Quote: Originally Posted By cbriese on 2/11/2010Heh. It's going well. Thanks for asking


my pleasure
2/11/2010 1:40 PM
I hate to get involved, but I think some facts are missing. In the league chat when the issue came up the same number of people who were against the move also were vocally ok with it.

This also was not a hard rule as anytime new owners came into the league they were allowed to move to any city so the league looks nothing like it did in season one anyway and that was the determining factor.

I also believe people are dropping out because of the commish AND the excessive whinning in the chatroom. I know I have considered dropping but not because of the commish but because of the 5 pages of fighting produced everyday over the last week in the world chat.
2/11/2010 3:23 PM
If the same number of people were on both sides of the issue, why couldn't we have a simple vote?

City changes were granted to new owners as to not hurt our recruiting but owners with the same team were not supposed to be switching cities. But as you pretty much know, that is not the issue at hand here. It's how it was handled.

I know the following owners because of cbriese: myself, tj, knuckle, shobob, swirldude. Don't know about cactus. But that's 5 regardless.
2/11/2010 4:16 PM
These threads are sort of funny. They take on lives of their own. I was done with it at my last response.

I could not say what I had to say better than soursurfer just did. It was never about a team moving. It was about the ego of the commish and his disrespect of the rules and other players.

If he had held a vote and managed to keep his ego to himself this thread wouldn't be here and the world would be filled.

vandydave: love u too man.
2/11/2010 5:12 PM
Oh and just fyi, I never sitemailed admin about it. I probably should have but I chose to sitemail cbriese personally.

I agreed to disagree. He thinks the league is better off without whiners and I think its better off without him being the commish. Fair enough.

I have never sitemailed admin about anyone except for maybe CBRESE and only once.
2/11/2010 5:31 PM
Yep, if it were put to a vote, I wouldn't have quit. I really liked that team. We made it to the WS, I didn't want to give it up. But I was looking to cut down the number of teams I have and cbriese made it easy for me with his little-dictator act.
2/11/2010 5:47 PM
I wish soursurfer and knuckles would look the other way and rejoin. That was a very fun division with them and goodtymes.
2/11/2010 6:51 PM
The league really had 2 rules. A minimum win % and not switching cities. For some reason, switching cities was a bigger issue than the minimum win %. I had to cut down a few teams, so I didn't leave because of the latest issue, I because the reason I joined was the minimum win % and that didn't seem to matter to anybody.
2/11/2010 7:31 PM
There's the $100M cap, too. Pretty important.
2/11/2010 7:57 PM
Quote: Originally posted by soursurfer on 2/11/2010There's the $100M cap, too. Pretty important.

OK - 3 rules.
2/11/2010 7:59 PM
Quote: Originally posted by vandydave on 2/11/2010cbriese has been an awkward mix of a flip-flopping dictator, that said he's established guidelines that have prevented tanking as well as exorbitant budgets, things that matter more than whether or not teams can switch cities. its a good league with its share of whiners, the starter of this thread being the foremost.
That's a mischaracterization. The original commissioner and founder, tjconnatser, was the one who established the anti-tanking and budgetary constraints, not cbriese. tj also established the rule against moving cities. All three rules were in place from the start up seven seasons ago. It was also well-established along the way that any changes to these rules could only be made by owner vote.

The problem came in when cbriese chose to unilaterally change the no-moves rule without a vote, and also with no clear indication that a majority of owners would have voted to scrap the rule. When some of us objected to this circumventing of the established democratic process, we were called whiners and asked to leave the world. Some did leave, but I feel like I have too much invested in the org that I've built and will stay for now. I have been told that I cannot post dissenting opinions in world chat, no matter how politely worded, and that if I do he will have me removed from the world. So owners' voting privileges and their free speech has been revoked by the all-powerful commissioner, and if you object to this you will be blamed for starting and perpetuating the mess.
2/11/2010 8:01 PM
The $100M salary cap rule was bigger than the switching cities rule. I forgot it even existed until this latest situation.

drarcher's point about the number of teams in the world who are still in their original cities should not be skipped over. A handful of owners were asked to leave, and a larger handful simply over time, and new owners were allowed to pick any city they wanted. The rule mattered very little.
2/11/2010 8:01 PM
Quote: Originally posted by njohnson78 on 2/11/2010The $100M salary cap rule was bigger than the switching cities rule. I forgot it even existed until this latest situation.

drarcher's point about the number of teams in the world who are still in their original cities should not be skipped over. A handful of owners were asked to leave, and a larger handful simply over time, and new owners were allowed to pick any city they wanted. The rule mattered very little.

As several former owners mentioned earlier in the thread, the problem was not whether the rule mattered, but HOW it was changed -- unilaterally, with no owner vote, with complete disregard for the established democratic process (not to mention belittling comments directed at those who objected to the way it was handled).
2/11/2010 8:07 PM
Quote: Originally posted by erffdogg on 2/11/2010this thread rocks
2/11/2010 8:16 PM
Quote: Originally posted by rbedwell on 2/11/2010
Quote: Originally posted by njohnson78 on 2/11/2010The $100M salary cap rule was bigger than the switching cities rule. I forgot it even existed until this latest situation.
drarcher's point about the number of teams in the world who are still in their original cities should not be skipped over. A handful of owners were asked to leave, and a larger handful simply over time, and new owners were allowed to pick any city they wanted. The rule mattered very little.
As several former owners mentioned earlier in the thread, the problem was not whether the rule mattered, but HOW it was changed -- unilaterally, with no owner vote, with complete disregard for the established democratic process (not to mention belittling comments directed at those who objected to the way it was handled).

I couldn't disagree more. You and a few other owners argued loudly and adamantly about how important this rule was. It would not have come up if you did not care about it. And this arguing wasn't just after the city switch happened, but towards the end of last season when the topic was brought up. Maybe you're angry now about cbriese changing the rule and how he went about doing so, but the whole thing stemmed from you and a few others saying that the rule was important and one of the reasons that you joined the world in the first place.
2/11/2010 8:24 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4|5|6...8 Next ▸

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.