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.
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.
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.
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.