Author Topic: Future Rules on League Openings - RC Only  (Read 3214 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
  • Daddy: Well its gon up to 183 & we can all use more Brian in our lives.
    Yesterday at 12:26:24 AM
  • BayAreaBallers: Brian give me a second to look at your latest message. While we were talking had lost power here and only got it back later in the night
    Yesterday at 10:09:04 AM
  • BayAreaBallers: Will respond back shortly
    Yesterday at 10:09:12 AM
  • Braves155: Morning guys
    Yesterday at 10:34:10 AM
  • Braves155: Who wanna talk deals?
    Yesterday at 10:47:10 AM
  • IndianaBuc: Braves155 PM
    Yesterday at 11:16:47 AM
  • Braves155: Responded
    Yesterday at 11:17:23 AM
  • indiansnation: Braves155 pm
    Yesterday at 12:39:44 PM
  • Braves155: Responded indians
    Yesterday at 12:43:07 PM
  • dbreer23: Cubs are dealing in FGM, hit me up
    Yesterday at 12:59:38 PM
  • Braves155: Looking for an OF in FGM. IN Armchair looking to re-tool/rebuild a bit. Snell and others could be avail
    Yesterday at 01:09:11 PM
  • Braves155: PM Davew
    Yesterday at 01:23:10 PM
  • dbreer23: Brian CLE PM
    Yesterday at 01:49:57 PM
  • Braves155: PM BAB
    Yesterday at 03:29:20 PM
  • indiansnation: Bayareaballers pm trade posted in fgm
    Yesterday at 03:56:17 PM
  • indiansnation: Braves ill send u message soon
    Yesterday at 03:56:32 PM
  • indiansnation: Dbreer23 pm
    Yesterday at 03:58:46 PM
  • indiansnation: Braves155 pm
    Yesterday at 04:35:11 PM
  • indiansnation: Watching boston kick the living crap out of cardinals
    Yesterday at 04:53:49 PM
  • Braves155: Great seeing the Knicks get schooled
    Yesterday at 06:37:35 PM
  • Rhino7: I agree, pacers will be a better match vs Celtics
    Yesterday at 07:02:21 PM
  • Braves155: But just like anytime Stephen A. gets hyped for the Knicks, they disappear in big games
    Yesterday at 07:08:00 PM
  • TheGOAT: Celtics would probably win it all
    Yesterday at 07:20:01 PM
  • Braves155: Looking forward to TWolves-Nuggets tonight
    Yesterday at 07:22:40 PM
  • TheGOAT: Around for trade talks in NFL Live
    Yesterday at 08:07:18 PM
  • Braves155: Likewise
    Yesterday at 08:22:40 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: What you looking for? @Thegoat?
    Yesterday at 11:01:43 PM
  • Rhino7: Down goes the Champs! Nuggs out
    Yesterday at 11:56:44 PM
  • Daddy: That Minnesota NBA LIVE team aint lookin too bad right now. Should be fun!
    Today at 12:00:46 AM
  • Rhino7: Good team except the contracts
    Today at 03:09:09 PM
  • Daddy: Youve seen them? We havent completely structured all that yet. Weve got expansion and other factors that the real Wolves dont face.
    Today at 03:39:40 PM
  • Daddy: My comment on the real Wolves are if they win a chip then there is no such things as bad contracts. The point of all contracts are to win Championships.
    Today at 03:40:57 PM
  • STLBlues91: I will be around the rest of the day to talk deals. Tomorrow I will be around after work but plan on being in some spreadsheets most the day
    Today at 05:04:22 PM
  • Rhino7: No, haven’t seen them except on spotrac
    Today at 05:33:13 PM
  • Daddy: @Rhino7 the rumor is they've got a decent GM in both leagues. Especially NBA LIVE. (Howwwwwwwl)
    Today at 07:13:40 PM
  • STLBlues91: Well Vegas is ready to grab one of the players on the roster
    Today at 07:17:34 PM
  • Daddy: Lol, Seattle too Im sure.:rofl:
    Today at 07:43:10 PM
  • Daddy: I will leak this... Each team will be allowed to protect 5 and each team can only lose one player to expansion
    Today at 07:44:21 PM
  • Daddy: 30 teams to draw from = 15 players each
    Today at 07:44:57 PM
  • STLBlues91: Id also imagine trading and all that can happen. Like pick a guy to trade to another team to pick up other assets
    Today at 07:45:25 PM
  • Daddy: You know LIVE rules. Once they are yours you can do whatever you like.
    Today at 07:46:32 PM
  • STLBlues91: Yeah had to just check. So a deadline to select the keepers. Then a few days for the selection. Me and Seattle alternate picks?
    Today at 07:47:47 PM
  • Daddy: The expansion draft is LIVE alternating picks until both teams have 15 players like the NBA All Star teams get picked.
    Today at 07:48:04 PM
  • BayAreaBallers: oh Crap
    Today at 07:49:27 PM
  • BayAreaBallers: this is interesting w my team
    Today at 07:49:42 PM
  • BayAreaBallers: who to protect outside the obvious
    Today at 07:49:52 PM
  • STLBlues91: Sounds good I didnt know if it would be like the NHL expansion with seattle where they get posted or live broadcasting
    Today at 07:50:02 PM
  • Daddy: The "Expansion draft" will be a LIVE Event & followed by the Entry Draft where Vegas/Seattle also will start off with picks #1 & #2.
    Today at 07:50:06 PM
  • Daddy: We doing BIG Crap with this basketball league. Buckle up!
    Today at 07:50:46 PM
  • Daddy: NBA LIVE is codenamed "The "Matrix" for all the numbers we running. Its currently being built.
    Today at 07:52:40 PM