Is this wrong? Need info on fair play

[magus]

I'm in a league with some of my buddies. You could say, however, that some are closer friends than others. Throughout the season, most of the trades in league have been vetoed.

Well, the other day, a buddy sends me a trade which I deemed fair and accepted. Of course, like the others, this trade was vetoed. So, I post a long message about why you should and shouldn't veto trades, and that if the league is going to work we need to stop endlessly vetoeing.... Only, I come to find out that my friend who sent the trade decides that he doesn't like it and has some of our other friends veto the trade.

Now my question is, is this wrong? If the trade has already been accepted, it seems unfair that some of his friends that he's closer to have that power. I mean he could have just came to me and explained that he decided he didn't want to trade. Anyway, I feel fed up with the league.

[beltrans_boy]

In my league, I ask both parties involved if they still want me to accept the trade. But that's just because we all live in the same dorm. I imagine I wouldn't do this in any normal league.

[jayman]

Yes, it's wrong. Politicing to get protests on your own trade doens't site right with me.

[Jack-In-A-Box]

To me that is a form of collusion. We had this same thing go on in our league. It's a league of friends and co-workers.. same league basically for the last 4 years. Preseason D.Kolb for D.Wright was offered and accepted. The guy giving Kolb was having 2nd thoughts and called up a couple people and then calls me and tells me he doesn't really want to do Kolb for Wright straight up and asked if I would veto it. I told him I would not because I felt that why should I help one friend and backstab another friend. It was collusion. So a couple of my other friends called me asking me if I was going to veto it or not for him I told them no and told them why. They agreed and they didn't veto the trade either. Both parties involved knew what they were doing. I'm not going to veto a trade because someone is having second thoughts.
What he did was collusion against you by involving others in a trade they had no business being in. If you both agreed to the trade then the trade should go through. Having others vote against it because he was second guessing himself was wrong and I wouldn't stick around if I didn't get the trade to get sent back through and made sure it didn't happen again. That is straight up collusion.. no if, ands, or buts.

[pokerplaya]

This is not fair, and I agree that it is a form of collusion - just not the type most commonly seen. That doesn't make it any more right, however, and something needs to be done about this. You shouldn't have to deal with these kinds of situations. If your leaguemates won't grow up, find a better league next year.

[stomperrob]

It's collusion and poor sportsmanship - but if all these guys do is veto trades anyway, why would ya wanna stay in a league like that?

[asumikey222]

I'll have to echo the prior sentiments and say that should not be tolerated. Otherwise, let's say you make a trade Pujols for Vlad and you have a 2-day waiting period; the next day one guy gets injured, the guy getting the injured player will want to jump out and politic about how it will make your team so much better b/c you're getting rid of an injured guy for a great guy; now think if the person getting the non-injured player is in first place. Still there is no way that should be vetoed imo, but this is why you need very clear guidelines beforehand so when people veto good trades or veto trades for the wrong reason, you can point them to how they are violating the rules.