- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
how should trade vetoes be handled?
Posted on 10/19/16 at 11:16 am
Posted on 10/19/16 at 11:16 am
i'm the commissioner. unfortunately, we had a couple trades vetoed, and then some vetoing in retaliation. the veto count is 2 veto votes veto a trade (ESPN league default). I took a league poll. some want it gone completely, some want to up the votes needed, some want to keep it and allow for upholding and vetoing votes where upholding counter vetos. what should I do? the problem is only 1/2 the people are playing for money (only a $70 pot). so some play for fun, some play for money. i have thought about upping the count to 4 (12 person league) vetoes for the interim. Then, eliminating veto altogether unless the commissioner suspects one of two things:
1) collusion between two teams
2) someone not caring anymore so giving (or trading) all of their best players to a friend
thoughts??
1) collusion between two teams
2) someone not caring anymore so giving (or trading) all of their best players to a friend
thoughts??
8
Posted on 10/19/16 at 11:18 am to theprofessorisin
You should have final say. You shouldn't veto anything unless it's completely ridiculous.
Posted on 10/19/16 at 11:19 am to theprofessorisin
you are the commish, you said have the only say.
Trade voting and vetoing is bad news.
You will know when collusion is happening.
Trade voting and vetoing is bad news.
You will know when collusion is happening.
Posted on 10/19/16 at 11:25 am to CBandits82
quote:
you are the commish, you said have the only say.
Trade voting and vetoing is bad news.
You will know when collusion is happening.
Posted on 10/19/16 at 11:30 am to theprofessorisin
quote:
the problem is only 1/2 the people are playing for money (only a $70 pot). so some play for fun, some play for money.
bad idea
Posted on 10/19/16 at 11:31 am to theprofessorisin
Allow the league to voice their displeasure of a trade via the veto button, but don't let that be the final say. You'll find that less people will vote out of spite
Posted on 10/19/16 at 11:32 am to CBandits82
quote:
you are the commish, you said have the only say.
Trade voting and vetoing is bad news.
You will know when collusion is happening.
Also, playing 1/2 for money and 1/2 not is a bad idea
Posted on 10/19/16 at 11:32 am to theprofessorisin
commish veto only. If not then every single trade will et vetoed because someone will think another persons team is getting better than theirs
Posted on 10/19/16 at 11:32 am to PokerChamp21
You're right. next year it'll be pay or your out.
Posted on 10/19/16 at 11:33 am to Tigereye10005
Hindsight is 20/20
Posted on 10/19/16 at 11:55 am to theprofessorisin
You should give those who paid their money back and create a new league with better rules next year.
Posted on 10/19/16 at 12:11 pm to seawolf06
I don't think anybody that paid is to the point where they are pissed and want out. In fact of the people bickering, 1 of the 3 actually paid the other two are playing for fun (or maybe they aren't having fun lol).
Posted on 10/19/16 at 12:15 pm to theprofessorisin
If you're worried about getting bashed as the commish if you vote one way or another... Why not do majority voting?
Posted on 10/19/16 at 12:24 pm to Noplacelikehome
Well the problem was that it was set at 2, so for the short term I bumped it up 4, which means 33% of the league has to vote to veto a trade for it to go through. I obviously still have veto power by myself as commish. I don't want to make that the only way to veto though, since I do think the league should have some say.
Posted on 10/19/16 at 12:35 pm to theprofessorisin
I prefer leagues where the commissioner is the only one with veto power. Then you need a 3 person competition committee with 2 alternates in case the commissioner is involved in the trade or the veto.
At this point, you should keep the league rules as they are. Changing rules midseason is never fair to the league, no matter who is complaining and who is not.
At this point, you should keep the league rules as they are. Changing rules midseason is never fair to the league, no matter who is complaining and who is not.
Posted on 10/19/16 at 1:06 pm to seawolf06
quote:
Then you need a 3 person competition committee with 2 alternates in case the commissioner is involved in the trade or the veto.
That's how we run ours. Just 2, though. Commish and Co-Commish decide. Both have to be against it for it to be a veto. If one or both of us are involved, we have 2 other guys on call who decide with the same stipulation.
Posted on 10/19/16 at 1:12 pm to theprofessorisin
quote:
theprofessorisin
Trade vetoing for retaliation violates the spirit of fantasy football. This is how we handle trades and other issues.
The league has a commissioner's committee. The commissioner's committee consists of the commissioner and two senior members of the league--of which I am one. Trades are presented to the commissioner who approves or rejects them after advice and consent from the other members of the commissioner's committee (majority of committee rules). If the trade involves a member of the commissioner's committee, the other two make the decision. If the trade involves two members of the committee, we have an alternate selected prior to the beginning of the season.
No trade is rejected unless it violates a rule or collusion is strongly suspected. If there is evidence of collusion, the perpetrators are banned from the league for life and normally within a short time end up leaving employment with our company (all of the league members are current or former employees).
This system takes the heat off the commissioner who is doing a lot of shite work for free. The other members of the commissioner's committee have both been in the league for 17 seasons and no one would ever question their decisions.
Bottom line, vetoing for retaliation is a jerk move. End it.
Posted on 10/19/16 at 1:16 pm to Lester Earl
quote:That's basically how we do it, except we post the trade in groupme and ask if anyone has an issue with it. Works really well.
Allow the league to voice their displeasure of a trade via the veto button, but don't let that be the final say. You'll find that less people will vote out of spite
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News