Which veto policy is worse? (or are they all the worst?)

[Jigga94]

The issue was the commish didn't like that an owner offered a random 23 first for Davis after his 2 good weeks. Complained about it the rest of the year.

Of course there was no problem with getting 1.05 and 1.06 for CEH in late April, but that's another story I suppose.

ugh this reeks of poor/uneven management. I would have guessed this was a new-ish league, but saw its been 10 years. Weird its coming about now as an issue.

Personally have never seen a veto in my leagues. I am not even sure we have veto rules. All up to the commish and generally leagues are either well policed by everyone, or its a relaxed league that doesn't mind some lopsided deals.

Not sure which Davis (Corey?) went for a random 1st, but CEH for 2 1sts is easily more lopsided

Was Gabriel Davis, added the first name for clarity.

How could I forget about the greatest WR ever. A random 1st for him is more than fair

[saw061600]

No one can predict the future, so assessing the outcome of a trade at the moment is silly, IMO. If someone trades Mahommes for a 3rd or a first for a second, then You have a different issue, but in one of my leagues, someone traded Luck for Mahomes straight up the year before Mahomes took the starting job. That owner got roasted, but has now won a league that pays nearly $4k twice. Trades don’t need to be vetoed, and as others have said, collusion or trades purposely made to hurt the league should result in owner replacement.

Regarding voting to change any rules. It sounds great, but honestly, I have found many rules don’t need a vote, and opening every change to input is poor management. Commissioners are in place to manage the league, and as long as they aren’t doing things in their self-interest, let them.

I've found that it's hard to even get owners TO vote. I pointed out, in league chat, that we will never have a rule change because we never have 80% participation in the offseason. Hell, lucky if all 10 owners log on before NFL draft so how would we ever have a successful rule change?

[killer_of_giants]

I've found that it's hard to even get owners TO vote. I pointed out, in league chat, that we will never have a rule change because we never have 80% participation in the offseason. Hell, lucky if all 10 owners log on before NFL draft so how would we ever have a successful rule change?

might propose a % of those that actually vote, owners that can't be arsed to vote shouldn't count.

[Jigga94]

I've found that it's hard to even get owners TO vote. I pointed out, in league chat, that we will never have a rule change because we never have 80% participation in the offseason. Hell, lucky if all 10 owners log on before NFL draft so how would we ever have a successful rule change?

might propose a % of those that actually vote, owners that can't be arsed to vote shouldn't count.

x2

[Prison_Mike]

The issue was the commish didn't like that an owner offered a random 23 first for Davis after his 2 good weeks. Complained about it the rest of the year.

Of course there was no problem with getting 1.05 and 1.06 for CEH in late April, but that's another story I suppose.

ugh this reeks of poor/uneven management. I would have guessed this was a new-ish league, but saw its been 10 years. Weird its coming about now as an issue.

Personally have never seen a veto in my leagues. I am not even sure we have veto rules. All up to the commish and generally leagues are either well policed by everyone, or its a relaxed league that doesn't mind some lopsided deals.

Not sure which Davis (Corey?) went for a random 1st, but CEH for 2 1sts is easily more lopsided

Was Gabriel Davis, added the first name for clarity.

Sorry, I want more clarification on this.

Was the commish involved in the Gabe Davis/'23 1st trade? Was that trade completed? (you just said it was an offer).
And was it then the commish who was the benefactor of the 1.05 and 1.06 for CEH?

Hate to say it but if I'm understanding correctly, this sounds like a power-hungry commissioner.

A veto rule in and of itself is enough to make me leave a league (barring collusion as Bronco Billy brought up; I'd take it a step further and say it probably needs to be evidenced and documented collusion), but the combination of a veto rule + the fact that this rule was set in motion by a commissioner who has benefited from arguably veto-worthy trades + the inability for you as a league member to have any say in such a rule....would make me run far far away

[hockeyBjj]

Benevolent dictatorship is the best comish policy

Don't let other owners get a say, but Commish can drop the hammer if it's collusion. Or on the ultra rate occasion someone is taking advantage of an idiot new owner in a way that would throw the league out of competitiveness for years

[Valhalla]

Tie the offenders up in chains and throw them in the lake. If they float, the trade stands. If they sink, it was collusion.

[Bronco Billy]

Regarding voting to change any rules. It sounds great, but honestly, I have found many rules don’t need a vote, and opening every change to input is poor management. Commissioners are in place to manage the league, and as long as they aren’t doing things in their self-interest, let them.

Thanks for that. Glad to know I’m doing a poor job.

To clarify, we do not revisit every rule every year. These are discussions on significant changes that the league believes will make the experience better and the league more fun.

For example, the league voted 5 years ago to make IR and PS slots replaceable. Before that, if you dropped a player from IR or promoted a player off the PS the slot was lost. 3 years ago we changed IDP scoring a bit so that D players could keep up better with how the NFL rule changes allowed O players to score more. Now it’s the length of IR time because of how players go on/off IR so easily so that owners can access their players who have been activated in the NFL.

Those are positive changes to the league that were enacted because of owner input in the league. I’m not sure why a commissioner would be threatened by or the league is made worse by empowering owners to help make changes that reflect changes enacted by the NFL that impact the FF league.

[saw061600]

ugh this reeks of poor/uneven management. I would have guessed this was a new-ish league, but saw its been 10 years. Weird its coming about now as an issue.

Personally have never seen a veto in my leagues. I am not even sure we have veto rules. All up to the commish and generally leagues are either well policed by everyone, or its a relaxed league that doesn't mind some lopsided deals.

Not sure which Davis (Corey?) went for a random 1st, but CEH for 2 1sts is easily more lopsided

Was Gabriel Davis, added the first name for clarity.

Sorry, I want more clarification on this.

Was the commish involved in the Gabe Davis/'23 1st trade? Was that trade completed? (you just said it was an offer).
And was it then the commish who was the benefactor of the 1.05 and 1.06 for CEH?

Hate to say it but if I'm understanding correctly, this sounds like a power-hungry commissioner.

A veto rule in and of itself is enough to make me leave a league (barring collusion as Bronco Billy brought up; I'd take it a step further and say it probably needs to be evidenced and documented collusion), but the combination of a veto rule + the fact that this rule was set in motion by a commissioner who has benefited from arguably veto-worthy trades + the inability for you as a league member to have any say in such a rule....would make me run far far away

Was the commish involved in the Gabe Davis/'23 1st trade? Was that trade completed? No, the trade was offered to me and I accepted it. The complaints continued throughout the rest of the season, more like taunts of the owner that made the offer than complaints.

And was it then the commish who was the benefactor of the 1.05 and 1.06 for CEH Yes, the commish was the one to receive the 2 mid firsts for CEH and some mid to meh level LBs (not worth much on their own in any format)

[Lehigh98]

Started a new dynasty league a couple years ago with people that were new to the format (including me). It's a 2 copy league with 24 managers and we voted on a 3 man "executive board" for support with rules questions, MFL website support, etc. In an effort to try and cover all possible stuff that might happen (which is impossible of course) we also included this blurb in the trading section of the league constitution that I think I got the idea for and probably some of the text from somewhere else:

"The executive committee reserves the right to reverse any trade that they deem inconsistent with league competition and fair-play standards. This veto will only be invoked in extreme cases where it is obvious that one manager is trying to give another manager an unfair advantage. This option is meant to prevent collusion or other shady practices and is not meant to be used to police good or bad trades. The managers in question may offer reasons why the trade should be allowed, but the decision of the executive committee is final once it has been rendered. If the trade involves a committee member, they may offer reasons for the trade to be allowed but will not have a say in the final committee decision."

[Prison_Mike]

Was Gabriel Davis, added the first name for clarity.

Sorry, I want more clarification on this.

Was the commish involved in the Gabe Davis/'23 1st trade? Was that trade completed? (you just said it was an offer).
And was it then the commish who was the benefactor of the 1.05 and 1.06 for CEH?

Hate to say it but if I'm understanding correctly, this sounds like a power-hungry commissioner.

A veto rule in and of itself is enough to make me leave a league (barring collusion as Bronco Billy brought up; I'd take it a step further and say it probably needs to be evidenced and documented collusion), but the combination of a veto rule + the fact that this rule was set in motion by a commissioner who has benefited from arguably veto-worthy trades + the inability for you as a league member to have any say in such a rule....would make me run far far away

Was the commish involved in the Gabe Davis/'23 1st trade? Was that trade completed? No, the trade was offered to me and I accepted it. The complaints continued throughout the rest of the season, more like taunts of the owner that made the offer than complaints.

And was it then the commish who was the benefactor of the 1.05 and 1.06 for CEH Yes, the commish was the one to receive the 2 mid firsts for CEH and some mid to meh level LBs (not worth much on their own in any format)

Congrats on capitalizing on what was absolutely Gabe Davis' market value at one point (meaning the complaints/taunts were unnecessary). As for the CEH deal, I'm not sure there was ever a point in his career where he garnered 2 firsts (aside from immediately being drafted by KC, but that's obviously not the time frame we are talking about).

So yeah, I'd have a hard time having a rule imposed on me from someone who has recently benefited so greatly from it

[Pac_Eddy]

Benevolent dictatorship is the best comish policy

Don't let other owners get a say, but Commish can drop the hammer if it's collusion. Or on the ultra rate occasion someone is taking advantage of an idiot new owner in a way that would throw the league out of competitiveness for years

Agree with this. Leagues run smoothly when a good commissioner just handles things and knows when to ask the rest the of the league for input and when to just take care of it.

[honcho55]

Bit of a derail, but I’m interested to hear: anyone got examples of when a trade “derailed” the leagues fairness? Honestly doesn’t seem possible to me.

I’ve had some sickeningly stacked teams not win the title. Ya know those teams that score 30% more points than the next, in regular season. I’d estimate a normal strong favorite still only wins 20% of the time or so. One super lopsided trade doesn’t just serve up multiple titles, I literally don’t care if it’s Mahomes and Allen for a cheeseburger.

So, curious if anyone has some stories of a league going under because of an awful trade.

And, I get that maybe it’s more of a continuing process kinda thing, stringing together multiple awful trades, or a guy who fleeces the same guy a couple times every single year. Those are different scenarios: the fleecee washes out of the league more times than not, etc.

[SelectDynastyLeagues]

Benevolent dictatorship is the best comish policy

Don't let other owners get a say, but Commish can drop the hammer if it's collusion. Or on the ultra rate occasion someone is taking advantage of an idiot new owner in a way that would throw the league out of competitiveness for years

Came here to say this. Would add the similarly very rare mistake trade. Some leagues also have unique rules that require vetoes- i.e. the only trades I remember vetoing in my 50ish commissioner seasons were trades that salary cap league trades that created illegal salary cap situations.

If you don’t have a commissioner that you trust to appropriately veto trades, then you don’t have a good commissioner. And if you don’t have a good commissioner, you don’t have a good league.

[MacDaddy123]

Personally, I hate veto leagues. I am only in 1 veto league, and it is the league I hate the most.
Only reason I stay is because my team is too good to quit.

I have good teams in other, non-veto leagues, with no drama.
Problem with veto leagues is too many jealous little bitches want to veto way too many trades, IMO.