|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Sept 20, 2013 8:13:29 GMT -5
Stemming from the Commissioner Announcements thread located here. I don't see why I should be forced into making a poll for a rule I've followed correctly, Derrick really has no grounds to pursue his opinion on the matter, especially seeing as the written rule has seen unanimous support from fellow league members but here we are. 6) Draft Procedure
H) No player may be drafted or signed to a NAFHL roster unless that player was drafted or has signed a contract with an NHL team.I submit that Tim Thomas is a UFA just like any other UFA and the signing of him by the San Jose Sharks was legal. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Sept 21, 2013 9:30:46 GMT -5
Bumping.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Sept 23, 2013 9:49:50 GMT -5
Bumping again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyler - Jets on Sept 23, 2013 16:23:51 GMT -5
Nos can keep Thomas anyone could have signed him or drafted him in waiver draft long time ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Sept 25, 2013 2:37:11 GMT -5
Bumping again, can we get the last votes in?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Sept 26, 2013 6:42:54 GMT -5
Who's left to vote?
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn - Wild on Sept 26, 2013 8:24:07 GMT -5
Not that I really care the outcome but let's just vote and get it over with. That way we can start this season with no question marks
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Sept 26, 2013 20:24:07 GMT -5
Tim Thomas has signed a contract, so I signed him, there shouldn't be any opposition from Derrick now. Hopefully we can put this silliness behind us. Whoever hasn't voted by now should be looked at more closely this upcoming season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Sept 27, 2013 7:11:36 GMT -5
Tim Thomas has signed a contract, so I signed him, there shouldn't be any opposition from Derrick now. Hopefully we can put this silliness behind us. Whoever hasn't voted by now should be looked at more closely this upcoming season. I do oppose. I oppose because there isn't a rule in the rulebook that defines how this situation should be handled (You guys are the ones advocating that there has to be a written rule for every single issue that may occur remember? Can't have it both ways). Since the Ownership Poll is active and still officially undecided, Thomas should not be available to be signed, regardless of if he has a contract or not until the original question of ownership is settled. It would be like allowing any other GM to sign Thomas now, and then rewarding Thomas to Nos after the fact should the poll dictate such a thing. I am sure many GM's didn't sign Thomas after his contract was official because they were under the correct assumption that he was unavailable. You created the poll, now wait for it to reach its conclusion either by vote count or expiration. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Sept 27, 2013 7:43:47 GMT -5
Again I ask, who has yet to vote? There was a rule, you're interpreting it incorrectly and have no grounds to pursue it other than you're the 'Commish'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Sept 27, 2013 12:56:58 GMT -5
Again I ask, who has yet to vote? There was a rule, you're interpreting it incorrectly and have no grounds to pursue it other than you're the 'Commish'. Who has yet to vote is a matter of privacy. Whether or not those who have voted or haven't voted want to speak up is at their disclosure. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Sept 27, 2013 23:09:05 GMT -5
Again I ask, who has yet to vote? There was a rule, you're interpreting it incorrectly and have no grounds to pursue it other than you're the 'Commish'. Who has yet to vote is a matter of privacy. Whether or not those who have voted or haven't voted want to speak up is at their disclosure. You're shitting me, right? Everybody is required to vote anyway. The reason I'm asking is so I can send those left a PM just in case they haven't seen the thread/poll. I suppose I can send everybody a PM... |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Sept 28, 2013 2:39:12 GMT -5
Furthermore, why shouldn't every poll be public for all to see? Transparency is a good thing. Why should you be the only one with this information?
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Sept 28, 2013 7:25:32 GMT -5
Furthermore, why shouldn't every poll be public for all to see? Transparency is a good thing. Why should you be the only one with this information? I didn't design the proboards layout. Perhaps you should email their development team and ask them, because they obviously thought it was a good idea and designed their site as such. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Sept 28, 2013 8:10:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Sept 28, 2013 8:17:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Sept 28, 2013 9:07:46 GMT -5
I don't want to accomplish members viewing voter names, you do. Are votes automatically "displayed" when one exits a booth after voting for a president? No. Are votes "displayed" when a verdict is being read by a jury condemning a man to die? No. It is a matter of confidentiality. In a perfect world, people would not be susceptible to greed, prejudice, ignorance, or retribution. But as this league is intent on proving, that is not always the case. Therefore, to "protect" GM's from backlash from other GM's prejudice, ignorance, and retribution the decision of if, and what way and individual has voted is entirely up to that individual voter. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Sept 28, 2013 9:39:09 GMT -5
This is a fantasy hockey league. Why should you have this information, an advantage, over other managers? You aren't an objective party. Also, why didn't you say this in the first place if this was your stance? Instead you claimed, in a snippy manner, that it couldn't be done. Seems as though you're making it up as you go, becoming somewhat flustered, all I did was give some information.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Sept 28, 2013 9:41:04 GMT -5
Also, in a jury situation, condemning a man to die, the 'votes' must be unanimous.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Sept 28, 2013 11:05:55 GMT -5
This is a fantasy hockey league. Why should you have this information, an advantage, over other managers? You aren't an objective party. Also, why didn't you say this in the first place if this was your stance? Instead you claimed, in a snippy manner, that it couldn't be done. Seems as though you're making it up as you go, becoming somewhat flustered, all I did was give some information. I am not so much "flustered" as I am annoyed, as I stated before. All of the nitpicking sucks every ounce of fun out of fantasy hockey and makes running the league a hassle rather than an enjoyable experience. |
|
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.