|
|
Post by Daniel - Canucks on Jan 9, 2023 18:49:31 GMT -5
 6) Voting Procedures B) Any GM may start a poll in regards to any number of rule changes and/or league matters. F) Any potential rule change requires 8/12 league members approval (including the acceptance of the Commissioner) I feel like there has been enough dialogue as of late that this rule needs to be reviewed. I noticed in the rulebook that any GM may start a poll so I figured this is the best way to actually have all 12 NAFHL GMs opinions on the matter. I realize that any rule modification still has final verdict from the Commissioner but regardless I'm looking forward to seeing the results no matter how we may proceed following the poll (whether there be immediate effect, off-season effect or no effect). Rule in question: D) Any GM may conduct a trade veto poll where each manager is required to vote on whether or not the trade in question is fair.
Poll question: Should we abolish the veto system for trades? Yes or No?
Side note: This poll is strictly for vetoing trades because managers believe they are unfair. Collusion or a new GM not comprehending the rulebook is an entirely different issue. I encourage you all to even do a little deeper research on the subject, think about it and take your time, the poll will be concluded in 2 weeks. |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Jan 9, 2023 20:53:04 GMT -5
Why are the only options to abolish the rule or keep it the same? I think the best answer to this poll is the one that has been omitted. The veto rule can not be abolished completely, but rather needs to be changed to something other than what it is now.
A new manager not comprehending the (current) value of players and assets as they pertain to our league structure at the time of a trade is just as damaging as collusion or not comprehending the rule book because the outcome is still the same regardless of intention.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Jan 9, 2023 22:43:16 GMT -5
I hate vetoes, and can't remember the last time I have actually voted to veto a trade, no matter how bad I thought it was. |
|
|
|
Post by Daniel - Canucks on Jan 9, 2023 23:36:12 GMT -5
Everybody can express their opinions or suggestions on the matter below.
As it stands, there is a rule in question, this poll is for whether we abolish the rule or keep it in the rulebook.
If this poll should conclude with the rule staying the same, then if the league decides we can discuss potential alternatives.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Jan 10, 2023 0:50:50 GMT -5
I hate vetoes, and can't remember the last time I have actually voted to veto a trade, no matter how bad I thought it was. Hilarious and obvious collusion, veto this right away and put both managers on alert for this insult. Yeah, no doubt. I call for a veto on this one, and I never call for them. Not even on that ridiculous Kovalchuk trade, but this is different. |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Jan 10, 2023 0:58:48 GMT -5
Everybody can express their opinions or suggestions on the matter below. As it stands, there is a rule in question, this poll is for whether we abolish the rule or keep it in the rulebook. If this poll should conclude with the rule staying the same, then if the league decides we can discuss potential alternatives. This doesn't make any sense. Why title one of the options something misleading, only to clarify later with an additional poll? Comes off very convoluted and obviously biased. Labeling the second option as "Amend the current rule to something else" covers all the bases, cuts out the need for a secondary poll, and eliminates any bias. |
|
|
|
Post by Daniel - Canucks on Jan 10, 2023 1:06:45 GMT -5
I don't know what you're talking about. In the simplest of terms, do we want vetoes anymore? This is a basic rule every league has to decide upon, yes or no?
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Jan 10, 2023 1:46:28 GMT -5
I don't know what you're talking about. In the simplest of terms, do we want vetoes anymore? This is a basic rule every league has to decide upon, yes or no? If that is the question you want answered, that is the question you should have asked. "Should the league have vetoes?" Yes? No? As it stands now, you're asking people to stand by a sub-par flawed ruled that we have already identified isn't working, or choose the option you presumably want them to choose which is getting rid of vetoes entirely. There is no middle ground, which is where this decision needs to land to preserve the longevity and integrity of the league. |
|
|
|
Post by Daniel - Canucks on Jan 10, 2023 1:56:53 GMT -5
"Should we abolish the veto system for trades?"
Yes or No?
"Should the league have vetoes for trades?"
Yes or No?
I'll let the rest of the league take over from here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Jan 10, 2023 1:59:45 GMT -5
The issue just isn't with the question, but more so with the options that are provided. "No, keep the rule the same" is not equivalent to "No, change the current rule."
|
|
|
|
Post by Daniel - Canucks on Jan 10, 2023 2:13:02 GMT -5
I think our leaguemates all have big enough brains to figure out the sentiment behind this poll themselves. You can only have 2 poll options at a time without diluting the results as we need 8/12 votes for a rule change. If you would like to vote alongside Derrick's opinion of finding an alternative, please select "No, keep the rule the same." To which we can proceed with... If this poll should conclude with the rule staying the same, then if the league decides we can discuss potential alternatives. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Jan 10, 2023 5:17:59 GMT -5
with that said, strictly looking at the deal from yahoo, sure its one sided, but every manager has the right to do as they wish with their team. i cant play god and neither can anyone else in the league. ive said it many times before and ill say it again staying steady with my arguements. i hate the veto option, cant stand it. will this hurt the league more than itll help winnipeg? who knows? only time could tell. thats something that will have to be dealt with later. My opinion on the matter is insignificant in determining. i hate the trade and would never even dream of accepting it personally, but what is that in the grand scheme of things? im not looking at player names, im looking at situation. the same arguement i upheld when my trade was under the microscope ill uphold now. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Capitals on Jan 13, 2023 13:27:40 GMT -5
I'm with Derrick on this on I'm not for Veto's by any means but I feel like something needs to be in place for the extremely lopsided trades that could happen. To simply say abolish the rule to me does not work as then it's a free for all and some very one sided trades could happen without the potential for a safety net when needed. I feel that the way this is worded also brings into the same argument that was made on the "Is this trade fair" deal. It's not black and white like this poll is trying to make it be, we need something in place yes is an outright veto the answer maybe not. Either way doesn't any rule changes or suggestions have to wait until the offseason?
|
|
|
|
Post by Daniel - Canucks on Jan 13, 2023 14:46:37 GMT -5
I feel like something needs to be in place for the extremely lopsided trades that could happen. Looking forward to hearing people's solutions on the matter. I feel that the way this is worded also brings into the same argument that was made on the "Is this trade fair" deal. It's not black and white like this poll is trying to make it be Can you further elaborate on this for me please? My intention for the poll is whether we remove the rule or keep it in place. As discussed earlier in the thread, if this poll should conclude with the rule staying the same, then if the league decides we can discuss potential alternatives. Either way doesn't any rule changes or suggestions have to wait until the offseason? I'm looking forward to seeing the results no matter how we may proceed following the poll (whether there be immediate effect, off-season effect or no effect). |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Jan 13, 2023 16:52:43 GMT -5
I'm with Derrick on this on I'm not for Veto's by any means but I feel like something needs to be in place for the extremely lopsided trades that could happen. To simply say abolish the rule to me does not work as then it's a free for all and some very one sided trades could happen without the potential for a safety net when needed. I feel that the way this is worded also brings into the same argument that was made on the "Is this trade fair" deal. It's not black and white like this poll is trying to make it be, we need something in place yes is an outright veto the answer maybe not. Either way doesn't any rule changes or suggestions have to wait until the offseason? The poll couldn't be more straight forward, do fewer words need to be used? Vetoes? Yah? Nah? Chris, you just said this less than a month ago... I'm of the opinion that we don't veto unless it's collusion as well and don't feel like that's what happened here. I don't like the trade and don't see the reasoning from Seattle's side but it's his team. Also... We're not here to determine fairness we're here to determine if a veto should take place which isn't necessarily the same. So what's the deal? You're just flip flopping? It's already been noted that collusion and new managers not comprehending the rulebook are an entirely different matter. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Capitals on Jan 13, 2023 17:36:44 GMT -5
I'm with Derrick on this on I'm not for Veto's by any means but I feel like something needs to be in place for the extremely lopsided trades that could happen. To simply say abolish the rule to me does not work as then it's a free for all and some very one sided trades could happen without the potential for a safety net when needed. I feel that the way this is worded also brings into the same argument that was made on the "Is this trade fair" deal. It's not black and white like this poll is trying to make it be, we need something in place yes is an outright veto the answer maybe not. Either way doesn't any rule changes or suggestions have to wait until the offseason? The poll couldn't be more straight forward, do fewer words need to be used? Vetoes? Yah? Nah? Chris, you just said this less than a month ago... I'm of the opinion that we don't veto unless it's collusion as well and don't feel like that's what happened here. I don't like the trade and don't see the reasoning from Seattle's side but it's his team. Also... We're not here to determine fairness we're here to determine if a veto should take place which isn't necessarily the same. So what's the deal? You're just flip flopping? It's already been noted that collusion and new managers not comprehending the rulebook are an entirely different matter. It's not that I'm flip flopping I stand by what I said in that I don't like veto's and also that we're not here to determine other trades fairness. However, completely abolishing the ability to veto would leave a hole that would allow for every trade to go through in spite of the work that has been done to keep the league competitive for so long. I don't have a better option I can't think of one so I can't say what that would be, but I also can't vote to completely remove the ability for the league to overturn trades that could potentially hurt the overall health of the league. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Jan 13, 2023 17:42:03 GMT -5
When has a veto taken place that actually helped the overall health of the league, can you name one? Genuinely curious. Do you believe any vetoes have taken place that hurt the overall health of the league? Or do you believe any veto attempts have hurt the overall health of the league?
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Capitals on Jan 13, 2023 17:55:48 GMT -5
Never said that one has occurred what was said was I don't want the ability to do so taken away if need be.
I'm also not going to go over all our old veto threads to rehash arguments that have already been made like you love to do. My point is simply that I don't feel like removing the ability to veto is in the best interest of the league overall. Unless we have something else in place I can't vote to remove it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daniel - Canucks on Jan 13, 2023 18:05:05 GMT -5
Never said that one has occurred what was said was I don't want the ability to do so taken away if need be. I'm also not going to go over all our old veto threads to rehash arguments that have already been made like you love to do. My point is simply that I don't feel like removing the ability to veto is in the best interest of the league overall. Unless we have something else in place I can't vote to remove it. So let me get this straight, you're of the opinion that "we're not here to determine fairness" and "it's his team" but you still want the ability to veto if need be? Understood. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Jan 13, 2023 18:05:47 GMT -5
Never said that one has occurred what was said was I don't want the ability to do so taken away if need be. I'm also not going to go over all our old veto threads to rehash arguments that have already been made like you love to do. My point is simply that I don't feel like removing the ability to veto is in the best interest of the league overall. Unless we have something else in place I can't vote to remove it. So it hasn't happened in 17 seasons and you still think we need a safety net? Do you agree vetoes/veto attempts have hurt the league? I just quickly went over them just now, took less than 10 minutes, there haven't been many. The only one I noticed that could potentially be put into question was when Tyler - Jets was trying to acquire Marchand. I think it's obvious to you and I, and everyone in the league, that vetoes/veto attempts have hurt the overall health of the league. |
|
So exciting.
You better make that pick or trade it! I'm excited to see if we can use up all the draft picks this year.