 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Sim Forums » Subscription League Vacancies and Information » Changing private league rules mid-stream
disciple
My question is not on the rules themselves, but rather on the concept of making signifigant changes to a private league after the league has started. In this particular league there is a rule that states rules changes are allowed with a 2/3 majority (minimum 11 owners). So it's not like the changes themselves are against league policy. However there are 1 or 2 owners who may end up resigning from the league as a result of these changes (should they be adopted).
Is this just a simple case of majority rules and buyer beware or is there more to be learned here?
Anyway I just wanted to open a discussion to see what others think about the concept of changing rules in the middle of a private league.
Changing private league rules mid-stream
May 07, 2004 at 12:12PM View BBCode
In one of the private leagues I'm in, several owners have banded together to make signifigant changes to league rules. Although I appreciate the interest, creativity and passion of these owners, the rule changes they are proposing are going to vastly change the nature of the league. Depending on how you look at it, the changes might be very good or very bad - obviously a matter of opinion.My question is not on the rules themselves, but rather on the concept of making signifigant changes to a private league after the league has started. In this particular league there is a rule that states rules changes are allowed with a 2/3 majority (minimum 11 owners). So it's not like the changes themselves are against league policy. However there are 1 or 2 owners who may end up resigning from the league as a result of these changes (should they be adopted).
Is this just a simple case of majority rules and buyer beware or is there more to be learned here?
Anyway I just wanted to open a discussion to see what others think about the concept of changing rules in the middle of a private league.
Bob
You do bring up a good point overall, however -- particularly for leagues which don't have a procedure outlined for subsequent rule changes. If a rule change procedure is not spelled out in the initial league rules, I see a few ways to handle it:
1. Only allow changes if they are unanimously agreed upon (or if none of the owners objects).
2. Only allow changes if a certain percentage (50%, 67%, 75%?) of owners approve.
3. Leave it up to the commissioner how to handle potential rule changes.
In general, I think leagues should avoid changing rules in the middle of the 10-month period. People pay for a private league if they like the rules and it seems unfair to subsequently change the rules without their approval. Therefore, I would probably adopt option 1, although it might makes sense to allow the commissioner to make minor changes if they are approved by a majority of owners. It's definitely a tough question, though.
May 07, 2004 at 12:24PM View BBCode
In this case I think it is clear, since as you said the changes were made in accordance with league policy. There was a rule when the league was formed which put in place a procedure for subsequent changes. Thus, all owners were on notice that rule changes could occur and therefore they really can't complain when the do.You do bring up a good point overall, however -- particularly for leagues which don't have a procedure outlined for subsequent rule changes. If a rule change procedure is not spelled out in the initial league rules, I see a few ways to handle it:
1. Only allow changes if they are unanimously agreed upon (or if none of the owners objects).
2. Only allow changes if a certain percentage (50%, 67%, 75%?) of owners approve.
3. Leave it up to the commissioner how to handle potential rule changes.
In general, I think leagues should avoid changing rules in the middle of the 10-month period. People pay for a private league if they like the rules and it seems unfair to subsequently change the rules without their approval. Therefore, I would probably adopt option 1, although it might makes sense to allow the commissioner to make minor changes if they are approved by a majority of owners. It's definitely a tough question, though.
celamantia
Rules should always be amendable. The JRL has been in operation from 1950 to 1977 with no rule changes, but in that time real MLB has had several: the DH, free agency, mound adjustments, etc.
These would need to be handled on a case-by-case basis, and I would suggest those owners disgruntled with the changes should speak to the commish and Tyson privately about the disposition of their team and whether or not they should receive any credit toward another league.
May 07, 2004 at 12:26PM View BBCode
Since the rules of SimDynasty change mid-stream, private league rule changes may be inevitable. I'm sure once the new amateur draft code is in many private leagues will scrap their live draft rules in favor of the new code. Many draft-pick related rules may change with the new draft pick code. Some rules may prove to be unworkable over the long run and need to be changed for the health of the league. One league had rules specifying names to be re-used which SimDynasty no longer allows.Rules should always be amendable. The JRL has been in operation from 1950 to 1977 with no rule changes, but in that time real MLB has had several: the DH, free agency, mound adjustments, etc.
These would need to be handled on a case-by-case basis, and I would suggest those owners disgruntled with the changes should speak to the commish and Tyson privately about the disposition of their team and whether or not they should receive any credit toward another league.
Bob
I was actually against the idea at first, but since it was really a minor change and there was majority support for the idea, we went ahead and added the rule. In our case the whole thing was done without a fuss, but I can easily see where a more radical change could create problems.
May 07, 2004 at 12:31PM View BBCode
Actually, the JR league did have one rule change -- we instituted a system where the bottom 8 teams from the prior year could each pick up 1 player from the waiver wire on the day following the amateur draft. The following day the top 8 teams from the previous year could pick up one player each. This was designed to give weaker teams first crack at any players that slipped through the amateur draft.I was actually against the idea at first, but since it was really a minor change and there was majority support for the idea, we went ahead and added the rule. In our case the whole thing was done without a fuss, but I can easily see where a more radical change could create problems.
tysonlowery
I think that rule change for the JRL was pretty minor. I think the more significant rule changes are the ones like the Warren Spahn league is proposing. They are voting on whether to change how the draft order is determined (which is somewhat minor). But also, they may institute the Blind system, the VET rule, and have everyone protect 15 players and redraft the entire league.
My position on the whole thing is somewhat torn. Some of the changes may enhance the enjoyment of the league for 8-9 people, but may totally alienate a few folks as well. I'd prefer the league keep the rules the same from the get-go, but each league is really its own community/society and I will let them do whatever they want. I suspect we may see some backlash on this for future leagues, regarding policies on rule changes.
Our policy is that there aren't any refunds. As Bob said, you knew it was a possibility because of the league rules. I also agree with Bob that if there isn't a policy in place, you should get unanymous approval for major changes.
May 07, 2004 at 03:06PM View BBCode
Yes, this has been causing some headaches for me as well.I think that rule change for the JRL was pretty minor. I think the more significant rule changes are the ones like the Warren Spahn league is proposing. They are voting on whether to change how the draft order is determined (which is somewhat minor). But also, they may institute the Blind system, the VET rule, and have everyone protect 15 players and redraft the entire league.
My position on the whole thing is somewhat torn. Some of the changes may enhance the enjoyment of the league for 8-9 people, but may totally alienate a few folks as well. I'd prefer the league keep the rules the same from the get-go, but each league is really its own community/society and I will let them do whatever they want. I suspect we may see some backlash on this for future leagues, regarding policies on rule changes.
Our policy is that there aren't any refunds. As Bob said, you knew it was a possibility because of the league rules. I also agree with Bob that if there isn't a policy in place, you should get unanymous approval for major changes.
celamantia
Now, at that point you're essentially proposing a new league. If people want that much of a change, they should probably join a league more to their liking.
May 07, 2004 at 03:22PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tysonlowery
Yes, this has been causing some headaches for me as well.
I think that rule change for the JRL was pretty minor. I think the more significant rule changes are the ones like the Warren Spahn league is proposing. They are voting on whether to change how the draft order is determined (which is somewhat minor). But also, they may institute the Blind system, the VET rule, and have everyone protect 15 players and redraft the entire league.
Now, at that point you're essentially proposing a new league. If people want that much of a change, they should probably join a league more to their liking.
Jack1
I am one of the dissenting owners of this major rules change in the Warren Spahn Lg and Celamantia's qoute is how I feel about this change. "Join a league that offers it."
It is totally unfair in my opinion, to change the major rules of a league mid-stream. If the league wants to implement major changes, it should occur upon renewal of the league.
And just so you know, I am the person who complained to Tyson, as he won't allow refunds to the owners hurt by this major change.
Now the commish put a rule change option in the rules, so that if a minor problem occurred, he could correct it. It was never his intention to completely revamp the rules of play for this league.
I think the key to these types of changes at mid-stream that were mentioned is that all league owners should agree to a major rules change or wait till league renewal, or join a league that offers those types of rules.
Jack1
:saint:
May 07, 2004 at 03:48PM View BBCode
Originally posted by celamantia
Originally posted by tysonlowery
Yes, this has been causing some headaches for me as well.
I think that rule change for the JRL was pretty minor. I think the more significant rule changes are the ones like the Warren Spahn league is proposing. They are voting on whether to change how the draft order is determined (which is somewhat minor). But also, they may institute the Blind system, the VET rule, and have everyone protect 15 players and redraft the entire league.
Now, at that point you're essentially proposing a new league. If people want that much of a change, they should probably join a league more to their liking.
I am one of the dissenting owners of this major rules change in the Warren Spahn Lg and Celamantia's qoute is how I feel about this change. "Join a league that offers it."
It is totally unfair in my opinion, to change the major rules of a league mid-stream. If the league wants to implement major changes, it should occur upon renewal of the league.
And just so you know, I am the person who complained to Tyson, as he won't allow refunds to the owners hurt by this major change.
Now the commish put a rule change option in the rules, so that if a minor problem occurred, he could correct it. It was never his intention to completely revamp the rules of play for this league.
I think the key to these types of changes at mid-stream that were mentioned is that all league owners should agree to a major rules change or wait till league renewal, or join a league that offers those types of rules.
Jack1
:saint:
Muzzie
Its interesting, with all of the recent debate, and maybe I'm wrong in this assessment, but there is very much an 'old school' and a 'new school' conflict? debate? discussion? going on. Many of the 'newer' owners seem to want something more from their SD experience and feel that while its a wonderful product, the system itself is flawed to the point that it becomes an exercise in manipulating numbers and systems and not management of baseball teams. The older owners however usually are happy with the system as is, and prefer knowing exactly what is going on, as well as something of the predictability of the system that the newer owners seem to rail against.
I know that in three of the leagues I'm in currently, there is discussion of these wholesale changes. I don't think that the TCL league rules are the end all and be all changes that need to happen around here, but they may be band aids until other things are done. Do I see the point of owners that feel it is wrong to change things midstream? Yeah...then again I also see the point of the newer owners who didn't realize that there is a 'set system' that you can manipulate just via a 'lose first, win later with youth' strategy that is quite popular and successful and essentially makes not only the teams predictable, but their finishes. I don't think anyone paid for 'in 5 years you will almost automatically have the previously losing teams being unbeatable' either....
You can make a case for either side, but I think in this case, it is a bit of buyer beware. That being said, Tyson takes a risk too of alienating either side of the coin. He has business interests in mind, but must ultimately answer the concerns of the customers in the majority.
May 07, 2004 at 03:49PM View BBCode
I guess the question is really if the rules include the possibility of changes to those very rules, then aren't amendments to those rules completely within the scope of the league?Its interesting, with all of the recent debate, and maybe I'm wrong in this assessment, but there is very much an 'old school' and a 'new school' conflict? debate? discussion? going on. Many of the 'newer' owners seem to want something more from their SD experience and feel that while its a wonderful product, the system itself is flawed to the point that it becomes an exercise in manipulating numbers and systems and not management of baseball teams. The older owners however usually are happy with the system as is, and prefer knowing exactly what is going on, as well as something of the predictability of the system that the newer owners seem to rail against.
I know that in three of the leagues I'm in currently, there is discussion of these wholesale changes. I don't think that the TCL league rules are the end all and be all changes that need to happen around here, but they may be band aids until other things are done. Do I see the point of owners that feel it is wrong to change things midstream? Yeah...then again I also see the point of the newer owners who didn't realize that there is a 'set system' that you can manipulate just via a 'lose first, win later with youth' strategy that is quite popular and successful and essentially makes not only the teams predictable, but their finishes. I don't think anyone paid for 'in 5 years you will almost automatically have the previously losing teams being unbeatable' either....
You can make a case for either side, but I think in this case, it is a bit of buyer beware. That being said, Tyson takes a risk too of alienating either side of the coin. He has business interests in mind, but must ultimately answer the concerns of the customers in the majority.
Muzzie
May 07, 2004 at 03:53PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Jack1
I am one of the dissenting owners of this major rules change in the Warren Spahn Lg and Celamantia's qoute is how I feel about this change. "Join a league that offers it."
It is totally unfair in my opinion, to change the major rules of a league mid-stream. If the league wants to implement major changes, it should occur upon renewal of the league.
And just so you know, I am the person who complained to Tyson, as he won't allow refunds to the owners hurt by this major change.
Now the commish put a rule change option in the rules, so that if a minor problem occurred, he could correct it. It was never his intention to completely revamp the rules of play for this league.
I think the key to these types of changes at mid-stream that were mentioned is that all league owners should agree to a major rules change or wait till league renewal, or join a league that offers those types of rules.
Jack1
:saint:
I think it may be however, assumptive to say that you -know- why the commissioner put in a certain rule which provides for amendments to the rule structure of the league. The problem being is that he wasn't specific enough in the beginning, thus allowing for multiple interpretations. You see it your way, others see it theirs...but unfortunately if you wanted to get into the letter of the law or rule, it allows for any and all changes to be made by a strict literal reading. I"m not saying I agree or disagree, just that we can't make an assumption of what was meant, only read what is written.
jrspc4
Whether anyone else understands my perspective or not. I am on the site to discuss, explore, experiment and find improvements to the big picture. I care more about improving the system than the individual success of any of my teams. Ok, some, most or all of you may think I'm nutts or can't even imagine what I am talking about. But it is what brings me here and was a huge part of why I chose the WSL. It was presented as a league open to change. So I joined.
The WSL policy for change was clearly stated when I joined. 2/3s of the owners had to agree in order for a change to be implemented.
If the rule had stated the commish had to agree or that all 16 teams had to agree, I would not have joined that league.
Our league rule on this was just edited about an hour ago. How in the world does that represent what I signed on for?
Yes, their are two sides to this issue. But the side that followed the league rules and carried a 2/3s majority vote for change is being over-ruled.
That is absurd.
[Edited on 5-7-2004 by jrspc4]
[Edited on 5-7-2004 by jrspc4]
[Edited on 5-7-2004 by jrspc4]
May 07, 2004 at 06:49PM View BBCode
When I chose the particular league we are discussing (WSL), it was important to me that it was a league that had a stated rule on how to change rules. I spent my money to join a league that was open to change small/big/ or [size=3]HUGE![/size]Whether anyone else understands my perspective or not. I am on the site to discuss, explore, experiment and find improvements to the big picture. I care more about improving the system than the individual success of any of my teams. Ok, some, most or all of you may think I'm nutts or can't even imagine what I am talking about. But it is what brings me here and was a huge part of why I chose the WSL. It was presented as a league open to change. So I joined.
The WSL policy for change was clearly stated when I joined. 2/3s of the owners had to agree in order for a change to be implemented.
If the rule had stated the commish had to agree or that all 16 teams had to agree, I would not have joined that league.
Our league rule on this was just edited about an hour ago. How in the world does that represent what I signed on for?
Yes, their are two sides to this issue. But the side that followed the league rules and carried a 2/3s majority vote for change is being over-ruled.
That is absurd.
[Edited on 5-7-2004 by jrspc4]
[Edited on 5-7-2004 by jrspc4]
[Edited on 5-7-2004 by jrspc4]
skierdude44
May 07, 2004 at 06:59PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
This is an interesting debate. In the Santo League there has been a lot of talk about changing rules and we have just gotten to the 1950 playoffs. The concern is that with talent inflation and tanking the competition will become stale and the trading will cease. We have some rules to prevent that in place already (vet rule, draft lottery, etc.) and I have said that we should make changes only when we see a problem. I dont have a problem with the rules changing mid stream if they are agreed upon by the majority of the owners. I think that it is fair and although some may be against it they may come around to like the new rules if they give them a chance. I dont think that it is a great idea to wait until the ten month period ends before you make rule changes because if you encounter a problem early on and the league becomes stale the enthusiasm of implementing the new rules and the league can die. I think though that all leagues should come up with a plan of how many votes are needed to change rules if rule changes are allowed and atleast a tentative plan of action for rule changes.
GerryH3
It seems to me that the proposed changes in the WS are aimed at making the experience a lot more enjoyable. Hopefully some of the changes Tyson said he is proposing for the next year will alleviate some of the existing problems with the game model. Until then, leagues will continue to have a problem with owners becoming bored and disillusioned and eventually drifting away.
The debate for rule change in WS seeems to have been done entirely within that league's rules - or at least the rules that were in place before they were hastily re-written.
May 07, 2004 at 07:09PM View BBCode
I'm not a member of the Warren Spahn League but I've been following the debate there with interest. SD is a great game but it does have some serious flaws, the worst of which is the draft young, tank for 4 or 5 seasons and then dominate tactic.It seems to me that the proposed changes in the WS are aimed at making the experience a lot more enjoyable. Hopefully some of the changes Tyson said he is proposing for the next year will alleviate some of the existing problems with the game model. Until then, leagues will continue to have a problem with owners becoming bored and disillusioned and eventually drifting away.
The debate for rule change in WS seeems to have been done entirely within that league's rules - or at least the rules that were in place before they were hastily re-written.
jrspc4
Now he and one or two other owners don't want change in the WSL, where 12-13 voted within the rules to change them. And the 12-13 are being asked to accept that the 2 or 3 wouldn't enjoy the changes, thus they won't be implemented.
So should 12 or 13 people be asked to accept something different than want they perceived themselves to be paying for, or should 2 or 3 be asked to accept this?
The answer could not be more obvious.
May 07, 2004 at 07:17PM View BBCode
One owner didn't like the rules he signed on for in the TCL so he left.Now he and one or two other owners don't want change in the WSL, where 12-13 voted within the rules to change them. And the 12-13 are being asked to accept that the 2 or 3 wouldn't enjoy the changes, thus they won't be implemented.
So should 12 or 13 people be asked to accept something different than want they perceived themselves to be paying for, or should 2 or 3 be asked to accept this?
The answer could not be more obvious.
disciple
Before you parade my dead corpse around the village square, it should be noted that Tyson completely supports this decision.
I did not re-write the WSL league rule on changing the rules. I only added a clarification that the rule was not intended to be used to dramtically change league rules mid-stream. According to Tyson, no private league has ever made such massive changes mid-stream and I certainly didn't want to be setting a dangerous precedence.
Here is the original text of my message to the WSL explaining why the proposed rule changes were cancelled regardless of the outcome:
TO ALL-
This is not going to make some of you very happy, but I'm going to put the rule changes on hold - for now. Several of these changes are just too drastic at this point in the league. So I'm going to step in as commissioner and stop the process.
For better or for worse we all signed up to play in a league using a certain set of rules. We are now considering drastically altering the original rules in the middle of the league. I checked with Tyson and there isn't a precedence for this in any other private league. I don't want to set a precedence for making significant rule changes in the middle of a private league.
The 2/3 majority rule change was actually intended for minor changes to the league. It was not intended to allow owners to make a major overhaul of the league. And that's what these changes would do - they would drastically alter the original concept of this league.
So for those who want major changes you have a couple options:
1) Stay with us till the end of the 13 seasons and help us re-work the rules for the next 13 seasons.
2) Exit the league / Join a new league that has the rules you want.
3) Stay with us and come up with a much less drastic approach that accomplishes some of what you are looking for and ask for a vote.
Guys, I apologize for the confusion, but I just can't allow these rule changes in the middle of the current league.
WSL RULE CHANGES CANCELLED - WHY?
May 07, 2004 at 07:17PM View BBCode
Guys,Before you parade my dead corpse around the village square, it should be noted that Tyson completely supports this decision.
I did not re-write the WSL league rule on changing the rules. I only added a clarification that the rule was not intended to be used to dramtically change league rules mid-stream. According to Tyson, no private league has ever made such massive changes mid-stream and I certainly didn't want to be setting a dangerous precedence.
Here is the original text of my message to the WSL explaining why the proposed rule changes were cancelled regardless of the outcome:
TO ALL-
This is not going to make some of you very happy, but I'm going to put the rule changes on hold - for now. Several of these changes are just too drastic at this point in the league. So I'm going to step in as commissioner and stop the process.
For better or for worse we all signed up to play in a league using a certain set of rules. We are now considering drastically altering the original rules in the middle of the league. I checked with Tyson and there isn't a precedence for this in any other private league. I don't want to set a precedence for making significant rule changes in the middle of a private league.
The 2/3 majority rule change was actually intended for minor changes to the league. It was not intended to allow owners to make a major overhaul of the league. And that's what these changes would do - they would drastically alter the original concept of this league.
So for those who want major changes you have a couple options:
1) Stay with us till the end of the 13 seasons and help us re-work the rules for the next 13 seasons.
2) Exit the league / Join a new league that has the rules you want.
3) Stay with us and come up with a much less drastic approach that accomplishes some of what you are looking for and ask for a vote.
Guys, I apologize for the confusion, but I just can't allow these rule changes in the middle of the current league.
GerryH3
I can see a lot more leagues going that way unless major changes are implemented soon.
[Edited on 5-7-2004 by GerryH3]
May 07, 2004 at 07:23PM View BBCode
Sorry if it seemed personal disciple - it wasn't meant to be. But a lot of us are starting to get incredibly frustrated with the way the games play out under the current set-up. We tried discussing similar changes in the Al Kaline League but most of us in that league are so bored that we couldn't even work up the enthusiasim to bother making changes. It looks like most of the owners there will just let the league run out then not renew.I can see a lot more leagues going that way unless major changes are implemented soon.
[Edited on 5-7-2004 by GerryH3]
jrspc4
The decision whether yours, Tyson's or whomever does not make sense (IMO).
May 07, 2004 at 07:26PM View BBCode
No one is dragging anybody around here. This is not an attack on you or Tyson. It is a discussion.The decision whether yours, Tyson's or whomever does not make sense (IMO).
res98
1. There was a rule INPLACE to effect changes to existing Rules
2. 3...yes 3..Votes were taken. In all 3 votes, certain "changes" were passed.
3. 1...yes one owner, Jack voiced opposition to any rule changes, period and threatened to quit the League if any were adopted and implemented.
4. After Jack's threat to quit was recieved by the Commish...ALL votes, all 3 votes were then CANCELLED and I was determined by the Commish that there would be NO rule changes, PERIOD!!
This is fair??? 2/3's of the owners in this league wanted changes made which is what was required in the Rules. Eventhough the Rule was followed and met..it was arbitrarily decided to Void all the Votes and to Amend the "rule Change"rule without any input by any members of the League.....DUH????????
absurd??? You bet
May 07, 2004 at 07:34PM View BBCode
The bottom line to all this discourse is that:1. There was a rule INPLACE to effect changes to existing Rules
2. 3...yes 3..Votes were taken. In all 3 votes, certain "changes" were passed.
3. 1...yes one owner, Jack voiced opposition to any rule changes, period and threatened to quit the League if any were adopted and implemented.
4. After Jack's threat to quit was recieved by the Commish...ALL votes, all 3 votes were then CANCELLED and I was determined by the Commish that there would be NO rule changes, PERIOD!!
This is fair??? 2/3's of the owners in this league wanted changes made which is what was required in the Rules. Eventhough the Rule was followed and met..it was arbitrarily decided to Void all the Votes and to Amend the "rule Change"rule without any input by any members of the League.....DUH????????
absurd??? You bet
BleedRed
Is you situation really so bad that you cannot find any room for compromise? (If it is, please don't let me inflame the matter by posting a reply to my questions). I have seen many of you in the league around the boards and you seem to be calm rational people. I know the voting system sets things up to be the majority rules, but is there anyway the situation could find a compromise with some significant but minor rule changes?
Again, I am all for properly following rules in resolving differences of opinion, but at the same time, if you can avoid making these things power issues I think you all would have a better feeling at the conclusion.
May 07, 2004 at 07:41PM View BBCode
I've been in some situations where votes are the means of business - and it may be fair but it isn't always pleasant. I would believe that if you want to use votes and put up with the natural conflict (someone ends up in the minority), you should go with the results. Regardless, in this area Tyson has some discresional authority. However, that is not why I post:Is you situation really so bad that you cannot find any room for compromise? (If it is, please don't let me inflame the matter by posting a reply to my questions). I have seen many of you in the league around the boards and you seem to be calm rational people. I know the voting system sets things up to be the majority rules, but is there anyway the situation could find a compromise with some significant but minor rule changes?
Again, I am all for properly following rules in resolving differences of opinion, but at the same time, if you can avoid making these things power issues I think you all would have a better feeling at the conclusion.
res98
I have nothing against Jack/Disciple...nobody!!!! Let's debate the FACTS...no more, no less
May 07, 2004 at 07:41PM View BBCode
Why is it when someone has an indefensible arguement about anything and someone critizices their position, it's referred to as PERSONAL????I have nothing against Jack/Disciple...nobody!!!! Let's debate the FACTS...no more, no less
Meathead44
This idea that people are frustrated to the point of quitting because of the system as is, to me, is stupid. Not to be insulting, but here's what it reminds me of:
I take my kid to Dairy Queen and buy her an ice cream cone. She loves it. She sees someone with a sundae and asks for one of those instead. I say no. She begins to throw a fit saying how she hates ice cream cones and wants a sundae or nothing.
The rules of the TCL league make for an interesting and different experience. They hobble predictability and tanking. However, they are not the cure. They are a bandage. The changes coming from Tyson will be the cure. When those changes come down the pipe, these rules will be superfelous.
Making those changes to an existing league would be a little silly on several levels. These changes are huge and completely change the game. Private leagues are all about finding the rules and situation that suits you. Almost all leagues have provisions for changes, but it is unrealistic and unreasonable for the people joining those leagues to think that the provision would be used to completely change the league. There needs to be a little restaint and consideration for your fellow members.
I enjoy the rules of the TCL, but I wouldn't want them in every league. I wouldn't want a live amatuer draft in all my leagues like we have in the BUL either.
[Edited on 5-7-2004 by Meathead44]
May 07, 2004 at 07:42PM View BBCode
Well, this is getting a little crazy. I understand wanting to change things for the betterment of the game and keeping it the same for continuity and the product you signed up for.This idea that people are frustrated to the point of quitting because of the system as is, to me, is stupid. Not to be insulting, but here's what it reminds me of:
I take my kid to Dairy Queen and buy her an ice cream cone. She loves it. She sees someone with a sundae and asks for one of those instead. I say no. She begins to throw a fit saying how she hates ice cream cones and wants a sundae or nothing.
The rules of the TCL league make for an interesting and different experience. They hobble predictability and tanking. However, they are not the cure. They are a bandage. The changes coming from Tyson will be the cure. When those changes come down the pipe, these rules will be superfelous.
Making those changes to an existing league would be a little silly on several levels. These changes are huge and completely change the game. Private leagues are all about finding the rules and situation that suits you. Almost all leagues have provisions for changes, but it is unrealistic and unreasonable for the people joining those leagues to think that the provision would be used to completely change the league. There needs to be a little restaint and consideration for your fellow members.
I enjoy the rules of the TCL, but I wouldn't want them in every league. I wouldn't want a live amatuer draft in all my leagues like we have in the BUL either.
[Edited on 5-7-2004 by Meathead44]
res98
I must be a moron because that makes no sense to me.
May 07, 2004 at 07:51PM View BBCode
I totally agree that consideration of other owners must be considered..The WSL is a case of 12-13 out of 16 owners wanted changes...so now we are gonna let 3-4 owners decide????I must be a moron because that makes no sense to me.
disciple
"Without any input" - My friend, where have you been the past few days? I've done nothing but seek input, but in the end I had to make this difficult decision on my own.
"After Jack's threat to quit was recieved by the Commish...all 3 votes were then CANCELLED" - No that is not accurate; it is hyperbole, but clearly not accurate:
1) First vote was cancelled by popular request (you included if I'm not mistaken), because you wanted a combination option
2) Second vote was cancelled due to confusion over the combination vs non-combination options
3) Third vote was stopped because I had time to consult with Tyson and other people and I realized we were about to make a big mistake. However, I did say that these same rules could be considered whenever the first 13 seasons ends.
Did Jack's opinion come into play? Yes, as I said before, I've done nothing but consider opinions and bend over backwards for you guys. Jack's opinion matters just as much as Jeff's and yours as well as the rest of the guys in the WSL.
May 07, 2004 at 07:51PM View BBCode
Originally posted by res98
The bottom line to all this discourse is that:
1. There was a rule INPLACE to effect changes to existing Rules
2. 3...yes 3..Votes were taken. In all 3 votes, certain "changes" were passed.
3. 1...yes one owner, Jack voiced opposition to any rule changes, period and threatened to quit the League if any were adopted and implemented.
4. After Jack's threat to quit was recieved by the Commish...ALL votes, all 3 votes were then CANCELLED and I was determined by the Commish that there would be NO rule changes, PERIOD!!
This is fair??? 2/3's of the owners in this league wanted changes made which is what was required in the Rules. Eventhough the Rule was followed and met..it was arbitrarily decided to Void all the Votes and to Amend the "rule Change"rule without any input by any members of the League.....DUH????????
absurd??? You bet
"Without any input" - My friend, where have you been the past few days? I've done nothing but seek input, but in the end I had to make this difficult decision on my own.
"After Jack's threat to quit was recieved by the Commish...all 3 votes were then CANCELLED" - No that is not accurate; it is hyperbole, but clearly not accurate:
1) First vote was cancelled by popular request (you included if I'm not mistaken), because you wanted a combination option
2) Second vote was cancelled due to confusion over the combination vs non-combination options
3) Third vote was stopped because I had time to consult with Tyson and other people and I realized we were about to make a big mistake. However, I did say that these same rules could be considered whenever the first 13 seasons ends.
Did Jack's opinion come into play? Yes, as I said before, I've done nothing but consider opinions and bend over backwards for you guys. Jack's opinion matters just as much as Jeff's and yours as well as the rest of the guys in the WSL.
jrspc4
Just because one person thinks such a dramatic "band-aid" would fail is not relevant.
More than two-thirds thought the band-aid would be far more interesting than the boring predictability of the status quo. Even if it did plays itself out to fail as you predict it would. That vast majority wanted to test that theory, and has obviously exercised their right to do so.
By the way had the "Commish" accepted the majority decision and embraced it, the possibility exists that the changes could have worked perfectly.
Would it fail? Maybe?
But were not even allowed to have fun trying, because a couple of owners are sure it is too dramatic and can't succeed?
[Edited on 5-7-2004 by jrspc4]
May 07, 2004 at 07:53PM View BBCode
But whether to make those "silly" changes was what was debated, discussed and voted upon. If you think they are silly you vote "NO".Just because one person thinks such a dramatic "band-aid" would fail is not relevant.
More than two-thirds thought the band-aid would be far more interesting than the boring predictability of the status quo. Even if it did plays itself out to fail as you predict it would. That vast majority wanted to test that theory, and has obviously exercised their right to do so.
By the way had the "Commish" accepted the majority decision and embraced it, the possibility exists that the changes could have worked perfectly.
Would it fail? Maybe?
But were not even allowed to have fun trying, because a couple of owners are sure it is too dramatic and can't succeed?
[Edited on 5-7-2004 by jrspc4]
SCCRCOACH
May 07, 2004 at 07:55PM View BBCode
As an avid reader of these posts one question really comes to my mind...why did you vote in the first place???? If the rule changes were not going to be allowed it amazes me that you even voted which opens a whole can of worms when the majority is stepped on and their vote is moot.
Muzzie
That being said, we voted on a rule change which was proposed. It passed, or was going to pass, or whatever you want to read into it before the vote itself was shut down. As an owner who paid his equal and fair part, I feel like my own voice is being taken away because another owner doesn't like potential changes. Do I think Jack is a bad guy? No...but he clearly has his views and I have mine. That being said, the system was in place to effect changes, it was undertaken, and was about to work. Does Mike have it within his discretion I suppose to shut it down? Yeah I suppose he does, but then again, we still paid for something and the product being delivered is not what we hoped for. Now it is a buyer beware sort of situation, and not something with a pre-agreed insurance policy or warranty. That being said, both Mike and Tyson have a duty to themselves, if not their customers, to provide them with the things that they want, else they begin to lose that very customer base. If as many owners in the WS league as are likely going to be upset pull out, but do not leave the league (As long as they check in and do nothing they are fine by league rules) then I hope those owners who have paid for their game enjoy a game amongst the few rather than the whole league. It is a scenario where neither group will ever be completely happy, but the problem is a much larger one at its core: That people who are used to the system, and the number crunching of it/manipulation of the loopholes (as much as they are being band-aided to close them) do not agree with the more recent influx of people who wish to see less predictability, more turnover of standings, and more management and less 'check the score, look for improvements, log off' as I suspect most of the older leagues like the JRL I am in has turned into.
So after rambling on for a while, I say this...I will also likely be turning into an absentee owner. I'm not giving up the team, that seems like a complete waste of money as opposed to the only partial waste of money that it is. I have asked Tyson for a refund of the upcoming dynasty league money I have paid as my own stance on the subject, thinking that acting with my wallet is the best way to voice my opinion. Tyson is of course not oblidged to do anything about that, and it would not affect my opinion of him one way or the other no matter what is done. That being said, I encourage those people who are also not happy to do whatever they think is appropriate without being completely disruptive to make their feelings known.
May 07, 2004 at 07:56PM View BBCode
I don't think this argument is at all about 'which rules are okay, or better, or whatever' The fact of the matter is that a rule change was proposed, voted upon by the pre-set rules of the league in which we all paid equal money to be a part of...That being said, we voted on a rule change which was proposed. It passed, or was going to pass, or whatever you want to read into it before the vote itself was shut down. As an owner who paid his equal and fair part, I feel like my own voice is being taken away because another owner doesn't like potential changes. Do I think Jack is a bad guy? No...but he clearly has his views and I have mine. That being said, the system was in place to effect changes, it was undertaken, and was about to work. Does Mike have it within his discretion I suppose to shut it down? Yeah I suppose he does, but then again, we still paid for something and the product being delivered is not what we hoped for. Now it is a buyer beware sort of situation, and not something with a pre-agreed insurance policy or warranty. That being said, both Mike and Tyson have a duty to themselves, if not their customers, to provide them with the things that they want, else they begin to lose that very customer base. If as many owners in the WS league as are likely going to be upset pull out, but do not leave the league (As long as they check in and do nothing they are fine by league rules) then I hope those owners who have paid for their game enjoy a game amongst the few rather than the whole league. It is a scenario where neither group will ever be completely happy, but the problem is a much larger one at its core: That people who are used to the system, and the number crunching of it/manipulation of the loopholes (as much as they are being band-aided to close them) do not agree with the more recent influx of people who wish to see less predictability, more turnover of standings, and more management and less 'check the score, look for improvements, log off' as I suspect most of the older leagues like the JRL I am in has turned into.
So after rambling on for a while, I say this...I will also likely be turning into an absentee owner. I'm not giving up the team, that seems like a complete waste of money as opposed to the only partial waste of money that it is. I have asked Tyson for a refund of the upcoming dynasty league money I have paid as my own stance on the subject, thinking that acting with my wallet is the best way to voice my opinion. Tyson is of course not oblidged to do anything about that, and it would not affect my opinion of him one way or the other no matter what is done. That being said, I encourage those people who are also not happy to do whatever they think is appropriate without being completely disruptive to make their feelings known.
Pages: 1 2