New rule proposal for 2019

Moderator: Executive Committee

Post Reply
User avatar
Guardians
Posts: 4584
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 1:00 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Name: Pat Gillespie

New rule proposal for 2019

Post by Guardians »

Since it's top of mind, I think we have an opportunity for improvement on trade appeals.

I think we should set up specific protocol for trade appeals.

A) If a GM wants to call for a trade to be voted on appeal, the GM quotes the trade he is challenging and posts in the trades forum "I would like a league vote on this trade."

B) No teams are allowed to use the trade forum or other ibcleague.com forums for argument or lobbying on the issue.

C) If 5 GMs agree to a veto vote, the teams involved can write a brief (fitting on 1 page of a MS Word document at a 12pt font) appeal to be posted prior to league wide vote.

I don't see a reason why teams should be arguing for or against a vote before it's determined if there is a vote. Especially teams involved in the trade. If we want to facilitate discussion, I suppose we could. But GMs should be able to decide on their own whether they think a deal is worthy of a leaguewide veto vote without outside influence.
User avatar
Astros
Posts: 2977
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:00 am
Location: PHX
Name: Ty Bradley

Post by Astros »

I like this idea. With the TRC being abolished we need to figure out a way to make this new process work. Might as well make it as professional as possible (and stop things like someone in the trade chiming in with an insult like Jake did after Nate posted) so everyone knows the ground rules. I think we should also have a time limit on how long you can call a veto. Want to make it 2 days? Before the next database comes out? I feel like this needs to be a speedy process so we don't drag things out.
User avatar
Guardians
Posts: 4584
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 1:00 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Name: Pat Gillespie

Post by Guardians »

Cardinals wrote:I like this idea. With the TRC being abolished we need to figure out a way to make this new process work. Might as well make it as professional as possible (and stop things like someone in the trade chiming in with an insult like Jake did after Nate posted) so everyone knows the ground rules. I think we should also have a time limit on how long you can call a veto. Want to make it 2 days? Before the next database comes out? I feel like this needs to be a speedy process so we don't drag things out.
The current rules (debatable how useful they are, but Nils and I are working on that today), state 3 days:

"F. Approved trades may also be appealed if at least 5 members call for
a league wide vote on the approved trade within 3 days of trade
approval."
User avatar
Padres
Site Admin
Posts: 4382
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 1:00 am
Location: Wells, Maine
Name: Jim Berger

Post by Padres »

3 days is plenty
User avatar
Rangers
Site Admin
Posts: 3905
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 1:00 am
Location: Prosper, TX
Name: Brett Perryman

Post by Rangers »

I think in general this is a no-brainer. We should have the protocol be very clear for the league, and debate doesn't need to be central to the procedure.

Agree on the mechanics, should be a place to go to for someone to challenge and for others to second the challenge, and it shouldn't be the trade thread (but Trade Approvals forum is fine, as would be a new one under Official Business). Enough challenges triggers a vote, and there should be no commentary in the trade thread, the spot where people challenge, or on the thread where the vote is.

I also recommend that we identify one of us as responsible for managing setting up any votes and ensuring that everyone follows the guidelines on trade challenges.

The one thing that I differ on with the proposal is that while I agree that it shouldn't be in the face of everyone just trying to stay up with things, I think that saying that no one should be able to speak out in favor of or against a trade anywhere is a step too far. I just propose that any of that discussion be confined to The Dumpster, where if you really want to hear insight on the players, or you want to argue about it, someone can set up a thread argue to their heart's content but do get it away from where the actual procedural stuff is happening and into a corner where everyone who doesn't want to hear it doesn't have to.
User avatar
Dodgers
Site Admin
Posts: 5754
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Name: Shawn Walsh

Post by Dodgers »

I agree we need a clear process, though I have a couple concerns.

1. 3 days creates problems for databases. A trade accepted on Saturday would normally be processed into the database on Sunday and the players playing Monday. If the trade gets its 5 vote on Monday, then assume it takes another 2-3 days before we can have a decision, it might not be reversed in the database until the next Sunday's database. Are we okay with the players playing a week for their teams then getting switched back? Or does there have to be a 3 day wait for trades to be processed to make sure it's not going to be contested?

2. Similar to #1, I'm not sure we've had this problem yet, but what if I make a trade on August 30th and it gets vetoed September 4th? Now I have no way of modifying the deal?

3. I'm not a fan of trying to rally support for vetoing a trade. My ultimate solution would be that it requires a total blind system where 5 GMs have to think for themselves and decide it needs to be vetoed. Unfortunately, that's not reality because if we don't allow it publicly, it will definitely happen privately. I also don't think that forcing it into another forum is really going to make a difference, but if we want to keep it separate for procedural reasons, that seems reasonable.

4. I think we lack a definition of why it's rational for a trade to vetoed. I didn't really have a problem with JP and Jake (two longtime league members) deciding their team's needs and crafting a deal. We've obviously had edicts in the past about preventing new members from getting ripped off (to not much affect) as well as the whole below-AA value thing, but I think we need to have a common definition for reasons that a trade should be vetoed that should guide everyone's vote.
User avatar
Guardians
Posts: 4584
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 1:00 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Name: Pat Gillespie

Re:

Post by Guardians »

Dodgers wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 11:41 am I agree we need a clear process, though I have a couple concerns.

1. 3 days creates problems for databases. A trade accepted on Saturday would normally be processed into the database on Sunday and the players playing Monday. If the trade gets its 5 vote on Monday, then assume it takes another 2-3 days before we can have a decision, it might not be reversed in the database until the next Sunday's database. Are we okay with the players playing a week for their teams then getting switched back? Or does there have to be a 3 day wait for trades to be processed to make sure it's not going to be contested?

2. Similar to #1, I'm not sure we've had this problem yet, but what if I make a trade on August 30th and it gets vetoed September 4th? Now I have no way of modifying the deal?

3. I'm not a fan of trying to rally support for vetoing a trade. My ultimate solution would be that it requires a total blind system where 5 GMs have to think for themselves and decide it needs to be vetoed. Unfortunately, that's not reality because if we don't allow it publicly, it will definitely happen privately. I also don't think that forcing it into another forum is really going to make a difference, but if we want to keep it separate for procedural reasons, that seems reasonable.

4. I think we lack a definition of why it's rational for a trade to vetoed. I didn't really have a problem with JP and Jake (two longtime league members) deciding their team's needs and crafting a deal. We've obviously had edicts in the past about preventing new members from getting ripped off (to not much affect) as well as the whole below-AA value thing, but I think we need to have a common definition for reasons that a trade should be vetoed that should guide everyone's vote.
Circling back around on this.

Seems as if several members are in favor of setting a clear policy for how trade veto vote requests are handled. I propose the language from my original post with a possible exception per Brett: any veto or trade approval argument should be moved to The Dumpster forum and not conducted on the Trade Approvals forum. I agree with Shawn, though, as I think arguments from around the league muddy the waters, especially depending on who is doing the arguing. I think some owners are deferential to certain owners and not to others. I think the process would be cleaner and more fair to each owner involved in the trade if they got to each present their arguments and the other 28 owners got to decide based on the arguments whether they agree/disagree. Comments also tend to lessen the value of the trading owner arguments because they've likely been made by others as part of the overall dust-up on the boards. I'm open to this, but I'd rather the comments be shelved until votes happen. Per Shawn, I agree people will talk individually, but no one talks to all 30 members at a given time...there's enough disconnect among owners that I think it provides a fair process for the owners involved.

I think it would be helpful to include some language about what should prompt a veto call. Let's hash out what those things are. Are they these/not these/something else? Open to additions/subtractions.

Suspicions of collusion
Trade causes a league imbalance
Imbalance return, particularly low-level prospects
New league owner making a team-altering decision

As for Shawn's database issue: I don't recall us getting into a situation where we've had to reverse in the past. But owners have been used to a trade being agreed to and the TRC taking a couple days to get it together and all vote. Perhaps we change 3 days 24 hours? There are usually enough people on the site throughout a given 24-hour period to spot something and post. It may require JP to hold on processing a trade if there's a call for a veto and still some time left in the 24-hour period if he's planning on simming. I don't want to implicitly state that if you veto you can delay a trade by a day because I think that could be used advantageously by someone, but maybe as a rule of thumb, we make it a 24-hour veto period and if there's 1-2 calls for veto, JP can hold on simming or hold on processing a trade until the full 24 hour period?
User avatar
Dodgers
Site Admin
Posts: 5754
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Name: Shawn Walsh

Re: New rule proposal for 2019

Post by Dodgers »

I've been struggling to respond to this for weeks.

I agree about the clear policy needed and am fine with using the initial language. Perhaps the person who oversees this could then respond with "Reminder that any veto or trade approval argument should be moved to The Dumpster forum and not conducted on the Trade Approvals forum"?

Regarding reasons for veto
Yes - suspicions of collusion
Yes - new league owner making a bad deal

"Imbalance" reasons are much harder to wrap my head around, I think we need to be clear about what grounds this should be considered vetoable.

I like the idea of holding off simming, but if it creates problems for JP then I think we just reverse the trade if it gets vetoed and the results stand.
Post Reply

Return to “ExCo General”