Trades are having a hard time going through in our league and managers are getting upset because it seems like people are voting against them just because they can. Now most of the managers in my league are mad at the others because just about every team has had a trade vetoed and everyone votes against trades because theirs got vetoed. I'm the commish, how can I fix this?
I would say to issue a stern warning to your leaguemates, reminding them to please only vote to veto if they feel a trade involves collusion, and to let owners make their own decisions, for better or worse. Remind them that votes to veto only beget more votes for veto, and their trades will be vetoed (as is happening). Then encourage owners to propose their trades again, and hope they go through.
If they don't, you can always kill veto voting and say that only your trades will be subject to veto votes, where everyone elses will be subject to your approval only. Others may petition you with reasons why they think you should veto or not veto a trade, but you will make the call.
Use that only as a last resort, but it may be necessary...
Major League Manager
Joined: 2 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: my home is in NYC, my heart is in PNC Park
I know in Yahoo you only need a third of the league to vote to veto a trade. I think that's ridiculous so in my league we turned that option off and if you want to veto a trade you email the commish. We decided that it would take 6 out of the 10 remaining owners (12 team league) to veto any trade.
Thanks, but the only problem with that is that its a league with some of my friends and most of them are knowledgable but a couple can be ripped off pretty easily so letting managers do what they want with their team might result in some stacked teams. Even so, I will do what you suggested and If I feel a trade is close enough I can always lock out managers from voting against trades right?
Also, What if I changed the veto limit to half (which would be 5 in our league) to veto a trade. I could lock out the managers and when a trade is pending owners would have to post whether they vote against it or say its ok. If a trade is vetoed I will unlock the managers and give them an OK to vote against it. Would that work?
Bottom line, vetoes should only be used in cases of collusion. Remind them of this, and say from this point forth, anyone who abuses this right will be subject to some form of action from the league.
In short, appeal to their sense of fairness. Make a post expressing this reality, and ask for their maturity. If they still abuse the veto option, find another league to play in because these guys are just ruining the experience.
In the 18 team league I commish I let all trades through unless I think there's collusion or some other type of cheating, which has been laid out in the rules (losing on purpose for a better draft spot, trading for future considerations, etc). It's easier to just give the commish control of it, but then again you need to be able to trust your commish to do that. We've been doing that league for 4 years now and I don't think we've had a complaint about trades yet.
"Jack, will you call me, if you're able?"
"I've got your phone number written, in the back of my Bible."
I've comished many leagues over the years in football, baseball, and basketball. If I am commishing a league, all the members just know that the "protest" setting is turned off. If your playing with people who have all played fantasy sports before then why should the league determine which trades are fair? nothing can ruin a league quicker than the problem you are having right now.
My advice for th efuture is to turn that setting off and also always play for money. Money makes people think trades through more and not give up on their teams and trade away super stars. I do tell people that I (the commish) has the power to vetoe a trade if clear collusion if present. I tell people that if they have some qualms with a trade to bring it up with me and I will look into it. I then call both people involved in the trade and ask questions as to why they made the trade. If they both have good reasons regardless of if I think one guy got ripped of the trade is going through.