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 have seen vetos because someone else wanted the player. Or because another owner was evaluating the needs of the teams rather than look at the trade on face value. IE: guy already has 3 stud WRs, but trades for another. Thats his business, if he trades a 3rd or 4th round pick for a Colston or similar, thats really not Veto worthy in a keeper league. A WR for a 4th or 3rd round pick, thats how that should be evaluated.
Or someone gets an extra draft pick for trading a player not on their Keeper roster that another owner wants. Some will veto in hopes that they can draft them instead. IE: if I am not keeping Colston and someone offers a 4th rounder for him instead of risking he goes in the first 3 rounds.
I have seen some people who veto everything. Just doesn't matter. If they aren't involved, they veto.
By the same token, there are trades that ARE out and out BS. Usually by collusion, or stupidity, or someone wants that player bad enough that they pay anything. Trades like these need to be vetoed for obvious reasons.
What I do now as the commish, is this. If a trade is vetoed, I want the parties who vetoed to give a valid, reasonable explaination as to why. Not some BS like, he doesn't need another WR, or I wanted that guy and he traded with someone else. Or my favorite, he's not on his keeper list.
If there are not enough legit reasons for the veto, I have the parties resubmit the trade and manually do it. If one owner continually vetoes trades with no explaination then they lose their rights at trades and vetoes for a given period of time in increasing sanctions. Where their vetoes do not count during that time, then they are not able to make trades themselves. If the abuse of this priviledge continues, they are removed in the off-season.
Sounds harsh I know, but unfortunately until flea gives commishoners the choice between veto system and commish approval for trades, I don't see another way.
On another site, I have it set as commish approval and I give all owners with a MB post the ability to contest any trade for 48 hours. It truly works out better that way.
Reading over your post, I think this is a solution that would work. It's basically a hybrid veto/commish system.
Whenever a trade is posted, all players can approve (with comment) or disapprove (again with comment). Also, the people trading can post comments to explain why they want to make the trade. Sometimes a trade looks stupid at first glance, but when the owner explains the reasons behind the trade, it makes more sense.
Now, the approves/disapproves have NO effect on canceling the trade. Ultimately, the commish decides to cancel it or not. The comments, though, would be very helpful to the commish when weighing all sides. Also in this system, the people that veto every trade with no reason would end up being ignored and wouldn't be a problem.
Trade a draft pick for favre 2 month's ago and it went through. The guy might have made a good deal. The commish does have final say and that's the way it should be, or you can just run away like you did.
LOL they seem to be under the presumption that my leagues are Democracies, when in fact they are benevolent dictatorships...muhahahahaha
j/k I have found that in custom leagues with solid owners MANY of these issues go away. Also, I don't usually have to play bad cop as the folks in the community have a good way of sniffing out BS and handling it. That is truly one thing this site has that others do not.
Also, when it comes to trade policies and scoring rules, etc. It usually is a good idea to build consensus. It is only when I have a rogue owner or two who upset the cart that I click the "restore commish powers" button.
One other bit of advice. I always leave the lower commish powers on. That way any time I make ANY change no matter how small, it registers in the log and generally I will post on the MB if it is something major that affects the league.
I wish every commish did this but that seems to be a rarity. Alot of them aren't even online enough to push every trade through, especially when some of these leagues will shoot down a trade within a couple hours.
My whole point is, why keep around that veto system if it's just something that has to be worked around. Let's just remove the thing, or at least make it optional.
What we need is a commissioners option to pick the number of veto's required to kill a trade or the option to switch from a veto system to a commissioner approve system. But than the commissioner would come under a lot of heat every time he vetoed a trade...
At least adding the commish option to control trades would be a good start, and I could just join leagues that had chosen that option. The veto system as now really needs a change. It's designed so you can easily abuse it with no penalties, or even anyone knowing it was you.
It's a free league, it won't deter anything because there is nothing for them to lose. Leave things the way they are and find good owners. From my experiences most fair trades go through. Those who usually complain about the veto system are usually those members who are trying to do a bullshit lopsided trade, Either that or your league is infested with a bunch of cheating unethical owners and you should leave those kinds of leagues and find new ones. That is what I do... JMHO
From my experience over 90% of trades that get vetoed aren't because they are lopsided or cheat trades. You give people the power to screw over other teams, and let them do it anonymously THEY WILL ABUSE IT. You say find good owners? I had SEVERAL leagues last year where every single trade got vetoed regardless. The first league I joined this year, I try to make a draft pick trade. Going by the FF trade value chart it's almost exactly equal on both sides, but gets vetoed within a couple hours. I'm already planning on leaving that league, but who knows if the next league will be any better? There HAS to be a better solution than joining and leaving leagues constantly. Why keep a system around that's doing more harm than good?
If you are the commish you can just pass the trades automatically. If you are in leagues with good commishes pass the idea by them. That's one way you can get past the system.
Yeah, but if that's the case why keep the veto system around? People keep suggesting ways to get around the veto-happy people, but why not just remove the system. I wouldn't mind having a system where only the commish can authorize/deny a trade. At least that way he's accountable, rather than letting people screw you over anonymously.
The same goes for if you remove the veto system. Take away the vetos and you'll have all kinds of lopsided trades and cheating going on. At least now there is some kind of system in place to deter cheating. I was in one league last year like the one you talked about. I hated it and was going to leave until the commissioner finally took over and started approving those trades that looked fair right away. Anything suspect he left up to the members to vote on.
You said being banned for cheating won't deter cheaters, but a trade being vetoed will? C'mon now.
This exact scenario happened to me last year. A person with multiple accounts tried trading his top players all to one team, with a horribly lopsided trade. Everyone knew he was cheating and vetoed the trade. This didn't deter him at all. He tried again and again until he finally got the trade to go through, because enough people didn't come online to veto it.
The league maybe but not other teams. There's a conflict of interest when you let opposing teams decide if you can make a trade or not. Hey, a division rival really needs a QB and is trading for one... VETO!
There are pros and cons to both sides. If that type of situation happens, the other owners can report the cheating and get them voted out of the league. So not all is lost. Being banned on a free site doesn't really deter anyone, I don't think. Some it will but most it won't. They'll just try to figure out another way to join and start again.
"the other owners can report the cheating and get them voted out of the league."
No they can't because it's anonymous. Even if it's not anonymous, they can just say "oh I didn't think it was fair or whatever". Nobody is going to admit they vetoed it for no reason or to screw the teams.
"Being banned on a free site doesn't really deter anyone, I don't think."
If you're trying to win, being banned/kicked from a league mid-season should definitely be a deterrent. Much more, at least, than just having your trade vetoed and being able to try the same trade again 30 seconds later.
Right but the system in place now has no penalties for vetoing trades, regardless of whether the veto is justified. It pretty much encourages people to abuse it.
Like I said, often times you don't know if a league will be veto-happy until after you join, draft, ect. It might be weeks into the season before you even attempt your first trade. At that point, whether you leave or stay and have every trade vetoed it's a lose/lose situation.
It'll be better just to remove the system than to constantly workaround it.
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.
VaBhodiWed 5/20/09 11:42 AM
I am implementing a new policy to deep-six it.
I have seen vetos because someone else wanted the player. Or because another owner was evaluating the needs of the teams rather than look at the trade on face value. IE: guy already has 3 stud WRs, but trades for another. Thats his business, if he trades a 3rd or 4th round pick for a Colston or similar, thats really not Veto worthy in a keeper league. A WR for a 4th or 3rd round pick, thats how that should be evaluated.
Or someone gets an extra draft pick for trading a player not on their Keeper roster that another owner wants. Some will veto in hopes that they can draft them instead. IE: if I am not keeping Colston and someone offers a 4th rounder for him instead of risking he goes in the first 3 rounds.
I have seen some people who veto everything. Just doesn't matter. If they aren't involved, they veto.
By the same token, there are trades that ARE out and out BS. Usually by collusion, or stupidity, or someone wants that player bad enough that they pay anything. Trades like these need to be vetoed for obvious reasons.
What I do now as the commish, is this. If a trade is vetoed, I want the parties who vetoed to give a valid, reasonable explaination as to why. Not some BS like, he doesn't need another WR, or I wanted that guy and he traded with someone else. Or my favorite, he's not on his keeper list.
If there are not enough legit reasons for the veto, I have the parties resubmit the trade and manually do it. If one owner continually vetoes trades with no explaination then they lose their rights at trades and vetoes for a given period of time in increasing sanctions. Where their vetoes do not count during that time, then they are not able to make trades themselves. If the abuse of this priviledge continues, they are removed in the off-season.
Sounds harsh I know, but unfortunately until flea gives commishoners the choice between veto system and commish approval for trades, I don't see another way.
On another site, I have it set as commish approval and I give all owners with a MB post the ability to contest any trade for 48 hours. It truly works out better that way.
R0CKnR0LLAThu 5/21/09 3:00 PM
Whenever a trade is posted, all players can approve (with comment) or disapprove (again with comment). Also, the people trading can post comments to explain why they want to make the trade. Sometimes a trade looks stupid at first glance, but when the owner explains the reasons behind the trade, it makes more sense.
Now, the approves/disapproves have NO effect on canceling the trade. Ultimately, the commish decides to cancel it or not. The comments, though, would be very helpful to the commish when weighing all sides. Also in this system, the people that veto every trade with no reason would end up being ignored and wouldn't be a problem.
scotto1959Thu 5/21/09 3:03 PM
scotto1959Thu 5/21/09 3:06 PM
scotto1959Thu 5/21/09 3:10 PM
mdriskellFri 5/22/09 8:36 AM
scotto1959Fri 5/22/09 10:52 AM
mdriskellFri 5/22/09 11:50 AM
R0CKnR0LLAThu 5/21/09 3:11 PM
1) (Default) Commish has final approval/disapproval on all trades.
2) Automatically push trades through with X number of Approves.
3) Automatically cancel trades with X number of Disapproves.
scotto1959Thu 5/21/09 3:13 PM
VaBhodiFri 5/22/09 3:15 AM
j/k I have found that in custom leagues with solid owners MANY of these issues go away. Also, I don't usually have to play bad cop as the folks in the community have a good way of sniffing out BS and handling it. That is truly one thing this site has that others do not.
VaBhodiFri 5/22/09 3:18 AM
One other bit of advice. I always leave the lower commish powers on. That way any time I make ANY change no matter how small, it registers in the log and generally I will post on the MB if it is something major that affects the league.
[Deleted User]Mon 5/18/09 10:41 PM
pwbowenMon 5/18/09 4:30 PM
As Commish, when I see a trade I go ahead and approve it. If I have an issue, I leave it and contact the owners.
I don't give a crap about vetos.
R0CKnR0LLAMon 5/18/09 4:34 PM
My whole point is, why keep around that veto system if it's just something that has to be worked around. Let's just remove the thing, or at least make it optional.
scotto1959Mon 5/18/09 5:44 PM
[Deleted User]Mon 5/18/09 4:01 PM
R0CKnR0LLAMon 5/18/09 4:16 PM
dhenigin76Mon 5/18/09 12:04 PM
[Deleted User]Mon 5/18/09 8:41 AM
R0CKnR0LLAMon 5/18/09 2:09 PM
luke1982Mon 5/18/09 2:21 PM
R0CKnR0LLAMon 5/18/09 2:26 PM
[Deleted User]Mon 5/18/09 3:59 PM
R0CKnR0LLAMon 5/18/09 4:13 PM
This exact scenario happened to me last year. A person with multiple accounts tried trading his top players all to one team, with a horribly lopsided trade. Everyone knew he was cheating and vetoed the trade. This didn't deter him at all. He tried again and again until he finally got the trade to go through, because enough people didn't come online to veto it.
[Deleted User]Mon 5/18/09 8:36 AM
R0CKnR0LLAMon 5/18/09 2:17 PM
[Deleted User]Mon 5/18/09 6:48 PM
R0CKnR0LLAMon 5/18/09 7:06 PM
No they can't because it's anonymous. Even if it's not anonymous, they can just say "oh I didn't think it was fair or whatever". Nobody is going to admit they vetoed it for no reason or to screw the teams.
"Being banned on a free site doesn't really deter anyone, I don't think."
If you're trying to win, being banned/kicked from a league mid-season should definitely be a deterrent. Much more, at least, than just having your trade vetoed and being able to try the same trade again 30 seconds later.
scotto1959Mon 5/18/09 7:07 PM
R0CKnR0LLAMon 5/18/09 7:12 PM
scotto1959Mon 5/18/09 7:16 PM
scotto1959Mon 5/18/09 7:18 PM
R0CKnR0LLAMon 5/18/09 7:25 PM
Like I said, often times you don't know if a league will be veto-happy until after you join, draft, ect. It might be weeks into the season before you even attempt your first trade. At that point, whether you leave or stay and have every trade vetoed it's a lose/lose situation.
It'll be better just to remove the system than to constantly workaround it.
scotto1959Mon 5/18/09 7:32 PM
scotto1959Mon 5/18/09 7:06 PM
scotto1959Mon 5/18/09 7:10 PM
scotto1959Mon 5/18/09 3:26 AM