IBC

We have a standing policy on trade appeals. Once it is clear that a trade is going to a vote, no one is supposed to comment publicly on the trade. Representatives from both sides of the opinion present arguments and everyone votes after reading the two perspectives.
In the past I have always deleted comments made after the fact (once this policy was initiated) and the offenders have lost their votes in the coming poll.
JP doesn't agree with me deleting the posts. That's fine, he is free to disagree if he wants, but it's consistent with Policy and precedent. Leaving the posts up makes it seem 'ok' to ignore the rules. Locking them does nothing, they have previously been and should continue to be, deleted.

If you wanted to lock it and PM the author, that's a fine action to take. And then go ahead and warn the league of the action if you deem it necessary as one person to do so. Deleting them was completely uncalled for.

Deleting was completely consistent with past policy. Locking the thread does nothing to enforce the fact that the comment wasn't supposed to be made in the first place.
If you want to change the olicy, go for it, lobby for that. Getting on me for enforcing the rule in a manner consistent with past policy is ridiculous.

When have previous posts been deleted? Can you please point me to something like this.

Kind of hard to do since the posts were deleted...

So there was no prior action of deleting posts and you decided to do it on your own merit? There has been no history of it before and you didn't even discuss it in ExCo. you didn't lock it, you didn't even copy/paste it to save because just by one glance at the post- he put a LOT of effort into it.

As you can see, he is fuming, and rightfully so.

No prior action? JP, I can't show you deleted posts from the past because... the posts were deleted! What part of that are you having trouble with? Once it's deleted, it's gone. If anything, JP, you were negligent in not enforcing the rules. But enforcing the rules would make JP unpopular, which he doesn't want. You want to be everyone's buddy, fine, but you need to enforce the rules regardless of whether it's with your buddy or someone you dislike. Whether you agree with them or disagree with them.

Shawn, you do NOT have the authority to turn off an ExCo's Admin privileges just because you disagree with them. Authority and ability are different things and you ought to learn the difference.

You have failed to prove an example of when you deleted posts in the past. I am not asking for a link, that's not possible. You said you THINK in the Zambrano/ Cain trade in 05. That means you are unsure and it is dubious that you did, and those talks were a lot more furious than these.

Also, just because you are in ExCo does not give you admin control over the website. I Do not think that Jake has it and I haven't heard a peep about it.

It means I'm unsure on that particular instance, but I know with 100% certainty that I've done it before. As I said to you over PM, you're just going to have to take my word for it. I may be a pain in the ass sometimes, but I'm not a liar.

Every ExCo member has Admin privileges (or at least they were supposed to, I do recall that particular discussion with Shawn).

Easy solution here, proposed change in official league policy, as long as the discussion of a contested trade is baseball related and is not an attempt to lobby one side or the other based on anything other than the merits of the trade the post stands. If things start getting personal or whatever we lock the thread.

I think this would be a situation where we ask GM's whether they feel the rules need to be changed. Trade reviews have been some of the most divisive arguments that have happened throughout the span of the league. JP has quit over them, Josh quit (well, threatened to quit) over one, Nate was close to quitting over one.
Let's get this deal off the table for good or bad, then open it up for league discussion. This is NOT an issue that they'll want to be left out of.