Author Topic: Future Rules on League Openings - RC Only  (Read 3062 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

joeshmoe

  • Guest
Re: Future Rules on League Openings - RC Only
« Reply #20 on: May 08, 2013, 09:58:28 AM »
Your point is duly noted, though Rob could trade teams with 28 other owners if he was truly bored :)

To clarify, we are voting on whether to allow internal transfers as a regular practice of filling team openings.  In special cases, internal transfers may be approved, but that is NOT the context of the current vote.

Is me applying for LAD not a special case?  Am I now to remain in SD until I leave this league?  Is that how this whole thing got handled? 
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Offline Colby

  • MLFB Founder
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 28820
  • Bonus inPoints: 27
    • :PIT-NFL:
    • :Blank:
    • :PIT-NHL:
    • :PennState:
    • :UnitedStates:
    • View Profile
Re: Future Rules on League Openings - RC Only
« Reply #21 on: May 08, 2013, 10:25:20 AM »
The RC voted to limit internal transfers and allow them on a case-by-case basis.  It appears there are two primary qualifications:

1) A proven GM wants to downgrade by moving to a bad team in order to rebuild the franchise for the betterment of the league.
2) A GM wants to move to their favorite franchise.

In any case, your Dodgers application fails those two principals (which should go into the rules as the two key guidelines with acceptable internal transfers).  Boston would be the likely choice for you, but that means nerwffej needs to have a qualifying transfer.
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Learn about :Commish: inPoints and the Invitationals.

joeshmoe

  • Guest
Re: Future Rules on League Openings - RC Only
« Reply #22 on: May 08, 2013, 10:49:34 AM »
The RC voted to limit internal transfers and allow them on a case-by-case basis.  It appears there are two primary qualifications:

1) A proven GM wants to downgrade by moving to a bad team in order to rebuild the franchise for the betterment of the league.
2) A GM wants to move to their favorite franchise.

In any case, your Dodgers application fails those two principals (which should go into the rules as the two key guidelines with acceptable internal transfers).  Boston would be the likely choice for you, but that means nerwffej needs to have a qualifying transfer.

This is all done while there was an open vote for the dodgers that I was winning.  It's out of order.  The 'no internal transfers rule' was rushed through once it was seen I had 3 votes for a transfer.  Roy you didn't like the rules so you changed it once, from the rules that had always been...to a vote for the job....I had three votes and you changed the rules again to completely take me out of it...MT had already thought I won the job.  Where is the sanity in this?  What did I do to be chopped out of transfers?  It's been known I have wanted a transfer to a team I prefer for quite some time.  Why is this brand new rule being implemented to rob me?  Am I a bad guy?  Should I not get the same courteousy as the other members who have transferred for whatever reason they imagined? 

This all would have been a non issue had a member of the league not gone out and asked people who's turn it wasn't to come in and apply for the job.  Who took that upon themselves is an interesting piece to the puzzle?  Who wanted Rick here so they asked him?  This is exactly the situation that happened to me with NYY and Corey had already brought OUDAN as the replacement before it was offered internally.  The total lack of respect for myself as a manager in this league for 3 years is utterly crushing.  I never quit this league and wouldn't think of doing so even after this slap to my face.  Roy rammed through his agenda...in a 3-4 vote.  Those 4 people just spoke for 30 people on an issue no small oligarchy should decide.  Disrespectful to this league as a whole. 

And Roy, your management style on this issue has been questionable.  Why change that clear rule midstream?  Why make a vote for the dodgers job that had me at 3 votes and not follow through?  Why suggest a rule that eliminates me from the problem and becomes an end around to the issue rather than managing the issue like it deserved (I had many valid points that were no longer meaningful because the discussion now cant involve me, like I don't count).  Why is our administrator voting on issues?  Shouldn't we seperate the rules and the Admin?  Maybe he should have a voice but no vote?  Maybe rules shouldn't be decided by a 4 person majority when the league has 30 members?  Maybe there should have been accountability for the job posting becoming a feeding frenzy rather than handled appropriately?

This whole situation has me sick to my stomach.  Go :SD: Padres...Rah Rah Rah!  And just watch out all you fools who questioned my Padres.  Baez has 21 RBI...in May.
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Offline Colby

  • MLFB Founder
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 28820
  • Bonus inPoints: 27
    • :PIT-NFL:
    • :Blank:
    • :PIT-NHL:
    • :PennState:
    • :UnitedStates:
    • View Profile
Re: Future Rules on League Openings - RC Only
« Reply #23 on: May 08, 2013, 10:56:14 AM »
It's not an issue of a mid-stream change of protocol for hiring.  With the questions surrounding how to fill the Dodgers, and all of the other teams that opened up in the past week, there was a clear need for direction.  Roy put the hiring on hold, sought the RC for legislation, and now there is a clear direction (although more subjective than I anticipated).
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Learn about :Commish: inPoints and the Invitationals.

joeshmoe

  • Guest
Re: Future Rules on League Openings - RC Only
« Reply #24 on: May 08, 2013, 11:06:10 AM »
It's not an issue of a mid-stream change of protocol for hiring.  With the questions surrounding how to fill the Dodgers, and all of the other teams that opened up in the past week, there was a clear need for direction.  Roy put the hiring on hold, sought the RC for legislation, and now there is a clear direction (although more subjective than I anticipated).

It is an issue of midstream change.  The change occurred twice as well.  The consent was given by the RC (those who voted) and by Roy as the Admin (by creating the format) to use a vote to decide the Dodgers and specifically the Dodgers.  Then when the votes were 3 for me the rules were changed again.  This is clearly the case.  I am not making any subjective statements, bar the first (possibly).

The rules were specifically written knowing that it would exclude me, without thought for grandfathering or any other such.  Then passed by a small oligarchy, in a tight controversial vote.  The issue however, had already been subjected to a vote by consent of the league.  Now for the Nationals and any team not already having an OPEN vote should have to go by the rules.  But there was already a VOTE on the floor, everything else is out of order.  Or is this a Bananana Republic?
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Corey

  • Guest
Re: Future Rules on League Openings - RC Only
« Reply #25 on: May 08, 2013, 11:15:09 AM »
Its a great rule. Roy and the RC handled it correctly and timely.

The new rule is for the betterment of the league.

Good job guys.
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

joeshmoe

  • Guest
Re: Future Rules on League Openings - RC Only
« Reply #26 on: May 08, 2013, 11:18:55 AM »
Its a great rule. Roy and the RC handled it correctly and timely.

The new rule is for the betterment of the league.

Good job guys.

Are you in this league?
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Corey

  • Guest
Re: Future Rules on League Openings - RC Only
« Reply #27 on: May 08, 2013, 11:43:03 AM »
Yep. And proud that the RC made the right choice. 
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

joeshmoe

  • Guest
Re: Future Rules on League Openings - RC Only
« Reply #28 on: May 08, 2013, 02:58:32 PM »
Yep. And proud that the RC made the right choice.

I thought you quit in a big huff and puff about the Dodgers situation?

http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?action=post;quote=520465;topic=94699.0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Corey

  • Guest
Re: Future Rules on League Openings - RC Only
« Reply #29 on: May 08, 2013, 03:23:56 PM »
I thought you quit in a big huff and puff about the Dodgers situation?

http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?action=post;quote=520465;topic=94699.0

I would have resigned and stayed resigned if the rules were not changed for the betterment of the league, there is no doubt about that.

But since the league made the important decision to improve its future, than I will stay.
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

 

Forum Search


Quick Profile

 
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

* Chat Room

Refresh History
  • BayAreaBallers: Money alpha
    April 24, 2024, 11:37:29 PM
  • BayAreaBallers: He and like Higgins wants to get paid and have a better secure contract
    April 24, 2024, 11:37:49 PM
  • Braves155: I'm sure the Falcons will botch another Draft.
    Yesterday at 08:07:49 AM
  • Mt_Crushmore: Agreed
    Yesterday at 09:59:57 AM
  • BayAreaBallers: ITS DRAFT DAYYYY
    Yesterday at 12:00:23 PM
  • Rob: Welcome to New England, Drake Maye
    Yesterday at 01:45:48 PM
  • Rob: Hopefully you're not what I think you are
    Yesterday at 01:46:33 PM
  • Rob: Which is, Zach Wilson.
    Yesterday at 01:46:38 PM
  • janesvilleaces: Daddy pm
    Yesterday at 01:54:14 PM
  • Renegade: So what’s happening
    Yesterday at 03:54:16 PM
  • Renegade: My 1st time playing college football fantasy
    Yesterday at 03:56:40 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: @Rob ive seen that take a few times. “Drake Maye=Zach Wilson”. Thats not how i see it. The Physical tools and demeanor alone are very different between the two. I like maye alot
    Yesterday at 03:58:58 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: Are you a patriots fan @rob ?
    Yesterday at 03:59:21 PM
  • BayAreaBallers: Jwalkejr88 pm
    Yesterday at 04:01:47 PM
  • BayAreaBallers: jwalkerjr88 replied back
    Yesterday at 04:18:37 PM
  • indiansnation: Good evening all which league we talking trade.
    Yesterday at 04:47:08 PM
  • Mt_Crushmore: im nfl
    Yesterday at 04:47:43 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: Understood BAB
    Yesterday at 05:00:25 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: Always NFL Brian
    Yesterday at 05:00:36 PM
  • BayAreaBallers: Yepp
    Yesterday at 05:06:57 PM
  • BayAreaBallers: Can't wait to see the madness
    Yesterday at 05:10:27 PM
  • Daddy: God im sooooooo busy today. Im trying to get errands and profsl done before the draft :doh:
    Yesterday at 06:05:24 PM
  • Daddy: There is no way but im gonna keep at it.
    Yesterday at 06:06:27 PM
  • BayAreaBallers: as long as u r here for draft
    Yesterday at 06:08:49 PM
  • janesvilleaces: Go pack go
    Yesterday at 07:26:45 PM
  • Daddy: I thought i had converted you to a Ram fan by now @janes (insert eye emoji)
    Yesterday at 07:35:47 PM
  • Braves155: Sup guys
    Yesterday at 07:35:57 PM
  • Daddy: NFL DRAFT second only to the NFL LIVE Draft in entertainment!
    Yesterday at 08:52:12 PM
  • Daddy: 8/1/24 8PM Change your NFL LIVE teams future with these guys right here!
    Yesterday at 08:52:53 PM
  • Mt_Crushmore: Plan on it.
    Yesterday at 09:25:23 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: Interesting developments so far. If you need a QB in NFL Live. Plenty of them have 1st round pedigree
    Yesterday at 10:53:26 PM
  • Daddy: NFL LIVE Draft Room [link] current picks, 2024 preview & history.
    Yesterday at 11:06:17 PM
  • Braves155: Daddy, what are your thoughts on the NFL Draft thus far?
    Yesterday at 11:34:39 PM
  • Braves155: Or anyone, what ya think?
    Yesterday at 11:35:07 PM
  • dbreer23: Vegeta100 PM
    Yesterday at 11:40:43 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: Alot of surprised tonight as expected. Offensive heavy. 6 QBs in the 1st. 7 WRs. Fun night
    Today at 12:52:03 AM
  • Jwalkerjr88: Alot of NFL Live implications. Cant wait to see it unfold. On to night 2
    Today at 12:52:28 AM
  • BayAreaBallers: i wish we took cooper Frick
    Today at 01:05:02 AM
  • BayAreaBallers: we coulda waited on pearsall
    Today at 01:05:12 AM
  • BayAreaBallers: as much as i do like him a bit cuz he was dceent at ASU and solid at UF
    Today at 01:05:26 AM
  • Daddy: Who is cooper Frick? What position he play
    Today at 02:57:55 AM
  • Brent: BAB, yeah, Cooper is a beast.
    Today at 07:21:11 AM
  • BayAreaBallers: Daddy I was just expressing my displeasure that we passed on cooper dejean. I strongly felt cb was a bigger need or ol than wr
    Today at 10:28:14 AM
  • Daddy: I get it
    Today at 10:39:43 AM
  • Daddy: I dont understand everything i saw last night. The biggest winner to me was Gardner Minshew
    Today at 10:40:41 AM
  • Daddy: Raiders, Atlanta both should have traded back if they were gonna do what they did. IMO
    Today at 10:41:23 AM
  • Daddy: Atlanta could have fleeced Minny and let them draft JJ #6 then still get Penix before Denver/LV
    Today at 10:42:24 AM
  • Daddy: Its like Brian is running the Raiders.
    Today at 10:43:02 AM
  • BayAreaBallers: ya know what speaking of gardener I did trade for him this off-season
    Today at 10:46:49 AM
  • BayAreaBallers: I honestly wouldn't have minded pearsall but I saw him as a Rd 2 target not Rd 1. Great to see another former alumni join the niners.
    Today at 10:48:21 AM