SKYWALKER WINS RR NBA Dynasty League - S3

[Axel]

28 of the last 30 posts were made by the same 3 people.

We aren't getting anywhere like this. Until more people come forward, DanH's post seems to be the most popular.

[Axel]

One person, a new commissioner at that, responds to my idea stating that it is a "shrug"

Man, how many digs can you get in today? You've already hinted that I'm "Joey's yes man", and raised that the role isn't voted upon.

If you have a problem with my appointment, let's hear it. Should I be booted until we can have a majority vote on whether I'm "worthy?" "capable?" "bias?"

[Joey]

So what you're saying here is:

I put an idea up to be discussed.

People, not just me, agree with some or all of idea.

One person, a new commissioner at that, responds to my idea stating that it is a "shrug"

The commissioner states that it is indeed not a "shrug" issue.

Posts are replied to with new ideas, rebuttals, and clarifications.

Yet you tell me to stop.

I didn't tell you to stop. Not at all actually. I just said you're repeating yourself, and this isn't much of a discussion when you're the only one talking, and rehashing the same talking points.

[Joey]

I don't care dude.

I know you don't care, dude. But I do.

[mcHAPPY]

I know you don't care, dude. But I do.

No you misunderstand.

I don't care about you in all of this.


The issue is ensuring that the commissioner or 2 co-commissioners don't have the ability to stop a change, which does not alter the premise of the league, and that the collective majority of the owners would like to see occur if given an opportunity to have a say on the matter.

[Axel]

No you misunderstand.

I don't care about you in all of this.


The issue is ensuring that the commissioner or 2 co-commissioners don't have the ability to stop a change, which does not alter the premise of the league, and that the collective majority of the owners would like to see occur if given an opportunity to have a say on the matter.

[Axel]

The fact is, in that instance, it wasn't a matter that necessarily had any traction (one comment) before you, unilaterally, decided to include it into the vote.

Very different scenarios. You say you want people to be able to have a voice in deciding, but in that instance there hadn't been any voices to discuss the merit. Everyone else was excluded from the conversation before votes were being cast on an issue, that we could easily decide this week, or next month and still reap all the same benefits you suggest but without any haste.

[Axel]

You're right.

That was my bad.

At that point in time we were sorting things out. I just added things as they came out. The money was another example. Not sure there was any feedback on that before I added - yet that one stayed in.

Timing. Money would change everything (trades, draft picks, who leaves the league) if it were to happen, so resolution needed to happen. Changing the dates can still happen for this off-season and will have minimal to no impact to how people operate in the meantime.

[Axel]

But considering the league was mid season, the money issue wasn't going to be started until the 2015-16 season.

It was not a pressing issue mid season but it stayed in to be voted on.

So even in this example, there is not consistency.

But all of this deflects from my concern that has been shared by others in part or whole: we need to have a consistent way to deal with changes or clarifications without all this.

I have my opinion and have shared it but I will live with whatever once the collective league decides.

If we had voted yes to money, perhaps Ceez doesn't trade me LaMarcus Aldridge for a draft pick. Perhaps Mack and Joey's trade for Gay / Beal doesn't go down. So many decisions would have been impacted by the knowledge that next season was money.

Not the same scenario as moving the resign date.

[Joey]

DanH's proposal, which many seem to support, is how things have always been run except I was a commissioner who came to resolutions using the philosophy I have laid out combined with his. Not taking credit for anything, just stating a fact. I know given the opportunity to prove me wrong, the counter would have already been made on this.

You were commissioner for 3/4 of a Season mcHAPPY... Plenty of stuff happened before last summer when I asked you to help out.

You were the one to put the ONE mass vote together very hastily, without discussing with me how might be the best way to handle it. I wanted to do it via Yahoo and send out emails, and have everyone weigh in there. What you deem to be "inaction" because you managed to throw it together faster, I see as due-diligence and making sure nothing is done in haste without being fully thought through and discussed.

There is nothing unreasonable about allowing the Commissioner final word on whether something is crucial enough to the importance and well being of our league, to be voted on. I think people would prefer, for the most part, to not have to vote on anything at all, and just enjoy how awesome this league is. But again, if there something that NEEDS to be addressed, then by all means, people will vote on it. As always.

[Joey]

Stay on task, Joey. But you keep strutting that power, Commish!

You're unreal man.

[mcHAPPY]

And again we come back to the issue at hand:

The issue is ensuring that the commissioner or 2 co-commissioners don't have the ability to stop a change, which does not alter the premise of the league, and that the collective majority of the owners would like to see occur if given an opportunity to have a say on the matter.

Numerous posts summed up in a few sentences for anyone not able or willing to read previous stuff.

DanH's proposal, which many seem to support, is how things have always been run except I was a commissioner who came to resolutions using the philosophy I have laid out combined with his. Not taking credit for anything, just stating a fact. I know given the opportunity to prove me wrong, the counter would have already been made on this.

[Joey]

There is nothing unreasonable about allowing the Commissioner final word on whether something is crucial enough to the importance and well being of our league, to be voted on. I think people would prefer, for the most part, to not have to vote on anything at all, and just enjoy how awesome this league is. But again, if there something that NEEDS to be addressed, then by all means, people will vote on it. As always.

Are you freaking kidding me? 5 out of 7 people today stated they would like a say on changes.

I am very glad to see my frustration is not a figment of my imagination.

I'm having a hard time understanding where my above quote differs from DanHs proposal ... Could you please show me?

I think a system of:

1) The idea is floated by a member.
2) The idea is debated in the thread.
3) The commissioners decide whether the issue is worth voting on, or rejecting out of hand (based on said debate or lack thereof).
4) If needed, the issue is put to a vote.

... Is just fine. In general, if you are commissioner you are expected to act in the interest of the league and not let personal stakes drive your decisions. And if you don't trust the commissioners in the league you are in, the experience will probably not be all that pleasant anyway, as every transaction could be suspect.

Ultimately, if the commissioners make a change that a fair number of people strongly disagree with, I imagine people would speak up, and a solution would be found (likely an after-the-fact vote). And for all the votes we had this season, never once did
I see more than two or three posters really getting into a debate over the issues.

[Joey]

Ok, sorry, you're right, my post should have said Commissioners. I've been saying CommissionerSSSSSSSSS (LOL) all day, figured it was a foregone conclusion. Other than that, I've never disagreed with DanH. So I really don't know what you're so upset about.
I'm done with this. I know you'll continue to post about this and carry on, but whatever.

Sorry for all of this guys ...

[koncept]

How many more rule changed are really going to happen in the future ?
I honestly feel that if there are big enough issues that arise the commissioners will put it to a vote. Why are we making such a big deal out of this.

"I wouldn't be opposed" = "I couldn't care a less about how this issue goes". Doesn't mean I don't care about this league, but I do not think this is a big issue.