sigh...I didn't consider

[Art Vandelay]

So, over a week or more ago, I made a trade offer via the site at onRoto. Other manager declined and countered. So, today, out of the blue, the manager accepted the original offer. Of course, two of the players are probably not in the same situation, and a third is out via injury for an even longer extended period of time then thought at time of offer.

Not mad, exactly. Just venting a little.

Anyhow, warning to y'all. If you make an offer on onRoto, make sure you withdraw if a counter-offer is received...

[revo]

Wait, so if an online offer is declined......it still sits up there as being active??

[Art Vandelay]

Wait, so if an online offer is declined......it still sits up there as being active??

He countered so I assumed that would nullify the original...I assumed wrong.

[Redbirds Fan]

Don't know if this helps, but as a matter of contract law (universally, so far as I know), a counteroffer has the effect of rejecting the offer and takes it off the table.

Practical application: If I say "I'll give you $40 for that painting." And you say "How about $50?" My offer of $40 no longer stands, and you cannot hold me to it at that point.

If the counteroffer was made through the onRoto site, it really surprises me they let the original offer remain viable.

[Judge Jude]

if you can't fix this now, fix it for next season. seems ludicrous to me

[revo]

Don't know if this helps, but as a matter of contract law (universally, so far as I know), a counteroffer has the effect of rejecting the offer and takes it off the table.

Practical application: If I say "I'll give you $40 for that painting." And you say "How about $50?" My offer of $40 no longer stands, and you cannot hold me to it at that point.

If the counteroffer was made through the onRoto site, it really surprises me they let the original offer remain viable.

What he appears to be saying is that:

1) he made the offer online;
2) the other party declined the offer -- apparently verbally, which he did not mention, since he says the offer still stood on the site;
3) the other party sent a counter-offer on the site without ever rejecting his first offer online;(CBS has a "Reject & Counter" trade button option; does OnRoto?)
4) at this point, two online offers are on-site -- the original, which was never rejected on-site, only verbally, and the counter;
5) the other party, even after some apparent off-site negotiations, accepts the original online offer without notifying the offering party that he was doing so.

Does that seem low? Yes. But if there was never a "Rejection" notice sent out by the site, the offering party MUST be aware that the offer is still sitting there, quite valid.

[Art Vandelay]

What he appears to be saying is that:

1) he made the offer online;
2) the other party declined the offer -- apparently verbally, which he did not mention, since he says the offer still stood on the site;
3) the other party sent a counter-offer on the site without ever rejecting his first offer online;(CBS has a "Reject & Counter" trade button option; does OnRoto?)
4) at this point, two online offers are on-site -- the original, which was never rejected on-site, only verbally, and the counter;
5) the other party, even after some apparent off-site negotiations, accepts the original online offer without notifying the offering party that he was doing so.

Does that seem low? Yes. But if there was never a "Rejection" notice sent out by the site, the offering party MUST be aware that the offer is still sitting there, quite valid.

In the trade center at onRoto, once you 'counter', the message is "the offer below was countered with this offer". Since he has now 'accepted', I do not remember if it was a counter offer via the site or a 'new' offer which was a counter offer. I do believe it was a counter via the site.

Nothing 'verbal' was ever exchanged.

[revo]

In the trade center at onRoto, once you 'counter', the message is "the offer below was countered with this offer". Since he has now 'accepted', I do not remember if it was a counter offer via the site or a 'new' offer which was a counter offer. I do believe it was a counter via the site.

Nothing 'verbal' was ever exchanged.

Then that's a pretty crappy system they have there!

CBS tries to force you to reject and counter (probably to avoid something like this), but of course someone can make an offer and leave the old one up.

[Ken]

Then that's a pretty crappy system they have there!

CBS tries to force you to reject and counter (probably to avoid something like this), but of course someone can make an offer and leave the old one up.

Onroto is good for keeper leagues with one-off rules. They tend to be pretty flexible with what they can offer. They have their place.

However there are cons, like this one. And also their security is... subpar to say it nicely (in other words, not secure at all). There are links you can find in search caches (google, bing, yahoo) that take you directly into a person's team and let you manage that team as if you were the owner. If they ever got big that would be a big, big problem. They "encrypt" data in the URL, which a) is completely insecure on its own, and b) the encryption algorithm is easily cracked - I've cracked it already just as a challenge to myself to see if I could do it. I have let them know but they don't seem to care.

They are more of a mom and pop shop in my opinion.

[Redbirds Fan]

In the trade center at onRoto, once you 'counter', the message is "the offer below was countered with this offer". Since he has now 'accepted', I do not remember if it was a counter offer via the site or a 'new' offer which was a counter offer. I do believe it was a counter via the site.

Nothing 'verbal' was ever exchanged.

It still sounds like a cheap play to me. Whether it was called a 'counter' or a 'new offer', it was a counter to yours. He should undo the deal, IMO.

[Ken]

Onroto is good for keeper leagues with one-off rules. They tend to be pretty flexible with what they can offer. They have their place.

However there are cons, like this one. And also their security is... subpar to say it nicely (in other words, not secure at all). There are links you can find in search caches (google, bing, yahoo) that take you directly into a person's team and let you manage that team as if you were the owner. If they ever got big that would be a big, big problem. They "encrypt" data in the URL, which a) is completely insecure on its own, and b) the encryption algorithm is easily cracked - I've cracked it already just as a challenge to myself to see if I could do it. I have let them know but they don't seem to care.

They are more of a mom and pop shop in my opinion.

Speaking of onroto security - rhd and judge jude's onroto accounts are compromised in this forum - is Moonlight J the best contact to edit old posts, or is there another admin who can do that too?

[revo]

Speaking of onroto security - rhd and judge jude's onroto accounts are compromised in this forum - is Moonlight J the best contact to edit old posts, or is there another admin who can do that too?

I can edit old posts. And wow, that's just awful.

[Ken]

I can edit old posts. And wow, that's just awful.

Sent you a PM with the posts that need cleaning.

I talked with Onroto about this back in April and their response was:

"we know that those session ids are a real problem. Someone grabbing one from google
has happened -- just once in 10 years, though. We're going to switch it soon --
when we do, we'll do more than just remove those. There are other things we want to
do. And again, it's just a roto team we're talking about."

It's odd to me that a business that makes money on people playing roto would say "it's just a roto team"

[Judge Jude]

Speaking of onroto security - rhd and judge jude's onroto accounts are compromised in this forum - is Moonlight J the best contact to edit old posts, or is there another admin who can do that too?

I'm glad that link doesn't work, but what happened?
I do get that "compromised" thing re onroto at signin but til now I had ignored it....

[Ken]

I'm glad that link doesn't work, but what happened?
I do get that "compromised" thing re onroto at signin but til now I had ignored it....

What do you mean when you say that the link doesn't work?