update Topic

csherwood
Posts: 533 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 116
Prospect
I thought jvf said 4 pages ago that there was a vote and 17 owners (last I counted 16 was a majority) approved.  If you want, sitemail all the owners yourself and get their votes...if you can get 16 or more to say they dont want the rules or 10 or more that want jvf out, then it will happen.
8/12/2010 10:55 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
csherwood
Posts: 533 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 116
Prospect
16 + yourself = 17 unless you were planning on voting against your own issue.

Those Jersey Shore morons are all New Yorkers invading our state.

As for vague rules...all the more reason for the commish to have to get 4 of 6 other owners to approve any actions he takes.  That said, I think the system should requite these 6 committee people to be voted on by the league as a whole so it does not appear to be simply a band of people chosen to rubber stamp his actions.  I can tell you that personally if jvf asked me to vote someone out of the league because, for example, they made a couple trades of minor leaguers or they had an extra 100k in a trade above salaries...I would vote no.  The only reason anyone should ever be thrown out of the league is either tanking on purpose or acting like MikeT.
8/13/2010 7:23 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
16 is not a majority of 32.   It just isn't.

Sure, whatever you say, snook.

You can avoid any decision-making process by simply incorporating rules that aren't vague.   Leaving them vague, intentionally, leaves too many loopholes in both directions.   JVF and his cronies can attempt to abuse power.   The "offending" party can probably argue his way out of any dismissal because the rules are not clear.   And, for the record, "actling like MikeT" is a JVF specialty.  As I said, it's impossible for one owner to "blow up" a world chat.   And, even if it was possible, WifS gave us a tool to handle it.  No, the tool is not cshewood, it's the block feature.
8/13/2010 7:48 AM
hartjh14
Posts: 468 (0)
Hall of Famer
165 8 1 147
Prospect
Posted by csherwood on 8/12/2010 10:55:00 PM (view original):
I thought jvf said 4 pages ago that there was a vote and 17 owners (last I counted 16 was a majority) approved.  If you want, sitemail all the owners yourself and get their votes...if you can get 16 or more to say they dont want the rules or 10 or more that want jvf out, then it will happen.
He did say that. I don't believe him. He took the power initially without telling anyone or asking permission, why would I trust this isn't more of his power play? Rule 7 is the most ego maniacal rule I have ever seen. It is clear he's power hungry, so there's no reason to believe him. Thus why I have asked for a public vote. Power should never be given away privately, and absolutely never in a private vote run by the power hungry guy that has everything to gain by misrepresenting the results.
8/13/2010 8:21 AM
mitchrapp
Posts: 807 (0)
Hall of Famer
106 20 14 109
Prospect
What happens if one of the merry men are accused of tanking? Do they still keep their vote, find a replacement vote, to approve an action becomes 4 out of 5? And when is 'Sherwood ever going to win his exclusive 6th title and then post about it?
8/13/2010 9:31 AM (edited)
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
8/13/2010 9:36 AM
hartjh14
Posts: 468 (0)
Hall of Famer
165 8 1 147
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/13/2010 7:48:00 AM (view original):
16 is not a majority of 32.   It just isn't.

Sure, whatever you say, snook.

You can avoid any decision-making process by simply incorporating rules that aren't vague.   Leaving them vague, intentionally, leaves too many loopholes in both directions.   JVF and his cronies can attempt to abuse power.   The "offending" party can probably argue his way out of any dismissal because the rules are not clear.   And, for the record, "actling like MikeT" is a JVF specialty.  As I said, it's impossible for one owner to "blow up" a world chat.   And, even if it was possible, WifS gave us a tool to handle it.  No, the tool is not cshewood, it's the block feature.
Exactly. Vague rules and a small group of people making decisions has abuse written all over it. There's no need for a committee if the rules are clear. Add a admittedly power hungry commish to the mix and it has all the makings of a disaster. I can't wait to see what rule he's going to claim I violated when he tries to get me removed.
8/13/2010 10:05 AM
csherwood
Posts: 533 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 116
Prospect
Posted by mitchrapp on 8/13/2010 9:31:00 AM (view original):
What happens if one of the merry men are accused of tanking? Do they still keep their vote, find a replacement vote, to approve an action becomes 4 out of 5? And when is 'Sherwood ever going to win his exclusive 6th title and then post about it?
I have been waiting 3 years now for you to catch up to me, Mikey. Imay have to go ahead and win one soon if you don't get moving.

By the way, back to the issues, I have never had a problem with a public vote. I honestly could care less what the rules are as long as the league is competitive and does not have cheaters and tankers in it. JVF asked me to join the committee and I said yes - since then the committee has done absolutely nothing, I am not even sure it exists.

as for blowing up MikeT style, I always assumed that Rule meant having someone start a chain of chat in which you pretended to know the answer to everything but really were just being mocked for the fool you are. I guess you are right, the rules are not clear enough.
8/13/2010 12:09 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Uh, mitchrapp is not miket23.  Dumbass.

What you assume is irrelevant.   You're the guy who started the WS winners thread when he was winning with ADMIN's gifts.  Once you ruined them, you stopped winning.  And stopped updating the thread.   Attentionwhoreness at it's finest.   Talk about being the object of mockery.
8/13/2010 1:50 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Essentially, here's the situation.

jvford is a bit of a dick.   He just is.  Can't help it.   He got a little power(because that's all you really have as a commish).   He decided to take that tiny slice of power pie and spread it around so he'd have some buddies, at best, or fall guys, at worst.

harthj likes to complain.   I think he's complained about something in pretty much every world he's joined.  Can't help it.   It's what he does.  Whether or not this committee of fools every do anything is irrelevant to him.   He will not accept it.  Ever.

cshewood is one of jvf's lemmings.   He likes to be on committees.  Can't help it.   I guess it makes him feel important.  No one asked who was on the committee but he volunteered the info.  Just so we'd know.  He's hoping to somehow remain relevant in the world of HBD.  Being on a bunch of committees won't do it but don't tell him.

The rest of us are laughing at the situation.   Because it doesn't affect us and we don't care.  But it's fun to watch.
8/13/2010 1:56 PM
csherwood
Posts: 533 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 116
Prospect
Actually I believe the rest of them arent even reading this thread.

And Mike, mitch - same thing....
8/13/2010 2:10 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
The ONLY thing this thread is missing is for Arlen to wander in and tell these three to never mind the flamers.
8/13/2010 2:27 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

THAT would be sweet!!! 

Could sandybear have a cameo?

8/13/2010 3:38 PM
◂ Prev 1...3|4|5|6|7 Next ▸
update Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.