League Settings - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Double D Dynasty

League Settings

Moderators: thriftyrocker, Wenchtamer, Football Moderators

Postby maddog60 » Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:36 pm

Collusion should be the only viable reason for vetoing a trade.
maddog60
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 9758
Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby olympia0731 » Mon Apr 10, 2006 3:11 pm

Yep, only veto for cheeting/ dumping players ( I mean like a whole team for one keeper)
olympia0731
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1294
Joined: 26 Dec 2005
Home Cafe: Football

Postby RocketsDWM » Mon Apr 10, 2006 4:26 pm

Can you explain cheeting to me? :-D

Can their be a rule saying that those who oppose a trade must state a reason (see my above post)?
Image
RocketsDWM
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicGraphics ExpertEagle EyeCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 3457
Joined: 9 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby olympia0731 » Mon Apr 10, 2006 4:48 pm

RocketsDWM wrote:Can you explain cheeting to me? :-D

Can their be a rule saying that those who oppose a trade must state a reason (see my above post)?


I think it may be easier if I veto trades.

I will only Veto trades that were the result of collusion, or a trade like Alexander for Peerless Price.
olympia0731
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1294
Joined: 26 Dec 2005
Home Cafe: Football

Postby RocketsDWM » Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:29 pm

But then its one view against 11 others. I think if a majority votes against it, the trade should be veteod? What if you are involved in the trade? I think getting into the territory of co-commish's is a waste of time and not really fair. If I make a trade with someone I want a chance (as well as the other owner involved) to make a statement concerning the trade. If majority votes determine it, then the owners who vote against it should state why. Its a really simple system that gets rid of 1 person's opinion ruling all. I am vehemently opposed to the commish having sole pwer.
Image
RocketsDWM
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicGraphics ExpertEagle EyeCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 3457
Joined: 9 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby olympia0731 » Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:42 pm

RocketsDWM wrote:But then its one view against 11 others. I think if a majority votes against it, the trade should be veteod? What if you are involved in the trade? I think getting into the territory of co-commish's is a waste of time and not really fair. If I make a trade with someone I want a chance (as well as the other owner involved) to make a statement concerning the trade. If majority votes determine it, then the owners who vote against it should state why. Its a really simple system that gets rid of 1 person's opinion ruling all. I am vehemently opposed to the commish having sole pwer.


Poll is in order....
olympia0731
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1294
Joined: 26 Dec 2005
Home Cafe: Football

Postby maddog60 » Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:46 pm

Well, since the issue doesn't seem to be what defines a vetoable trade, but rather how we should determine if a trade is vetoable, how about a poll?

Vote for either

1) Commish/Co-commish ruling based on strict definition of collusion
2) All league owners vote

If we go with option 2, we would need to decide if we only need a majority vote, or 2/3 majority, whether or not those involved should be allowed to vote, and what to do in case of a tie vote (even number will be voting).
maddog60
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 9758
Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby olympia0731 » Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:50 pm

maddog60 wrote:Well, since the issue doesn't seem to be what defines a vetoable trade, but rather how we should determine if a trade is vetoable, how about a poll?

Vote for either

1) Commish/Co-commish ruling based on strict definition of collusion
2) All league owners vote

If we go with option 2, we would need to decide if we only need a majority vote, or 2/3 majority, whether or not those involved should be allowed to vote, and what to do in case of a tie vote (even number will be voting).


I just set up a poll...

seems the fairest way to detemine this ;-D
olympia0731
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1294
Joined: 26 Dec 2005
Home Cafe: Football

Postby RocketsDWM » Tue Apr 11, 2006 8:11 pm

How about trading draft picks?
Image
RocketsDWM
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicGraphics ExpertEagle EyeCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 3457
Joined: 9 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby olympia0731 » Tue Apr 11, 2006 8:25 pm

RocketsDWM wrote:How about trading draft picks?


Trading picks is perfect.

However you must leave the draft with less than or equal too the required roster.

If at any time in the draft you have more than the required rosters you must drop all players that you aquired after you went over the regulation ;-D
olympia0731
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1294
Joined: 26 Dec 2005
Home Cafe: Football

PreviousNext

Return to Double D Dynasty

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 6:09 hours
(and 41 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact