People should be able to run their teams the way they want. Imagine if Chicago tried trading for Cutler, but other teams around the league vetoed it.
Let's say I have several good RBs, but need help at WR. So I trade one of my RBs for a similar valued WR. Maybe the other guy needs a RB badly, so it improves both teams. Now, if you're an opposing player trying to win, why would you NOT veto this trade?
By vetoing every trade that comes along, it improves your chances of winning, and people do just that. They abuse the veto like crazy, and why not? It's anonymous and there are no repercussions whatsoever.
If you end up in a veto-happy league you basically can't trade at all, no matter how equal the trade is. And you don't know how bad those veto-mongers will be until you've already joined, drafted, ect. This really is the worst part about some of the leagues here.
What about cheaters though? Well, it doesn't even help there. Someone with multiple accounts can time their trades, or just get vetoed and try again and again until it finally goes through.
Here's my solution: Trades go through instantly, no veto possible. Yet, the trade is reported/shown to all members, with a link next to it "Report if you suspect cheating"
The trade happens regardless, but if the person is reported and found to be cheating, all their accounts are banned and they are removed from possibly winning anything. This actually will deter cheaters AND still give regular rule-following members the freedom to run their team the way they see fit.
i agree. at least have it as an option whether your league wants it. in our league it's just commish approval and that works fine for us. our league as well as others don't need no veto system.
Hello to all. I'm new to the site and I'm reading this thread, as a commisioner I certainly don't care for a veto system. I like the commish final approval with no chance to veto, But I don't see an administrator responding to this thread at all. Do they read it, and is there something in the works to customize this feature?
Owners SHOULD vote to veto every good trade. This is why veto systems are stupid.
Any good trade should benefit all owners involved in the trade. As a competitive owner, whose only aim is trying to win, therefore, if you are not involved in a trade that would benefit two of your opponents, you have a duty to veto it, if the rules allow vetoes. Otherwise, you're not really trying to win as hard as you should be.
But presumably, the purpose of allowing vetoes is so that the owners will be able to democratically and collectively play commissioner and veto only bad trades.
So there is an inherent conflict of interest in leagues that allow vetoes. Either you're voting to veto good trades and undermining the purpose of the veto, or you're not voting to veto good trades and not really trying to win as hard as you should be.
Only the Commissioner should be allowed to veto a trade. Because that's what the Commissioner is supposed to do--to enforce whatever trading rules there may be.
Veto's are needed to prevent trades like Frank Gore for Pierre Garcon. Most trade will go through if you have a good league unless it is so one sided that parity and/or fair play is lost.
ROCKnROLLA do you actually believe that Doomsday Dazzlers was above board? The commish is a new acount 09, two other owners of his division are new accounts 09. All of them are in only the one league. etc...
Veto's should not be necessary but examples like this happen too often. I was in the NFL fantasy before this. So I am a new member. Just this year I have run into two leagues out of the dozen I've entered that had this type of owner cheating setup by the commish.
Deleting accounts is like getting rid of spammers, NOT. Cheaters just creat new accounts.
Maybe there should be rules on who can create a league.
The only solution I see is to get in enough leagues and develop enough owner contact so that you can create a private league with serious owners.
The Trade System just needs to be customizable. My suggestion is a few different ways to allow trades:
(1) Current Veto System - should allow % of vetoes to be set (i.e. % as a parameter = 75% must veto for example)
(2) Commish has ultimate approval - in this case really doesn't matter what people veto or commish could take it into account, but making the Commish approve it should be an option
- Currently Commish has to go in and push the trade through before it gets vetoed, even in a good league it's in everyone's best interest to veto the Top Teams' trades
(3) Make vetoes more public i.e. Post a transaction log of who vetoed and who voted to approve
- Need accountability!!!!!
Trades is the only thing this site really needs to adjust, awesome free FFL site other than trading. But that's a big stickler for me.
R0CKnR0LLASun 5/17/09 7:51 PM
Let's say I have several good RBs, but need help at WR. So I trade one of my RBs for a similar valued WR. Maybe the other guy needs a RB badly, so it improves both teams. Now, if you're an opposing player trying to win, why would you NOT veto this trade?
By vetoing every trade that comes along, it improves your chances of winning, and people do just that. They abuse the veto like crazy, and why not? It's anonymous and there are no repercussions whatsoever.
If you end up in a veto-happy league you basically can't trade at all, no matter how equal the trade is. And you don't know how bad those veto-mongers will be until you've already joined, drafted, ect. This really is the worst part about some of the leagues here.
What about cheaters though? Well, it doesn't even help there. Someone with multiple accounts can time their trades, or just get vetoed and try again and again until it finally goes through.
Here's my solution: Trades go through instantly, no veto possible. Yet, the trade is reported/shown to all members, with a link next to it "Report if you suspect cheating"
The trade happens regardless, but if the person is reported and found to be cheating, all their accounts are banned and they are removed from possibly winning anything. This actually will deter cheaters AND still give regular rule-following members the freedom to run their team the way they see fit.
dhenigin76Tue 12/15/09 10:32 PM
any progress on this?
DenzilSat 11/28/09 11:53 AM
i agree. at least have it as an option whether your league wants it. in our league it's just commish approval and that works fine for us. our league as well as others don't need no veto system.
bkardane11Sat 11/28/09 12:35 PM
It is an option
dhenigin76Wed 11/18/09 10:30 PM
BUMP
LilWayne123Sun 11/15/09 8:41 AM
Yes!
shawneewarriorFri 8/7/09 7:00 PM
Hello to all. I'm new to the site and I'm reading this thread, as a commisioner I certainly don't care for a veto system. I like the commish final approval with no chance to veto, But I don't see an administrator responding to this thread at all. Do they read it, and is there something in the works to customize this feature?
fleafounder AdminMon 8/10/09 7:59 AM
There's no option to disable the veto but we can certainly add it.
I'll try to add it as an option for private leagues sometime this season.
tcostantMon 8/10/09 3:15 PM
Thanks!
OscarmeyerMon 8/10/09 10:37 PM
Would it also be possible to add an option for private leagues that gives the commishoner the sole ability to decide if a trade is good or bad?
bkardane11Mon 8/10/09 11:39 PM
Well if they get rid of the veto system, that only leaves the Commish Execute and Commish Cancel so that's already done
fleafounder AdminTue 8/11/09 10:56 PM
Right this is now live under transaction options.
dhenigin76Wed 11/4/09 11:38 AM
Can you also add options for the following?
1. Trade Review Period
24 hours
48 hours
No Trade Review Period (NEW OPTION)
2. Veto Options
Owner Veto or Approve
Commish Approve or Veto
No Approve or Veto
(ALL 3 ARE NEW OPTIONS, AND IS A SUGGESTED CHANGE OF THE CURRENT "ALLOW VETOES" SELECTION)
VeritasWed 11/11/09 4:14 PM
Awesome. Please keep us updated on this
RobertKellyTue 8/4/09 11:03 PM
Owners SHOULD vote to veto every good trade. This is why veto systems are stupid.
Any good trade should benefit all owners involved in the trade. As a competitive owner, whose only aim is trying to win, therefore, if you are not involved in a trade that would benefit two of your opponents, you have a duty to veto it, if the rules allow vetoes. Otherwise, you're not really trying to win as hard as you should be.
But presumably, the purpose of allowing vetoes is so that the owners will be able to democratically and collectively play commissioner and veto only bad trades.
So there is an inherent conflict of interest in leagues that allow vetoes. Either you're voting to veto good trades and undermining the purpose of the veto, or you're not voting to veto good trades and not really trying to win as hard as you should be.
Only the Commissioner should be allowed to veto a trade. Because that's what the Commissioner is supposed to do--to enforce whatever trading rules there may be.
Thanks,
OOFFL Commissioner
Pee-DeeThu 11/5/09 5:02 AM
Veto's are needed to prevent trades like Frank Gore for Pierre Garcon. Most trade will go through if you have a good league unless it is so one sided that parity and/or fair play is lost.
RobertKellyWed 12/2/09 12:32 PM
No. The Commissioner is the only one who should be able to prevent trades like Frank Gore for Pierre Garcon.
BillKrauseMon 7/27/09 10:16 AM
The problem is not trades it is cheating.
ROCKnROLLA do you actually believe that Doomsday Dazzlers was above board? The commish is a new acount 09, two other owners of his division are new accounts 09. All of them are in only the one league. etc...
Veto's should not be necessary but examples like this happen too often. I was in the NFL fantasy before this. So I am a new member. Just this year I have run into two leagues out of the dozen I've entered that had this type of owner cheating setup by the commish.
Deleting accounts is like getting rid of spammers, NOT. Cheaters just creat new accounts.
Maybe there should be rules on who can create a league.
The only solution I see is to get in enough leagues and develop enough owner contact so that you can create a private league with serious owners.
cmbeyerMon 7/27/09 9:18 AM
The Trade System just needs to be customizable. My suggestion is a few different ways to allow trades:
(1) Current Veto System - should allow % of vetoes to be set (i.e. % as a parameter = 75% must veto for example)
(2) Commish has ultimate approval - in this case really doesn't matter what people veto or commish could take it into account, but making the Commish approve it should be an option
- Currently Commish has to go in and push the trade through before it gets vetoed, even in a good league it's in everyone's best interest to veto the Top Teams' trades
(3) Make vetoes more public i.e. Post a transaction log of who vetoed and who voted to approve
- Need accountability!!!!!
Trades is the only thing this site really needs to adjust, awesome free FFL site other than trading. But that's a big stickler for me.