Re: Questions for a Q&A about the new rules - please contrib
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:33 pm
The idea that PO was not removed/deleted is something I see everywhere, and yet, I must question it.
Because you see "just deleted from the game" is pretty much what they did. The super-nerfed, 'hobson's choice' version of piling on is presented as an optional rule for leagues, alongside the "we recommend you don't..." spiel, ie. it's about as core as selecting your own MVP was in CRP. And yet everywhere I look I see people discussing as if this "team RR PO" is the native state.
I understand chagrin with the rule being presented as optional - because in effect, it's a bit of a pointless endeavour: if you're going to optionally rule piling on back in, you may as well just invoke "commissioner's right" and implement CRP PO. But even making that decision to rule in the "nerfed PO" is already a modification that might not happen.
I really do think the intention of the design team was to present an illusion of choice, what I can't understand is why so many people are adopting the mirage as the default.
Because you see "just deleted from the game" is pretty much what they did. The super-nerfed, 'hobson's choice' version of piling on is presented as an optional rule for leagues, alongside the "we recommend you don't..." spiel, ie. it's about as core as selecting your own MVP was in CRP. And yet everywhere I look I see people discussing as if this "team RR PO" is the native state.
I understand chagrin with the rule being presented as optional - because in effect, it's a bit of a pointless endeavour: if you're going to optionally rule piling on back in, you may as well just invoke "commissioner's right" and implement CRP PO. But even making that decision to rule in the "nerfed PO" is already a modification that might not happen.
I really do think the intention of the design team was to present an illusion of choice, what I can't understand is why so many people are adopting the mirage as the default.