I ALWAYS do the Chicken-Dance when I boot someone. It's part of the ritual.

Seriously, how embarrassing must it be to get booted by a suited up dude doing the Chicken-Dance?

cbriese would know.

Does Mike do the Chicken-Dance before or after he does the seat-dance?

The Fred Astaire of the new millennium.

Like I said, the trade may have been vetoed anyway. But several owners said they appreciated the effort.

iain's conclusion that because I put in some effort I must be in a 'tard world remains illogical.

Quote: Originally Posted By sanderbear on 1/14/2010
Like I said, the trade may have been vetoed anyway. But several owners said they appreciated the effort.

iain's conclusion that because I put in some effort I must be in a 'tard world remains illogical.

I believe his point is that if you needed to put the effort in, it's a tard world.

I don't know if I needed to put in the effort. I put in the effort to make it more likely a veto would be secured.

It's ridiculous to equate "commish puts in effort" with "tard world." But I guess I should expect that kind of snark on the chat boards, right?

*sigh*

I never said that. You're putting unreasonable words in my mouth.

FWIW, I've posted my displeasure or concern about trades in the WC before. That should at least start up a discussion.

Quote: Originally Posted By jvford on 1/14/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By sanderbear on 1/14/2010

Like I said, the trade may have been vetoed anyway. But several owners said they appreciated the effort.

iain's conclusion that because I put in some effort I must be in a 'tard world remains illogical.

I believe his point is that if you needed to put the effort in, it's a tard world

Exactly!

Quote: Originally Posted By iain on 1/14/2010
Campaigning for vetoes is stupid.

If your world isn't bright enough to veto something when to its own devices, you're probably in a 'tard world.

I'm making two points here.

I'm not calling you stupid.

I'm not saying your world is undoubtably, without question, inhabited by 'tards and 'tards alone.

I just said that (and I'm going to cut and paste here): "If your world isn't bright enough to veto something when to its own devices, you're probably in a 'tard world."

excellent

I'm an active owner, but I don't review each and every trade. So, when I got a sitemail from sanderbear (I'm in the world this happened) I looked at the trade. It sucked. It got a veto.

It would have gotten a veto had I happened to think to check the particulars on the deal on my own, but I appreciate the heads-up.

IMO, it's enough to put up a "WTF is with that deal?" in world chat. If the trade is horrific, it'll get vetoed. But notification was appreciated.

Quote: Originally Posted By soxfan121 on 1/15/2010I'm an active owner, but I don't review each and every trade. So, when I got a sitemail from sanderbear (I'm in the world this happened) I looked at the trade. It sucked. It got a veto.

It would have gotten a veto had I happened to think to check the particulars on the deal on my own, but I appreciate the heads-up.

IMO, it's enough to put up a "WTF is with that deal?" in world chat. If the trade is horrific, it'll get vetoed. But notification was appreciated

When I don't "have time" to look at every trade, or whatever, I veto.

Auto-approving trades is a dangerous habit.

I also agree (mostly) with iain. Commishes should NOT lobby for a veto. To merely point something out and ask for a closer look seems fine. To simply exert your will, as it was put earlier, is entirely unacceptable, IMHO. You ask the league to take a close look, that's all. When the commish starts site-mailing people, it does seem to have an effect on some people's opinions. The commish should NOT be campaigning one way or the other. Simply put, it's an abuse of the position. Your opinion will sway owners, like it or not. That's NOT your job, as commish. Simply ask for a closer look via world chat. That should be sufficient. If not, then the world may indeed have bigger problems.

I think there is a fine line between calling attention to a trade and actively lobbying to veto. The former actually already happens because your front page lets you know of active trades. I would think its each owner's duty to have looked at the trades. It's my experience that >90% of the owners in the worlds I'm in log in at least every day.

I think if I was to do that, a simple "hey, lets take a look at the proposed trade" should be enough. Or better yet, a note to the owners involved that you plan to veto unless they can give you a satisfactory explanation. If you're actually recruiting votes, I might have a problem with that. Lobbying for veto can be dangerously close to collusion, in my opinion.