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

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 MikeT23 on 4/09/2010
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.



That's why your world(s) work. Like minded people, and all that. No need for the airtight rule.

But, any vagueness and you have the opportunity for this BS. Remember mitch? It's not that hard to airtight it, and prevent hard feelings.

Sorry, I'm really not dumping on you, because you're one of the good ones. Just pointing out the need for clarity.

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

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 4/09/2010

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.




That's why your world(s) work. Like minded people, and all that. No need for the airtight rule.

But, any vagueness and you have the opportunity for this BS. Remember mitch? It's not that hard to airtight it, and prevent hard feelings.

Sorry, I'm really not dumping on you, because you're one of the good ones. Just pointing out the need for clarity.

It is that hard to airtight it. I detailed earlier that I would never have thought to boot someone who won 65 games despite a 17 game losing streak against the world's top teams. But I did. Because he used fatigued RP in every game I checked(randomly hit 8-9 of them). If he lucks into a couple of wins in those 17 games, I never notice it. Why on earth would I declare "Any team below .500 at the 130 mark cannot lose 17 straight while using fatigued RP" as a rule? It's common sense in a world that I commish.

Quote: Originally Posted By stiller609 on 4/09/2010
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.

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 4/09/2010

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

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 4/09/2010

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.




That's why your world(s) work. Like minded people, and all that. No need for the airtight rule.

But, any vagueness and you have the opportunity for this BS. Remember mitch? It's not that hard to airtight it, and prevent hard feelings.

Sorry, I'm really not dumping on you, because you're one of the good ones. Just pointing out the need for clarity.

It is that hard to airtight it. I detailed earlier that I would never have thought to boot someone who won 65 games despite a 17 game losing streak against the world's top teams. But I did. Because he used fatigued RP in every game I checked(randomly hit 8-9 of them). If he lucks into a couple of wins in those 17 games, I never notice it. Why on earth would I declare "Any team below .500 at the 130 mark cannot lose 17 straight while using fatigued RP" as a rule? It's common sense in a world that I commish.

Quote: Originally Posted By travisg on 4/09/2010I received a reply to my ticket. So it looks like Cooperstown is dead:

"Thanks for the note. The new guidelines will be used for situations where owners are deliberately not fielding a 'Competitive Team'. If you are asking to have an owner removed from a league, or replaced as a team owner, he'll have to be in violation of one of those stated guidelines. They are clear and easy to understand. If he is not in violation of one of those guidelines there will be not need to submit a recommendation. If the commissioner of Cooperstown feels that the owner, whose name you have not mentioned, is now in violation of those guidelines there are no restrictions on him from sending in another recommendation. Thanks again.


I wouldn't put too much stock in it until tzentmeyer responds to his query in this thread. That's probably low level support. tzent showed up here shortly after my last ticket explaining that the new guidelines killed Coop.

Quote: Originally Posted By travisg on 4/09/2010I received a reply to my ticket. So it looks like Cooperstown is dead:

"Thanks for the note. The new guidelines will be used for situations where owners are deliberately not fielding a 'Competitive Team'. If you are asking to have an owner removed from a league, or replaced as a team owner, he'll have to be in violation of one of those stated guidelines. They are clear and easy to understand. If he is not in violation of one of those guidelines there will be not need to submit a recommendation. If the commissioner of Cooperstown feels that the owner, whose name you have not mentioned, is now in violation of those guidelines there are no restrictions on him from sending in another recommendation. Thanks again.

Quote: Originally posted by paul16120 on 4/09/2010I again agree, there is no additional equity in owning a team that needs to be repaid

[snip]

I GET that it's common sense in a world you commish; I mean, you'll never see me apply for entry into MG. I get it. Not EVERYONE would get it, especially the one being booted. If you can point to where it's written, then dude has no out, or reason for hard feeling, or reason to go to WIFS with "it's not in the rules".