Does this have the right to be vetoed? (ethics question) - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Does this have the right to be vetoed? (ethics question)

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Zito is God » Sat May 13, 2006 8:16 pm

SoxAndTheCity wrote:
Matthias wrote:
SoxAndTheCity wrote:
Matthias wrote:
Ender wrote:Well obviously the problem comes down to when people think a trade is 'official'.

Some think its when the two player click accept and all veto's should be based on that moment of time. Some think that its when the trade is allowed by the commissioner and trades should be veto'd based on the latest news. Thats why there is no right answer unless your league has clear cut rules about the situation.


True. But I would say the default position if you don't have any clear-cut rules on it would be that a trade is completed once both parties agree to it.


Interesting that you think your opinion should automatically be some sort of default. Thankfully, your opinion only matters for your vote, same as mine.


Well, it's not my opinion so much as it how things work in the rest of life. The player receiving Matsui has received the risk of loss by agreeing to the trade.

And if someone vetoes it, that's their right. But it isn't right to do so. They should only be evaluating the trade as it existed at the moment it was made. That's how the real world and the real law works.

Not just my, "opinion."


You are comparing real life with Fantasy baseball? Interesting. :-?

Fantasy baseball is in stark contrast to real baseball/life at least as often as it mirrors it. In fact in real life I think that you'd pretty much see the opposite trend, however, in friendly exchanges like those in FB.

You and I agree over the phone to trade my Xbox for your PS2 (for sake of example) and consider it a done deal minus the physical exchange - we just have to meet somewhere to do it. Before we do the actual exchange, a pipe in my house bursts and floods the place, destroying the Xbox. Are you still going to give me your PS2, lamenting that the deal was already agreed to before the catastrophe but still sticking to the bargain?

Obviously there are a thousand different scenario's one could dream up, but a lot of you make it sound black and white and it just isn't.

EDIT:

To ZIG. You are building a strawman to knock down. This isn't a warranty period or a button to take things back after buyer's remorse. This is a built in review period for the trade and unfortunately things change during that time and you cannot eliminate that. If you don't want to be able to have things change between the time the managers agree and the time the trade is processed then don't have a review period, have trades go through immediately or set up something other than league vote. Otherwise people are free to vote as they wish, not as ZIG commands.


I won't even respond to what you said about my comment considering you didn't argue against it but simply said it was wrong.

ZIG: Provides clear arguements.

Sox: Just states ZIG is wrong as well as implies what ZIG thinks.

I clearly lost that arguement. ;-7


As for your Xbox scenario, it has absolutely nothing to do with it. The Xbox/Ps2 aren't real people and have no control over themselves. Matsui hurt himself, the Xbox does not magically hurt itself, it has no life. On top of that verbal agreements are not the same as a pending trade. You said you verbally agreed to trade the PS2 for the Xbox, I can verbally agree to trade Pujols for Womack, does not mean it is official.Your example is quite meaningless it fact, and I suggest you:

A) Get better examples and

B) Stop critisizing people without proper arguements.

Thats all.
Image

Sean Tracey has my apologies, we all know Ozzie Guillen is an idiot. I'm rooting for you!
Zito is God
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe WriterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 4169
Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Secretly advising Cashman.

Postby Matthias » Sat May 13, 2006 8:27 pm

SoxAndTheCity wrote:You are comparing real life with Fantasy baseball? Interesting. :-?

Fantasy baseball is in stark contrast to real baseball/life at least as often as it mirrors it. In fact in real life I think that you'd pretty much see the opposite trend, however, in friendly exchanges like those in FB.

You and I agree over the phone to trade my Xbox for your PS2 (for sake of example) and consider it a done deal minus the physical exchange - we just have to meet somewhere to do it. Before we do the actual exchange, a pipe in my house bursts and floods the place, destroying the Xbox. Are you still going to give me your PS2, lamenting that the deal was already agreed to before the catastrophe but still sticking to the bargain?

Obviously there are a thousand different scenario's one could dream up, but a lot of you make it sound black and white and it just isn't.


I'm comparing life to FB? Sure. You think FB should create its own sense of right and wrong? Why not just borrow from the rest of life?

As far as your example, it brings in a lot of things whether you realize it or not: basic contracts, passage of title/risk of loss, any negligence on your part, and the fact that the xbox was under your control the entire time.

Here's a much cleaner example: I agree to sell you 1,200 acres of land. We write down (for technical reasons) that I agree to sell you the 1,200 acres for $500,000 and both sign it. Now, the deal's not completely done: there's no payment, I haven't given you the title, etc., etc. The next day it is announced that there's going to be a stadium built there, making it worth $10MM. I can't refuse to sell it to you or ask $10MM. $500,000 was the deal. $500,000 was the price when we agreed.

Everything that happens after you agree is of no consequence.

It really is pretty simple.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 4860
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby SoxAndTheCity » Sat May 13, 2006 9:34 pm

Matthias wrote:
SoxAndTheCity wrote:You are comparing real life with Fantasy baseball? Interesting. :-?

Fantasy baseball is in stark contrast to real baseball/life at least as often as it mirrors it. In fact in real life I think that you'd pretty much see the opposite trend, however, in friendly exchanges like those in FB.

You and I agree over the phone to trade my Xbox for your PS2 (for sake of example) and consider it a done deal minus the physical exchange - we just have to meet somewhere to do it. Before we do the actual exchange, a pipe in my house bursts and floods the place, destroying the Xbox. Are you still going to give me your PS2, lamenting that the deal was already agreed to before the catastrophe but still sticking to the bargain?

Obviously there are a thousand different scenario's one could dream up, but a lot of you make it sound black and white and it just isn't.


I'm comparing life to FB? Sure. You think FB should create its own sense of right and wrong? Why not just borrow from the rest of life?

As far as your example, it brings in a lot of things whether you realize it or not: basic contracts, passage of title/risk of loss, any negligence on your part, and the fact that the xbox was under your control the entire time.

Here's a much cleaner example: I agree to sell you 1,200 acres of land. We write down (for technical reasons) that I agree to sell you the 1,200 acres for $500,000 and both sign it. Now, the deal's not completely done: there's no payment, I haven't given you the title, etc., etc. The next day it is announced that there's going to be a stadium built there, making it worth $10MM. I can't refuse to sell it to you or ask $10MM. $500,000 was the deal. $500,000 was the price when we agreed.

Everything that happens after you agree is of no consequence.

It really is pretty simple.


You obviously have never bought/sold real estate. There absolutely are all kinds of things that can and do happen after a purchase agreement/contract are signed and it is no guarantee of the transaction going through.

Anyway, I'm not really feeling like investing any more time into this discussion because nobody is going to change their minds.

When you vote, do it your way, when I vote I will do it mine.

Peace.
SoxAndTheCity
College Coach
College Coach


Posts: 118
Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Zito is God » Sat May 13, 2006 9:41 pm

SoxAndTheCity wrote:
Matthias wrote:
SoxAndTheCity wrote:You are comparing real life with Fantasy baseball? Interesting. :-?

Fantasy baseball is in stark contrast to real baseball/life at least as often as it mirrors it. In fact in real life I think that you'd pretty much see the opposite trend, however, in friendly exchanges like those in FB.

You and I agree over the phone to trade my Xbox for your PS2 (for sake of example) and consider it a done deal minus the physical exchange - we just have to meet somewhere to do it. Before we do the actual exchange, a pipe in my house bursts and floods the place, destroying the Xbox. Are you still going to give me your PS2, lamenting that the deal was already agreed to before the catastrophe but still sticking to the bargain?

Obviously there are a thousand different scenario's one could dream up, but a lot of you make it sound black and white and it just isn't.


I'm comparing life to FB? Sure. You think FB should create its own sense of right and wrong? Why not just borrow from the rest of life?

As far as your example, it brings in a lot of things whether you realize it or not: basic contracts, passage of title/risk of loss, any negligence on your part, and the fact that the xbox was under your control the entire time.

Here's a much cleaner example: I agree to sell you 1,200 acres of land. We write down (for technical reasons) that I agree to sell you the 1,200 acres for $500,000 and both sign it. Now, the deal's not completely done: there's no payment, I haven't given you the title, etc., etc. The next day it is announced that there's going to be a stadium built there, making it worth $10MM. I can't refuse to sell it to you or ask $10MM. $500,000 was the deal. $500,000 was the price when we agreed.

Everything that happens after you agree is of no consequence.

It really is pretty simple.


You obviously have never bought/sold real estate. There absolutely are all kinds of things that can and do happen after a purchase agreement/contract are signed and it is no guarantee of the transaction going through.

Anyway, I'm not really feeling like investing any more time into this discussion because nobody is going to change their minds.

When you vote, do it your way, when I vote I will do it mine.

Peace.


I've had a decent amount of ral estate experience, care to actually provide examples of how after, through lawyers, a contract that is signed and does not expressively state that you have a "warrantly period" can be torn up? Does not happen.

I'm glad that you at least realize that the way you argue you won't be winning many debates anytime soon or changing anyone's mind on anything.
Image

Sean Tracey has my apologies, we all know Ozzie Guillen is an idiot. I'm rooting for you!
Zito is God
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe WriterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 4169
Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Secretly advising Cashman.

Postby SoxAndTheCity » Sat May 13, 2006 9:46 pm

Zito is God wrote:
SoxAndTheCity wrote:
Matthias wrote:
SoxAndTheCity wrote:
Matthias wrote:
Ender wrote:Well obviously the problem comes down to when people think a trade is 'official'.

Some think its when the two player click accept and all veto's should be based on that moment of time. Some think that its when the trade is allowed by the commissioner and trades should be veto'd based on the latest news. Thats why there is no right answer unless your league has clear cut rules about the situation.


True. But I would say the default position if you don't have any clear-cut rules on it would be that a trade is completed once both parties agree to it.


Interesting that you think your opinion should automatically be some sort of default. Thankfully, your opinion only matters for your vote, same as mine.


Well, it's not my opinion so much as it how things work in the rest of life. The player receiving Matsui has received the risk of loss by agreeing to the trade.

And if someone vetoes it, that's their right. But it isn't right to do so. They should only be evaluating the trade as it existed at the moment it was made. That's how the real world and the real law works.

Not just my, "opinion."


You are comparing real life with Fantasy baseball? Interesting. :-?

Fantasy baseball is in stark contrast to real baseball/life at least as often as it mirrors it. In fact in real life I think that you'd pretty much see the opposite trend, however, in friendly exchanges like those in FB.

You and I agree over the phone to trade my Xbox for your PS2 (for sake of example) and consider it a done deal minus the physical exchange - we just have to meet somewhere to do it. Before we do the actual exchange, a pipe in my house bursts and floods the place, destroying the Xbox. Are you still going to give me your PS2, lamenting that the deal was already agreed to before the catastrophe but still sticking to the bargain?

Obviously there are a thousand different scenario's one could dream up, but a lot of you make it sound black and white and it just isn't.

EDIT:

To ZIG. You are building a strawman to knock down. This isn't a warranty period or a button to take things back after buyer's remorse. This is a built in review period for the trade and unfortunately things change during that time and you cannot eliminate that. If you don't want to be able to have things change between the time the managers agree and the time the trade is processed then don't have a review period, have trades go through immediately or set up something other than league vote. Otherwise people are free to vote as they wish, not as ZIG commands.


I won't even respond to what you said about my comment considering you didn't argue against it but simply said it was wrong.

ZIG: Provides clear arguements.

Sox: Just states ZIG is wrong as well as implies what ZIG thinks.

I clearly lost that arguement. ;-7


As for your Xbox scenario, it has absolutely nothing to do with it. The Xbox/Ps2 aren't real people and have no control over themselves. Matsui hurt himself, the Xbox does not magically hurt itself, it has no life. On top of that verbal agreements are not the same as a pending trade. You said you verbally agreed to trade the PS2 for the Xbox, I can verbally agree to trade Pujols for Womack, does not mean it is official.Your example is quite meaningless it fact, and I suggest you:

A) Get better examples and

B) Stop critisizing people without proper arguements.

Thats all.


Well seeing as a strawman like the ones you built up that I referred to are tangent points that only distract from the true point, the whole point is not arguing against them because they are irrelevant. Your [clear] arguments don't prove anything and I'm not going to get into a big debate over why that is to hopefully eventually get to the real debate.

My Xbox scenario was just fine. In fact and Xbox can spontaneously just stop working by itself. Manufactured products are not perfect. If it suits you better, imagine a scenario where the Xbox just stops working after the deal was struck. Or don't. I don't really care. B-) The fact is that a verbal agreement between you and I to trade games systems is at least as "official" as you proposing a trade to me and me clicking a button to accept. Verbal agreements can be legally binding if they can be proven to have been made.

In reality, my argument is just fine but will never be good enough for you because you are mired in your position. I'm ok with that.

Like I said, it's pointless to spend much energy on this topic and I've already wasted enough. You are welcome to your opinon, regardless of how rudely you share it.

Cya.
SoxAndTheCity
College Coach
College Coach


Posts: 118
Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Zito is God » Sat May 13, 2006 9:52 pm

So what you're saying is there is no difference between me clicking the accept button on a proposed trade and verbally telling someone at work I will make the trade without the trade actually being proposed in the league? I can't see many people backing that stance, sorry.
Image

Sean Tracey has my apologies, we all know Ozzie Guillen is an idiot. I'm rooting for you!
Zito is God
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe WriterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 4169
Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Secretly advising Cashman.

Postby Dawgpound 1613 » Sat May 13, 2006 11:01 pm

If you offer me your Jose Reyes for my Pujols and I hit "accept" - and there is a 2-day veto period, is the trade "official"?

Based on most of the arguments do far, many people would say so since the trade was agreed to. Yet when it gets vetoed, it wasn't really "official", was it?

The problem is, when you allow a veto period for the other owners, you let this possible situation occur. If the rule isn't clear that the owners MUST consider the trade at the time the teams hit "accept", then you open the door for owners to consider the events that transpire afterwards. You may not like it, and in your "opinion" it shouldn't happen. But the fact is, without a clear rule, the other owners have the "right" to consider subsequent events. In your "opinion" they shouldn't, but in their "opinion" they can. So guess what, they will.

BTW, as to the real estate analogy, if I sell you my house and we sign the contracts and then, during the time until closing, the house burns down, you are not required to go through with the closing. Even though the sale was "official" by the standards on this board, it still isn't "final" until the closing documents are signed and subsequent events can affect whether the deal goes through. Now, IMO, this is a stupid analogy b/c there are provisions in real estate contracts that don't exist in fantasy baseball trades. But without similar rules in fantasy, each owner gets to decide what considerations to consider when casting a veto vote.
Dawgpound 1613
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Sweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 2095
Joined: 7 Oct 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: \Lo*ca"tion\, n. 1. The act or process of locating. 2. Situation; place; locality.

Postby rainman23 » Sun May 14, 2006 12:41 am

The fact that trades have a waiting period doesn't tell us anything about the current situation. If it did, the parties to the trade would have a Reject option too. They don't, they're committed. They've made the agreement, and they're stuck with it. Other members of the league (or the commissioner, depending on your league) have that option, and their stake is to keep the league from getting screwed up. Some people say they should reject only if that collusion thing was going on. Some would reject if one team is screwing another. Some would reject if they thing the deal is ridiculously one-sided. Some misguided souls would reject if they think the deal hurts their own team's chances. And now, apparently, we've found there are people who would actually reject a deal because someone got hurt after the deal was agreed to. Fine, it's your vote, use it the way you want to. But don't contend that that's why the waiting period was invented. You're on the lunatic fringe with that argument.

And, fyi, the last time ZiG and I appeared in the same thread, we were at each other's throats. But we are 100% on the same side of this one. For whatever that's worth...
rainman23
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 937
Joined: 19 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby jayman » Sun May 14, 2006 12:45 am

dude, if it's a friendly league, take the trade back. this is just fantasy.

if it's a public league, full of people you don't personally know, push the issue, get the trade through!
jayman
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1151
Joined: 6 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: In the holosuite playing the Vulcans!

Postby ukrneal » Sun May 14, 2006 11:24 am

jayman wrote:dude, if it's a friendly league, take the trade back. this is just fantasy.

if it's a public league, full of people you don't personally know, push the issue, get the trade through!


Finally, someone said what I was thinking! Personally, I would take the offer back myself.
ukrneal
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 2322
Joined: 29 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact