Discussion in 'Fantasy Sports Central' started by Mossberg, Sep 6, 2013.
I figured I'd start one for 2013....
Did Peyton Manning just end my Week 1 on a Thursday? My team has a serious uphill battle after that crazy performance.
I got P.Manning in 2 of 9 leagues
That one falls under the category of "even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while."
wrong Beer, there were others that may've seen his value and taken him. Besides you don't put all your eggs in one basket
I believe there are more people that play in 1 fantasy league than those that play in 9 leagues.
This trade was vetoed by the league. At first glance to me, it seems reasonably fair. Both managers were okay with it. If you vetoed this trade, please explain your rationale here.
Bloodbath and Beyond
Stop vetoing trades that are not obviously set up to cheat.
I was offered a trade but this came up before I could respond. Cheating has nothing to do with it. It's more about covering your back side. I'll be damned if I want to see Moog get stronger.
I thought I posted here that I'm doing some experimenting that's why I have so many leagues. I'm a commish in 3.
You don't want Moog to get stronger so you vetoed a trade between Junior and Mikhail?
That makes a lot of sense.
Who else vetoed this trade and why? If I don't hear a reasonable explanation today, I will take over the veto privileges as the commissioner.
This is a fun league and we shouldn't be discouraging trades this early in the season. Sometimes when a team is eliminated, the manager may try to do something questionable that should be disallowed. Clearly, this is not the case.
Whoa! This isn't sounding fun to me.
I already told you privately, by choice (not because you demanded) in detail why someone might reasonably veto that trade and you didn't voice any objections or counter points.
As Commissioner, you made the rules and everyone agreed to play by those rules. You had the option to make it a league where the players use the veto system rather than the Commissioner holding the ultimate authority to decide which trades are "fair". But while it is within your POWER to change rules midstream or move players around it isn't within your AUTHORITY and I don't see it as ethical.
I think the burden of proof should be on the people making the trade. The vetoers did what was within the authority you provided them. Instead of publicly DEMANDING that the vetoes explain their decision in the past we have always settled it one way or another by the traders explaining their logic. Not by people presenting themselves for a public flogging.
You know me.I HATE it when people veto trades and feel they should be running their own teams instead of deciding what is GOOD for my team. There was an incident in baseball where you wanted to veto a trade I made and I was livid. Bad stuff resulted. However, collusion is different. In this particular case I absolutely see no evidence of it and would be very surprised if there was.
I very rary veto trades and I think people in our forum veto in good faith. Not so in public leagues. So I don't know if Yahoo even allows that rule change although the rule can be circumvented by the commissioner taking players and moving them around.
I'm not comfortable in a league where rules can be changed without unanimous consent.
The right way to do it , Imo is have your kid and Mikhail explain why the league erred. I've never seen you react to a veto in this way.the burden of proof is on THEM. More often than not when they explain their reasoning the vetoes let it go through the second time. They know their teams needs better than anyone. Changing rules and shifting authority sets a bad precedent. I assume the traders had honorable intentions and Im equally certain the vetoes did too.
Trust me. These things get ugly fast. Nobody OWES anybody an explanation under threats or otherwise. But zi do have faith in our league. People often veto trades with the intention of preventing an owner from hurting himself due to his stupidity in that oarticular instance. But people shouldn't do that unless the trade is " unconscirnable or it will make it unfair for the other owners. We need to operate instead under the premise that nobody acted wrongly but that further enlightenment may be in order.
If you do what you said you were going to do then there WILL be problems. Next somebody sends a letter to Yahoo and complains about YOUR actions. We all know each other and generally like and respect each other ( Excluding Thee TFD, of course... Just kidding)?so let's work it out together.
I won't change the rules midstream. I just don't get the veto. Junior and Mikhail have both played in literally dozens of leagues. Both of them have won multiple titles, including football titles. Did the vetoers think they were protecting one of these guys from getting swindled?
If people are abusing the veto power what is wrong with taking it away? That's one of the commissioner's thankless jobs to regulate. If you are holding up a trade I think the burden of explanation lies on you. Not on the people making the trade, unless it is in rebuttal.
Next time I see all of you...I'm gonna bring some fiber.......
I disagree. The vetoers are not doing anything wrong. They cant be dragged to trial.Why should they need to explain their actions? Some trades ARE bogus. Let the traders " enlighten the masses". They should feel confident if the trade is fair.
I like to play the A hole. I enjoy its and it keeps it live. But there are people here who are uncomfortable in confrontaions. It is meant to be an anonymous process. We all agreed to it when we joined the league.
The rules the commissioner chose were that the league had the power to act. The league acted. So if the traders disagree they have the right to express themselves. There is no explanation box by the veto button. You can't force people to explain. That isn't intended. I'm sorry but I trust a league majority rather than one commissioner. You are talking David Stern. Do you really want that? Dictatorships don't work for me.do you think all of them are objective. What if a factor slants the objectivity of the individual.
Dumb fish. Lmao. You're sitting back in your easy chair laughing your ... Butt... Of at this nonsense aren't you ???
Nah...I like to watch and see how people solve their differences. Your "sledgehammer" approach is interesting.
Wait... I wasn't tactful? I tried. Just not me. My wife slaps me in the back of the head a lot. I WAS calling for peace.
Tell you wife to kiss you on the forehead instead......
Separate names with a comma.