better standing before the error in the waiver setting was changed, but when it became changed, Matt saw the option and grabbed it.

Am I correct in this understanding?

Kevin

[Rob]

Yes.

10/1 A. Johnson (Hou - WR)  Add Waivers Dressel's Rebellion 
 10/1 B. Engram (Sea - WR) Drop Dressel's Rebellion
 9/29 D. Givens (NE - WR)  Add Free Agents SGC Airmen 
 9/29 B. Watson (NE - TE) Drop SGC Airmen
 9/29 WP changed from 'old order' to 'new order' 
 9/28 C. Henry (Cin - WR) Add Free Agents Canuckleheads 
 9/28 A. Johnson (Hou - WR)  Drop Canuckleheads

I put in the claim for Johnson within minutes or hours of Brent's dropping him, on the 28th.

[Dressel Rebel]

The correct waiver order that was supposed to be in place all along is now in place.  Yahoo's faulty waiver wire order was never valid to start with, and we're not using an erroneous waiver wire order just because Rob wants a free agent.  That's warped logic.  Again, sorry that Yahoo's erroneous order confused you, but August 2nd's post is valid.

[Famine]

So then standing rules apply from that time period before the change.

Any further transactions after apply to the new rules. Is this correct?

Kevin

[Rob]

The correct waiver order that was supposed to be in place all along is now in place.  Yahoo's faulty waiver wire order was never valid to start with, and we're not using an erroneous waiver wire order just because Rob wants a free agent.  That's warped logic.  Again, sorry that Yahoo's erroneous order confused you, but August 2nd's post is valid.

I'd like to see if ANYONE else in this league sides with you on this.

You've got a chance to set it right, even though it will mean someone other than you gets Andre Johnson.

I'm going grocery shopping, please do the right thing here and have this fixed by the time I get back.

[Dressel Rebel]

Rob, I'm going to say this one last time.  Your claim on that player was never valid, the rule in place that was posted on August 2nd in this thread was the valid order.

If you're looking for someone that agrees with my correction of Yahoo's erroneous and invalid waiver wire order, let's start with Scott who may be my biggest arch nemesis on the forums:

I agree with Dressel's ruling, I think this is another result of the crap way the free game is run on Yahoo.  I would think other pay sites would automatically update the waiver wire each week

Again, the correct August 2nd rule is now in effect.  Why you think you have a claim on a player using the erroneous invalid waiver wire order is beyond me.  Are you ranked below me in standings?  No.  Therefore, according to the 8/2 rule set and corresponding post in this thread, you had no claim.

Very simple, very straight forward.

[Ryan]

I'm going to have to side with Rob on this one. If a rule was changed than it needs to take effect after all previous waivers are finished. The same thing happens when a new law is made, for example if alcohol were made illegal today and John Doe drank yesterday, he can't be punished for drinking because at the time it was legal. The order SHOULD have been like that all along but it wasn't and Rob should get Johnson as a result.

Sorry according to the rules outlined in the beginning of the season, your waiver wire was never valid to start with, and it won't be now.

But they weren't outlined if they needed to be changed. There was obviously a mistake made and we are just now noticing it, the league had been working fine for 3 weeks, and now it is changed/fixed.

[Dressel Rebel]

I'm going to have to side with Rob on this one. If a rule was changed

I have to halt your post right there.  The rule is not "changed," the original is being enforced.  Yahoo's waiver wire order was erroneous and contrary to the way it was announced to the league as set.  I noticed, and deleted their erroneous order.

Nothing was changed, the erroneous order was corrected.

I thought of an interesting analogy.  Say a police officer drives up on a store that is being looted.  He enters the store, fires a shot into the air, and says, "You guys are looting and I just pulled up and noticed.  Everyone drop their loot and leave now!"  That's the correct way to handle it.  The police officer does not say, "Well, I know you were looting and I wasn't around to see it, and you got here before I did, so why don't you all just finish the looting you started while I turn my back."  Then imagine the officer picking up a VCR, putting it in a looter's hands, and showing him where the exit is.

I can't allow an erroneous waiver wire order to be used to claim players, it's not right.

[Dressel Rebel]

You know, I have a compromise for you guys in the basketball league.  Jeff (and probably some of you) wanted to take a real hard line on me and Kevin and not allow us to play, even though we would not be commish, have trade approval privelages, or determine the draft order.

I'll stop taking such a hard line on this and enforcing the 8/2/05 rule when it was caught, if we can play fantasy basketball.

After all, we're valid active JD members, who post, trade figures with other members, and contribute just like anyone else; and we wouldn't have commish powers or trade approval powers, so there's no reason not to let us play.

I'm willing to compromise if you are.