Are waiver claims going to be processed tomorrow morning?
If we're going to make this really complicated, maybe we should stick with rolling waivers for another year and hammer out all this stuff in due time. I'd rather just KISS if possible (everyone gets $100, no roll over), but whatever the group decides is fine.
bungle613 wrote:Will do a runoff poll for blind bids vs the WW option that got 2 votes. Again, need 8 to pass the vote. Will have it up shortly.
I'm confused...were having a run-off for two options, neither of which are the original which very well means we could end up selecting an option not even avaible for voting for (that no one voted for here)? Shouldn't the run-off be for the original and the highest vote getter?
bungle613 wrote:Will do a runoff poll for blind bids vs the WW option that got 2 votes. Again, need 8 to pass the vote. Will have it up shortly.
I'm confused...were having a run-off for two options, neither of which are the original which very well means we could end up selecting an option not even avaible for voting for (that no one voted for here)? Shouldn't the run-off be for the original and the highest vote getter?
I believe that is what I said. Blind bid vs the WW version that received the highest vote.
bungle613 wrote:Will do a runoff poll for blind bids vs the WW option that got 2 votes. Again, need 8 to pass the vote. Will have it up shortly.
I'm confused...were having a run-off for two options, neither of which are the original which very well means we could end up selecting an option not even avaible for voting for (that no one voted for here)? Shouldn't the run-off be for the original and the highest vote getter?
I believe that is what I said. Blind bid vs the WW version that received the highest vote.
But either option is still a change (at least according to how they are described in the voting) and would need 8 votes to pass...which is very possible neither get....
aaawall91 wrote: I'm confused...were having a run-off for two options, neither of which are the original which very well means we could end up selecting an option not even avaible for voting for (that no one voted for here)? Shouldn't the run-off be for the original and the highest vote getter?
I believe that is what I said. Blind bid vs the WW version that received the highest vote.
But either option is still a change (at least according to how they are described in the voting) and would need 8 votes to pass...which is very possible neither get....
If neither get 8 votes then the WW will remain the same.
But were not getting accurate voting I feel like...
For instance 50% of the league could want BB first, the new WW 2nd, and the old way last and the other half of the league you wants New WW first, BB 2nd, old way last
If we get a 6-6 vote...than we could essentially get a system no one wants...
You get what I'm saying?
If you posed each system indivudually against the old way it would be more accurate. if both get 8+ votes, than we put them head to head, since 8 has no relavance in the vote. If neither get 8 votes against the old system we keep the old. If 1 gets 8 votes and the other doesn't than we have a clear winner.
I'm not sure if putting all 3 in a poll and allowing owners to choose 2 and make 16 the threashold for the new options to pass would speed up the process but its something to consider.
I sort of get what you are saying but it seems excessive. Ther are 2 distinct versions. Blind bidding or waiver wire. Currently 7 owners want blind bidding and 4 want some form of standard WW. I repoll and the 7 who voted for BB will not switch to WW. The option is now for an owner to choose BB over the WW process that go the most votes. If they do not, and it ends 7-5 then nothing passes and it remains the old system.
We are making everything far too complicated with rolling money, revotes etc...