Grits and Shins Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 On what basis can you conclude that there is collusion? All I see is a lopsided trade. Where is the evidence of a secret agreement or conspiracy? And for what purpose - its a free league. I don't know why so many people that play this game like to throw that word around. < NOD > Either way I likely wouldn't fret too much over a free yahoo league Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joethin Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Free league huh? There is your answer. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 You can only veto a trade if there is clear collusion. I disagree with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 I would call it collusion in that the person responsible for running the league, the Commissioner, is taking advantage of a nancy-boy quitter to score on a lopsided trade. As a Commissioner, you should be protecting the league from such behavior, not participating in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Confucious say: man who fart in church , sit in his own pew That was worth reading the thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 I would call it collusion in that the person responsible for running the league, the Commissioner, is taking advantage of a nancy-boy quitter to score on a lopsided trade. As a Commissioner, you should be protecting the league from such behavior, not participating in it. Herm- "You play to win the game!" and there is nothing like beating a bunch of guys that don't care in a free league. He'll be very proud of that championship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 I would call it collusion in that the person responsible for running the league, the Commissioner, is taking advantage of a nancy-boy quitter to score on a lopsided trade. That ain't collustion. You could say that it is "conduct that unfairly upsets the competitive balance of the league" or somesuch though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 That ain't collustion. You could say that it is "conduct that unfairly upsets the competitive balance of the league" or somesuch though. MomoFekTardness, maybe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 MomoFekTardness, maybe? Yeah, something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 maybe they're gonna split the money! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgcoach Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 I would call it collusion in that the person responsible for running the league, the Commissioner, is taking advantage of a nancy-boy quitter to score on a lopsided trade. As a Commissioner, you should be protecting the league from such behavior, not participating in it. Still in your logic; where's the collusion? It's someone trying to take advantage of someone else in a trade. I do that with every trade I try to make. It's not collusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.