If you can get every owner that allegedly supported this to send me a $35 gc I will gladly go. Since $595 goes a long way in hbd and your people support jv so much, I'm sure we can all be happy with that arrangement. Otherwise I will continue my right of free speech.

Short of that, I like my team and most of the league, so I'm not going anywhere just so jv can be happy. I will continue to stand up for what I think is right. I'm sorry that offends people.
8/12/2010 4:40 PM
Posted by jvford on 8/12/2010 4:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/12/2010 4:32:00 PM (view original):

Yeah, that was a dick move by JVF.   I told him as much and asked him if he'd like to compare how many worlds each of us have been removed from for blowing up the world chat.   The final tally was:  JVF-1(Happy Jack), MikeT-0.

Oddly enough, some of us know when enough is enough and some of us don't.   Your esteemed commish falls into "don't".

That was your uninformed tally, since I've only left worlds voluntarily.
Seems to me you were removed from Happy Jack right around the draft.   If you want to call it "voluntary", so be it.
8/12/2010 4:41 PM
Get 'em, harthj!!!!


8/12/2010 4:43 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/12/2010 4:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jvford on 8/12/2010 4:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/12/2010 4:32:00 PM (view original):

Yeah, that was a dick move by JVF.   I told him as much and asked him if he'd like to compare how many worlds each of us have been removed from for blowing up the world chat.   The final tally was:  JVF-1(Happy Jack), MikeT-0.

Oddly enough, some of us know when enough is enough and some of us don't.   Your esteemed commish falls into "don't".

That was your uninformed tally, since I've only left worlds voluntarily.
Seems to me you were removed from Happy Jack right around the draft.   If you want to call it "voluntary", so be it.
Since you weren't in the world at that time, I guess that means you were monitoring me.......I feel violated.
8/12/2010 4:43 PM
You may have noticed a thread called "Ask the MikeT...."    The commish of Happy Jack asked me how happy he should be by having you removed.  

If you feel violated, I suggest turning the barstool right side up.
8/12/2010 4:48 PM
At my request. Now stop obsessing. Just be flattered that your name is synonomous with being disruptive.
8/12/2010 5:08 PM
For the record, I have no problem with the rules themselves. My problem is the way implementing control of those rules was decided. Not once have I questioned the actual rules.
8/12/2010 5:30 PM (edited)
Posted by antonsirius on 8/12/2010 2:46:00 PM (view original):
hart, you've got exactly one more page to become more entertainingly egotistical and paranoid before I add you to my blocked list. This **** is weak, man.
Who are you again?
8/12/2010 6:14 PM
How stupid, it's like a group of thugs. "you need to be civil or we're break your thumbs". Lol.
8/12/2010 6:24 PM
I just want to chime in and agree with something Mike said on Page 1: if you don't like the world or some rule or some person in it, you have only one choice - leave. 

Life's too short to put up with people you don't like. 
8/12/2010 7:17 PM
Posted by tomhighway on 8/12/2010 6:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by antonsirius on 8/12/2010 2:46:00 PM (view original):
hart, you've got exactly one more page to become more entertainingly egotistical and paranoid before I add you to my blocked list. This **** is weak, man.
Who are you again?
A bored spectator.
8/12/2010 8:30 PM
Posted by csherwood on 8/12/2010 4:28:00 PM (view original):
Here are the rules he is complaining about bythe way. The only addition that set him off was the second to last one where it says that if you break the rules, instead of the commish throwing you right out, 4 out of 6 other owners must also agree.

1.) Tanking is not tolerated. While rebuilding is ok, failure to field a competitive team is not. Most of us know tanking when we see it and will call out guilty parties. Continued tanking will result in someone else reaping the benefits.

2.) Excessive cash in trades is not allowed. Trades where the cash exceeds the salary will be vetoed.

3.) Extremely unbalanced trades will be vetoed. This is not an "anything goes in trades" world. We attempt to protect owners from trade rape while also watching out for collusion.

4.) All trades must include ML players or players with the potential to become ML players. This is really to prevent swaps of pure crap as a way of transferring salary. It's understandable that sometimes owners want to dump a player with a bad contract, but make sure that the player coming back has ML potential (or at least make sure you can argue he does). The one exception to this is deals that involve the swapping of minor league strengths (i.e. SS for a C). As long as that is the clear goal and salaries are close, they are ok.

5.) Blowing up the World Chat MikeT style is not acceptable. Opinions and arguments are welcome, but we expect to maintain a certain level of civility. If you can't control yourself, you'll be asked to leave.

6.) It is expected that all owners will pay some attention to their minors. That doesn't mean that you need to put together a contender at every level, just don't continually send out 0% pitchers. If you do, we'll get someone else to run the franchise.

7.) Whether or not any owner is in violation of the above rules is determined by the Commissioner. The first violation will result in probation until the end of the season. Subsequent violations by an owner on probation will result in referral to the six member Veterans Committee for expulsion. Four votes are required for expulsion.

8.) The Veteran Committee is appointed by Commissioner.
Seriously, you have an issue with the comissioner assigning 6 owners to basically make sure he doesnt kick a team out that shouldnt be kicked out? Are you just upset that he didnt choose you? Seems to be pretty standard set of rules..
8/12/2010 8:55 PM
If the commissioner can't figure that out, he shouldn't be commissioner. And no, it's not a standard set of rules (meaning the rules written down, pretty standard unwritten rules in most worlds, outside the MikeT rant, lol). The Commish and his thugs, lmao.
8/12/2010 9:32 PM (edited)
Posted by willsauve on 8/12/2010 8:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by csherwood on 8/12/2010 4:28:00 PM (view original):
Here are the rules he is complaining about bythe way. The only addition that set him off was the second to last one where it says that if you break the rules, instead of the commish throwing you right out, 4 out of 6 other owners must also agree.

1.) Tanking is not tolerated. While rebuilding is ok, failure to field a competitive team is not. Most of us know tanking when we see it and will call out guilty parties. Continued tanking will result in someone else reaping the benefits.

2.) Excessive cash in trades is not allowed. Trades where the cash exceeds the salary will be vetoed.

3.) Extremely unbalanced trades will be vetoed. This is not an "anything goes in trades" world. We attempt to protect owners from trade rape while also watching out for collusion.

4.) All trades must include ML players or players with the potential to become ML players. This is really to prevent swaps of pure crap as a way of transferring salary. It's understandable that sometimes owners want to dump a player with a bad contract, but make sure that the player coming back has ML potential (or at least make sure you can argue he does). The one exception to this is deals that involve the swapping of minor league strengths (i.e. SS for a C). As long as that is the clear goal and salaries are close, they are ok.

5.) Blowing up the World Chat MikeT style is not acceptable. Opinions and arguments are welcome, but we expect to maintain a certain level of civility. If you can't control yourself, you'll be asked to leave.

6.) It is expected that all owners will pay some attention to their minors. That doesn't mean that you need to put together a contender at every level, just don't continually send out 0% pitchers. If you do, we'll get someone else to run the franchise.

7.) Whether or not any owner is in violation of the above rules is determined by the Commissioner. The first violation will result in probation until the end of the season. Subsequent violations by an owner on probation will result in referral to the six member Veterans Committee for expulsion. Four votes are required for expulsion.

8.) The Veteran Committee is appointed by Commissioner.
Seriously, you have an issue with the comissioner assigning 6 owners to basically make sure he doesnt kick a team out that shouldnt be kicked out? Are you just upset that he didnt choose you? Seems to be pretty standard set of rules..
Not interested in being included in any exclusive club, only interested in having a voice in league decisions, as I should get as an owner.  These rules are way too vague to be enforced by WIS, and I also think they are too vague to be enforced by any committee...but if we're going to go with vague rules, damn straight I want a say in it.

In reality, nobody will ever be booted for any of these rules - they are completely unenforceable.  

1) No definition of tanking = no way to boot owners.  Useless rule
2) No definition of excessive cash.  Useless rule
3) No definition of unbalanced = unenforceable
4) no definition of future ML player = unenforceable
5) again, define miket style.  can you blow up the chat hartjh14 style?  I guess you can according to this rule
6) pay some attention to their minors? so just looking at them is ok?
7) bullshit - what a freakin egomaniac
8) have your committee if the league approves it...based on the rules above, it's powerless anyway  WIS will never allow booting anybody for undefined offenses.

The point is that 7 owners shouldn't step in without permission and try to make decisions for the league.  The league wasn't set up that way.  The league never voted to give that imaginary power to anybody, it was just taken.  That is completely unacceptable.


8/12/2010 10:01 PM
Posted by hartjh14 on 8/12/2010 5:30:00 PM (view original):
For the record, I have no problem with the rules themselves. My problem is the way implementing control of those rules was decided. Not once have I questioned the actual rules.
I guess that's not totally true.  I've questioned them because they aren't enforceable as is, but don't question the spirit of the rules.  I like the concepts, again, it's the execution that is lacking.  That's a very common theme for this "leadership" group.
8/12/2010 10:04 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4|5|6|7 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.