A Couple Things

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:49 am

Proposals for discussion.
1. Under no circumstance should an issue be voted on without at least some debate by the ExCo.
2. A vote cannot be acted on until a majority is officially in and 5 votes for or 2 opposed are officially cast by voting in an official poll.

IMO, these two issues are no-brainers, but recent events suggest otherwise. Discuss!

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:31 pm

I have a new suggestion but I'm not going to post it until I read all the posts I have left to read. It pertains to #1.

As for #2, I think recent events don't suggest otherwise. I believe you misunderstood the vote count, Brett had not voted, but was a yes, so your vote really made it 5, not 4. To you though it displayed as 4. He basically waited for 4 votes, said "I vote yes as well" and then simmed. I wasn't around at the exact point, but I'm 99% sure that's what happened.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:41 pm

Okay, my proposal pertaining to #1 is that all discussions should now be held in public view, with the whole league having an ability to contribute and view all arguments. Maybe have some sort of time limit before we can start a vote on the topic, or else start an ExCo only thread proposing a vote which must have at least 3 people supporting that it's time for a vote (or something to that affect). Thoughts?

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:21 pm

1. Should be an understanding rather then a rule ...
2. Already is a rule, I believe, which as far as I can tell has been followed.

General discussion about this thread ...

First let's not kid ourselves -- there is obviously a lot of discussion that goes on between some members of the of the ExCo that doesn't take place on the boards. Am I usually part of it - no, not very often. Do I care - not really. Should there be yet another friggin' rule prohibiting it - heck no. (For Christ's sake: We are not a public body and not subject to the open meetings act!)

Second, keep in mind that there are 4 permanent members and 2 "rotating" members of the ExCo. I am a rotating member, which I consider to be both an honor and an obligation. As a rotating member I realize that I may or may not continue on the ExCo - but I don't make mine decisions based on any populist whim. I try my best to look at any issue from all possible perspectives and then vote for what I believe is in the best interests of the IBC - both now and for the future.

Third, I happen to personally believe very strongly in the concept that Bren put forth (after a vote is taken the ExCo remain solid behind the group decision) and know that it is an important factor in a management group being able to work effectively together. Ironically it was Bren who then blow that concept out the window ... if we have the ExCo forum become completely visible, this concept will not be practical even if we choose to return to it as a solid management practice.

Fourth, I have long been a proponent of the most transparency possible when acting as a governing official - but there are certain areas that are best conducted in private until a public decision is made. Personnel is one such area. When the ExCo is discussing particulars about a specific GM(s) actions, I don't believe the "investigation" portion of a discussion should be public ...

Bottom line for me: If the ExCo forum becomes public, I don't really give a rat's as_. There will still be side bar discussions ( see my #1) between members of the ExCo. I am not convinced it (making the ExCo forum a public forum) is the best manner of conducting group management, but I will block it. But any hope of ever having a solid ExCo (see my #3) will never happen.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:22 pm

let's not make this more complicated than it has to be. (Directed in general terms, not at Jim's post.)

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:25 pm

I also don't see why I should have to debate with you...chumps...about an issue in order to vote on it. You all know my stance on a Rule V. I don't feel the need to pipe in once somebody makes the vote on it here because I'm voting "no" no matter what. If it's a new issue where you people don't know my stance, then yes, I'll chime in...as you can see via my postcount I have no problem posting. I don't feel it necessary at all times to have debated on the board my stance on something in order to vote.

The simming was voted on. We had five votes. The poll reflected four because I believe Jake had said "ok go for it" but hadn't voted in the poll, or either Jake or Brett. Either way , we had five votes. Don't get all technical.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:25 pm

J, you don't hae to debate, but an ExCo discussion absolutely should be held. You can not participate if you want, but before something gets voted on there needs to be a discussion.
Shawn...
"I believe you misunderstood the vote count, Brett had not voted, but was a yes, so your vote really made it 5, not 4. To you though it displayed as 4."
There's nothing misunderstood... I. Didn't. Vote. Go look for yourself, it's still sitting at 4...
Ok, i just went and looked and somehow I have a vote up there. Except I didn't vote (that I recall). That explains your stance but now I'm really freakin confused...

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:27 pm

Athletics
Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 251
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:59 am Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post [Mark post as unread] View IP address of poster
Sounds good.

there's vote #5 sally.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:33 pm

Astros wrote:Athletics
Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 251
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:59 am Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post [Mark post as unread] View IP address of poster
Sounds good.

there's vote #5 sally.

And as I said before, if the vote isn't in the poll, how am I, or jim, or anyone, supposed to know it was cast? Shawn jumped on me for making a post seeking an alternate for a decision that was already made, except how can I know if a decision was made if the vote isn't cast in the poll?
There's nothing tricky about going to the league website and clicking 'Yes' then 'Submit'. Votes shouldn't be cast on IM, they should be cast where they're supposed to be cast. In the polls.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:35 pm

Right. I dont know why he didn't click yes, don't look at me. But look at "detailed" results and you'll see that Jake hadn't voted, and he supported the idea saying "sounds good." Don't be so nitpicky.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:38 pm

Honestly JP, I wouldn't care if not for Shawn giving me a hard time about looking for alternative simmers. From my perspective, the vote wasn't over, so I saw no harm whatsoever in seeking other volunteers.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:40 pm

Sorry for causing all the drama on that particular issue. Between high holidays and football I've had 100 things on my mind and I just missed clicking. Totally my bad, however my vote was indicated in the thread, and I think that if a member expresses an opinion in the voting thread, or has been especially outspoken about an issue in other threads, but for whatever reason is not there to click the vote button their vote should be counted based on their previously expressed opinion.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:20 pm

RedSox wrote:Honestly JP, I wouldn't care if not for Shawn giving me a hard time about looking for alternative simmers. From my perspective, the vote wasn't over, so I saw no harm whatsoever in seeking other volunteers.

I don't care about you searching for alternative simmers when you didn't think that this had been settled. I mean the more willing simmers the better. But just in case I didn't make it clear earlier, I didn't check to see whether you or Jake had voted, but I didn't go and sim anything until the vote said 5-0. That's really all I know about the timing of it (other than what I mentioned earlier about when I sent Shawn the DB and when he put it on the site).

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:27 pm

No complaints out of beantown, we've climbed to the top of the ALE since you started simming...
Where do i send that check again?

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:32 pm

RedSox wrote:No complaints out of beantown, we've climbed to the top of the ALE since you started simming...
Where do i send that check again?

Hah, yeah JB was kind of cranky about my results. He sent me a whole string of MP adjustments last night.