Democracy vs. Dictatorship

[MashinSpuds]

Do commishes prefer the allowance of voting on new rules (democracy) or simply telling everyone what the new rule(s) is (dictatorship)? I prefer the former, which allows most to feel comfortable in a league that they have helped create and upkeep. However, sometimes it's hard not to want to just make a change that one feels as important but others disagree with one way or another.

Any thoughts?

[GreenMtn!]

Oligarchy. In my league, most decisions are made by a league council of 5 managers. However, if there is a major rule change, we usually put it to a league-wide vote. For every-day workings of the league a lot of times you just have to make decisions and getting everyone's opinion is not practical. (My league has a lot of complex rules, so it could be different for a simpler league).

[BoBtheMule]

I run two leagues... I solicit opinions on rule changes not just from my owners but fantasy baseball friends that aren't in that particular league. I try to build a concensus around something before I make a decision but I also make it clear that in the end I'll have a final say.

I run leagues because I enjoy doing it for my friends though... so if they aren't happy with a change I've made -I'm not having fun either. My biggest challenge is balancing the desires of the super active vs. the more casual owners.

I guess I'm a Benevolent Dictator ?

Bob

[lotsofluck]

For my 2 leagues I have the power but I email the managers for a vote. I allow them to voice their opinion but do this mainly so that competing managers don't veto fair trades.

[Merlin401]

Rule changes should be voted upon

[23]

I guess I'm a Benevolent Dictator ?

Good way of putting it. We vote on rule changes, but I reserve the right to act in the best case of the league. And like someone else mentioned, if you're playing with friends the goal isn't to piss everyone off.

[RDD15]

I guess I'm a Benevolent Dictator ?

Bob

Nothing of the sort, sir. You are a turd. A smelly turd.

(I am in both of his leagues, and we are good friends. I am allowed to call him a turd.)

That said, Bob does a great job of balancing asking for input and doing the right thing in the end. He doesnt always do what I would do, but he never puts in ridiculous rules, and always offers a sensible explanation for his decisions.

Now, if someone would just help me convince him to not want to deal away half of our loaded team that we co-own in another league.......

[BoBtheMule]

Now, if someone would just help me convince him to not want to deal away half of our loaded team that we co-own in another league.......

I don't want to trade them away... I do want to explore and see if we can stumble into a winning trade. I actually think we're probably done dealing unless we're absolutely blown away by an offer... just gotta give them an opportunity to do it.

Bob

[dfa]

I definitely try to run a democracy. Rule changes, no matter how slight, are voted on courtesy of a handy survey tool available as a Google Doc. However, there are times when I think the league doesn't put as much thought into the issues, and I'm left to reconcile the seemingly conflicting answers.

The only area I don't do a league vote is for trades, though I give every owner a day to weigh in on a trade.

[mkultra]

The long-term league I run does not vote on trades, but we have a two-tiered voting system for rule changes:

- In-season rule changes, meant to fix problems, clarify vague wording, etc., require a simple majority. They are only in effect for the current season.
- Amendments get voted on in the off-season, are permanent, and require a 3/4 majority to pass. An amendment can be put up for voting twice in an off-season; if it fails both times, you have to wait another year to re-propose it.

The idea is that small issues people generally agree on can be addressed quickly, but that big structural changes should be slow and effectively have the support of the entire league (there will always be one manager who wants to be contrary just to be contrary).