|
|
Post by Justin on Mar 19, 2014 19:43:26 GMT -5
I think we should drop this idea that 2 admins have to accept no-GM trades. If we want something like that, saying minimum of 2 admins/global mods is fine, but having to wait 6 days for cranker to view a no-gm trade (including putting talks on hold) is a waste of time, and takes a truck load of fun out of the site. We kinda cannot afford to be taking fun out of a site that is struggling with activity to begin with. We obviously trust our global mods, so why not include them in the "at least 2" thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay Lightning GM on Mar 19, 2014 19:58:11 GMT -5
I think we should drop no-GM trading as a whole. GMs are looking at their own interests only. If a no-GM team needs to add certain pieces, somebody should be chosen to post their trade block and negotiate on their behalf. I'm tired of these trades because every single one brings up an argument and I'm tired of having to debate each one. If you accept a trade you think isn't good for the no-GM team, you feel bad. If you reject it, which is most of them, the other GM gets pissed off and starts arguing why it is a good trade...and yes, you are one of them in that situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Calgary Flames GM on Mar 19, 2014 21:51:38 GMT -5
I could be the negotiator for the no-GM team if we do that. I'm a hard ball when it comes to trading so I would be looking to help the no-GM team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Mar 20, 2014 1:46:35 GMT -5
No-GM trades work great on The GMX. No idea why people have so many problems with them here, to be honest. Maybe people here just aren't used to them cause they are a new concept? I donno, but in my case, I WAS Carolina for like, 4 seasons. I knew the team's needs, so there's no reason half of my offers should have got rejected. A clear and present need was filled with every major trade I post with them (plus an overpayment). It's how I operate.
But that's besides the point. The point of this issue is having to please 2 out of 3 admins is too much. It means you have to wait for one of them to come on, and it holds up trades. I say expand the role of global mods, and speed this shit up.
What Tampa said is technically an option, but it's a stupid one. Site dying from lack of consistent activity, so we limit the things people who are active can do? Makes sense...
|
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay Lightning GM on Mar 20, 2014 3:44:54 GMT -5
No-GM trades haven't exactly done much to improve activity. What I had envisioned with these was GMs making lateral moves in order to fill positional needs that benefited both teams. It's been the opposite. GMs just want certain players and try and force other into the deal to make it fair.
Your last trade: Target player in the deal is Hull. The one legitimate right wing they have. What reason does Carolina have to move him? Any GM would rather have him than Gaborik. You clearly know that. So you add an upgraded piece in Fleischmann into the deal to make it fair. That is the part I mentioned above where GMs are forcing players into the deal. Just because you give them overalls doesn't make it a sensible trade. If I want to improve my 3rd line centre position for a player (based on the current roster) I will lose in the draft, the last person I move is Hull.
Only reason I explained that deal was because no GM is looking from the other teams perspective in these trades. They DON'T make sense for the vacant teams. It is all in self-interest. With a negotiator for vacant teams, they can list who the moveables are on the team and offer some information on what exactly the team is looking for and if it matches well with the GMs needs.
They won't take away from any activity because, to be brutally honest, there hasn't been much anyways and no-GM trades haven't helped at all. Truthfully, nothing will improve activity because nearly every team has non-moveables and people don't really give much of a shit for depth. It is just a horrible situation for the league but that is why activity is so low. There are no legitimate incentives to be on here, aside from auctions, which are also for the most part, about depth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Calgary Flames GM on Mar 20, 2014 13:54:15 GMT -5
Lol no-GM trades do not work on TheGMX
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Mar 25, 2014 12:26:30 GMT -5
As of this post, 9 members have been on in the last 24 hours, and 1 of them was a former team.
What point is having untouchables on a team that has had no-GM for a whole real life year? Why not make them available to the people who actually want to be here? Keep people who are actually here, here and happy. If a deal is a clear win for a No-GM team, who cares. I only wanted Brett Hull because he was one of my favourite players in real life. I don't give a shit about ratings, and never have. I just want to collect guys I really like, which is why I keep repeatedly posting losing deals, just to have them shot down because of unsubstantiated nonsense.
But whatever, I tried to make things more fun around here, the last draft we had was probably our best one to date, but this whole "No-GM teams have to have players locked up forever even when the deal is a clear win" is stupid, and takes a lot of fun out of this site. I think there's a reason only 8 people have been on. People here forgot how to have fun with a sim site.
|
|
|
|
Post by New York Islanders GM on Mar 25, 2014 17:46:11 GMT -5
Yeah I agree No-GM trades are fine. I haven't been on due to a lack of a computer in the past couple days.
I already shut your trade down though Flyers, you were never waiting, it was a no.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Mar 25, 2014 20:22:57 GMT -5
I already shut your trade down though Flyers, you were never waiting, it was a no. That's my problem right there. You should not be "shutting trades down" you should be evaluating them, based on fairness, and team needs. You did not do that. But that topic aside, this suggestion was not about that, it was about broadening what a no-gm trade needs to be accepted. The deal you "shut down" was on hold for nearly a week before you saw it. |
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Mar 26, 2014 10:15:44 GMT -5
I already shut your trade down though Flyers, you were never waiting, it was a no. That's my problem right there. You should not be "shutting trades down" you should be evaluating them, based on fairness, and team needs. You did not do that. But that topic aside, this suggestion was not about that, it was about broadening what a no-gm trade needs to be accepted. The deal you "shut down" was on hold for nearly a week before you saw it. I evaluated it that it wouldn't work for the 4th time......? It was never on hold again.... it was rejected.... |
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Mar 26, 2014 13:35:57 GMT -5
If you were around, you would know we waited nearly a week for you. You were not, thus proving my point. Lol, back under your rock now, cranker, the site does better when you vanish for a week or so.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Mar 27, 2014 5:04:53 GMT -5
If you were around, you would know we waited nearly a week for you. You were not, thus proving my point. Lol, back under your rock now, cranker, the site does better when you vanish for a week or so. I don't think you really proved anything, but woah that ending got dark and harsh! That wasn't a warm welcome back  |
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Penguins GM on Mar 27, 2014 8:16:21 GMT -5
personal attacks are just going to bring this site to an end. It isn't going to stay open when the admins are fighting and attacking each other. Like I have to tell my mother sometimes, those are thinking words not speaking words  |
|
|
|
Post by Calgary Flames GM on Mar 27, 2014 13:24:08 GMT -5
You talk to your mother with that mouth  |
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Mar 27, 2014 20:56:03 GMT -5
personal attacks are just going to bring this site to an end. It isn't going to stay open when the admins are fighting and attacking each other. Like I have to tell my mother sometimes, those are thinking words not speaking words What personal attack? |
|
