Adding a trade-day would allow for teams to have more control over adjusting their team around trades they make, instead of being forced to wait until after a sim to acquire players. This will also require GMs to be more active with downloading sims, and making changes - GMS would only have a day instead of two to adjust their teams.

Voting yes to this option would limit all ballparks "Home Run Overall" value to 1.100. Per MC - "Now that my stadium isnt what it used to be and we clearly see that by Lincoln Liberators bumping his stadium up to a hitters park easily put him in the playoffs, not to mention Tuscaloosa as well....let's fix it so that 1.100 is max for the Home Runs Overall category in all stadiums. No player should be an MVP candidate that has a BA under .250 because 54 of his 115 total hits are all Home Runs (McMommy)". The alternative to this would be that all GMs have the capabilities to adjust their ballpark to their desires and we should not further enforce standards. It can also be argued that Lincoln's success was not solely based on home runs, as he had an excellent pitching staff that succeeded in his ballpark, even with the dubious effects of HR overall rating.

Player morale and personalities are real parts of life and should be emulated as such in baseball games. Real life players' values have been adjusted due to their impact on a clubhouse, and it is known that some players perform worse on losing teams due to their morale. Being a clubhouse cancer should justly effect a player's value. Alternatively, since we are not actual managers, we should not have to deal with an added level of difficulty to this game that is completely unnecessary in the basic functioning of the game. Having to deal with players performing worse due to morale is difficult and unfun, and at its basic level, we are playing a video game.

With all of the added levels of customization in the league, whether it be teams traveling to and from foreign realms, renaming players after memes and people, or the various corny/creative nicknames, we should further personalize the awards should be more homely and fun. Alternatively, nicknaming awards after players or memes with either be corny, or too difficult/foreign for some GMs to understand. It is an unnecessary addition to the league. If this is passed, we will look towards a way to enact these changes, whether it be crowd-sourced or decided by some other measure.

The playoffs require a higher level of micromanagement and planning, and each game has a higher importance on a team's season, as such, an injury can be greatly detrimental, and being unable to address it can cost a team its season. Removing injuries during the playoffs will create a less random, and more fair playing field for all championship contenders. Alternatively, injuries are a part of the game, and preparing for your players to be injured is an important level of managing a team. Being prepared for unforeseen circumstances is a legitimate skill and we should not make playoffs easier for teams.

Player development budget is a feature in OOTP that does as its named. The OOTP handbook describes it as, "The more money you spend in player development, the better the chances are of your younger players developing, and more quickly. However, it is no guarantee." The effects of it are dubious, as some believe that it positively affects player development increasing likelihood of reaching potential or going beyond it, and/or, increasing development speed, while some, have argued, per Duke, that "The issue with player dev budgets is that it's effects are ambiguous, so it possible that teams could waste their money by investing in it".

Turning on this setting will more accurately show a players ratings per your scouts perception. The image attached shows a player in one of my offline leagues that I edited from 190 power (the baseline for an 80 power with this setting turned off), to 250 power with the ratings>max setting turned on. As you can see, the power displayed is now 95/80, showing that the player, quite literally, has off the charts power. Enabling this setting may more accurately reflect your scout's projections of players, however some may believe that knowing a player's skills beyond whats shown is a legitimate skill.

The rule-5 draft takes place during the off-season. Criteria for eligibility is readily available for one to search. We removed the draft because a majority of people saw it as an unnecessary use of time, creating draft lists, protecting players in a particularly unhelpful system to see availability, and returning players from the draft to their original team (not an integrated system, it requires a conf. trade thread comment and action by a commish to return a player), caused a lot of effort on all parties. Alternatively, the Rule-5 draft provides teams with the opportunity to get young talent and restock on positions during the off-season. It also requires teams to promote their players along a fair process.

For lowering, per David: " It feels like every time I look at some teams their top player or prospect is always a scouting find. And looking at Duke's list of the top hitting prospects 7 of 13 were scouting finds. Makes it seem like there's too much luck involved with farm and team building now", against lowering, per MC: "IDk...This is the one place where "random luck" is pretty much equal or fair. There is no clear advantage where one team has better chances over another. I kinda like the free talent distribution. It dishes out more busts than studs anyways."

The change decreasing the amount of service time before becoming a free agent was lowered many seasons ago from 6 years to 5 years (eliminating the last year of arbitration). The reason for such was, per Nick: "It was because we instead of 4 years until [extension] it was 2 [years until extension]. So in order to actually get guys to go to [Free Agency] we lowered it". The problem with 2 years until extension minimum, was that it allowed many teams to extend players to very unfair contracts, where they asked for very little money. The hope was that keeping it low would spur some players towards leaving to free agency. However, we now require players to have four years of service time before accepting an extension, in an attempt to curtail this, and create a more accurate field of contracts in the RLB, compared to the MLB. As such, we should return to 6 years of service time before a player is forced to free agency, because it is what was intended. However, some may see that the current system is successful in producing accurate standards and contracts and continue to keep it the same. VOTING YES TO THIS QUESTION WILL BRING YOU TO A SECOND QUESTION AFTER YOU FINISH THE FORM - "PLAYERS NEED 5 YEARS OF SERVICE TIME BEFORE BEING ELIGIBLE FOR AN EXTENSION"