Posted by MikeT23 on 1/11/2015 9:15:00 PM (view original):

Present ONE option and vote Yes/No.      You will not find a way to make everyone happy.     The 17 pages of this thread makes that apparent.

This current vote is to find the consensus on what might be the most important rule. I think it's worth it.

Page 18!

Well, you're running this shitshow.    Give them one option and, if a current member votes "no", find another world.     As tec just said, you're 10 days into it, you present 3 options and people are asking for two more.   

Posted by runnrun on 1/11/2015 8:46:00 PM (view original):
Agreed tec. It's time to vote as presented. 10 days is enough. Get the theme going or let it revert to the dead world it was. I for1 do not need this

You know what? Jaha world might be the beneficiary, or perhaps For Life world. Ford isn't the only one. What we've done here is hammer out the rules to a point where we can present a complete set of rules to be simply accepted or rejected by a floundering world looking for an alternative to merging.

If you're going to do that, then make sure the the group of owners who plan to join world X are all 100% committed to the agreed upon rules, and we all enter with a united front.

Right now, we have at least one person within the group who doesn't seem to be on the same page as most everybody else.  Either get him in line, or drop him from the group.

This is NOT going to work ANYWHERE if the 12-15 people who are supposedly on board for this are not fully united.

I'm voting for B

Posted by tecwrg on 1/11/2015 9:54:00 PM (view original):
If you're going to do that, then make sure the the group of owners who plan to join world X are all 100% committed to the agreed upon rules, and we all enter with a united front.

Right now, we have at least one person within the group who doesn't seem to be on the same page as most everybody else.  Either get him in line, or drop him from the group.

This is NOT going to work ANYWHERE if the 12-15 people who are supposedly on board for this are not fully united.

I think this is why we are voting. To establish rules. There should and always will be different ideas.

ya sah, ya sah, I hears ya masta, whateva u say doesn't work for everyone. The real life world wouldn't be where it is if it wasn't for people who colored outside the box. Get over yourself, you don't have all the Corrrect answers.

Yes, this process is taking a long time and I (for one) am greatly appreciative for the restraint and effort that shobob has put into this process. He is trying to get everything right (though impossible), but we are almost to a starting point where adjustments can be made from next season and beyond. Anyone has the right to leave, for whatever reason, but this is one person who intends to see this through.

Now I almost forgot what I came in here for. Shobob, should the rule say "down to 20" or "down to 20 or less" or "everyone must be on 20"? Because some people don't have 20 in the majors to start with.

20 or less. I'll make sure I word the final draft that way.

Here are your results thus far:

A 1
B 5
C 2
D 1
E 1

There isn't even a D or E option and they account for 20% of your votes.   And less than 1/3 of the world has bothered to vote.

I've said all along that this is a house of cards built on an unstable foundation.   If, nearly two weeks in, you can't even get owners to vote for the options presented, how long do you think the concept explodes once the world is approved?

Personally, I prefer whboone's idea. To me the 'spirit' of the concept is keeping 20 players each season, much like a fantasy keeper league. To me, the best time to do that is at the start of the season. As early as possible. And then you are done with it. 

However, in the spirit of moving forward I will vote for B. 

I only want one extra option, but the one option has to be a simple option.  A,B, and C are all basically the same ****** options with multiple points of policing.  They are three shades of ******.  Its like saying, what color do you like, here is gray, dark gray and charcoal.  The first three are basically the same thing with small differences.  So not only would I have to know to get to 20 twice, but I need to remember if I have made the right number of waivers, or have used the correct types of waivers. Or is the person I signed, signed to a long term contract or not.  Jesus, make the first season simple.  If it is too complicated, you will not know if owners are cheating or just not understanding the rules.  Most owners cannot even follow all the rules now (i.e. the difference between designating and releasing?).  Let's make it simple, see how it works and them improve.

The NCAA will eventually get to an 8 team playoff (one power 5 conference will be unhappy every year), but they started simple with 4 and will improve it (I hope).

whbone that seems a bit over-dramatic. These are more or less simple rules.

A = be at 20 by the Roster Freeze.
B = be at 20 by the start of Free Agency and stay at 20 through the Rule 5 (meaning if you sign a Free Agent or claim someone off of waivers you must drop a player to stay at 20)
C = option B with a limit on successful waiver claims.

The only way this gets complicated is if you are the commissioner and have to enforce it and you don't have to offer to help. Philosophically it comes down to your impatience and we'll fix it on the fly versus some of us who want to try to get it right so we don't have to fix it while it is in use. That just make it functional and fix later approach has worked really well in US industry in the past 30 years or so hasn't it. If we take our time and get it right it will make far more enjoyable experience.