I've seen owners questioned, and say "yes I know what I'm doing and I have my reasons." Whether or not that's accepted depends on the owner and his reputation in the league.

Quote: Originally Posted By silentpadna on 6/16/2009

Quote: Originally posted by iain on 6/16/2009

I've taken a somewhat opposite position on trades.

I believe the burden should fall on the trading owners to justify to me why I should approve their move.

Auto-approving trades can become a dangerous precedent, which leads to slippery slopes, and various other ominous-sounding analogies.

Vetos will always be a touchy subject, but I guess I'm one who would rather be the 10th veto than the 21st non-veto. Why? Because if 9 others have thought something fishy is going on, then there's likely something to discuss further.

It could easily be a slippery slope to have a group of owners in a world veto trades so readily as well. Demanding an explanation could publicly reveal strategies of either of the parties without real reason to do so.

The veto tool is within the rules, just like trading cash is within the rules. Being that I've preached freedom in defense of cash trades, owners are also free to use the veto tool as they see fit. Are vetoes public? I'm not experienced enough yet to have seen a trade veto, nor have I voted to veto. If it's in the league record or reports somewhere I haven't yet noticed it.

Yes, rampant vetos could have a stagnating effect on a world... but I said I'd veto if I thought I smelled something (I'll admit I've also tended to veto when I don't have time to look at things thoroughly), but a single veto really doesn't matter, imho.

If 9 others feel the same, then it's hardly something that's 100% on the level, anyway.

Quote: Originally Posted By iain on 6/16/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By silentpadna on 6/16/2009

Quote: Originally posted by iain on 6/16/2009

I've taken a somewhat opposite position on trades.

I believe the burden should fall on the trading owners to justify to me why I should approve their move.

Auto-approving trades can become a dangerous precedent, which leads to slippery slopes, and various other ominous-sounding analogies.

Vetos will always be a touchy subject, but I guess I'm one who would rather be the 10th veto than the 21st non-veto. Why? Because if 9 others have thought something fishy is going on, then there's likely something to discuss further.

It could easily be a slippery slope to have a group of owners in a world veto trades so readily as well. Demanding an explanation could publicly reveal strategies of either of the parties without real reason to do so.

The veto tool is within the rules, just like trading cash is within the rules. Being that I've preached freedom in defense of cash trades, owners are also free to use the veto tool as they see fit. Are vetoes public? I'm not experienced enough yet to have seen a trade veto, nor have I voted to veto. If it's in the league record or reports somewhere I haven't yet noticed it.

Yes, rampant vetos could have a stagnating effect on a world... but I said I'd veto if I thought I smelled something (I'll admit I've also tended to veto when I don't have time to look at things thoroughly), but a single veto really doesn't matter, imho.

If 9 others feel the same, then it's hardly something that's 100% on the level, anyway.

This is true if you are the only one in the World who adopts this mindset. If, however, there are a half-dozen owners who do so, now it only takes 4 or 5 owners who veto for "selfish" reasons (the team in my division improves; I'm in a playoff race with that guy; I wanted Player X; I thought the offer I made for Player X was better; etc.") to kill the trade.

Presumably (hopefully) if it was brought up in league chat after-the-fact, you and other like-minded owners might make the time to take a close look at the deal and veto/approve on the merits, but that initial veto means that the team seeking to improve this season (for a playoff run, perhaps) is still without the piece they sought to trade for during a key stretch.

I believe I covered that in my opening statement....

Quote: Originally posted by iain on 6/16/2009


I've taken a somewhat opposite position on trades.

I believe the burden should fall on the trading owners to justify to me why I should approve their move.

Auto-approving trades can become a dangerous precedent, which leads to slippery slopes, and various other ominous-sounding analogies.

Vetos will always be a touchy subject, but I guess I'm one who would rather be the 10th veto than the 21st non-veto. Why? Because if 9 others have thought something fishy is going on, then there's likely something to discuss further.

I never said that I veto everything... I just said that if something smells, I won't hesitate to veto.

If something smelled for 9 (or more) other owners, I'm not going to feel bad for someone who is making a fishy-smelling move at the deadline.

For the record, I will always justify my reasons. This NEVER goes well, but I will not sit silently on the sidelines while others argue on my behalf.

Quote: Originally Posted By iain on 6/16/2009
I never said that I veto everything... I just said that if something smells, I won't hesitate to veto.

If something smelled for 9 (or more) other owners, I'm not going to feel bad for someone who is making a fishy-smelling move at the deadline.

I commented thinking of the "I'll admit I've also tended to veto when I don't have time to look at things thoroughly" aspect. Real life can get in the way of WhatIf for many of us, and if a half-dozen people in a given World have that same sort of mind-set, it becomes very easy for a small group of owners to block trades for "selfish" reasons.

Just an observation, not intended as a personal attack or anything.

It's cool. I'm in the process of dropping a couple of worlds because I found myself doing that too much.

I agree it's a problem if it becomes a prevailing philosphy, but it is something I'm taking steps to remedy on a personal level.

Quote: Originally posted by toddcommish on 6/16/2009FWIW, I would have NO problem with deals involving cash if there was a way to enforce a multi-year commitment. But, since people can mortgage the future of a franchise for extra cash this year, AND THEN BAIL WITH NO PENALTY, they can subvert a basic principle of HBD, which is to run a franchise and deal with the ups-and-downs from year to year.

This is where having responsible, dedicated owners comes in. If you've got a world where people monitor every trade closely and care about the long-term interests of the league, cash trades work fine.

How is it different from people approving everything, or, as is much more likely, not even looking at the trades?

Was that directed at iain or myself?

Quote: Originally Posted By danmam on 6/16/2009Was that directed at iain or myself

I can't tell, either.....

Quote: Originally Posted By iain on 6/16/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By danmam on 6/16/2009
Was that directed at iain or myself?

I can't tell, either.....

Hell, it might even have been directed at me. But I also don't know.

We cross-posted dan, so it wasn't directed at you...but anyone else that wants to can comment.

but not you danmam.

Wow. Haven't read this thread for a while. Y'all came a long way from

<< If 9 owners have completed deals and my exact type of trade is vetoed, I'd dump all my players. And I'd encourage ANYONE who encounters a similar situation to do the same. Ruin the league as best you can because it's already 'tarded up beyond help. Leave your mark. >>

to silentpadna's discussion.

This actually became an informative thread for a while there. Too bad so few people understood what silentpadna was talking about. Silentpadna is an alias, is it not? Do you post as well under your other name(s)?