Quote: Originally Posted By travisg on 4/09/2010The problem with a vote is, who votes? The owners at the end of a previous season, some/many of whom won't be back the following season -- especially after something as potentially contentious as a vote-out? Or the owners who go renew/sign up at the season's start?

In a world like Cooperstown, which has (had?) a strong reputation, filling open spots wasn't hard, even with a known issue going into rollover. But middle-tier worlds might have trouble filling openings with the caveat that there could be a vote-out process before the world is approved

In your scenario, no one has spent $25, or can have the $25 returned if the commish refuses them rolling over. The next season has yet to start. Non-issue.

In the cases where someone is getting tossed mid term, your concern is also a non-issue because you have 31 owners with, at least, an interest in that particular season.

gjello10,
lets review:
in my last post i said three things

1) allow the commissioner of a league to manually approve each owner at rollover, that way if an owner does not meet the leagues guidelines, the commish can choose to "deny" rather than "approve" an owner for the upcoming season.

2) upon joining or renewing in a given private league, an owner must accept a disclaimer stating that the commish may remove an owner at rollover for violating league guidelines stated therein.

3) allow members of a league to vote or have admin remove problem/abusive commishes via tickets or a voting system. (this way if an a-hole commish decides to remove an owner for no good reason, it can be rectified. i think there would be far less tickets dealing with these circumstances than there currently are tickets involving guys whining about losing their team for being tankers, etc.)

maybe im missing something here, but what i said seems to be exactly the same as the option 2 you presented while dismissing my post.

So when would we have voted on smoelheim? When he and Mike were going 'round and 'round about 2/3 through the season?

(Note: I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you here, just clarifying the practical implications of a vote-out.)

Quote: Originally posted by rockindock on 4/09/2010An abusive commissioner will not have a world for long. Why would any owner (unless in cohoots with the bad commissioner) remain in the world. LET THE PRIVATE WORLDS POLICE THEMSELVES.

I'm retracting what I posted earlier.

I think this is the complete and final answer! By typing in the world password, that owner is subject to whatever rules are in place in that world. Buyer beware.

Quote: Originally Posted By travisg on 4/09/2010So when would we have voted on smoelheim? When he and Mike were going 'round and 'round about 2/3 through the season?

(Note: I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you here, just clarifying the practical implications of a vote-out.

IMO...

Were the league rules clearly defined such that he could have been tossed? (ie. he directly contravened a rule or the rules allow him to be subject to a league vote to be tossed)

If not, then he stays to the end of the year.

But Mike could refuse his entry next season whatever your theory. Either you believe he has all wielding power, thus he just says "no", or you believe the rules need to be clear, thus the rules are updated to add "league vote", you take a league vote, and can his ***.

You can't vote on everything. Vote on booting your commish and let him decide on removals. Again, if the world isn't behind him, he won't be doing it.

And really...if you're smoelheim, either you're an *** for sticking around, or you think you're the Rosa Parks of HBD. There comes a point when you wave the white flag.

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 4/09/2010You can't vote on everything. Vote on booting your commish and let him decide on removals. Again, if the world isn't behind him, he won't be doing it

No, nor would you.

Or, your league rule is "commish has final say in all matters..." yada yada yada.

I believe in the importance of having the league rules clear, even if the clarity is that you can get your *** tossed at his whim.

If your leaguemates put up with that nonsense, you don't want to be in the world.

Quote: Originally Posted By paul16120 on 4/09/2010
So I run a successful franchise for like 10 seasons build a dynasty and the commish boots me so his friend can take the team over - how does that play out in this scenario?

As much as I hate to say this WIS needs to be the arbitrator here not a user.

See above. You make it so WIFS cannot be the arbitrator.

Quote: Originally posted by deathinahole on 4/09/2010[
Were the league rules clearly defined such that he could have been tossed? (ie. he directly contravened a rule or the rules allow him to be subject to a league vote to be tossed)

If not, then he stays to the end of the year.

But Mike could refuse his entry next season whatever your theory. Either you believe he has all wielding power, thus he just says "no", or you believe the rules need to be clear, thus the rules are updated to add "league vote", you take a league vote, and can his ***.

My position is, and has been, that commissioners should have absolute authority when it comes to approving owners for an upcoming season. If the other owners don't agree they can either leave or petition WiS to have him replaced.

We did not have clearly stated rules to cite to have smoelheim removed, alas, but it seems pretty clear that at least 26 of us believed the commissioner's discretion to be the abiding unwritten rule.

Quote: Originally posted by paul16120 on 4/09/2010<SPAN>So I run a successful franchise for like 10 seasons build a dynasty and the commish boots me so his friend can take the team over - how does that play out in this scenario?<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN><SPAN>As much as I hate to say this WIS needs to be the arbitrator here not a user. </SPAN> 

The point is if that kind of thing is happening in your private world 1) it won't be successful for very long and 2) it isn't the kind of world that you or anyone else will want to play in for very long. It's also the exception, not the rule.

Quote: Originally posted by paul16120 on 4/09/2010
So I run a successful franchise for like 10 seasons build a dynasty and the commish boots me so his friend can take the team over - how does that play out in this scenario?

Firstly: That would be an incredibly bold thing for a commissioner to do, and would almost certainly risk a backlash.

Secondly: If a commissioner would actually do that, I guarantee he would have shown some warning signs of being a total dick.

Here's my thing:

I have no problem taking on full responsibility for doing what I think is best for the world. FULL RESPONSIBILITY.

I have no problem being tarred and feathered, internet-style, after doing what I think is best for the world and the world disagrees.

Any commish who doesn't feel that way shouldn't be a commish.