-
And if there are things that come up, those should be discussed and voted on as a league, not just decided by one person.
Salty Beavers on
August 17, 2019 10:12 PM
-
That’s not how active is defined in that same first rule, though. You keep telling us to read the charter, but we’re not following that charter. I don’t see anything there that says “the commissioner is allowed to make up any rule and any punishment as long as he posts it on the message board.” I’m not trying to be difficult, and I respect the work that you’ve put into building this league, but if we have a set of rules, we should be sticking to them.
Salty Beavers on
August 17, 2019 10:11 PM
-
Voting is a part of “active participation” and the consequence can be as much as removal from the league at the commissioner’s discretion. I chose to not remove owners on their first offense. At the beginning of the polls, I announced that because there were so many suggestions already made, I would be doing them early to ensure enough time. This is a new style of league and I was aware it might need more adjustments the first year than others. Anything else?
-
I appreciate the vote to reduce the penalty, but after rereading the charter, I’m noticing three things:
1) there is no mention that all owners have to vote.
2) there is no mention of penalties if an owner fails to vote.
3) the only mention of rule changes says these can only be made during the off-season.
Am I missing another set of rules or are these rules just being made up on the fly?
Salty Beavers on
August 17, 2019 9:23 PM
-
Speaking o future polls that is ... not the ones already conducted.
-
Suggestion. No real rush to close the polls. Keeping them open longer doesn't change anything. And let's set a date for when it ends. Say open one month, one reminder. Close on the date set. If people cant vote over a month then they cant be helped.
-
Approve.
-
You're out of order! You're out of order! The whole trial is out of order! They're out of order!
-
Approve
High n Tight on
August 17, 2019 4:22 PM
-
Approve
Luck Dragons on
August 17, 2019 4:08 PM
-
APPROVE
-
Also, not that it’s any of my business when you take a vacation or will be away from the site for a period, but if you know ahead of time, if you’ll let me know I will try to make sure and send you a personal email making you aware of something important in case you miss it.
-
IMPORTANT: In the interest of trying to work with everyone, I have decided to open a league vote on the appeal to lower the arbitration consequence for Salty Beavers and Twinigmatics. The appeal would lower Twinigmatics penalty to $1, while lowering Salty Beavers’ penalty to $3. This is a one-time appeal. Please vote “APPROVE” or “REJECT” on the following matter via the message board as soon as you can. SB & Twin can’t vote in this one. Only need 7 favorable votes.
-
I’m open to using a different poll platform if that is easier. But the function of having League message board posts be sent as email keeps things fair in tracking messages. It’s also easy to click “see all messages” and look back through them. I posted the links clearly and posted several reminders, as well as gave an extension, so there will not be a league vote about his fate.
-
also in regards to Salty Beavers missing the polls...he makes some good points. Very easy for that type of thing to get lost in this chat system. Maybe in the future we can use typeform instead of doodle to create the polls. That way results are anonymous and we can keep all the questions in one link which would be harder to lose in the fray.
-
Bad teams would usually have some semblance of a farm system and not want to just drop everyone. Getting the top pick each draft is a good form of parity. Being able to drop your Terrible farm and refresh it with the 3 best available players is anti parity.
-
I feel like keeping our current rule 8 is strongly against parity. A bad team is likely to have a decent farm. The current system promotes top teams trading their assets to win now and easily reload with the top prospects available twice a year.
-
I’m sorry that I missed the deadline, but we need to be more cognizant of the fact that people are not always checking league message boards, especially during summer months when people are on vacation. There needs to be more reminders before you impose penalties. I did not see there was a deadline because there were multiple posts after it.
Salty Beavers on
August 17, 2019 2:06 PM
-
I voted for the first five polls and didn’t realize there were more up. I missed the extras because of how many league messages were sent about the other ones. Given that I wasn’t sent a reminder about a timeline, I think it is excessive for me to be receiving an arbitration penalty.
Salty Beavers on
August 17, 2019 2:02 PM
-
Please note: For those keeping track, Proposed Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, & 7 have passed with the necessary required 8 affirmative votes (RBF changed his vote on A7 after the deadline, thus his change wasn’t counted in official count). Proposed Amendment 5 is being reworked. Proposed Amendment 8 was rejected.
-
Salty Beavers failed to submit votes by the extended deadline, so he will be subject to an extra $5 in arbitration allotment toward one (1) player to be chosen the same way Rule 3 outlines. Twinigmatics submitted his votes during the extension, so his extra arbitration allotment will be $2. Please note that in the case that neither owner returns for the 2020 season, the extra arbitration allotment will be cancelled for new owners. New wave coming soon.
-
My reasoning for the proposal, besides some guys talking about it and it’s popularity outside of this league, was that it would seem to have the same affect on mass promotions as restructuring the AB/IP minimum per slot to include bench totals. I’ll write up a proposal during arbitration for a restructuring of the AB/IP to include bench totals and see where the league stands. I do think something needs to change, though.
-
With respect to proposal #8, my thinking was aligned with RBF to keep the current rule. The option to stockpile picks by giving up 100% of your farm is a viable option for rebuilding teams, and in the best interests of parity. I don't feel that strongly on this issue though, so happy to play under either set of rules.
Luck Dragons on
August 15, 2019 10:22 AM
-
Makes sense
-
RBF, I am not opposed to putting together a proposal for what you are suggesting. It will just have to be after the season so I have an idea where to earmark thresholds.
-
Yes I already noted the votes
-
Are polls officially closed?
-
We would need to increase the AB/IP threshold quite a bit to justify including bench AB/IP. I understand your rationale now, it wasn’t clear before.
-
Anyway, I was asked for rationale and gave it.
-
DCO - the reason I say to use bench when calculating a penalty is specifically because teams that promote their entire MILB squads, then don't drop them, should pay a steeper price for doing that. Today they may lose a roster spot or two in MILB but really they just need enough players in their active roster to do that. Including bench would penalize teams for hoarding MILB players in their active roster, particularly those that go to the extreme like we saw this season.
-
Both owners (Salty Beavers & Twinigmatics) have now missed one poll for 2019. One more missed poll this year by either will result in expulsion from the league by the commissioner (only new polls, not the new extension to avoid a higher arbitration allotment). Replacement would be immediate, and as per the League Charter, would result in said owner forfeiting any future prize monies and deposit monies already submitted.
-
As for the polls: SB and TWIN didn’t show for the poll, so each owner will be subject to an extra $2 in arbitration following the same procedure as Rule 3 (soft salary floor rule) to decide the player for each team. Both owners have 48 hours from the expiration of the poll (so, new deadline of August 16 @ 11:00pm EST) to submit their votes, or the $2 extra arbitration allotment will jump to $5, at which point we’ll close voting for this wave for good.
-
There is already a penalty in place for not reaching AB/IP minimums. However, they don’t count bench AB/IP because that would not incentivize active owners. Bench stats don’t count toward league standings, so the AB/IP don’t need to count for MiLB$0 roster slots. After looking through projected AB/IP, I think a lot of teams are going to lose roster slots for 2020.
-
And that wouldn't be the case here either.
-
It wouldn't be easy to get multiple top picks because everyone would easily be able to cut their worst prospect and get a first rounder. There's no situation in the real world where one team gets the first 12 picks of the draft because their farm is empty.
-
For me, I voted to reject 8 and keep the status quo. But I kind of go back and forth. Fundamentally, I don't like the concept that dropping your worst prospect gets you a top pick. If a team is willing to promote their entire MILB squad to get the top picks so be it. We can all do the same thing (teams in the hunt probably wouldn't do that). For me, I'd rather focus changes on the penalty for doing so - e.g. too few AB on your squad (including bench) and you lose your most recent MILB picks.
-
But, I agree with Modern on Amendment 8... everyone I’ve talked to who run their own MiLB$0 league does it the way I proposed changing to.
-
That would be Salty Beavers and Twinigmatics, for the record.
-
What I do know is that we’re still missing two owners from the polls. As part of the first rule of the League Charter, voting is a vital part of being active in the league. There will be a consequence for the first missed poll for an owner, but I won’t replace an owner unless they miss two polls. Something to think about.
-
“Accept” should be approve, same thing. Rereading the poll, it seems pretty straightforward to me, but maybe that’s just because I wrote it. I don’t know lol
-
Just to clarify, an "Accept" vote on #8 means we want the process to change next year, right? I thought the way it happened this year was not good. The question is confusing though. Do people that voted "Reject" know that they are voting for the status quo?
-
really shocked at the negative response to #8. You all liked the way that was done this year? if someone has a bad farm, they can just cut everyone and grab the top 3-4 players available.
-
Done sorry for the delay.
Hawk Tuah on
August 14, 2019 11:53 AM
-
Still missing 4 owners’ votes for the latest wave of proposals. Tomorrow evening is the deadline.
-
Reminder: The second wave of proposed amendment polls will end on Wednesday, August 14 @ 11pm EST. Voting is a requirement to be in this league.
-
I’ll message you AW
-
I'm not quite following #8, can you explain it like i'm 5 years old?
Austin Waves on
August 8, 2019 4:16 PM
-
Gonna stop with 3 proposals for this wave. You have until August 14 @ 11:00pm EST to vote.
-
POLL - AMENDMENT 8: https://doodle.com/poll/3hhehzwq65949zin
-
POLL - AMENDMENT 7: https://doodle.com/poll/vbfvbzzxazu5rfqe
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages