Head to Search, Forum: Leftovers, keyword: veto, display as topics, and just click through and you can find ones that date back a lot further than those 4 -- but those should definitely send you well on your way. Link 3 even had to be locked.
No. If you are in a league where an imbalanced trade could be so valuable to someone, there are better, objective systems you can install. My personal fav is the public counteroffer rule. That rule says that any trade must be publicly posted for some amount of time, and during that time, anyone may publicly post a counter offer. If no better deal shows up, then those owners are getting max value as determined by their market, so it's not lopsided. On the other hand, if a deal is truly lopsided, then a better offer will show up. At that point, they either break the deal off or insist on taking the original deal, which makes collusion obvious.
Broncmet724 wrote:The problem with vetos is that different people value different players differently.
Correct. However, in my opinion that doesn't mean that you should let a Pujols or ARod for Cliff Lee trade in a keeper league go through without at least voting for a veto. It gets to be a touchy subject and I recently had a trade questioned by one manager in my main league which myself and everyone else I've talked to thinks was out of bounds to question that trade. I extremely rarely even think about or discuss a veto even when I think one team is getting a steal, but that still doesn't rule out any possibility that there may be a situation where veto is called for where there is no collusion.
hot4tx wrote:I extremely rarely even think about or discuss a veto even when I think one team is getting a steal, but that still doesn't rule out any possibility that there may be a situation where veto is called for where there is no collusion.
That doesn't justify a veto. That justifies a rules upgrade.