Dolphin_Akie Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 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 I did play in a league where the punishment for coming last was that you had to own Mark Sanchez throughout the whole next season. He's no Christine Michael but then who is? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the outlaw Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 He's no Christine Michael but then who is? Understatement of the century!!! LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 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. That is the way grits works. Our two co-commish have a rather broad authority to reject or approve trades, we've never done it and doubt simply being "unfair" would be enough. Our state "trades must be approved be the commissioner" actually its just text that goes with a setting on CBS. Doesn't mean we're authorized to cheat. I don't disagree that it could be spelled out better, under what circumstances a trade would not be approved. One case I know we've discussed was an owner trying to include a future draft pick they no longer had. No collusion, nothing unfair just not possible. If you play with people you don't know or trust, including commishs, the you'l want more protection from shady stuff. In our league this isn't an issue, and if either I or my co-commish did this I'd expect similar reaction, pissed owners. Edited November 13, 2015 by stevegrab Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BA Baracus Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 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. That statement is in there to provide some degree of discretionary latitude to the commissioner to act on unforeseen circumstances. It isn't realistic to attempt to write a constitution that addresses all possible outcomes of the complex human interaction that is a dynasty league. I think that the remainder of the paragraph is pretty clear though that the Commissioner will only veto as a last resort and only after discussion with the involved parties. The scope of power is limited, but not to the point of being completely useless to protect the best interests of the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BA Baracus Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 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. To be clear, this paragraph comes from the constitution of a dynasty league that I commish. I provided it as an example. It has no direct bearing on the question from the original post that started the thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BA Baracus Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 That statement is in there to provide some degree of discretionary latitude to the commissioner to act on unforeseen circumstances. It isn't realistic to attempt to write a constitution that addresses all possible outcomes of the complex human interaction that is a dynasty league. I think that the remainder of the paragraph is pretty clear though that the Commissioner will only veto as a last resort and only after discussion with the involved parties. The scope of power is limited, but not to the point of being completely useless to protect the best interests of the league. Also, there is an obvious assumption of having a non-corrupt commissioner. It is not possible (or worthwhile to attempt) to write a constitution that will allow a league to function under the oversight of a corrupt commissioner. 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.