Social Wrighty's Player Agent Rules Baselined

[Wrighty]

Question - answering is optional
If I take someone with a chequered past or who isn't a nice person will that count against how the person is rated?
Eg Matt Lodge has a chequered path and screwed over the Warriors a bit - I am not thinking of taking Matt Lodge but he is a good example - would people vote and rate him only on his playing ability?

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

Question - answering is optional
If I take someone with a chequered past or who isn't a nice person will that count against how the person is rated?
Eg Matt Lodge has a chequered path and screwed over the Warriors a bit - I am not thinking of taking Matt Lodge but he is a good example - would people vote and rate him only on his playing ability?

Playing ability alone, plenty of dickheads in the NRL

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Playing ability alone, plenty of dickheads in the NRL

Rumour had it Brownstones after Hayne, Hopoate and Carney for key positions…

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

Rumour had it Brownstones after Hayne, Hopoate and Carney for key positions…

Imagine it, if only we’d included the NRL’s most prolific sire in the eligible former players list!

 

[Wrighty]

Imagine it, if only we’d included the NRL’s most prolific sire in the eligible former players list!

Who'se the most prolific sire? The reference is before my time,

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

Who'se the most prolific sire? The reference is before my time,

John Hopoate of course, how many of his kids have played NRL (bonus points for how many also ended up in prison)?

 

[Wrighty]

John Hopoate of course, how many of his kids have played NRL (bonus points for how many also ended up in prison)?

I know Lehi and Will.

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

I know Lehi and Will.

Jamil & Albert also

 

[Wrighty]

This game is going to be difficult. I have been running scenarios this afternoon.
Should be fun though. Can't wait.

 

[Wrighty]

Notwithstanding the rules are baselined I want to suggest a rule.

New Rule
You can say no to a Hodges ultimatum. If you do so you forfeit that player. If you forfeit that player you do get your money back. That player is ineligible for everyone for the rest of the game.

Sounds ok? Please respond if so as thumbs up could mean a number of things.

 

[tajhay]

Notwithstanding the rules are baselined I want to suggest a rule.

New Rule
You can say no to a Hodges ultimatum. If you do so you forfeit that player. If you forfeit that player you do get your money back. That player is ineligible for everyone for the rest of the game.

Sounds ok? Please respond if so as thumbs up could mean a number of things.

fine w Hoges agency.

Spoiler: Spoiler

// HODGES_ULTIMATUM.PS
// Clubs may ACCEPT or REJECT.
// Hodges may FORGIVE, but will absolutely NEVER FORGET.

INIT:
    clubs = GET_ALL_CLUBS()
    blacklist = []
    hodgesMood = "PettyButOrganised"

FOR EACH club IN clubs:

    PRINT "Sending Hodges Ultimatum to " + club.name + "..."

    club.choice = GET_RESPONSE(club)  // "ACCEPT" or "REJECT"

    IF club.choice == "ACCEPT" THEN

        PRINT club.name + " has ACCEPTED. Marking as FAVOURED."
        club.status = "FAVOURED"

        // Nice things… temporarily
        club.tradePriority = "HIGH"
        club.discountOnMediocrePlayers = 10%
        club.rumourAccess = "EarlyBSMail"

        PRINT "// Hodges Note: Will answer their calls before the 5th ring."
        PRINT "// For now."

    ELSE IF club.choice == "REJECT" THEN

        PRINT club.name + " has REJECTED. Brave. Incorrect, but brave."
        club.status = "DEAD_TO_HODGES"

        ADD_TO_BLACKLIST(blacklist, club)

        // Activate PREMIUM P E T T Y mode
        club.tradePriority = "BELOW_TRIAL_MATCH_REF"
        club.emailReplyTime = "3–7 business seasons"
        club.rumourAccess = "FacebookCommentsOnly"
        club.extraFee = "Hodges Emotional Damage Tax"
        club.phoneRouting = "DirectToVoicemailWithNoNotification"

        PRINT "// Hodges Log: PERMANENT_MEMORY[" + club.name + "] = 'Rejected ultimatum sober.'"
        PRINT "// Future note: Smile politely in public. Destroy quietly in negotiations."

    ENDIF

END FOR


FUNCTION ADD_TO_BLACKLIST(blacklist, club):
    APPEND blacklist, club
    PRINT ">> " + club.name + " added to BLACKLIST."
    PRINT ">> Official status: 'We remember what you did.'"


// FUTURE DEALINGS

FUNCTION REQUEST_DEAL(club, dealDetails):

    IF club IN blacklist THEN
        PRINT club.name + " attempting future deal… how adorable."
        PRINT "// Auto-reply: ‘Unfortunately, our petty-o-meter is still in the red.’"
        PRINT "// Suggested action: Wait 1–2 eras and try again."
        RETURN "REQUEST_DENIED_WITH_EXTRA_ATTITUDE"
    ELSE
        PRINT "Processing deal normally for " + club.name + "."
        RETURN "REQUEST_APPROVED"
    ENDIF

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

Notwithstanding the rules are baselined I want to suggest a rule.

New Rule
You can say no to a Hodges ultimatum. If you do so you forfeit that player. If you forfeit that player you do get your money back. That player is ineligible for everyone for the rest of the game.

Sounds ok? Please respond if so as thumbs up could mean a number of things.

I thumbs upped however now not sure that’s a good idea - it means you effectively remove any risk of signing a Hodges player. It could lead to bidding too high a price on a player with the possibility your miscalculation earlier in the game doesn’t lead to any disadvantage later. Nah don’t like it sorry.

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

I think you can say no to an ultimatum, have to have that opportunity to say no, however there needs to be a penalty from that. Not sure what it should be, but needs discussion

 

[Wrighty]

I think you can say no to an ultimatum, have to have that opportunity to say no, however there needs to be a penalty from that. Not sure what it should be, but needs discussion

Usually I see your logic but struggling here. The penalty for not cooperating is that you forfeit the player.
Let's say you paid $2.7 Million dollars for elite player X in the Hodges stable. Tajhay rocks up and says Player X wants to walk out on you unless you pay the NRL a fee of $400K. You baulk at that and say screw it I am not paying another $400K I will give up Player X. Sure you get your $2.7M back but you now don't have the player you might be able to get another player with your money but it won't be player X who you must have valued to have paid $2.7M. That is the consequence.
The alternative is you say no and forfeit player X and forfeit your $2.7M and you are now for all intents and purposes completely out of the game with no hope of winning having nearly $3M less than everyone else. You would be livid and faced with this dynamic Tajhay will have everyone over a barrel and you have no choice or check and balance to his powers.

 

[Wrighty]

I thumbs upped however now not sure that’s a good idea - it means you effectively remove any risk of signing a Hodges player. It could lead to bidding too high a price on a player with the possibility your miscalculation earlier in the game doesn’t lead to any disadvantage later. Nah don’t like it sorry.

I don't agree with this logic. There will be real penalties of signing Hodges players backed up with the threat of losing the player if you don't cooperate.

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

Usually I see your logic but struggling here. The penalty for not cooperating is that you forfeit the player.
Let's say you paid $2.7 Million dollars for elite player X in the Hodges stable. Tajhay rocks up and says Player X wants to walk out on you unless you pay the NRL a fee of $400K. You baulk at that and say screw it I am not paying another $400K I will give up Player X. Sure you get your $2.7M back but you now don't have the player you might be able to get another player with your money but it won't be player X who you must have valued to have paid $2.7M. That is the consequence.
The alternative is you say no and forfeit player X and forfeit your $2.7M and you are now for all intents and purposes completely out of the game with no hope of winning having nearly $3M less than everyone else. You would be livid and faced with this dynamic Tajhay will have everyone over a barrel and you have no choice or check and balance to his powers.

Sure but you still have the coin to spend & it could potentially put you at an advantage if you have an ultimatum & at the same time want to chase another player - but then perhaps that’s fine, all part of the strategy & luck of the game?

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

Could forfeited players perhaps go into a final round that everyone other than the person who forfeited get to bid on if they choose to? That would potentially be a good enough disadvantage?

 

[tajhay]

Could forfeited players perhaps go into a final round that everyone other than the person who forfeited get to bid on if they choose to? That would potentially be a good enough disadvantage?

Thats assuming there would be enough forfeited players though.

IMO its fair you guys get money back if you refuse ultimatum, rather than lose it. Just dont come running back to Hodges agency later on for a player - refusals will be recouped later on with interest...or not not.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Perhaps you get the money back less a handling fee (say $200k).

That way your not heavily disadvantaged but also pay a small price for not keeping your stable of players (and Hodges) happy?

 

[Defence]

What about if u refuse Hodges requests that player can ask to be traded and then the other contestants all get the chance to nominate a player to trade.
The contestant then has to pick one of those trades or forfeit that player and half their salary?
Does that make sense?