Lucky17's Yahoo! FBB H2H League: Vetoes

[Roy H.]

It should be no surprise that the two biggest controversies in the history of our two long-term keepers leagues has been the veto.  

A lot of people might not remember this, but in the very first draft for the league, there was a huge debate related to the veto power.  There, the controversy related to a trade between Blake and Y'All Hate.  At that time, it was decided that a majority of the league had to veto any trade.  It was clarified that at least 10 GMs had to vote for a veto for it to stop a trade.  That deal had 8 votes for a veto, but it was put through.  However, it led to a lot of controversy, including the Commissioner of the league leaving.  See here.

To my knowledge, that requirement that 10 GMs must veto a deal has never been amended in any way.  It's still the rule of our league.

An unintended consequence to being on Yahoo is that deals are subject to Yahoo rules, and Yahoo defaults to requiring 1/3 of GMs for any veto.  This is contrary to our league rules, and it requires either 6 or 7 GMs to veto any deal, rather than 10.

In speaking with other GMs, a lot of them were under the impression that a majority, or even a super-majority, of GMs were needed for any veto.  I agree; I had no idea it was 1/3 until I looked it up.  People are arguing "rules are rules", but that's not a valid argument when 1) there's a rule in place requiring a majority; and 2) nobody was aware that rule was modified.

I'm calling for a review of the veto of the most recent trade.  If ten or more GMs vote to veto it, fine, I'll live with it.  I don't think that would be fair, as no trade has ever been vetoed, and we've had a de facto "no vetoes except for collusion" rule.  But I'll live with it.  What I won't stand for is an arbitrary change in a long-standing rule, and allowing 1/3 of GMs (at least a couple of whom have indicated a personal animosity) to derail the will of the other 13 seems completely undemocratic.

I see no reason we should blow something up that has gone off without a hitch since 2007.  The league is on the verge of losing at least two GMs over a rule that seems to have been applied inconsistently / incorrectly in this instance.  We should make that right.  10 votes for a veto:  I'll live with the results.  Votes can be either public or via PM to Lucky.

What do others think?

[Kwhit10]

I think it should be a majority, but I think the ability to actually veto a deal should rely solely on Lucky clicking the master veto button.  Not having the default yahoo veto button where 1/3 of the owners can win the veto.  And the trade should be put on hold until EVERY manager (not involved with the trade) has said YES or NO and should be done by private e-mail with the commish.  

We don't even know if every manager weighed in on the trade by the way yahoo sets it up.  I think if we keep the veto it should be done with a 10 owner vote needed for veto and be done by private e-mail between owners no in the trade and Lucky to insure everyone had a say.

I'd really like to prevent active and competitive owners from quitting the league one way or another.  But at the moment it seems like there is a stale mate and whatever situation occurs someone may be leaving.  Which I hope won't be the case.

[hpantazo]

no offense ROy, but last time I checked you are the commish, starting a thread after the commish banned discussion for a few days is innapropriate.

[Roy H.]

no offense ROy, but last time I checked you are the commish, starting a thread after the commish banned discussion for a few days is innapropriate.

Why is it inappropriate?  The reason discussion was shut down was because it was a flame war.  Lucky shut it down for 24 hours to allow others to cool off.  It's now been over 24 hours, and the CB forums require a certain level of decorum.  Lucky said "I'm freezing out everyone from posting on the boards here for 24 hours. "  24 hours, and posting on the Yahoo boards.  Nothing about the CB forums.

It seems like you're picking a fight here, HP.  There's no reason that this can't be discussed rationally.

[Rondo2287]

whether or not it should be vetoed I am not sure.  Does it really suck for everybody other than the benefiting party?  Yes, and I think even Roy would agree with that.  I'm fine with whatever happens though

[Roy H.]

whether or not it should be vetoed I am not sure.  Does it really suck for everybody other than the benefiting party?  Yes, and I think even Roy would agree with that.  I'm fine with whatever happens though

What's your opinion on how many votes should be required, though?  This thread isn't to debate the trade, it's to clarify the veto rules. 

[Rondo2287]

I personally have never been a fan of the no vetoes other than collusion rule.  I have been in leagues where trades that were drastically one sided had been vetoed in the past and I have appreciated it.   It does seem though that there has been a rule for this league saying no vetoes other than collusion so I dunno.  


I find it incredibly frustrating and confusing as an opposing GM.  Do I think there was collusion? No I don't.     Do I think a gm was taken advantage of, ya I do.  But there isn't really a rule against that.  

anyways this isn't meant to be disrespectful to anyone, just speaking my mind

[Rondo2287]

sorry guys, with regards to the amount of votes, I don't think it should be an issue here since there was no collusion

[LarBrd33]

i'm perma-banned from participating in these Celticsblog leagues, because some hack League manager made a bushleague veto of one of my trades several years ago in a long-forgotten league.  

My mentality to fantasy league vetoes has always been... no handholding.  People should know what they are doing when they sign up for such a league.  If someone makes a dumb move, he shouldn't be bailed out by the rest of the owners.  Regardless, dumb trades happen all the time in the NBA.  The only trades I'm in favor of vetoing are ones that are intentionally self-destructive.  In which case, the person who made the trade should also be thrown out of the league.  These kind of trades are usually pretty obvious:   LeBron James for Glen Davis is a nice example.

Veto power shouldn't be used as a "jealousy" mechanism.  Unless a trade is OBSCENELY lopsided, you should let it go.  Otherwise you run the risk of insulting the intelligence of the person who made the dumb move, and angering the person who worked hard to manipulate the trade in his favor.  If you're jealous that someone landed Kevin Durant and you didn't... you probably should have tried harder to land Durant yourself.  Voting to veto has always seemed like being a poor sport, to me.

Just my thoughts    

[Roy H.]

sorry guys, with regards to the amount of votes, I don't think it should be an issue here since there was no collusion

Well, in fairness, the "no vetoes except for collusion" was just an unofficial policy, never a formal rule.

I'm trying to find a middle ground that can help save the league.  That's why I'm deferring to the only rule that is written down, the "majority of the league / 10 GMs to veto" rule.  I think we should all live with the results of that rule, including myself.  If the majority of the league thinks my trade was unfair, I'm cool with that.  However, I can't live with allowing 1/3 of the league to derail a trade that two GMs strongly want to do.

[Rondo2287]

I will say that I was probably the first person to vote veto after seeing the trade. I did it out of Frustration and didn't really think about it, I  also didn't think enough people would actually vote to veto it.  Looking back on it though I wouldn't vote that way again.  

[Roy H.]

I will say that I was probably the first person to vote veto after seeing the trade. I did it out of Frustration and didn't really think about it, I  also didn't think enough people would actually vote to veto it.  Looking back on it though I wouldn't vote that way again.  

Thank you for your honesty, man.  I appreciate that.

[hpantazo]

sorry guys, with regards to the amount of votes, I don't think it should be an issue here since there was no collusion

Well, in fairness, the "no vetoes except for collusion" was just an unofficial policy, never a formal rule.

I'm trying to find a middle ground that can help save the league.  That's why I'm deferring to the only rule that is written down, the "majority of the league / 10 GMs to veto" rule.  I think we should all live with the results of that rule, including myself.  If the majority of the league thinks my trade was unfair, I'm cool with that.  However, I can't live with allowing 1/3 of the league to derail a trade that two GMs strongly want to do.

Fair enough Roy. I'm not trying to pick any fights, I just respect Lucky as the commish and am waiting on his word on the issue. I'm no expert, but I don't think this issue should have ever caused this much trouble and no one should leave the league over it.

[Roy H.]

I'm no expert, but I don't think this issue should have ever caused this much trouble and no one should leave the league over it.

It's understandable.  The first time vetoes came up it led to people leaving the league, and this time the same thing is happening.  People don't like others coming in and saying that they know more than you do.  That's essentially what a veto is:  you're taking the decision to make a trade out of the hands of 2 people, and you're putting it into the hands of 7 (out of 20).  35% of the league currently has absolute power over what trades can and can't be made.  Of course that irritates people.

I'm a big believer that when something ceases to be fun, you shouldn't do it anymore.  If me, or Edgar, or BFM ends up leaving the league, hopefully that results in a more fun and stronger league for the GMs who are left.

[Lucky17]

OK. Here are some of my thoughts, as best as I can articulate them.

First, about the veto procedure. When I implemented a change from Commissioner Veto to League Vote this season, I did so for a variety of reasons, chief of which was expedience. Over the past several years, this league has become more and more of a challenge for me to manage: policing inactivity, finding replacement GMs, running the rookie draft, tracking trades in the offseason, etc. While I agree that KWhit's suggestion has its merits, I'm simply not interested in having to poll the league via email for every single trade that's agreed upon between GMs, especially given the increased volume of trading. I'd much rather let the Yahoo! system do that for me.

However, as Roy points out, the Yahoo! league vote procedure works differently from our original policy (requiring only 1/3 of the league to veto, rather than our policy of 1/2). I didn't foresee this policy change, and it should have been discussed more fully before implementation, as we usually do with all rule changes. Given this, I am not sure how to move forward.

Speaking generally about the trade, I had hoped that opponents of the deal might have simply allowed the veto process to run its course, but instead, the message board quickly devolved into spurious accusations, profanity, and general incivility. I don't expect everyone in a 20-team league to all be friends, or even get along, but I had hoped that everyone could settle their disagreements like adults.

This has been a great league, offering lots of fun and camaraderie for me, but of late, it's also become a source of increasing frustration and anxiety. I am hoping that we can all determine a course of action that will allow us to move forward in a way that everyone can feel good about. However, while I sincerely hope that everyone will continue participating in the league, I do realize that some fences may not be so easily mended. I hope that we all will make a sincere effort to do so.

I am unlocking the boards, although I think this is a fine place for discussion.