The new rule book

[Phil - Blue Jackets]

admin said:

all the teams making these "questionable trades" i expect to see back next year, and the next year etc remaining active and accepting their decisions and consequences. thats the only thing im really worried about, not so much the ramifications on the number of keepers one has. there isnt any way to promise that you or anybody else will be back, look at atlanta and colorado, they have already left. starting this off season (once the awesome new site is up and the bad managers have been weeded out) i dont think its unreasonable to set up some sort of "entry fee" where at the end of the year a certain amount will be distrubted to various champions/winners. this is just a way to keep things "interesting" and keep people around. also upcoming is a new/revised rulebook since a lot has been and will be changed. this will clear up any confusion when things like this happen. If you guys want the trade to be vetoed, make it happen. if not, itll go through and we will deal with it accordingly. 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.

_______________

as for the trade, i thought we ruled last time that the 2 people in the trade votes didnt count and we were basing it on the rest of the leagues opinion. still 2/3 majority but instead of 12 votes it was out of 10. this was to elimate the 2 bias votes.

This thread is not about the trade currently in question. We already have a thread for that, and Winnepeg and I have made our opinions clear. This thread is to address some things in the Comissioner's and Nos's posts I found disturbing regarding the rules and regulations for the league.

The Comissioner will be "coming out" with a new rulebook in the offseason? What exactly does "coming out with" mean. We have rules already. Like them or not, those are the rules everyone agreed to when they joined this league. Some do need to be changed, yes, but those changes will be voted on by the league. Now I know those rules could be viewed as rules for the "old" league; that this is a completely different league. You would be correct. However, no new set of rules was provided at the beginning of "this" league. The old rules then automatically become the rules for this one. Truth be told, a very high percentage of the rules are well-formed and acceptable. The only exception to this would be the "keeper" issues that have already begun to be discussed (and forgotten apparently). Regardless, those are the rules we have now and we must follow them.

nossharks said:

I think that's a fair ruling under the circumstances, and I don't think you could have done any more. If this does go through I just hope he stays for next year, and the year after, as you said. I like the 'other managers' ruling as the two conducting the trade do have a bias. I especially like the talk about a rulebook revision (and entry fee), as I think this league needs one.

With that said, and to pinpoint one rule in particular, a 2/3 majority of the league is required to veto a trade, 8 votes. This is good to ensure that when a trade gets vetoed, it really needs to get vetoed. Requiring this many votes ensures that a trade does not get vetoed for frivilous reasons by a select group of managers.

With that said, it doesn't matter how many managers vote to not veto the trade. The trade has happened. The pressure is on those who wish to veto to come up with the votes to do so. The traders votes obviously do not count toward this total. However, by taking the 2/3 out of ten (even though that isn't an even number. I imagine it would be hard to come up with 6 2/3 votes) you are excluding the traders as members of the league. Eight votes should be required to veto a trade, whether it be out of ten or twelve. Although I stated it earlier, I want to make perfectly clear that this point does not pertain specifically to the current trade in question. This is a comment on the structure enacted by the Comissioners post and the reponse that followed.

To exemplify this point, read the response by Nos to the Comissioner's edict on veto voting. "The two conducting the trade do have a bias." I can see this being the opinion of several others. However, this does not make any sense. The two involved in the trade do have a bias? Duh. But, what do you mean by bias? It sounds like you mean "opinion." If I propose a rule change and it would benefit me, do I get excluded from voting on said rule change? Take for instance the keeper rules discussed in this forum. Obviously some managers would benefit from more keepers. Conversely, other managers would benefit from less. Are those managers to be denied their right to vote on the rules as a member of this league because their vote might be motivated by bias towards their own team? No.

It seems that all of the sudden rules are simply being changed without concern for or concultation with the league. Without a vote, 2/3 of 12 became 2/3 of ten. Without even a flinch from the league, Nos has been openly campaining to strike up a deal with Winnepeg for Luongo. He hasn't hid this. "I wonder if Chris has changed his mind," "I'll give you players A & B for Luongo." This happened before with the Kovalchuk trade, but the sincerity of his words didn't hit me because there wasn't the controversy over that trade. It didn't have to be delayed for a vote. Winnepeg and I have agreed to a deal in good faith. Both of these examles are blatantly unethical. You can't unilaterally change rules. You can't lobby for a player when he is in a pending transaction. All of this is in the rules that hae seemingly been cast off without consultation.

In closing, the arguments in this post have been brief. Were a discussion to be started about these issues, I would go into more depth about my views. However, and in the interests of time, I simply write this as a catalyst for thought. Respond to this post or merely think about its contents, because rest assured these issues will come up again, some ssoner than later. Be prepared to participate in that debate. It is the duty of every league member.

[Derrick - Senators]

a revised rulebook would be that that included the updated decisions on the number of keepers, the way the drafts are organized, off season transactions, and so on and so forth . it will then go on to explain any fees that should be applied and how they are distrubted. its not like im secretly drawing up a dictators manual in my lab.

the only reason a 2/3 of 10 instead of 12 is applied is because i thought thats what was agreed upon verbally the last time a trade like this was in question.
the word "bias" refers to the rest of the league and how it will impact as such , not how it will impact the two teams in the trade. yes, obviously the rest of the league knows that the two teams involved in the trade are for it. there is no need to skew the voting by including such votes. its much like two people facing each other, voting for one another. the 2/3 vote is of how the rest of the league views the trade. as i said before, regardless of whether or not its out of 10 or out of 12, the outcome should be the same.

[Phil - Blue Jackets]

admin said:

a revised rulebook would be that that included the updated decisions on the number of keepers, the way the drafts are organized, off season transactions, and so on and so forth . it will then go on to explain any fees that should be applied and how they are distrubted. its not like im secretly drawing up a dictators manual in my lab.

the only reason a 2/3 of 10 instead of 12 is applied is because i thought thats what was agreed upon verbally the last time a trade like this was in question.
the word "bias" refers to the rest of the league and how it will impact as such , not how it will impact the two teams in the trade. yes, obviously the rest of the league knows that the two teams involved in the trade are for it. there is no need to skew the voting by including such votes. its much like two people facing each other, voting for one another. the 2/3 vote is of how the rest of the league views the trade. as i said before, regardless of whether or not its out of 10 or out of 12, the outcome should be the same.

First, I think you're trying to say the same thing I am saying, but you're not. The votes of the people in the trade dont necessarily matter in this instance. Like you said, they are obviously for the trade. However, they do matter in the sense that they are part of the league and total number of votes the 2/3 is taken out of. This is obvious. Two-thirds of 12 is 8 whereas two-thirds of ten is (rounded up) 7; one less vote is required to veto a trade. That damn well matters.

Secondly, the bias does not refer to the rest of the league. It refers to casting a vote for the sole purpose of helping yourself. Take taxes for instance. If George W. Bush proposes tax cuts for really rich people, and you are a really rich person, bias refers to voting for these tax cuts regardless of whether they are right or not. I am saying this is impossible to regulate. I provided another example concerning the keeper changes in my previous post. Whos to say that someone isn't vote to help their team and not doing what is necessarily right for the league?

Lastly, I was not trying to indicate that you are trying to secretly make some dictatorship rulebook. I was commenting on the fact that it seems some rules are being arbitrarily changed without so much as a peep from the league. Nothing has been decided about the keeper slots, keeper submission, future drafts, how many votes are required to veto trades, etc. As I said in the ending to my post, this is just food for thought. My post was merely meant to keep certain issues that I feel are important fresh in the league members minds.

[Nos - Sharks]

First off, I was conducting a trade with Brad for Kovalchuk well before you knew anything was going on. He went behind my back after details were settled and made a deal with you, fine. However, I was the one to initiate talks with him, you jumped in to take my players. Now, the tables have turned haven't they?? ;D No, I'm kidding, but the trade has to be decided on (to veto or not to veto) first, so nothing is really "actively" going on. I was honestly curious about how Chris felt after the smoke had semi-cleared.

Now, I don't think Derrick is talking about any major changes with the league. Most things have been settled, the number of keepers (10), when the drafts should occur, etc. These things just need to be written down and "official" for all to see. Oh, and the number to veto is 7, which is fair. 7 out of 10 is a large majority. Some other things need to be settled, which is why we have a forum to discuss such matters. I just don't think anything major is in the works to change the face of the league as we know it. Derrick, correct me if I'm wrong.

I have to say, I hate the fact things seem so dead here. Does this mean we only have a handful of active managers? People need to shape up or ship out.

[Phil - Blue Jackets]

nossharks said:

First off, I was conducting a trade with Brad for Kovalchuk well before you knew anything was going on. He went behind my back after details were settled and made a deal with you, fine. However, I was the one to initiate talks with him, you jumped in to take my players. Now, the tables have turned haven't they?? ;D No, I'm kidding, but the trade has to be decided on (to veto or not to veto) first, so nothing is really "actively" going on. I was honestly curious about how Chris felt after the smoke had semi-cleared.

Now, I don't think Derrick is talking about any major changes with the league. Most things have been settled, the number of keepers (10), when the drafts should occur, etc. These things just need to be written down and "official" for all to see. Oh, and the number to veto is 7, which is fair. 7 out of 10 is a large majority. Some other things need to be settled, which is why we have a forum to discuss such matters. I just don't think anything major is in the works to change the face of the league as we know it. Derrick, correct me if I'm wrong.

I have to say, I hate the fact things seem so dead here. Does this mean we only have a handful of active managers? People need to shape up or ship out.

First, I agree with you completely that people need to shape up or ship out. This isn't a full-time job. It is just a fantasy hockey league. Now, granted a keeper league will take more "time" relative to normal leagues, but not that much if you are already committing to fantasy sports. Take this veto discussion for example. I applaud, not necessarily agree with, those that have weighed in on the various topics currently being discussed. That is the responsibility of every manager in the league. You don't have to write team articles, chat it up with other managers in IMs, or send happy birthday wishes to Jesse. Everyone must, however, set their line-ups, follow the rules of the league, and participate in discussions such as trade vetos and rule changes. These are the minimum requirements for being a part of any league. To do these things you MUST check in with the forum frequently (at least twice a week).

Secondly, and this is just to address your post, there is a big difference between a deal getting done (Brad and I) before it is posted on the forum and lobbying for a deal while the trade is pending and being discussed. I would think this to be obvious. I am not "calling you out" or accusing you of anything by any means. I was simply stating my dislike for something I saw.

Finally, 7 out of 10 is the same as 7 out of 12. I've said this before, but I don't think I made it clear. Now, is 7 votes a fair majority? I dont't know. What I do know is that that is not the rule. This is, among other things, something the league needs to vote on. I've heard many times recently that it was "verbally agreed upon." I don't remember any of that, and verbally agreeing just isn't good enough in my opinion. A poll needs to be started and 2/3 majority vote is required to change the current rule. Like I said earlier, this is why EVERY manager must participate and vote in all decisions.