 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Sim Forums » Subscription League Vacancies and Information » Changing private league rules mid-stream
disciple
Jeff,
I'm not saying these ideas are silly or even that they can't succeed. I'm saying NOW is not the time. Let's wait until the first 13 seasons are up and then try these same ideas or something similar.
May 07, 2004 at 07:58PM View BBCode
Originally posted by jrspc4
Just because one person thinks such a dramatic "band-aid" would fail is not relevant.
But were not even allowed to have fun trying, because a couple of owners are sure it is too dramatic and can't succeed?
Jeff,
I'm not saying these ideas are silly or even that they can't succeed. I'm saying NOW is not the time. Let's wait until the first 13 seasons are up and then try these same ideas or something similar.
res98
I'm gonna go down to Dairy Queen now and throw a fit.:P
May 07, 2004 at 07:59PM View BBCode
You made your decision and I applaud you for it. I don't agree with you but it's over as far as I'm concerned.I'm gonna go down to Dairy Queen now and throw a fit.:P
disciple
That was my fault. You are correct, in hind sight, I should have stopped the whole thing before it even started.
May 07, 2004 at 07:59PM View BBCode
Originally posted by SCCRCOACH
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.
That was my fault. You are correct, in hind sight, I should have stopped the whole thing before it even started.
jrspc4
May 07, 2004 at 08:02PM View BBCode
Mike I was addressing that "silly" comment to what meathead (Matt) had said.
Meathead44
I'm hoping that Tyson's changes get here soon. They sound like they address the issues that lead us to develop the rules implemented in the TCL.
May 07, 2004 at 08:05PM View BBCode
I wasn't arguing it's success or failure. I was arguing that it completely and entirely changes the game from what was started. Such a change shouldn't be implemented unless everyone agrees. To me, it's no different than if 12 guys voted to change the league to a Soccer league. The change is to radical to force down the throats of even a few people.I'm hoping that Tyson's changes get here soon. They sound like they address the issues that lead us to develop the rules implemented in the TCL.
jrspc4
If the league rules had demanded a unanimous outcome for change than of course you are correct.
But of course the rule was two-thirds majority. The issue of whether it was too dramatic was part of the WSL discussion, debate and vote.
It most certainly was not for one owner to decide that.
May 07, 2004 at 08:17PM View BBCode
Well just because your opinion is that it is too dramatic a change does not suddenly make your vote more powerful than anyother owners. The possibility exists that it was NOT too big a change, and that it could have worked.If the league rules had demanded a unanimous outcome for change than of course you are correct.
But of course the rule was two-thirds majority. The issue of whether it was too dramatic was part of the WSL discussion, debate and vote.
It most certainly was not for one owner to decide that.
Meathead44
I would highly recommend the rules to any league that is forming and any members debating whether or not to join. However, I would never force them on anyone that didn't want them no matter how many of my league mates agreed with them.
Those rules completely change the league and I don't think it is fair to the owners that don't want them to force them on them just because of a majority vote. This is a much different issue than some minor changes to vote on. I think we can all agree that these are major changes. If not, it wouldn't be a big deal if they went through or not and we wouldn't be discussing it to this extent.
May 07, 2004 at 08:33PM View BBCode
In the end, I think it is one person's (the commish) decision whether or not the changes being discussed fit within the spirit of the rules and league in general.I would highly recommend the rules to any league that is forming and any members debating whether or not to join. However, I would never force them on anyone that didn't want them no matter how many of my league mates agreed with them.
Those rules completely change the league and I don't think it is fair to the owners that don't want them to force them on them just because of a majority vote. This is a much different issue than some minor changes to vote on. I think we can all agree that these are major changes. If not, it wouldn't be a big deal if they went through or not and we wouldn't be discussing it to this extent.
skierdude44
Maybe Tyson should make one universal rule on rule changes for all private leagues. Maybe it should be a 2/3 majority. I wouldnt want it to come to that because I love the customization factor in private leagues but we dont wanna have constant trouble like this. I do believe that EVERY league should adopt a rule changing policy. It doesnt matter if it is "the rules will never change," "the rules will only change after the current 10 months is up," or "the rules will be changed by a vote with a (fill in the blank for percentage) majority rule."
May 07, 2004 at 08:34PM View BBCode
Whoa...um...wow this is quite a debate. Let me first start off by saying that I understand both points of view here. I understand that some owners feel that they are paying for what the rules say and can be alittle upset if all the sudden it changes. Its like you by some baseball gear and then all of the sudden someone sneaks in and switches your baseball gear with some golf equipment. I can also see res and Jeff's point. Especially if the rules state that a vote for rule changes will take place. Now, Disciple says that that was only intended for minor rule changes, but my question is was that clearly stated from the beginning or atleast communicated to all owners before this vote took place? If not then I dont blame those who want the radical changes because that was not stated. I dont think Disciple's decision to wait until the 10 months runs out is unreasonable either. People thought that they were getting a certain product and shouldnt have to pay for something that they did not purchase. I favor the changing the rules when necessary argument a bit because I believe that if the league becomes stale or something then something must be done to save the league. Disciple had one hell of a decision to make and I dont envy it and I think that he has done a good job with it (but what do I know im not in the league).Maybe Tyson should make one universal rule on rule changes for all private leagues. Maybe it should be a 2/3 majority. I wouldnt want it to come to that because I love the customization factor in private leagues but we dont wanna have constant trouble like this. I do believe that EVERY league should adopt a rule changing policy. It doesnt matter if it is "the rules will never change," "the rules will only change after the current 10 months is up," or "the rules will be changed by a vote with a (fill in the blank for percentage) majority rule."
res98
I'm sure Al Gore would agree:D
[Edited on 5-7-2004 by res98]
May 07, 2004 at 08:50PM View BBCode
This is turning into a microcosm of current society. Majority no longer means anything...Minority Rules...I'm sure Al Gore would agree:D
[Edited on 5-7-2004 by res98]
Dormie2
And don't take this wrong or as a "personal attack" because I'm sure Jack is doing, with in the rules, what he feels gives his team the best opportunity in the long term.
But of course he doesn't want to change--he IS the problem!
24-124? Think about it. The Detroit Tigers were the laughing stock of baseball for their performance last year--and they won 43!
Jack has 5 Bs and a B+ in the minors that are all better than his starters. In fact, just about everyone on his bench is better than his starters. That upsets the balance of the entire league!
And Disciple, who changed the rules, has built his team the same way. That is where we had a problem. They both are great at playing the game the way it is designed--the rest of us don't like the way it is designed.
We voted. We got the necessary 2/3. Once. Twice. Three times.
Now the rules are changed. I guess the next time we want to vote for something that I don't want I'll complain that it's too drastic for my taste.
One thing that I know: It's good to be king!
Go Honeybadgers!
May 07, 2004 at 10:20PM View BBCode
Jack's Team is 24-124. You could make a strong arguement that he quit a long ago.And don't take this wrong or as a "personal attack" because I'm sure Jack is doing, with in the rules, what he feels gives his team the best opportunity in the long term.
But of course he doesn't want to change--he IS the problem!
24-124? Think about it. The Detroit Tigers were the laughing stock of baseball for their performance last year--and they won 43!
Jack has 5 Bs and a B+ in the minors that are all better than his starters. In fact, just about everyone on his bench is better than his starters. That upsets the balance of the entire league!
And Disciple, who changed the rules, has built his team the same way. That is where we had a problem. They both are great at playing the game the way it is designed--the rest of us don't like the way it is designed.
We voted. We got the necessary 2/3. Once. Twice. Three times.
Now the rules are changed. I guess the next time we want to vote for something that I don't want I'll complain that it's too drastic for my taste.
One thing that I know: It's good to be king!
Go Honeybadgers!
Jack1
On the TRADE BLOCK!!!
If you are contending for the pennant this season, you might want to look these players over!!!
The Milwaukee Bratwurst team has gone over the hill and we are now in a re-building mode, the below listed players are all for trade. We want draft picks or good young prospects.
Please don't waste my time and yours by offering me waiver wire type trash players. No slam meant.
Thanks,
Jack1
Bob Sherry-34-1b-B-(C/A,B-/A+)
Joe Bohnet-34-lrp-B-(C,B-,B)
Gar Lang-33-2b-C+(A/B,B+/C+)
Joe Carroll-33-ss-B-(B+/B+,B-/B-)
Joe Steele-33-ss-B(C+/A,C-/A-)
Alex Coggin-33-lf-B-(C/A,B-/A+)
Al Caffyn-33-cf-B(C/A,C-/A-)
Rich Mills-33-rf-B+(B/A-,B/B+)
Don Molesworth-32-1b-B-(A-/B,B/C+)
Larry Harter-rsp-B-(A,C+,B)
Rob Brinkmam-31-rsp-B(B,A-,B-)
Harry Campanis-31-rsp-B(A+,B,B)
Bill Dillinger-cf-B-(C/B-,C+/B+)
Then Sycophantman posted this reply:
If you're in contention, chances are none of those guys are better than anyone in your lineup...
But I digress...
Then I received one trade offer from the CHI(NL) team for 2 players and received 4 prospects in return.
From there I played the young talent I was trying to develop on my team. Those players stayed in the minors waiting for trade offers all season, but no other offers ever came.
Now if that is quiting my team or deliberate tanking, then I'm quilty.
But remember, I received older drafted players in the original draft who were aged, due to the fact several owners put tremendously high 30 to 40 points on youth in the original draft. After 4 seasons most of my players were retired or retiring and it was time for me to develop young replacement talent.
Also, as Dormie allued to, what many owners in this league fell developing players is tanking. So they obviously got together in an effort to change the rules to their ideas of how the league rules should be to control what they felt was deliberate tanking.
Now everyone of these complaining owners had the opportunity to U2U me or contact me in regards to my player development methods, but NOT ONE of them chose to do so. They simply got together and decided to change the league rules in mis-stream.
I really think we have a good league under the rules it is now played under.
Also, It seems the Alex Rodriguez league is now trying to make mid-stream rule changes and some of those owners are in the Warren Spahn Lg, now is it co-incidence or what.
Lets just play ball,
Jack1
May 08, 2004 at 05:30AM View BBCode
What Dormie failed to tell you in his little statement, as he tried to cast a shadow on my character was: I posted this message on the Warren Spahn Lg. message board at the start of this season advising the entire league I was in a re-building mode and had players avaialable for trade:On the TRADE BLOCK!!!
If you are contending for the pennant this season, you might want to look these players over!!!
The Milwaukee Bratwurst team has gone over the hill and we are now in a re-building mode, the below listed players are all for trade. We want draft picks or good young prospects.
Please don't waste my time and yours by offering me waiver wire type trash players. No slam meant.
Thanks,
Jack1
Bob Sherry-34-1b-B-(C/A,B-/A+)
Joe Bohnet-34-lrp-B-(C,B-,B)
Gar Lang-33-2b-C+(A/B,B+/C+)
Joe Carroll-33-ss-B-(B+/B+,B-/B-)
Joe Steele-33-ss-B(C+/A,C-/A-)
Alex Coggin-33-lf-B-(C/A,B-/A+)
Al Caffyn-33-cf-B(C/A,C-/A-)
Rich Mills-33-rf-B+(B/A-,B/B+)
Don Molesworth-32-1b-B-(A-/B,B/C+)
Larry Harter-rsp-B-(A,C+,B)
Rob Brinkmam-31-rsp-B(B,A-,B-)
Harry Campanis-31-rsp-B(A+,B,B)
Bill Dillinger-cf-B-(C/B-,C+/B+)
Then Sycophantman posted this reply:
If you're in contention, chances are none of those guys are better than anyone in your lineup...
But I digress...
Then I received one trade offer from the CHI(NL) team for 2 players and received 4 prospects in return.
From there I played the young talent I was trying to develop on my team. Those players stayed in the minors waiting for trade offers all season, but no other offers ever came.
Now if that is quiting my team or deliberate tanking, then I'm quilty.
But remember, I received older drafted players in the original draft who were aged, due to the fact several owners put tremendously high 30 to 40 points on youth in the original draft. After 4 seasons most of my players were retired or retiring and it was time for me to develop young replacement talent.
Also, as Dormie allued to, what many owners in this league fell developing players is tanking. So they obviously got together in an effort to change the rules to their ideas of how the league rules should be to control what they felt was deliberate tanking.
Now everyone of these complaining owners had the opportunity to U2U me or contact me in regards to my player development methods, but NOT ONE of them chose to do so. They simply got together and decided to change the league rules in mis-stream.
I really think we have a good league under the rules it is now played under.
Also, It seems the Alex Rodriguez league is now trying to make mid-stream rule changes and some of those owners are in the Warren Spahn Lg, now is it co-incidence or what.
Lets just play ball,
Jack1
res98
Please don't try to paint yourself as the victim here. you have as much to blame as the rest of us
May 08, 2004 at 12:57PM View BBCode
Not Totally true Jack...I made you an offer and it wasn't for Waiverwire Trash and you declined it........Also out of that list of players you waived Molesworth/Long/Carroll....so why not the rest???Please don't try to paint yourself as the victim here. you have as much to blame as the rest of us
disciple
Before you assume that I have the magic formula for winning championships, you should know that I've employed the same exact strategy over the past 28 seasons in the JRL and have managed to win exactly 2 world series titles. Not saying that's bad or good, but I think it shows that my method does not guarantee domination or even great success. While utilizing this strategy I also went 13 years without a playoff appearance during the same 28 seasons.
You guys need to stop worrying about how good or bad someone else has it and develop your own strategy and play on. The game is what it is.
May 08, 2004 at 02:41PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Dormie2
And Disciple, who changed the rules, has built his team the same way. That is where we had a problem. They both are great at playing the game the way it is designed--the rest of us don't like the way it is designed
Before you assume that I have the magic formula for winning championships, you should know that I've employed the same exact strategy over the past 28 seasons in the JRL and have managed to win exactly 2 world series titles. Not saying that's bad or good, but I think it shows that my method does not guarantee domination or even great success. While utilizing this strategy I also went 13 years without a playoff appearance during the same 28 seasons.
You guys need to stop worrying about how good or bad someone else has it and develop your own strategy and play on. The game is what it is.
Muzzie
If its that much a problem as it stands...which honestly it is to me, then don't spend any more money until it is as you want it.
But don't make this place out to be the end all and be all that you must pay to 'SAVE IT' then you are just trying to be a martyr and that does no one any good.
May 08, 2004 at 03:19PM View BBCode
I'm telling you guys, if you are that upset...speak with the only voice that works: Your wallet.If its that much a problem as it stands...which honestly it is to me, then don't spend any more money until it is as you want it.
But don't make this place out to be the end all and be all that you must pay to 'SAVE IT' then you are just trying to be a martyr and that does no one any good.
Jeff78
To me this is what this whole argument boils down to. That's a perfect way to sum it all up, Disciple. I joined the Al Kaline League shortly after I discovered SD and being a newbie ended up with a team that was very old. At first when I realized my team was going to suck in a couple years I was pretty upset, but then I realized that I could rebuild and hope to compete in a few years. I had a great time turning my team over to youngsters (much like the Cleveland Indians are doing in MLB) and watching them develop. Maybe it's just me, but I enjoyed the challenge of trying to succeed within the game the way it was when I joined.
May 08, 2004 at 04:28PM View BBCode
"You guys need to stop worrying about how good or bad someone else has it and develop your own strategy and play on. The game is what it is."To me this is what this whole argument boils down to. That's a perfect way to sum it all up, Disciple. I joined the Al Kaline League shortly after I discovered SD and being a newbie ended up with a team that was very old. At first when I realized my team was going to suck in a couple years I was pretty upset, but then I realized that I could rebuild and hope to compete in a few years. I had a great time turning my team over to youngsters (much like the Cleveland Indians are doing in MLB) and watching them develop. Maybe it's just me, but I enjoyed the challenge of trying to succeed within the game the way it was when I joined.
skierdude44
May 09, 2004 at 04:59PM View BBCode
I think that the real problem here is that some teams play all young players no matter how much they suck in search of the number 1 pick and continue to do this for a few seasons and end up with a team full of studs and dominate for a decade. I cant speak about the WSL because i am not in that league but in general those kinds of teams ruin the fun for the rest of us. Going young is not a crime and is part of the game. I am doing it in the Santo League, but vets need value too. In real life every team plays vets and would suck if they didnt. Detroit is in the middle of a huge rebuilding project, but they brought in Pudge and Ugeth Urbina to help the young guys and maybe win some games. I have a lot of young talent in the Santo League, but I also have some talented Vets. Granted i finished 65-97 but I would have really sucked without some of those vets, especially my CF Al Mielke who hit 36 homers had 229 hits, stole 49 bases, drove in 108, hit .336, had an .394obp, slugged .598, had 37 doubles and had 17 triples. He is 33 and played in 159 games. I think that it is reasonable to say that I could have lost atleast 20 games more without him and in real life he would be a great presence with my young guys and would help them out alot.
arodtoo
May 10, 2004 at 04:39AM View BBCode
Regarding the Alex Rodriguez league, i came up with the idea after reading about the ideas floating around the WSL, and i thought it was a great idea, and i still do, becasue as many people can attest to, leagues get dull and postless after 5-6 seasons as superdynasties are built. I think changes needed to be made in individula leagues mid stream because nothing will hapenn majorly until it is too late.
OKBlueJays
Rule changes midstream .... I would be crying bloody murder ....... I understand it may have been in the by-laws of the league but this league shouldn't have been allowed to be created in the 1st place
May 10, 2004 at 08:41AM View BBCode
I am just new to all of this but I know baseball sims and have played games for years going back to MicroLeague Baseball on the Commodore 64 and the bottom line for me on this vote issue and rule changing issue is that no league if it has any credibility would change rules in mid-stream. It is ridiculous. What should have happened from the start is the people who run simdynasty should not have allowed this for competition's sake. You can change rules which may affect the season at hand and the offseason quite honestly is the time to implement and have any rule changes. I think that the amount of posts on this issue is ridiculous and it should have been closed a longggggggggggg time ago ....Rule changes midstream .... I would be crying bloody murder ....... I understand it may have been in the by-laws of the league but this league shouldn't have been allowed to be created in the 1st place
Pages: 1 2