Bruins v. Hurricanes Part II

[Derrick - Senators]

Continued from:
nafhl2.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=awards&action=display&thread=819&page=1

Bruins v. Hurricanes ended in a 7-5 in favor of Carolina. Now the issue is to determine how to decide instances like this one that are not specifically covered in the rulebook.

About halfway through this whole incident it occurred to me to that there isn't anything in the rulebook detailing how to handle these sorts of polls. The only rules in the rulebook detail league expansion, and modification of rules, but not the return/claiming of players (or any other issue for that matter).

C) Any potential rule change requires a 2/3 majority vote or in other words 8/12 league members approval (including the acceptance of the Commissioner) to be made a rule. Any manager may make a poll to amend a rule.

D) Decisions on league expansion require 3/4 majority approval or in other words 9/12 league members’ approval.

E) Each poll will be open for two weeks maximum. Every manager is required to vote in any poll calling for rule change, veto, or any other league wide decision unless otherwise stated.

Are we to assume the aforementioned rules apply to the Galchenyuk case? If so, which one? How is it justified if these specific cases aren't detailed in the rulebook? And furthermore, which party needs the 3/4 or 2/3 vote, Carolina or Boston?

OR is this a case of "majority wins?" If so, how is THIS method justified if it isn't in the rulebook?

Depending on the answers to these questions determines the ultimate fate of Galchenyuk. In a "majority rules" scenario, Carolina would obviously be the owner. In a 2/3 or 3/4 scenario where the onus is on Carolina, Boston would be the owner. Or subsequently if the onus were on Boston, Carolina would be the owner. OR in some other scenario not considered here, either one could be the owner.

It is rather ironic how much of an impact the "intent" of "spirit" of something can be. Especially in this situation. How can "intent" be applicable in some cases, but not all.

Let us discuss shall we?

This poll is strictly to determine what type of vote should be used. No implication of player ownership is involved, and no specific numbers are detailed in the percentage vote option.

[Nos - Sharks]

Voted percentage. I think we should stick to 2/3 majority vote for everything really, gives a good overall consensus.

[Derrick - Senators]

Bump

[Hawks]

I stated my view in the other thread.. I'm on mobile so I can't vote until tomorrow

[Chris - Capitals]

I'm not understanding the need for this poll...We voted in the last poll to determine the placement of Gally. The poll selections I believe were Carolina keeps Gally or Gally is returned to Boston. Not sure what needs to be cleared up.

[Glenn - Wild]

I 100 percent think that all votes should come down to a percentage vote. I believe for anything to be changed (key word changed) then it must receive a 2/3 or 8/12 vote from the GMs. Meaning that if something does not receive a 2/3 vote it can not be changed and therefore would be returned to its original state. I believe the subject of every vote should be based on something changing rather then staying the same and if it does not receive 2/3 then it should stay the way it was before.

Examples:

If a rule change came up the question would be

Should this rule be changed to "blah blah blah":
Yes or No

If its gets 2/3 yes then it will be changed; if it does not receive 2/3 then it remains the way it originally was
....

Therefore in my view this could be the way the galchenyuk situation would be solved.

I believe the question should have been stated

"does carolina get to keep galchenyuk"
Yes or No
(because allowing carolina to keep him would be a 'change' since originally boston owned him)

Now, if it were worded that the vote would have been 7 to 5 yes to no. Therefore since the vote did receive 2/3 then the player should be returned to where he originally came from.

Now people could argue that the question could state "should galchenyuk be returned to boston" and boston would not have received 2/3 vote either. But in my opinion the vote should have to receive 2/3 to make a change. Because the change of player was going to carolina and it didn't receive the 2/3 then the player should return to its original team.

I know i voted in favour of carolina and i am not changing my vote here. I still believe he acted within the rules but this is my belief in the voting system and because 2/3 of the GMs were not in favour of a "change" then it should go back to how it originally was.

[Tyler - Jets]

This is very similar to my opinion. I agree it should be percentage vote for all things changing in our league. I also believe Carolina acted in the right; but that being said 2/3 of the league needs to believe the same in a poll situation. Majority wins can turn into popularity contest instead what needs to be done for the best interests of the league. 2/3 vote on all issues never majority wins.

[Chris - Capitals]

So let me get this straight we voted to show that 7 out of 12 decided that Carolina should keep Gally. Then after deciding that we're now going to vote again to change the wording so that it doesn't matter that 7 out of our 12 GM's voted for Carolina to keep him because now we want to change the wording? If this was how the voting is taking place its a shame the votes were cast. It was straight forward should Boston get Gally back? Should Carolina keep Gally? according to the exact wording on what we were all voting on neither team gets Gally.

[Derrick - Senators]

Mar 4, 2013 12:53:58 GMT -5 Chris - Capitals said:

So let me get this straight we voted to show that 7 out of 12 decided that Carolina should keep Gally. Then after deciding that we're now going to vote again to change the wording so that it doesn't matter that 7 out of our 12 GM's voted for Carolina to keep him because now we want to change the wording? If this was how the voting is taking place its a shame the votes were cast. It was straight forward should Boston get Gally back? Should Carolina keep Gally? according to the exact wording on what we were all voting on neither team gets Gally.

If you make a post declaring that you are getting something straight, it is probably a good idea to actually get whatever it is you are trying to figure out, straight.

So let me help you out.

The rules in the rulebook ONLY pertain to removing managers from the league, and amending/adding/removing a rule from the rulebook; neither of which apply in this instance.

Therefore, it is anything but "straightforward" because no rule exists in the rulebook to instruct us on how to proceed in such an instance.

As a result, we are voting on how a new rule in the rulebook should read. From that wording, we can then determine how the previously cast 7/12 vote can be applied. Which I might add, is neither 2/3 or 3/4 of the vote.

So, from the looks of it, it appears the new rule will be based on a percentage vote. From there, we then determine which of Boston or Carolina needs the percentage vote to retain the player. If Boston, Carolina owns Galchenyuk, If Carolina, Boston is returned to Galchenyuk based on the previously cast 7/12 votes.

[Markus - Hurricanes]

"What's remarkable though is that the majority of the league think the move was legal and actually my side received 6/9 of the neutral votes, because let's face it, I don't vote against myself and Detroit and Boston aren't going to vote against themselves, are they?"

What I wrote in the previous thread. Take away the biased votes and that's 2/3 of the votes right there.

[Derrick - Senators]

Mar 5, 2013 0:30:46 GMT -5 Markus - Hurricanes said:

"What's remarkable though is that the majority of the league think the move was legal and actually my side received 6/9 of the neutral votes, because let's face it, I don't vote against myself and Detroit and Boston aren't going to vote against themselves, are they?"

What I wrote in the previous thread. Take away the biased votes and that's 2/3 of the votes right there.

Unfortunately we can not strip any league member of a vote, be it "biased" or otherwise. Not only is such a stipulation omitted from the rulebook, it would be unethical.

This is a situation where league members are expected to look past personal interests and do what is best for the league. Whether that happens or not is a different story. If not, the league will suffer repercussions at a later date (as it is now).

[Markus - Hurricanes]

I agree that all rule changes should require 2/3 of all votes to pass through. However I don't understand how it would be my side that needs 2/3 as I didn't break a single rule by signing those players. The GM's in question however did break the 10 game limit which is clearly stated in the rulebook with no chance of any misunderstanding.

And the ruling that is supposed to cover these cases was already given 1.5 years ago. The fact that it didn't make the rulebook was an admitted oversight by our Commish.

Starting to think there's a clear agenda here to come up with a predetermined outcome.

6. Any discrepancy not settled between managers and/or this league that is not clearly stated in this rulebook or any term that might be coined “vague” amongst the rules stated in this rulebook shall be decided on an individual basis as they apply at the discretion of the league Commissioner.

Rulebook also clearly states that. That actually allows this entire case to be determined by what was originally said 1.5 years ago:

"No more warnings will be issued beyond this first one. Those teams found in subsequent violation will forfeit player/players to free agency and/or the upcoming waiver/entry draft."

No need to hide behind blurry semantics.

[Hawks]

I agree rule changes etc need a 2/3 vote. However, if you look at Carolina's roster, you will see Gally on there because he was legally acquired.

It would require a 2/3 vote to have him returned to Boston.

[Mark - Bruins]

Mar 5, 2013 9:31:48 GMT -5 Hawks said:

I agree rule changes etc need a 2/3 vote. However, if you look at Carolina's roster, you will see Gally on there because he was legally acquired.

It would require a 2/3 vote to have him returned to Boston.

The whole point of these polls was to determine whether or not Carolina made a legal move that allowed him to sign Gally away from me. Therefore, burden of proof was on Carolina & Markus should need 2/3 vote in order to keep him. What team page Gally is listed on is currently irrelevant b/c Markus's signing of him is the topic of debate, not the proven fact. The only fact was that Gally was originally on my roster.

[Mark - Bruins]

Mar 5, 2013 7:37:05 GMT -5 Markus - Hurricanes said:

6. Any discrepancy not settled between managers and/or this league that is not clearly stated in this rulebook or any term that might be coined “vague” amongst the rules stated in this rulebook shall be decided on an individual basis as they apply at the discretion of the league Commissioner.

and the league commish decided we needed a vote & then to define how we interpret voting results to settle disputes in the future. I'm not seeing how that is an issue.

[Markus - Hurricanes]

As a commish you can't give out a ruling and then later when push comes to shove you shit your pants and hide by asking for a poll on the very same thing you already publicly dealt with earlier. Derrick talked about taking responsibility, I'm seeing none of that. Heck he even voted against what he said about the very same issue when it last came about. No such thing as double standards when it comes to bailing out friends, right?

So that's where my problem's at. I can't really think of any other reason why we're even debating something so simple as whether a player becomes a free agent after going over a clearly set game limit cap other than flat out collusion. Heck the fact that this even went to a vote when the issue was already dealt with once and a precedent was set then is a joke on it's own.

[Mark - Bruins]

Whenever there has been a controversy in the past, Derrick has always gone to a poll. I don't know why you're trying to declare "collusion" other than the fact you're trying to cloud what's going on & make it look like you're the victim.

Also, there's no standardized league rule on how polls should decide a "winner," so it only makes sense to establish something official.

[Derrick - Senators]

Mar 5, 2013 14:43:01 GMT -5 Markus - Hurricanes said:

As a commish you can't give out a ruling and then later when push comes to shove you shit your pants and hide by asking for a poll on the very same thing you already publicly dealt with earlier. Derrick talked about taking responsibility, I'm seeing none of that. Heck he even voted against what he said about the very same issue when it last came about. No such thing as double standards when it comes to bailing out friends, right?

So that's where my problem's at. I can't really think of any other reason why we're even debating something so simple as whether a player becomes a free agent after going over a clearly set game limit cap other than flat out collusion. Heck the fact that this even went to a vote when the issue was already dealt with once and a precedent was set then is a joke on it's own.

Let me start off by saying that it is beyond me, how, even after numerous explanations that these polls are being misunderstood/misrepresented in posts. And still yet it is beyond me how Mark and I can be painted as "friends." Much less, "friends in collusion." Friends don't have perpetual waiver wars. Friends don't stream players to win championships. There is no room for companionship in fantasy sports if you want to remain competitive and win.

With that said, if you bothered to read my original "ruling" you would know that I personally believe that you should be the owner of Galchenyuk. However, what is best for the league is that Galchenyuk be returned to Boston and the rulebook be amended so that this does not happen in the future, and I ruled/voted as such. If anything, the multiple "unnecessary" polls are working in your favor. The only way this could possibly be seen as a "double standard" is through eyes who have personal interest blinders on.

Just so we are clear, I DESPISE the rule pertaining to the reversal of minor league transactions post-waiver period. I am in favor of harsh punishment for those who break the rules (especially after repeated warnings). And I am all for allowing the members of the league to vote for the rules that govern it without taking an authoritarian approach (unless the league can not reach a conclusion on its own). And it seems like that is what we have here.

So, by the powers vested in me, I hereby order the return of Alex Galchenyuk to Boston and Drew Shore to Detroit. New rules in the rulebook to follow.

Do you think you can comprehend that without twisting my words around or unjustly attacking my character?

[Derrick - Senators]

8/12 votes in a poll needed to reverse the decision should the league feel differently.

Subsequently, a universal 2/3 or 8/12 votes will be applied to all league matters henceforth.

[Chris - Capitals]

So does this mean that I can have players on my development team over 10 games played? And then whine about it and keep them on my team when someone else puts a claim on them? Because it's exactly the precedent this is sending.