Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 4/09/2010tzent, this is pretty simple. Good commishes aren't going to have owners removed willy-nilly. Worlds are hard to fill. If a commish begins unjustly removing owners at rollover, he will create his own problem. The other owners will speak out. ADMIN can consider removing the commish or removing his title of commish. $5 isn't an incentive to be a commish. Commishes are commishes because they want to play in a world with certain guidelines of their liking that can be enforced. Then they have to find 31 other like-minded owners to join them.


I'll quote this and add something.

Removing a rogue commish is a much simpler solution. If the simple majority of a world wants a commish removed, he probably deserves it. The commish's job is to enforce what the world wants. It behooves him to bring in like-minded individuals to ensure his position. Like-minded individuals are going to join the world because they want what he wants. So a commish who's "freelancing", including unjustly removing owners, won't be commish very long.

Quote: Originally Posted By timf on 4/09/2010

Wouldn't the easiest solution be for admin to create a forum for worlds with unique rules? Every world has one lcoked thread where only the commish of that world can post and change rules but everyone wishing to join that world is able to view the rules. After reviewing the rules (or not) if you join that particular world you are agreeing to abide by those rules and failure to do so will result in dismissal at the commish's discretion.

This would give the power back to the commish and take the onus off of CS to have the final say. Of course CS would have to approve the dismissal but the commish can easily point to the rule/guideline that was violated. A simple no-tanking rule should not need much explanation as the commish would be able to explain to CS how the offending owner tanked.

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 4/09/2010
I'll point out again that there is no way a commish can document every detail for expulsion. There is no way on earth I would have asked trop not to return for dropping 17 straight against good teams. It was his use of fatigued relievers that did it. I wouldn't have thought to add "No owner can go on an extended losing streak between games 130 and 150 while using fatigued relief pitchers." He won 65 games despite that.

Nor would I have thought to put "No owner can paint themselves in a corner with bad decisions and bad signings leaving themselves with no options if their team is underperforming, in their mind, at mid-season."

Quote: Originally Posted By tzentmeyer on 4/09/2010Guys,

We thought we were releasing guidelines yesterday that would help the HBD tanking situation. We wanted to make things less vague and more concrete.

And to be clear, we are far more interested in protecting and helping our veteran, loyal users than the small percentage that either choose to tank their ML team or quit playing.

So..let's work this out together.

Our goal is to have some set guidelines so there's less subjectivity when deciding whether an owner should be replaced or not. On the other hand, we have to be careful because it's not good business practice for us to boot an owner from a world in which he's been playing for several seasons (private or public).

And we want private worlds to be able to control who gets in their world. The tricky thing is when they want to prevent a user who had a team in the world from staying in the world.

Help us out. What do you suggest?

Thank

Quote: Originally Posted By acatala on 4/09/2010

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 4/09/2010
I'll point out again that there is no way a commish can document every detail for expulsion. There is no way on earth I would have asked trop not to return for dropping 17 straight against good teams. It was his use of fatigued relievers that did it. I wouldn't have thought to add "No owner can go on an extended losing streak between games 130 and 150 while using fatigued relief pitchers." He won 65 games despite that.

Nor would I have thought to put "No owner can paint themselves in a corner with bad decisions and bad signings leaving themselves with no options if their team is underperforming, in their mind, at mid-season."

I'll point out again that there is no way a commish can document every detail for expulsion.

Quoted for emphasis. Written rules create loopholes. At best Worlds can put out some general rules which really just outline the intentions of the World - competetive, theme, etc.

The best idea presented so far was the disclaimer that "you are joining a private world and are subject to dismissal...

Quote: Originally Posted By randallball on 4/09/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By timf on 4/09/2010

Wouldn't the easiest solution be for admin to create a forum for worlds with unique rules? Every world has one lcoked thread where only the commish of that world can post and change rules but everyone wishing to join that world is able to view the rules. After reviewing the rules (or not) if you join that particular world you are agreeing to abide by those rules and failure to do so will result in dismissal at the commish's discretion.

This would give the power back to the commish and take the onus off of CS to have the final say. Of course CS would have to approve the dismissal but the commish can easily point to the rule/guideline that was violated. A simple no-tanking rule should not need much explanation as the commish would be able to explain to CS how the offending owner tanked.

This can already be done in the World Classifieds thread. Both of my worlds, which have very specific rules/guidelines - have the full guidelines posted in the thread for any interested to see. I also remind any new owners to "make sure you read the league rules/guidelines".

But if this change goes through - they already sound like they are backpedalling, which is good - those guidelines mean nothing.

I agree with MikeT (on a number of points he has made) that a "see here for ALL rules" page in the world will only create loopholes.

The only real answer is to let Private Worlds, their commissioner and their owners, police themselves.

Quote: Originally Posted By tzentmeyer on 4/09/2010Guys,

We thought we were releasing guidelines yesterday that would help the HBD tanking situation. We wanted to make things less vague and more concrete.

And to be clear, we are far more interested in protecting and helping our veteran, loyal users than the small percentage that either choose to tank their ML team or quit playing.

So..let's work this out together.

Our goal is to have some set guidelines so there's less subjectivity when deciding whether an owner should be replaced or not. On the other hand, we have to be careful because it's not good business practice for us to boot an owner from a world in which he's been playing for several seasons (private or public).

And we want private worlds to be able to control who gets in their world. The tricky thing is when they want to prevent a user who had a team in the world from staying in the world.

Help us out. What do you suggest?

Thank


i must be missing the point here. what does having a team already in the world have to do with anything? repeat business?

don't you remove people who already have teams in a world when you remove them for blatant tanking or the other fair game guidelines???

Quote: Originally Posted By sergei91 on 4/09/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By sordie on 4/09/2010
CLARIFICATION: I understand, for the sake of fairness, why they would want to avoid a system where an assholish commish could arbitrarily boot owners for spurious reasons.

But if each league had the option to set its own minimum standards, in writing, with full disclosure to any prospective owners, why would anyone have any objection?



i'm thinking if a rogue commish decides to boot people for no good reason that the commish would find it hard recruiting to refill his world once the season ends once word got out about why the owner got booted