You are viewing a single comment's thread (view the rest of the comments).

mfdoom_narffl Oct 02 '12

This didn't have any real affect on any matchup results, but it seems like a bug. Our league had a the following trade go through *after* Sundays games, but *before* Monday night:

16 Hrs mfdoom42's Flaccoroni and Cheese Traded For Eli Manning QB NYG

16 Hrs TheBlumpking's Team Meg and Leg (atron) Traded For Calvin Johnson WR DET

16 Hrs mfdoom42's Flaccoroni and Cheese Traded For Miles Austin WR DAL

Since Miles was not locked at the time he was moved from Blumpking's starters to mfdoom42's bench, however, Eli and Megatron, having already played, stayed where they were at. As a result, mfdoom42 exceeded our roster limit and has 17 total players, (Miles being the 1 extra on his bench) and Blumpking ended up with an empty slot on his starters list.

I would think if a trade goes through and *any* player is locked, *no* players should be moved until after all players involved are unlocked.

Replies

FFCSR_Hal Fleaflicker Admin  Oct 02 '12

We answered it yesterday, but I'll be happy to answer again:

fleaflicker.com

They will lock on the team after finalization that night. So Manning and Calvin will lock on the team for Sunday and then Miles will move over. The team receiving Miles did drop Goodson, dropping them to 16 -- but I see they had 17 on the total roster, which violates the max -- it's cosmetic at this point, the behavior worked well, but I'll have our head programmer look at while it was allowed to violate roster max.

Thanks

FFCSR_Hal Fleaflicker Admin  Oct 02 '12

To sum up, the trade behavior worked well. Only concerning thing is that it did allow him to have "17" temporary players -- but all the functionality worked well regarding the trade. I escalated it to our head programmer to have one last look because of the 17-player issue, but in regards to trade functionality it did lock the players correctly and move them correctly, so that is a moot point. We'll update you.

FFCSR_Hal Fleaflicker Admin  Oct 02 '12

This is the correct behavior (just conferred with our head programmer). We'll look into changing this for future years (the max violation on trade during games in-progress), possibly, but it's the correct design for now of our trade functionality.

mfdoom_narffl Oct 04 '12

Well my main point it I would think that a trade should not process unless ALL players involved are unlocked. I doesn't make sense to half process the trade since one player involved was unlocked. It would give one team the advantage of having both their old players, AND their new player at the same time. Its pretty standard in all fantasy leagues I play in that a trade does not process unless ALL players are unlocked.