PLEASE VOTE NOW - New Poll on the Structure of the TC

[Mike(Red Sox)]

In response to Danny's (Padres) decision to step down from the TC and the ensuing discussion that happened over PM, please vote in this poll so that we can decide how the TC will be structured moving forward.

[Mike(Red Sox)]

This poll will close in 72 hours. Majority of voters rules.

[Dan(Jays)]

im voting for 10 or more BUT there should be a set time limit for a trade to be voted on and if a trade goes to split decision by the end of that set time it should be pushed as a passed trade.

[Mike(Red Sox)]

Hey Dan -

You're raising two important but separate issues, each of which will be the subject of a subsequent poll:

(1) If the vote comes out that people don't care whether there is an odd or even number of TC voters, we have to decide whether a tie vote should result in the trade being declared vetoed or approved. (Of course, that issue is entirely avoided if we maintain an odd number of voters.)

(2) Regardless of the number of people on the TC, we need to decide whether or not to impose a time limit on how long a trade can be waiting for TC members to vote. If we decide to impose such a time limit, we will then need to decide whether that time limit applies no matter what, or whether there is a minimum number of votes a trade must receive before we can close voting.

[Dan(Jays)]

until it is decided what would happen with a tie vote i will not be voting on this current poll. I dont think its right for us to vote on a league rule that does not have any structure to it. In my own PERSONAL OPINION, If a tie vote was to be pushed as a pass i would vote for "10+ odd or even members", but if a tie vote would be pushed to a veto i would be for an odd number of TC. I dont think its right for a trade that has a split decsion to be dumped as a veto, owners work hard on making trades and should have the tie breaking say in the matter.

Sorry for being indecisive but i dont want to vote in favor of something that may bring a negative to the TC structure.

[Duck(Yankees)]

I voted for 10 or more also. regardless of how the vote turns out a time limit should be imposed. I say after 4 days or 96 hours as it will come down to that anyway if a trade is still out there the said trade shall be passed or vetoed based on the votes it has (approve or veto) if it is tied it should be vetoed. just my 2 cents

duck

[Mike(Red Sox)]

This is why i feel so strongly that the TC should have an odd number of members - 9, 11, 13, whatever- and one alternate. That way we avoid ties.

[Kyle(Mets)]

I voted 10 or more, but I don't have strong feelings either way. I would say if it is an even number in an event of a tie it should be a veto. I feel like we have allowed some really lopsided trades in this league so if 4 or 5 people veto it's usually a good sign it is unfair regardless if there are 9, 10 or 11 members

[Deleted]

The argument seems to be one and of the same. The difference between 9 and 10 will not make the difference between a trade being passed or vetoed 99% of the time. If there are 10 TC members and 1 is inviolved in a trade, you are left with 9 to vote; an odd number. I do agree though that there should be a time limit to vote on deals so as to keep things moving.
I say we continue to operate with 10 TC members, and if we run into problems, 1 of the 10 becomes an alternate if a TC is involved in a trade.
No need to reinvent the wheel when what we have had has worked well.

[Donald(Rangers)]

I agree with Ben. I also feel that a tie should be passed.

[Tony(Nationals)]

I have always maintained an odd number of TC members so there is noe tie. When a tie arrises I feel there is no decisive decision made at all. I will always maintain an odd number of votes with an alternate being the deciding factor if needed( TC member involved in the deal). We can not leave this up to another vote when we can crunch it all together by having the odd number of TC members.

Now with the time limit question. I do feel a time limit warrants attention. The question is what should it, could it be? Not everyone is on every single day. People have real lives outside of this league. As I came across personal situations last year, anyone can have anything happen to them in real life. So I think a time frame is an even harder rule to pass.

A large majority of trades pass strongly either approve or veto. Without a majority I strongly feel the veto should always take precidence. Reason being it's easier to explain why a trade was vetoed then why it is passed on a tie. If a trade ends in a tie we can not allow it to pass, because a majority is needed to decide anything in this league. A tie is not a majority...it is a tie and hence forth should not be looked at as a win.

Just my 2 cents but as the creator of this league(with many others) this decision was actually made a long time ago and is a rule in place that does not need to be looked at or brought back into the limelight in my opinion. We are trying to change to many things in a league that ran successfully for years (with the exception of last years debacle). Too much change brings too many issues. What we have had the entire time has worked with very little failure, why fix what is not broken.


This is one of the real reasons I never let too many people into the admin circle. There has to be a single deciding factor in some cases. I tried to be that for the years past. Some things are best left unsaid then brought up and slandered for all to see. Trust me, and a lot of you guys I have played with for years know, to much change brings too many rules and makes things too complicated for people who play regularly. All these rules being looked at and debated and unearthed for change just makes it harder for everyone.

The admins to do the work, as well as the owners to understand what is needed to be done to just enjoy their experience while playing. I have always preached simplicity and I will continue to preach that through out my time in and for this league. Let's no smear a situation that already and consistantly worked through the leagues existance.

Complication is exactly what it means. Keep things basic and simple and let's just enjoy what we have that is already working.

Not every issue neds voted on. An issues is if something is not working or something new is incorperated. And in this case nothing is new and everything is working just fine.

15 people have voted on this. 5-6 new members still do not understand the rules to even vote on this issue. So really are we going to get a real majority here? Are we just adding confusion to a situation?

#1 reason why the offseason is the offseason. So the admins can do the league work needed to be done. By having all these votes and rules questioning it makes me feel very uneasy about anything in the future for this league. We do not need to question every single detail of every single rule.

And as I have said in the past, I will play the bad guy if I have to in situations like this. I will make a final decision if needed.

[Mike(Red Sox)]

Poll ended in a 9-9 tie. I am therefore reopening it until 8 PM when the last of the other 2 TC polls closes.

[Duck(Yankees)]

seems to me with just 18 owners voting out of 30 you have more of a problem with them just signing on than with what the tc does just my 2 cents

[JBach(Brewers)]

Have to agree with duck on this one guys.

[Mike(Red Sox)]

Fair enough guys, but what is your proposed solution?

It seems to me that there has been plenty of notice and time to vote, and that those who care will have voted.

Moreover, a majority of the league has voted. That means we have a plurality of the electorate. If a plurality is good enough for Congress when voting on actual laws, it's good enough for us when voting on how to run a free fantasy league. Following the will of the majority seems to me like the way we need to operate. After all, "Owners Rule, Not Hitler," right?