Anything can work.   But, if you've ever had a trade vetoed, I'm sure you were unhappy.  Some people go "Meh, maybe it was too lopsided."  Others scream for weeks.  Some quit the world.   And some blow up the world.    But no one, and I mean no one, likes to have their deal negated by 10 other owners. 

I'll give you two examples and I think both work.

MGraham - we have fairly well-defined rules of trade.  We also have a screening process that requires experience.   The rules are pretty lenient, BL-quality for BL-quality, current or future, without a ton of cash.   Essentially, if you can make a case for a player being on a playoff roster, he's BL-quality.  This allows owners to dump salaries and "win" trades.  Works pretty well.  But we had a problem.   An unsuccessful owner made a deal that, quite frankly, he lost.   It was vetoed. As commish, I went off.  I asked if both teams didn't include BL-quality.  No one claimed that they didn't.   So I asked "What's the problem?"   The consensus was that they were protecting the owner from himself.  I said "Fine.  Should he be removed at the end of the season?   If he's incapable of running his team, he doesn't need to be here."   No one would step forward.   The deal was re-submitted and approved.

Hamilton - we have one rule.  No more cash than salary.   We also have some rather inexperienced and/or unsuccessful owners.   A good owner made a trade with an owner who hasn't experienced a great deal of success but he's not a slug either.   The talent was pretty close but the good owner was dumping an albatross of a contract on the other guy for a couple of pretty good prospects.   In MG, this goes thru and we mock the guy taking on the contract.   But this isn't MG.   We have 6-8 openings each season and they always seem to come from the bottom of the world.  A revolving door of sorts for the bad teams.  It was vetoed and I was in the forefront in explaining why it was bad for the world.   You can't keep taking the future away from bad teams.   It's just not good for a world.

I think the process worked in both situations. 

When you say some quit the world, those are probably pretty bad owners to begin with. Keep those out and the world is fine. I've seen deals vetoed and owners and in every case the owners worked out another deal by either adding something to it or altering one of the players involved. Yeah I think they were probably ****** but they were mature enough to get over it. Those are the kinds of owners in my worlds, not the kind that blow up a world.

So you do know how all the owners in your worlds will react to a vetoed deal?   Again, good for you.

You are never 100% sure of anything in life. If one of the owners in my worlds were to do what you say might happen, I would be very surprised. I would be happy to see them leave if that were to happen. Again, I'm not saying you are wrong, it probably happens in some worlds all the time, I tend to exclude my world from any discussions involving bad worlds or bad owners. Pretty solid guys for the most part.

So what part of this bothers you so much?

"I happen to think worlds can't approve/veto inconsistently without inviting trouble.  I'm not wrong about this."


 

A world where no one vetoes can work, as long as you go with the understanding that you won't cry foul after the fact. We just seen a world doing just that. 1 owner built a dynasty  by making lopsided trades in his favor  with inexperienced owners. For years those trades went through without vetoes, and now the owners banned together and went on a crusade to have WIS remove that owner from the world.