 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Sim Forums » Baseball Enhancements » Require more than 6 owners to vote on trade protests
cdunn3
4 voted to overturn, 2 to let it stand
This may be mathematically 2/3 but common sense
says that there should be a higher standard than
6 voters to decide the issue.
Require more than 6 owners to vote on trade protests
September 20, 2011 at 01:15AM View BBCode
In one of the recent votes, only 6 owners voted.4 voted to overturn, 2 to let it stand
This may be mathematically 2/3 but common sense
says that there should be a higher standard than
6 voters to decide the issue.
ccox
[Edited on 9-20-2011 by ccox]
September 20, 2011 at 02:08AM View BBCode
A lot of people don't even pay attention to their team for days, let alone trades. I'd be surprised if 4 voted in one of my leagues.[Edited on 9-20-2011 by ccox]
jchoopz
September 20, 2011 at 03:28AM View BBCode
I don't see the problem with it. It would be more unfair to let it stand because people didn't vote. You can't force people to participate so you have to deal with the what is there.
Jeety
September 20, 2011 at 03:47AM View BBCode
Yea but also if 4 guys dont want a trade 2 bother to vote that it was fair, and the rest of the league is indifferent, that hardly seems like the trade should be overturned. Maybe a requirement that atleast 9 of 16 owners participate would make sense... as 2 of the owners were in the trade, this leaves room for 5 ppl to not vote...
Admin
We're working towards putting a note on the home page when there is a vote going on. I think that will solve the participation problem.
If you're in a Speed league, you can of course come up with your own trade voting process or rules. Have your commish contact us to discuss.
Tyson
September 20, 2011 at 03:23PM View BBCode
I saw that. I figure those guys can try to make a similar trade and it will likely pass.We're working towards putting a note on the home page when there is a vote going on. I think that will solve the participation problem.
If you're in a Speed league, you can of course come up with your own trade voting process or rules. Have your commish contact us to discuss.
Tyson
redcped
Sounds a lot like our political system, and you can see how happy people are with the results. :rolleyes:
September 20, 2011 at 04:06PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tm4559
the automated trade thing is brilliant. if folks don't care enough to vote, then, they get the decision of those that do care enough to vote. what could be better? do nothing, get nothing. particpate, then, there you go. you get a more fair result.
Sounds a lot like our political system, and you can see how happy people are with the results. :rolleyes:
tm4559
(we just do whatever Florida says. they got the oranges and all.)
September 20, 2011 at 04:07PM View BBCode
sorry, deleted accidentally.(we just do whatever Florida says. they got the oranges and all.)
jchoopz
Yeah, but then what happens if 5 people vote against it but no else votes. It obviously wasn't a fair trade because of the 5 people who took the time to vote nobody thought it was fair.
Obviously a small sample size can be a problem, but if that is all you have its what you have to work with. If 4 out of 6 people vote against it I'd say either it wasn't a fair trade or your league is mostly filled with guys who either don't participate or are bitter and will block any trade they don't personally want to happen. If that is the case I would simply be finding a new league anyways.
September 21, 2011 at 07:34PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Jeety
Yea but also if 4 guys dont want a trade 2 bother to vote that it was fair, and the rest of the league is indifferent, that hardly seems like the trade should be overturned. Maybe a requirement that atleast 9 of 16 owners participate would make sense... as 2 of the owners were in the trade, this leaves room for 5 ppl to not vote...
Yeah, but then what happens if 5 people vote against it but no else votes. It obviously wasn't a fair trade because of the 5 people who took the time to vote nobody thought it was fair.
Obviously a small sample size can be a problem, but if that is all you have its what you have to work with. If 4 out of 6 people vote against it I'd say either it wasn't a fair trade or your league is mostly filled with guys who either don't participate or are bitter and will block any trade they don't personally want to happen. If that is the case I would simply be finding a new league anyways.
barterer2002
Here's the thing. the leagues that don't care shouldn't get the benefits of overturning then IMO. You want to have an active site with bad trades overturned etc then actually participate.
September 21, 2011 at 07:39PM View BBCode
Are we seriously arguing that we shouldn't put in some sort of minimum standard simply because people are too lazy to check their teams.Here's the thing. the leagues that don't care shouldn't get the benefits of overturning then IMO. You want to have an active site with bad trades overturned etc then actually participate.
jchoopz
I can just as easily argue the other way around. How would you feel if your biggest competition got an advantage over you because he took advantage of a new player but it didn't get overturned simply because enough people to bother to look at it and vote? Again, I'd rather trust a small sample size than have the equivalent of no voting process at all because there wasn't participation.
September 21, 2011 at 11:02PM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
Are we seriously arguing that we shouldn't put in some sort of minimum standard simply because people are too lazy to check their teams.
Here's the thing. the leagues that don't care shouldn't get the benefits of overturning then IMO. You want to have an active site with bad trades overturned etc then actually participate.
I can just as easily argue the other way around. How would you feel if your biggest competition got an advantage over you because he took advantage of a new player but it didn't get overturned simply because enough people to bother to look at it and vote? Again, I'd rather trust a small sample size than have the equivalent of no voting process at all because there wasn't participation.
barterer2002
It seems to me that having a minimal number is necessary.
September 21, 2011 at 11:09PM View BBCode
I just came through a season where 5 teams were competing in the NL. Its a rare situation of course but it happens and it would be wrong to say that the other 4 can overturn a trade simply because its not in their interest to do so. Yet that's your proposal.It seems to me that having a minimal number is necessary.
jchoopz
In that situation all 4 of them have to be enough of a douche to actually block the trade and then there not be 3 other active members in the league paying attention. If there really aren't 7 other people (outside of the 2 trading) voting in the league then I still think its more likely you have a new player taken advantage of and there not be enough people to vote against it (since I would guess there are more likely to be inexperienced players if they aren't voting). Sure, you will occasionally get some trades that are vetoed when they shouldn't be, but you had that in the old system too. It can't be perfect.
September 21, 2011 at 11:45PM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
I just came through a season where 5 teams were competing in the NL. Its a rare situation of course but it happens and it would be wrong to say that the other 4 can overturn a trade simply because its not in their interest to do so. Yet that's your proposal.
It seems to me that having a minimal number is necessary.
In that situation all 4 of them have to be enough of a douche to actually block the trade and then there not be 3 other active members in the league paying attention. If there really aren't 7 other people (outside of the 2 trading) voting in the league then I still think its more likely you have a new player taken advantage of and there not be enough people to vote against it (since I would guess there are more likely to be inexperienced players if they aren't voting). Sure, you will occasionally get some trades that are vetoed when they shouldn't be, but you had that in the old system too. It can't be perfect.
kauleo
September 22, 2011 at 10:08AM View BBCode
if it is allowed within the dynamics/rules of the game, i think it is only human nature to prevent your competition from gaining an advantage regardless of how fair or unfair the trade happens to be. just my 2 cents.
dirtdevil
i'm sorry, but that sentiment is unacceptable to me. it's just flat-out dishonest.
September 22, 2011 at 01:49PM View BBCode
Originally posted by kauleo
if it is allowed within the dynamics/rules of the game, i think it is only human nature to prevent your competition from gaining an advantage regardless of how fair or unfair the trade happens to be. just my 2 cents.
i'm sorry, but that sentiment is unacceptable to me. it's just flat-out dishonest.
tm4559
September 22, 2011 at 02:11PM View BBCode
for some reason, some folks want any trade that benefits their competition to be overturned. this is not a problem with the game, this is a problem with people. this silly game is not a sport, but, it doesn't mean you can't be a sport. seriously? if this thing is important enough to you to cheat or to vote to overturn trades that should be ok? you know what you should do? take a gun and freaking kill yourself. because you are a waste of carbon.
jchoopz
I'm extremely glad you aren't in any of my leagues. I also wouldn't be surprised if everyone in your league now vetos every one of your trades.
September 22, 2011 at 05:29PM View BBCode
Originally posted by kauleo
if it is allowed within the dynamics/rules of the game, i think it is only human nature to prevent your competition from gaining an advantage regardless of how fair or unfair the trade happens to be. just my 2 cents.
I'm extremely glad you aren't in any of my leagues. I also wouldn't be surprised if everyone in your league now vetos every one of your trades.
dirtdevil
(having said that, i wouldn't be terribly surprised either, were it to take place.)
September 22, 2011 at 05:40PM View BBCode
that wouldn't be any less wrong.(having said that, i wouldn't be terribly surprised either, were it to take place.)
jchoopz
Oh, it would definitely be wrong, I just wouldn't be surprised. If I had a recent trade that was very fair but was protested and I read this I can't say I wouldn't do it...
September 22, 2011 at 05:55PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
that wouldn't be any less wrong.
(having said that, i wouldn't be terribly surprised either, were it to take place.)
Oh, it would definitely be wrong, I just wouldn't be surprised. If I had a recent trade that was very fair but was protested and I read this I can't say I wouldn't do it...
kauleo
hope i made myself clear - i can get how you guys may have misunderstood my position earlier - sorry.
[Edited on 9-23-2011 by kauleo]
September 23, 2011 at 08:04AM View BBCode
i think you guys have misinterperted my meaning. I am basically saying, if you give someone the option to do something (no matter how right or wrong it is) there will be a segment of ppl who do it, without fail. that is human nature. I'm not trying to justify it, and I definitely don't practice it. furthermore i've already mentioned in my league (DVL speed league) that this new system is very challenging if not downright impossible. If a protest occurs, and I happen to be on vacay, or miss a day, or am on lockdown by my woman, then as many as 12 to 36 game may have passed. This needs to be taken into account as well.hope i made myself clear - i can get how you guys may have misunderstood my position earlier - sorry.
[Edited on 9-23-2011 by kauleo]
dirtdevil
i do think that needing to have a substantial number of league owners voting on a trade in order for it to be overturned is a self-evident requirement. i don't really understand why that's even being debated.
September 23, 2011 at 01:25PM View BBCode
thank-you for the explanation. i don't know what can really be done about the time passage in the faster leagues. the only alternatives i can see are to pause the league while the protest is dealt with or to force a vote with 24 hours, both of which have fairly obvious issues.i do think that needing to have a substantial number of league owners voting on a trade in order for it to be overturned is a self-evident requirement. i don't really understand why that's even being debated.
tm4559
the automated thing is a step in the right direction, because most of the protests (done manually before) were silly anyway.
here is the thing. if a trade is truly bad (or, if the protest if truly stupid), then, enough owners ought to get on and vote to get a quorum (i would say, eight out of 16 voting, that seems like plenty to me, the other half don't want to participate, fine, they take what they get.) then a simple majority of that (5 if 8 or 9 voting, 6 if 10 and so on). no quorum, no action, died due to non interest. give them two days to vote, real time days, sure, thats 24 games in a twelve and day league. perhaps the trade tips the issue of final standings in 24 games, and perhaps not. there has to be a process. you have to accept it isn't going to be perfect. not perfect is better than bugging admin with these silly trade protests all the time (if the two days real time ran past the trade deadline and the trade was overturned, then, you reverse the time, go back to before the trade and replay all the games. why not? you want it perfect on trades, then, accept the consequences. maybe your team made up some incredible deficit and made the playoffs, and wasn't even involved in the trade. tough........noogies.)
(alternatively, you could do this. democracy is pretty dumb for this stuff anyway, because even folks that aren't directly involved still have an interest in the trade. so, just leave the protest button like it is. anybody can protest. then just let it go straight to bart of jason or whoever else if it's in their leagues. and let them pass judgement on it. there you go. yea or nay. see how easy that is?)
[Edited on 9-23-2011 by tm4559]
September 23, 2011 at 03:12PM View BBCode
there really is just no tidy solution to the trade protest thing, because of fast past leagues and other issues.the automated thing is a step in the right direction, because most of the protests (done manually before) were silly anyway.
here is the thing. if a trade is truly bad (or, if the protest if truly stupid), then, enough owners ought to get on and vote to get a quorum (i would say, eight out of 16 voting, that seems like plenty to me, the other half don't want to participate, fine, they take what they get.) then a simple majority of that (5 if 8 or 9 voting, 6 if 10 and so on). no quorum, no action, died due to non interest. give them two days to vote, real time days, sure, thats 24 games in a twelve and day league. perhaps the trade tips the issue of final standings in 24 games, and perhaps not. there has to be a process. you have to accept it isn't going to be perfect. not perfect is better than bugging admin with these silly trade protests all the time (if the two days real time ran past the trade deadline and the trade was overturned, then, you reverse the time, go back to before the trade and replay all the games. why not? you want it perfect on trades, then, accept the consequences. maybe your team made up some incredible deficit and made the playoffs, and wasn't even involved in the trade. tough........noogies.)
(alternatively, you could do this. democracy is pretty dumb for this stuff anyway, because even folks that aren't directly involved still have an interest in the trade. so, just leave the protest button like it is. anybody can protest. then just let it go straight to bart of jason or whoever else if it's in their leagues. and let them pass judgement on it. there you go. yea or nay. see how easy that is?)
[Edited on 9-23-2011 by tm4559]
jchoopz
I apologize.
Let me ask this though. Why is it this minimum number of votes thing is such a problem now? That didn't even change with this new system, did it? Just the actual voting process.
September 23, 2011 at 03:25PM View BBCode
Originally posted by kauleo
i think you guys have misinterperted my meaning. I am basically saying, if you give someone the option to do something (no matter how right or wrong it is) there will be a segment of ppl who do it, without fail. that is human nature. I'm not trying to justify it, and I definitely don't practice it. furthermore i've already mentioned in my league (DVL speed league) that this new system is very challenging if not downright impossible. If a protest occurs, and I happen to be on vacay, or miss a day, or am on lockdown by my woman, then as many as 12 to 36 game may have passed. This needs to be taken into account as well.
hope i made myself clear - i can get how you guys may have misunderstood my position earlier - sorry.
[Edited on 9-23-2011 by kauleo]
I apologize.
Let me ask this though. Why is it this minimum number of votes thing is such a problem now? That didn't even change with this new system, did it? Just the actual voting process.
jchoopz
The problem with reversing time is that will the affect the vote. If you just had a poor 20 game stretch you'd be more likely to overturn it. Just the opposite if you just made up a bunch of ground. I just don't think it is good to bring other factors in that are completely irrelevant.
September 23, 2011 at 03:29PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tm4559
there really is just no tidy solution to the trade protest thing, because of fast past leagues and other issues.
the automated thing is a step in the right direction, because most of the protests (done manually before) were silly anyway.
here is the thing. if a trade is truly bad (or, if the protest if truly stupid), then, enough owners ought to get on and vote to get a quorum (i would say, eight out of 16 voting, that seems like plenty to me, the other half don't want to participate, fine, they take what they get.) then a simple majority of that (5 if 8 or 9 voting, 6 if 10 and so on). no quorum, no action, died due to non interest. give them two days to vote, real time days, sure, thats 24 games in a twelve and day league. perhaps the trade tips the issue of final standings in 24 games, and perhaps not. there has to be a process. you have to accept it isn't going to be perfect. not perfect is better than bugging admin with these silly trade protests all the time (if the two days real time ran past the trade deadline and the trade was overturned, then, you reverse the time, go back to before the trade and replay all the games. why not? you want it perfect on trades, then, accept the consequences. maybe your team made up some incredible deficit and made the playoffs, and wasn't even involved in the trade. tough........noogies.)
[Edited on 9-23-2011 by tm4559]
The problem with reversing time is that will the affect the vote. If you just had a poor 20 game stretch you'd be more likely to overturn it. Just the opposite if you just made up a bunch of ground. I just don't think it is good to bring other factors in that are completely irrelevant.
redcped
Seriously, what irks me about this entire process is the lack of perspective.
With the tiny exception of a few leagues with prizes, and I don't have any idea how many of those remain, there is no reward for winning.
So, yes, it is of course lovely to win. Competition is healthy and natural.
But if a questionable trade allows my opponent to win one more game than I did and sneak into the playoffs, is this really a tragedy? I'm not going to lose sleep over it, any more than I would go throw confetti when I win.
And for goodness sake, if anyone is trying to develop a strategy around blocking competitor's trades, there should be a place to vote that person out of the league.
Power should be used sparingly and wisely.
September 23, 2011 at 03:32PM View BBCode
I have always wanted to have royal power, so I like that last idea. :saint:Seriously, what irks me about this entire process is the lack of perspective.
With the tiny exception of a few leagues with prizes, and I don't have any idea how many of those remain, there is no reward for winning.
So, yes, it is of course lovely to win. Competition is healthy and natural.
But if a questionable trade allows my opponent to win one more game than I did and sneak into the playoffs, is this really a tragedy? I'm not going to lose sleep over it, any more than I would go throw confetti when I win.
And for goodness sake, if anyone is trying to develop a strategy around blocking competitor's trades, there should be a place to vote that person out of the league.
Power should be used sparingly and wisely.
tm4559
September 23, 2011 at 03:34PM View BBCode
oh god. its a herding cats issue. you understand? the whole trade protest thing is a like a bunch of little girls arguing at recess.Pages: 1 2