Furd Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 col·lu·sion (kə-lōō'zhən) –noun 1. a secret agreement, esp. for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him. 2. Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement: collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce. -noun 1. A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose. - noun 1. secret agreement 2. agreement on a secret plot While you can suspect collusion until the cows come home, you're not going to be able to prove it unless you have a witness, an audio/videotape or some type of paper trail. So when you have a rule that states that trades may be vetoed based on collusion, you have a pretty worthless rule. I think that the word that you want to use instead is unfair. John, please pin this. TIA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I thought collusion was when one or more owners not involved in the trade believe that the trade is not fair to both parties invovled and unfairly unbalances the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustOfBeenDrunk Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I thought collusion was when one or more owners not involved in the trade believe that the trade is not fair to both parties invovled and unfairly unbalances the league. no league can be balanced or we would all finish in a tie for 1st Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 no league can be balanced or we would all finish in a tie for 1st * GASP * That's NOT fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 col·lu·sion (kə-lōō'zhən) –noun 1. a secret agreement, esp. for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him. 2. Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement: collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce. -noun 1. A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose. - noun 1. secret agreement 2. agreement on a secret plot While you can suspect collusion until the cows come home, you're not going to be able to prove it unless you have a witness, an audio/videotape or some type of paper trail. So when you have a rule that states that trades may be vetoed based on collusion, you have a pretty worthless rule. I think that the word that you want to use instead is unfair. John, please pin this. TIA. Unfair lends itself to the fact that the human elemant will strongly be in play..When I state it as collusion it makes me as Commish essentially more of a ruler with God like powers and a unit that drags on the floor.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Unfair lends itself to the fact that the human elemant will strongly be in play..When I state it as collusion it makes me as Commish essentially more of a ruler with God like powers and a unit that drags on the floor.. You need to veto a trade for that? All I have to do is lie on my stomach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 You need to veto a trade for that? All I have to do is lie on my stomach. are you sure about that ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 are you sure about that ? Well...I can't really see it happen... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Well...I can't really see it happen... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 While you can suspect collusion until the cows come home, you're not going to be able to prove it unless you have a witness, an audio/videotape or some type of paper trail. So when you have a rule that states that trades may be vetoed based on collusion, you have a pretty worthless rule. With sincere apologies to the late Justice Potter Stewart: I know it when I see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutrun Jellies Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 no league can be balanced or we would all finish in a tie for 1st Bah. That's the kind of analysis that tricks people into thinking half the teams are below average. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted November 16, 2007 Author Share Posted November 16, 2007 With sincere apologies to the late Justice Potter Stewart: I know it when I see it. Well, you should moderate a new forum - Collusion or Not? Let me Be the Judge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Well, you should moderate a new forum - Collusion or Not? Let me Be the Judge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I strongly recommend putting very specific rules in writing, and distributing to all owners before the draft. Here is my rule on collusion: · Collusion -- No one, including the commissioner, can USUALLY tell with 100% certainty that a trade is evidence of collusion or is not meant to improve a team. HOWEVER, there are instances where a trade is so lopsided that the commissioner will reserve the right to reject it outright. On the other hand, some owners will make ill-advised trades because of inexperience or desperation. Sometimes, it is extremely difficult to tell the difference. Therefore, the commissioner’s first preference will always be to allow a trade. There must be evidence of collusion, or a trade so lopsided that it is obviously bogus, for the trade to be rejected. In some cases the commissioner may ask for input from other owners or will ask the owners involved in the trade for their reasoning, but his decision will be final. Rejection of trades should always be the very last resort and will hopefully never happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xMRogers Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I strongly recommend putting very specific rules in writing, and distributing to all owners before the draft. Here is my rule on collusion: · Collusion -- No one, including the commissioner, can USUALLY tell with 100% certainty that a trade is evidence of collusion or is not meant to improve a team. HOWEVER, there are instances where a trade is so lopsided that the commissioner will reserve the right to reject it outright. On the other hand, some owners will make ill-advised trades because of inexperience or desperation. Sometimes, it is extremely difficult to tell the difference. Therefore, the commissioner’s first preference will always be to allow a trade. There must be evidence of collusion, or a trade so lopsided that it is obviously bogus, for the trade to be rejected. In some cases the commissioner may ask for input from other owners or will ask the owners involved in the trade for their reasoning, but his decision will be final. Rejection of trades should always be the very last resort and will hopefully never happen. What's funny is that without writing that out in the rules, it's exactly how my league works that I've commished for 12 years. Overturned one trade in that time for the reason that the guy in 8th was kinda dumb, and when I called him about a very strange trade he made in week 9 (our trade deadline), he said "well, yea, i got worse....but MIke's going to give me $200 if he wins the league" Only time i ever felt proper to void a trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 What's funny is that without writing that out in the rules, it's exactly how my league works that I've commished for 12 years. Overturned one trade in that time for the reason that the guy in 8th was kinda dumb, and when I called him about a very strange trade he made in week 9 (our trade deadline), he said "well, yea, i got worse....but MIke's going to give me $200 if he wins the league"Only time i ever felt proper to void a trade. so what happened to Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 I strongly recommend putting very specific rules in writing, and distributing to all owners before the draft. Here is my rule on collusion: · Collusion -- No one, including the commissioner, can USUALLY tell with 100% certainty that a trade is evidence of collusion or is not meant to improve a team. HOWEVER, there are instances where a trade is so lopsided that the commissioner will reserve the right to reject it outright. On the other hand, some owners will make ill-advised trades because of inexperience or desperation. Sometimes, it is extremely difficult to tell the difference. Therefore, the commissioner’s first preference will always be to allow a trade. There must be evidence of collusion, or a trade so lopsided that it is obviously bogus, for the trade to be rejected. In some cases the commissioner may ask for input from other owners or will ask the owners involved in the trade for their reasoning, but his decision will be final. Rejection of trades should always be the very last resort and will hopefully never happen. Perfectly put. Exactly how i approach my commish duties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 so what happened to Mike Yeah, what happened to Mike? Inquiring minds want to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 Yeah, what happened to Mike? Inquiring minds want to know. He's an Eagles fan, you can figure it out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xMRogers Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 Not much - called him, told him he's a jackass, let the league know about it. Gotta realize this at the time was ten friends that went out all the time together, so (a) he constantly was made fun of about it, and ( that was pretty much indicative of his life - heck, he didn't ever admit it was "wrong" - his statement was "I get better, he gets 200 - what's the problem"...had to point out the other 6 teams shooting for the playoffs and he pretty much said "well, they can do it too" What was real bad is two teams actually somewhat agreed with this and we almost had a free for all of money changing on our hands. Realize my league is pretty capitalistic - at the time we had real dollar open bid waivers, so was extending that to trades in theory. Luckily, had enough people realize that probably wasn't a good way to run a league, so ended quickly. We know do blind bid real dollar waivers (mostly i got sick of runnig weekly auctions via email) - I love the blind bidding cause one week 5 guys will all bid $20 to $26 for a backup RB, then the next one guy will bid $57 for someone nobody else even puts a bid in for.... 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.