Ethics question

[Mateo de Lorenzo]

OK, I am commish in a H2H dynasty league. 12 teams, six of us know each other in person, three of the other six have been in the league over five years with the rest of us. We have never had any collusion issues, and really no major complaints. However, an issue has arisen. One player has informed me that he will be bringing his only computer into the shop for 2-3 weeks for repairs and service. He asked for permission for his brother to play his team during this period. However, his brother is also in the league, which is where my quandry lies. If they were willing to come to me beforehand, I think their motives are pure and no shenanigans are in the works, but will the other teams feel the same way? I told them I would have to think about it for a few days, which they were ok with. I told them that IF it was accepted that no trades would be allowed between the two teams during the period, which they agreed with. I also said any trades involving the team that has no computer access for three weeks would have to be verbally agreed to me before it goes through. They both also agreed to this, but there has only been one trade in the whole league all season anyways, so it likely wouldn't be an issue. The two teams do not face each other during the three week period, so there aren't any issues there either, however both teams are in the top four, so standings could be affected.

So, I guess my question is how do I handle this? I don't think it will be an issue with the six who all know each other, but I don't want anybody to feel uneasy. Should I hold a vote? If so, is simple majority (6 of 10) be enough or should I aim for three-quarters, which is one additional vote?

Should I just allow it and let it go ahead unannounced? Should I allow it and announce it?

[mkultra]

Personally, there's no way I'd let one manager "run" another manager's team. There are just too many restrictions you'd need to put in place for it to work effectively. You not only have to consider trades, but add-drops as well.

I sympathize with the fact that the guy's computer is out of commission (side note: 3 weeks? really?), but is he really not going to have access to any computer, anywhere?

[RedHopeful]

I'd allow it but restrict the brother from making any moves at all. No trades, free agent pickups, etc.

Here's another thought: the broken computer guy could allow you to make the necessary roster moves for daily play thereby eliminating any collusion problems.

[AHF]

I'd allow it but restrict the brother from making any moves at all. No trades, free agent pickups, etc.

You don't need to go that far.

Require any trades to get your verbal OK (for the sole purpose of making sure the brother whose computer is down is on board with the trade) and simply prevent the brother running the team from adding any player dropped by the computer-is-down team.

As long as the brother running the team can't acquire any player via free agency or trade from the guy whose team he is running, there is really no significant risk of collusion.

I don't see a problem with setting some reasonable limits to deter collusion and allowing it to go forward. There is the risk that the brother running the team could dump good players but that seems like a minimal risk when he would be helping the competition so there is individually no incentive to do this and when the brothers are both coming to you asking for this (showing there is a level of trust by the original owner). If the brother whose computer is down wanted to torpedo the league, he could just drop those players himself and I don't see any competitive incentives at this point in the season (i.e., it is unlikely that the brother running the team would sit good players to try to help himself in the standings like there might be at the end of the season when you could actually count out how many saves you need to get another point, etc.).