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

[saw061600]

In a 10+ year league that has always had the possibility of a commish veto.

Many owners were new to dynasty football when the league was started and the commish felt that it was important, as a last resort, to stop really bad trades from happening. The last resort veto was to make sure the league was competitive and would last.

No trade has ever been vetoed. There's been grumbling, weird trades, crazy trades, but no veto ever.

Now we've 2 new rules this year

1. Owners can vote to veto any trade but owners don't need to vote. If 60% of the owners vote to veto the trade, it's vetoed.
2. 80% vote needed for any rule change (but we aren't allowed to vote on the 60% veto so we actually don't get to vote for rule changes)

I'll probably end up posting this discussion link in chat so I'd appreciate if people would be respectful and keep the argument to thoughts on veto policies and not thoughts about people who veto.

[Pac_Eddy]

Oy. I'm not a fan. Owners should be free to handle their teams as they see fit.

And only a 60% threshold? A trade obviously in collusion or so lopsided would get almost all votes against, or even better, the commish would step in.

[Pullo Vision]

Oy. I'm not a fan. Owners should be free to handle their teams as they see fit.

And only a 60% threshold? A trade obviously in collusion or so lopsided would get almost all votes against, or even better, the commish would step in.

The percentage is what caught my eye. If a league WILL be implementing a veto ability, 60% seems too low, especially in light of the fact rule changes require 80%. I presume teams involved in the trade can vote, which would help address the low percentage threshold. How many teams in the league? Can the commish vote, or are they the tiebreaker?

Also, why would a league change from commish veto to league vote veto? Has the grumbling and weird/crazy trades been more/worse than suggested in the OP?

Somewhat off topic, I'm curious what rule settings are and are not allowed to be changed by the league's members. Is this the only one?

[natjjohn]

League vote is generally atrocious. People will vote in their self-interest.

80% is a high threshold. I don’t necessarily have an issue of needing more than a straight majority, but 80% is setting jt pretty highly. Also comical the owner trade vote didn’t come about via vote.

[Csl312]

I don't hate vetoes but I do think that you would want a 75% vote to override a trade. That would basically be unanimous in a 12 team league (the people participating in the trade obviously won't vote to veto it). But I also wonder why now? After ten years has there been an issue arise?

I'm in a league that also has commish veto power that has not been used in about 10 years of existence. I don't think would want to make it league vote in that league.

[Valhalla]

There used to be a regular forum contributor named “never veto.” Curious to hear his take.

[saw061600]

League vote is generally atrocious. People will vote in their self-interest.

80% is a high threshold. I don’t necessarily have an issue of needing more than a straight majority, but 80% is setting jt pretty highly. Also comical the owner trade vote didn’t come about via vote.

I said the same.

[killer_of_giants]

i'm against any kind of veto, for a number of reasons.
i don't see the point of a person (commissioner) or many persons (league vote) managing someone else's team.
trades that "ruin the integrity of the league" are rare, a single trade that does that is even more rare. and in a couple of seasons it will all be washed anyway.
we've all seen trades that were bashed by the whole league, only to turn out the opposite of what people expected.

if you really feel that a player needs training wheels (but still want him in for some reason) there are better ones to use, like a chat and a few pointers to valuable content. and if the commissioner really can't be arsed with those methods and takes the lazy route with vetos, he should at least take that responsibility, not pass it to others that will have their own interests in mind.

and yes, commissioner should have put the tentative rule to a vote, not just change things (while also saying you can't change them back even with a majority).

[saw061600]

I don't hate vetoes but I do think that you would want a 75% vote to override a trade. That would basically be unanimous in a 12 team league (the people participating in the trade obviously won't vote to veto it). But I also wonder why now? After ten years has there been an issue arise?

I'm in a league that also has commish veto power that has not been used in about 10 years of existence. I don't think would want to make it league vote in that league.

The issue was the commish didn't like that an owner offered a random 23 first for (Gabriel) 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.

[Bronco Billy]

My thoughts, FWIW, is that there is only one reason to veto a trade, and that’s because of collusion. And if the trade is vetoed because of. collusion, then expulsion from the league for both owners goes with it. That’s the way our rule reads, and it requires at least 75% of the non-trade owners to agree that the trade was collusive.

In 21 years we’ve never had a trade even recommended for veto by any owner. Are there seemingly bad trades? Sure, but it’s funny how that enough of those seemingly bad trades turn in the allegedly “taken” owner’s favor as time passes.

As far as the rule change, we put up the Constitution for rule changes every year. We’ve got s thread for discussion going on right now and one of the topics is adjusting time on IR to be reduced from at least 7 weeks to 4 weeks and then a maximum of 2 stints on IR for any one player so thst we match the NFL rule. We have a period for discussion, then if agreed to vote we wordsmith the rule and then take an open vote. It all happens and is finished before the NFL draft (which coincides with the start of our draft) Majority vote required to change a rule. Owners really seem to enjoy the concept of a living Constitution that adjusts with the NFL.

[Jigga94]

I don't hate vetoes but I do think that you would want a 75% vote to override a trade. That would basically be unanimous in a 12 team league (the people participating in the trade obviously won't vote to veto it). But I also wonder why now? After ten years has there been an issue arise?

I'm in a league that also has commish veto power that has not been used in about 10 years of existence. I don't think would want to make it league vote in that league.

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

[Jigga94]

My thoughts, FWIW, is that there is only one reason to veto a trade, and that’s because of collusion. And if the trade is vetoed because of. collusion, then expulsion from the league for both owners goes with it. That’s the way our rule reads, and it requires at least 75% of the non-trade owners to agree that the trade was collusive.

In 21 years we’ve never had a trade even recommended for veto by any owner. Are there seemingly bad trades? Sure, but it’s funny how that enough of those seemingly bad trades turn in the allegedly “taken” owner’s favor as time passes.

As far as the rule change, we put up the Constitution for rule changes every year. We’ve got s thread for discussion going on right now and one of the topics is adjusting time on IR to be reduced from at least 7 weeks to 4 weeks and then a maximum of 2 stints on IR for any one player so thst we match the NFL rule. Majority vote required to change a rule. Owners really seem to enjoy the concept of a living Constitution that adjusts with the NFL.

While not every NFL rule makes sense for Fantasy leagues, this is something that is replicated in my leagues as well. The game is always changing. Good to have active owners voting on what they like in a league.

[JJRules]

League-vote veto is a hard no from me as it opens up owners to vote against a trade simply because it makes another team or competitor stronger rather than the merits of the trade itself.

[thebeast]

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.

[saw061600]

I don't hate vetoes but I do think that you would want a 75% vote to override a trade. That would basically be unanimous in a 12 team league (the people participating in the trade obviously won't vote to veto it). But I also wonder why now? After ten years has there been an issue arise?

I'm in a league that also has commish veto power that has not been used in about 10 years of existence. I don't think would want to make it league vote in that league.

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.