Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

I agree, respond to PMs. Also if someone says they aren't interested, don't keep pestering.

UOducksTK1 wrote:I agree, respond to PMs. Also if someone says they aren't interested, don't keep pestering.

I will say that there is a fine line between pestering and “could you please explain why not or counter? I’m open to negotiating”.

pistolpetejr wrote:

UOducksTK1 wrote:I agree, respond to PMs. Also if someone says they aren't interested, don't keep pestering.

I will say that there is a fine line between pestering and “could you please explain why not or counter? I’m open to negotiating”.

Lol some people are always on the wrong side of that fine line.

pistolpetejr wrote:

UOducksTK1 wrote:I agree, respond to PMs. Also if someone says they aren't interested, don't keep pestering.

I will say that there is a fine line between pestering and “could you please explain why not or counter? I’m open to negotiating”.

Also it scares too many ppl when I start with a slightly outrageous position when I fully expect to come to the center.

No chance of some sort of cash system getting introduced into this lge?

Bundy wrote:No chance of some sort of cash system getting introduced into this lge?

Im not familiar with them. Could you elaborate further? How it works, setup, etc.

Oregon Ownage wrote:

Bundy wrote:No chance of some sort of cash system getting introduced into this lge?

Im not familiar with them. Could you elaborate further? How it works, setup, etc.

It's basically just a way to earn attribute increases that also provides trade value. For example, things you'd commonly earn cash for would be posting all of your DCs (this would be when DC threads are posted before each sim and a "same" post is expected if you're not making changes. Doesn't quite work here), making playoffs (and progressing further), posting articles, attending "live" sims, and the like.

And then the "camps" that you would purchase would just be what you already do with attribute increases, but you can purchase it anytime and as much as you'd like as long as you have the money available (obviously players would be restricted, but you could camp different guys).

I'd be against this, as this league has done a fantastic job fighting inflation and this would hurt that.

Here's an example from a failed league I had years ago. Not saying it's particularly good (probably the opposite, as it never had any real interest), but it's an example nonetheless.
Earning: http://cvsl.forumotion.com/t6-claims-system
Spending: http://cvsl.forumotion.com/t5-spends-system

Wouldn’t cause inflation if camps didnt offer high increases, a cash/camping system makes a league a lot more appealing for GMs, encourages discussion and trading, having another currency in trading will boost trade discussions. Its this time of the Season (draft) where having a cash system would be a massive benefit for traders, GMs are going to be very hesitant to trade future picks and its difficult to put a price on a players worth compared with a draft pick.

It takes too much time and managing, for little benefit IMO.

Most GMs here are busy with work and life, and the slow pace and less demand is actually healthier for the league.

UOducksTK1 wrote:It takes too much time and managing, for little benefit IMO.

Most GMs here are busy with work and life, and the slow pace and less demand is actually healthier for the league.

Agreed, I used to work nights so I'd be on this board all day. Now that I've changed shifts the pace really works out well for me.

Should it be mandatory to roster two eligible PG’s for the playoffs? I was thinking about this recently bc it creates a mismatch if your starting PG goes down and you are now starting a non PG for however long the starter is injured for.

Oregon Ownage wrote:Should it be mandatory to roster two eligible PG’s for the playoffs? I was thinking about this recently bc it creates a mismatch if your starting PG goes down and you are now starting a non PG for however long the starter is injured for.

yes , or at least a PG eligible player aside from your #1.

Oregon Ownage wrote:Should it be mandatory to roster two eligible PG’s for the playoffs? I was thinking about this recently bc it creates a mismatch if your starting PG goes down and you are now starting a non PG for however long the starter is injured for.

yes.

Oregon Ownage wrote:Should it be mandatory to roster two eligible PG’s for the playoffs? I was thinking about this recently bc it creates a mismatch if your starting PG goes down and you are now starting a non PG for however long the starter is injured for.

Any else have thoughts?

Oregon Ownage wrote:

Oregon Ownage wrote:Should it be mandatory to roster two eligible PG’s for the playoffs? I was thinking about this recently bc it creates a mismatch if your starting PG goes down and you are now starting a non PG for however long the starter is injured for.

Any else have thoughts?

So if you have 2 entering the playoffs and one goes down, do you need to sign another one?