darin3 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Dude...un-pucker a notch or two. New here? I've just stopped reading/responding. You should try too 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrelmastr21 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Commish might as well of broken into your home kicked you in the nuts and stole your wallet. Everyone knew Starks was the starting RB for weeks, only thing that changed was that the coaching staff acknowledged it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) If you play in a league that allows vetoes then owners will veto trades that they perceive are "unfair" or harmful to their chances. So if you play in a league that allows vetoes you shouldn't cry when vetoes happen. In the case of this thread and the question, the league does allow vetoes in the sense that all owners vote and majority rules. The veto was by the league manager, as in the commish, as in the person who usually has some authority to deny trades (for some set of defined reasons, or just simply their own good judgement). But you see VETO and you immediately picture owners casting their veto in pure spite mode, and get your panties in a wad. Dude...un-pucker a notch or two. I see what you are saying, this was a commish move, not a league type veto, so the discussion is a little off track in that sense. Personally, I think there should be a commish veto just to nip any attempts at collusion in the bud. But I also agree with Grits's point that allowing a democratic veto is basically inviting this sort of BS, so people should pretty much expect it to happen if they are going to play in a league that allows it. Glad you see my point, but you and Grits both see the word VETO and go nuts, screaming "Don't allow vetoes that is dumb." He goes off, and you like his comment, but apparently neither of you had a good grasp of what was being dicussed, because nobody said owners vetoed the trade. I am not in favor of owners voting to veto, we don't do that in my league and I probably wouldn't play in one that allows it. Nobody (few) votes to approve something that doesn't benefit them, its human nature. Listen I get it, all these stupid "was this fair" posts get old. But you can't just see the word VETO and go into the "owner vetoes are dumb" rant. Or if you do expect people like me to correct you. PS Yes I got a particularly tight A-hole today, having your oldest brother die can do that to a guy. (Not looking for sympathy, just giving a frame of reference). Edited November 12, 2015 by stevegrab Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 New here? I've just stopped reading/responding. You should try too Do you also stop reading Grits and BA who overreact to every trade question? Nobody said owners were vetoing this trade, but some see the word VETO and turn into anti-veto Hulk. Veto bad, Hulk smash! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) In the case of this thread and the question, the league does allow vetoes in the sense that all owners vote and majority rules. The veto was by the league manager, as in the commish, as in the person who usually has some authority to deny trades (for some set of defined reasons, or just simply their own good judgement). But you see VETO and you immediately picture owners casting their veto in pure spite mode, and get your panties in a wad. Glad you see my point, but you and Grits both see the word VETO and go nuts, screaming "Don't allow vetoes that is dumb." He goes off, and you like his comment, but apparently neither of you had a good grasp of what was being dicussed, because nobody said owners vetoed the trade. I am not in favor of owners voting to veto, we don't do that in my league and I probably wouldn't play in one that allows it. Nobody (few) votes to approve something that doesn't benefit them, its human nature. Listen I get it, all these stupid "was this fair" posts get old. But you can't just see the word VETO and go into the "owner vetoes are dumb" rant. Or if you do expect people like me to correct you. PS Yes I got a particularly tight A-hole today, having your oldest brother die can do that to a guy. (Not looking for sympathy, just giving a frame of reference). If you give the COMMISSIONER veto power ... don't be surprised when he vetoes a trade. Does that make you feel better? If you give the COMMISSIONER the power to veto trades you shouldn't cry when he vetoes a trade. He determined that the trade was "unfair" and exercised the power, granted to him by the league, to veto the trade. The league gave him that power, no crying now. Edited November 12, 2015 by Grits and Shins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 If you give the COMMISSIONER veto power ... don't be surprised when he vetoes a trade. Does that make you feel better? If you give the COMMISSIONER the power to veto trades you shouldn't cry when he vetoes a trade. He determined that the trade was "unfair" and exercised the power, granted to him by the league, to veto the trade. The league gave him that power, no crying now. Yes much better, but almost all leagues have the commissioner having some sort of power like that, but that doesn't mean it is ok for them to abuse their power and overturn a trade when they have buyer's remorse. No different than a commissioner going in and changing your line-up after you've set it, you gave them that power (by agreeing to use some fantasy league site that includes it). Does that mean you shouldn't complain if they cheat? I've said it before, me and the co-commish of our league have the right to not approve a trade (process it once owners accept), but we've never done that. Doesn't mean I'd be ok with him doing this, I certainly would not. Seriously I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here, its either - commissioners should not be able to veto a trade (so collusion can happen and trades are processed) - commissioners can abuse their power and overturn their trades when they have buyers remorse and other owners should not complain Both sound Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Do you also stop reading Grits and BA who overreact to every trade question? Nobody said owners were vetoing this trade, but some see the word VETO and turn into anti-veto Hulk. Veto bad, Hulk smash! Where did i get involved? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Where did i get involved? Thanks I needed that, forgot you the Hulk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Yes much better, but almost all leagues have the commissioner having some sort of power like that, but that doesn't mean it is ok for them to abuse their power and overturn a trade when they have buyer's remorse. No different than a commissioner going in and changing your line-up after you've set it, you gave them that power (by agreeing to use some fantasy league site that includes it). Does that mean you shouldn't complain if they cheat? I've said it before, me and the co-commish of our league have the right to not approve a trade (process it once owners accept), but we've never done that. Doesn't mean I'd be ok with him doing this, I certainly would not. Seriously I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here, its either - commissioners should not be able to veto a trade (so collusion can happen and trades are processed) - commissioners can abuse their power and overturn their trades when they have buyers remorse and other owners should not complain Both sound Vetoes are bad business for a whole host of reasons that have been discussed ad nauseam. If you give the commission the latitude to determine when trades should be vetoed because they are "unfair" then you can't cry when he vetoes a trade because he determines it to be "unfair". Because "unfair" can't be quantified the league has no way to overturn a veto because they think the trade is "fair". If leagues are going to have commissioner vetoes it would certainly behoove them to have a rule in place that prevents the commissioner from vetoing or approving any trade in which he is involved. Co-commissioners are great for this. Having said that, you still have a problem if the trade is between the commissioner and co-commissioner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the outlaw Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Co-commissioners are great for this. Having said that, you still have a problem if the trade is between the commissioner and co-commissioner. This is when the Speaker of the House comes into play... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boy Named Suh Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) Man, I really think that an intelligent person should be able to make the distinction between it being necessary for the commissioner to have the ability to veto a trade and the commissioner abusing that power. As league members, you are not giving away the right to expect the commissioner not to abuse the ability to veto by giving it to him. That is obtuse. Edited November 12, 2015 by Boy Named Suh 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) Man, I really think that an intelligent person should be able to make the distinction between it being necessary for the commissioner to have the ability to veto a trade and the commissioner abusing that power. As league members, you are not giving away the right to expect the commissioner not to abuse the ability to veto by giving it to him. That is obtuse. If a league grants the commissioner power to veto trades because they are "unfair" they are essentially saying his opinion on what is "fair" and "unfair" is the standard. So by rule the commissioner can veto any trade he deems as "unfair" and the league has no recourse. "Fair" and "unfair" can't be quantified. So when the commissioner vetoes a trade as "unfair" there is no quantifiable way the owners can dispute his opinion. By rule the league has allowed the commissioner's definition of "fair" and "unfair" to be the final definition. Edited November 12, 2015 by Grits and Shins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boy Named Suh Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) Bro, this is not a courtroom, so save it. This is fantasy football, and there is a reasonable expectation to expect a commissioner not to abuse his veto power, which this commissioner obviously did. Not all situations are the same, and there is no way that you are stupid enough to believe that OP should just take the reaming because they gave the commissioner veto power. Stop trying to argue just to argue. No one likes that guy. Edited November 12, 2015 by Boy Named Suh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Bro, this is not a courtroom, so save it. This is fantasy football, and there is a reasonable expectation to expect a commissioner not to abuse his veto pwer, which this commissioner obviously did. Not all situations are the same, and there is no way that you are stupid enough to believe that OP should just take the reaming becuse they gave the commissioner veto power. Stop trying to argue just to argue. No one likes that guy. So the rules in your league are fast and loose then? Either you abide by the rules or don't bother having them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BA Baracus Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Do you also stop reading Grits and BA who overreact to every trade question? Nobody said owners were vetoing this trade, but some see the word VETO and turn into anti-veto Hulk. Veto bad, Hulk smash! But vetoes are bad...and should be smashed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BA Baracus Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Bro, this is not a courtroom, so save it. This is fantasy football, and there is a reasonable expectation to expect a commissioner not to abuse his veto pwer, which this commissioner obviously did. Not all situations are the same, and there is no way that you are stupid enough to believe that OP should just take the reaming becuse they gave the commissioner veto power. Stop trying to argue just to argue. No one likes that guy. I think the point that GnS is making is that the scope of what reasons can trigger a commissioner veto needs to be clearly defined. Here is the trade clause from the league constitution: All trades must be approved by the Commissioner before they are processed. All trades must stand alone as exchanges of League assets. Activities that threaten the fairness of the League such as trade-backs, exchange of cash for players, and roster sharing will not be tolerated. The general policy of the League regarding trade approval is that every Manager is the best judge of what their Team needs. The Commissioner will not evaluate the value balance of the trade as part of the approval process. The Commissioner approval step is intended to ensure that a trade is not collusive and doesn’t pose a substantial threat to the long term competitive balance of the League as a whole. If there is any question about the validity of a trade, the Commissioner will contact the Managers involved for additional details before taking any action. If a Manager feels that a trade is somehow harmful to the League, they are encouraged to contact the Commissioner. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn5033 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) If you live in a state where you can legally conceal and carry a gun you shouldn't be surprised if somebody shoots you for no reason. Edited November 12, 2015 by Finn5033 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boy Named Suh Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) I think the point that GnS is making is that the scope of what reasons can trigger a commissioner veto needs to be clearly defined. Here is the trade clause from the league constitution: All trades must be approved by the Commissioner before they are processed. All trades must stand alone as exchanges of League assets. Activities that threaten the fairness of the League such as trade-backs, exchange of cash for players, and roster sharing will not be tolerated. The general policy of the League regarding trade approval is that every Manager is the best judge of what their Team needs. The Commissioner will not evaluate the value balance of the trade as part of the approval process. The Commissioner approval step is intended to ensure that a trade is not collusive and doesn’t pose a substantial threat to the long term competitive balance of the League as a whole. If there is any question about the validity of a trade, the Commissioner will contact the Managers involved for additional details before taking any action. If a Manager feels that a trade is somehow harmful to the League, they are encouraged to contact the Commissioner. A - Would you not agree that the Commissioner offering the trade qualifies as approving it? B - Nothing in the 2nd bold section is applicable to the actions of this commissioner. Edited November 12, 2015 by Boy Named Suh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the outlaw Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 ...and doesn’t pose a substantial threat to the long term competitive balance of the League as a whole... I realize this is getting slightly off-topic, and I hear ya...I really do like this clause a LOT...all the way up to this ^ part...how the hell can the Commissioner determine the long-term value of a trade as it relates to the competitive balance of the league? That would be my only beef with this... Carry on, Sirs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeconsumer Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 League Constitution: Don't be a dick. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the outlaw Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 League Constitution: Don't be a dick. Instead of a constitution, our league actually has "by laws"...them is both fancy terms for rules... LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Dude...un-pucker a notch or two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 I think the point that GnS is making is that the scope of what reasons can trigger a commissioner veto needs to be clearly defined. Here is the trade clause from the league constitution: All trades must be approved by the Commissioner before they are processed. All trades must stand alone as exchanges of League assets. Activities that threaten the fairness of the League such as trade-backs, exchange of cash for players, and roster sharing will not be tolerated. The general policy of the League regarding trade approval is that every Manager is the best judge of what their Team needs. The Commissioner will not evaluate the value balance of the trade as part of the approval process. The Commissioner approval step is intended to ensure that a trade is not collusive and doesn’t pose a substantial threat to the long term competitive balance of the League as a whole. If there is any question about the validity of a trade, the Commissioner will contact the Managers involved for additional details before taking any action. If a Manager feels that a trade is somehow harmful to the League, they are encouraged to contact the Commissioner. What exactly does "doesn't pose a substantial threat to the long term competitive balance of the league as a whole" mean? That is a pretty open-ended phrase and once again is open to interpretation. I try really really hard not to have open-ended phrases like that in our rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boy Named Suh Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) I try really really hard not to have open-ended phrases like that in our rules. No Way! I figured your League rules were written in virgin's blood and notarized by God himself. But yeah, that is more objective power than I would feel comfortable giving a commissioner too. Edited November 12, 2015 by Boy Named Suh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the outlaw Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) No Way! I figured your League rules were written in virgin's blood and notarized by God himself. WRONG! ALL league rules (and, I mean for EVERY league) must be officially endorsed and blessed by CMike/CMix, himself...God receives counsel from CMike on all such matters... LMAO Edited November 12, 2015 by the outlaw 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.