Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
the lone star

Passing A "Best Interest Rule" Without Consulting Or Telling Anyone

Was It Wrong For The Commissioner To Implement The Rule In This Way?  

15 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Question

So the commissioner in a league I'm in updated the rulebook recently. Inside of this most recent update, we saw that he added a rule that states the commissioner is obliged to adjudicate matters in the league's best interest. However, it is not defined what is in the league's best interest, or if there are other ways to gauge it outside of the commissioner's judgment.

Furthermore, the commissioner did not discuss such a rule change with anybody, and the league always votes on rule changes. In fact, if the commissioner has not notified anyone of the change, has not posted it onto the league's message board, and/or has not put it up to a league-wide vote, then such incorporation into the bylaws technically violates the existing rules. 


So what do you make of this? Was the commissioner wrong for doing this?

Edited by the lone star

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

36 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 1

You don't think the Commissioner should adjudicate disputes consistent with the best interest of the league? I think that is kind of fundamental to any Commish's work. You would rather he decided matters in his own best interest,  or maybe that of the owners he likes best?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Just now, Catbird said:

You don't think the Commissioner should adjudicate disputes consistent with the best interest of the league? I think that is kind of fundamental to any Commish's work. You would rather he decided matters in his own best interest,  or maybe that of the owners he likes best?

Who said that and where?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
46 minutes ago, the lone star said:

So the commissioner in a league I'm in updated the rulebook recently. Inside of this most recent update, we saw that he added a rule that states the commissioner is obliged to adjudicate matters in the league's best interest. However, it is not defined what is in the league's best interest, or if there are other ways to gauge it outside of the commissioner's judgment.

Furthermore, the commissioner did not discuss such a rule change with anybody, and the league always votes on rule changes. In fact, it is a violation of the rules for the commissioner to just sneak such a rule into the bylaws without telling anyone, without posting it to the league's message board, nor putting it up to a league-wide vote.

So what do you make of this? Was the commissioner wrong for doing this?

It's not a rule change - it's common sense and it's every commissioner's duty to act in the "best interest of the league" when making a ruling, enforcing rules, adjudicating disputes, etc.

So was he previously adjudicating to matters in his best interest?

in your mailman's best interest?

come on with this nonsense.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I'm OK with a best interest rule, but I think you gotta properly define it. Is it the best interest as the commissioner sees it, or the best interest as the league sees it? How do you know what a majority of people think? Why not disclose it to everyone though? What if the commissioner feels the best interest of the league is to do what is easiest, but it really is to do what is fair and equitable?

But the question is about the method of implementation and disclosure, not so much the rule itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
24 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

I thought he made perfect sense in response to your OP.

The question focuses on the method of disclosure and implementation, and not the actual underlying rule though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

IMO, he was simply making an implicit rule explicit.  The implementation process is moot.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Not sure how many leagues you are in but judging from how many threads you start with these type of questions I think you should consider finding different leagues.

You come off as a "league lawyer" type, which is not necessarily good or bad and maybe I'm wrong about that, so maybe you should consider starting a league with you as the commish.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

FTR I do think he should have told the league about including that language but it doesn't seem like a big deal as a rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

My question @the lone star since you would like to see "The best interest of the league" defined, how would you define it?  What specific language would you use to define best interest of the league?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

In all honesty, this hobby doesn't seem like it is very fun for you since this is literally the 8th topic that you posted in the last two weeks regarding an issue you have with the commissioner of one of your leagues(or taking advantage of a new dynasty owner, etc).  I've been playing this silly game for over 20 years and have never had nearly this many issues.  If this is shtick, it isn't very funny.  If it isn't shtick, I would take a step back and consider if this hobby is simply creating more irritations to you than it is providing fun.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, the lone star said:

Is it the best interest as the commissioner sees it, or the best interest as the league sees it?

Of course it's as the commissioner sees it - which if you have a good one should also be as the league (well the reasonable members at least) sees it.

I find it hard to believe this really bothers you and if it does, there's something wrong with you - not the commissioner.

Take a step back and revaluate your nitpicking here. The common denominator in all your 'my commissioner sucks" threads seems to be you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, the lone star said:

I'm OK with a best interest rule, but I think you gotta properly define it. Is it the best interest as the commissioner sees it, or the best interest as the league sees it? How do you know what a majority of people think? Why not disclose it to everyone though? What if the commissioner feels the best interest of the league is to do what is easiest, but it really is to do what is fair and equitable?

But the question is about the method of implementation and disclosure, not so much the rule itself.

 

The point of a "best-interest" rule is that it be undefined.  It's a catch-all that gives the commish power to act when some guy finds a perceived loophole in the league and tries to get one over on the league.  It should go without saying that every commish has this power.  I expressly put this in my rules but it's not required.  

For the older people in the crowd, it's like Cap Boso in Tecmo.  They had one play where he was unstoppable.  It seems that you would prefer to allow people to run that play each and every time.  I, on the other hand, find little enjoyment in someone taking advantage of a rule or glitch and would prefer for people to play the game the way it was meant to be played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
21 minutes ago, Jello_Biafra said:

It's in the "Best Interest" of the Shark Pool if you would stop posting these useless threads here.

Please Joe, make it stop. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

This is a terrible question and completely unnecessary.  As other's have stated this is common practice in all leagues.  The commish is the commish because the league trusts him to do what is the best interest of the league in any topics that may come up that need a ruling.  He is supposed to judge situations that fall in the grey area and make sure the intent of the rules are followed when something falls into these grey areas.

 

As a commish I have clarified rules or interpretations by adding to the by-laws when I think something needed clarification to avoid any issues with grey areas.  They are additions to the rules that do not change the fundamental rules of the league.  I have done this many times without going to league vote and have never had any complaints or issues with other league members.  There may be a message board question with regards to why it was put in or what prompted the clarification but everyone understands that sometimes the commish needs to clarify things and if you have a quality commish the league trusts his judgements.  After all, that is why that person was put in as a commish in the first place.

 

My statement holds true.....you seem like the type of owner always looking to circumvent the intent of rules for your benefit and are always pushing the limits to find these loopholes....then complain when you are prevented from doing so.  I have had similar owners and most of the time they make life miserable for the commish. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
46 minutes ago, Jello_Biafra said:

It's in the "Best Interest" of the Shark Pool if you would stop posting these useless threads here.

This.  Serious immaturity and tone deafness here from the OP.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, brewer said:

In all honesty, this hobby doesn't seem like it is very fun for you since this is literally the 8th topic that you posted in the last two weeks regarding an issue you have with the commissioner of one of your leagues(or taking advantage of a new dynasty owner, etc).  I've been playing this silly game for over 20 years and have never had nearly this many issues.  If this is shtick, it isn't very funny.  If it isn't shtick, I would take a step back and consider if this hobby is simply creating more irritations to you than it is providing fun.

Dude is posting the same stuff at other boards, too.  Very odd.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 minute ago, nirad3 said:

Dude is posting the same stuff at other boards, too.  Very odd.

I feel like every forum is different and has its own culture. Nothing wrong with getting multiple opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Just now, Joe Bryant said:

@the lone star if you have any specific questions like this about your league or players, please post them here in the Assistant Coach forum. Thanks. 

Thanks for the guidance. I will do that from now on. I appreciate it! Take Care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
27 minutes ago, Gally said:

This is a terrible question and completely unnecessary.  As other's have stated this is common practice in all leagues.  The commish is the commish because the league trusts him to do what is the best interest of the league in any topics that may come up that need a ruling.  He is supposed to judge situations that fall in the grey area and make sure the intent of the rules are followed when something falls into these grey areas.

 

As a commish I have clarified rules or interpretations by adding to the by-laws when I think something needed clarification to avoid any issues with grey areas.  They are additions to the rules that do not change the fundamental rules of the league.  I have done this many times without going to league vote and have never had any complaints or issues with other league members.  There may be a message board question with regards to why it was put in or what prompted the clarification but everyone understands that sometimes the commish needs to clarify things and if you have a quality commish the league trusts his judgements.  After all, that is why that person was put in as a commish in the first place.

 

My statement holds true.....you seem like the type of owner always looking to circumvent the intent of rules for your benefit and are always pushing the limits to find these loopholes....then complain when you are prevented from doing so.  I have had similar owners and most of the time they make life miserable for the commish. 

Maybe it's just because I like to be informed of any changes and for things to follow the codified procedure. But I also wanted to get an opinion on how big of a deal it is. I understand the importance of a catch-all, but if the rule was not a rule until now, and when it was included in the bylaws it was not discussed or disclosed to the group, then it does come off as very suspicious. Especially if the non-disclosure is actually against the written rules of the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, wakelawyer said:

 

The point of a "best-interest" rule is that it be undefined.  It's a catch-all that gives the commish power to act when some guy finds a perceived loophole in the league and tries to get one over on the league.  It should go without saying that every commish has this power.  I expressly put this in my rules but it's not required.  

For the older people in the crowd, it's like Cap Boso in Tecmo.  They had one play where he was unstoppable.  It seems that you would prefer to allow people to run that play each and every time.  I, on the other hand, find little enjoyment in someone taking advantage of a rule or glitch and would prefer for people to play the game the way it was meant to be played.

That's fair. It does run the risk of the commish accusing someone of finding a loophole when the party (or parties) involved always interpreted a rule a certain way, and never thought of it as a way to circumvent some sort of intent on the part of the commissioner. But those instances are probably rare. And if you are falsely accused of finding and using a loophole, then that probably just boils down to the trust issues that someone spoke about earlier. If the league lacks trust, then it's going downhill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
21 hours ago, Gally said:

This is a terrible question and completely unnecessary.  As other's have stated this is common practice in all leagues.  The commish is the commish because the league trusts him to do what is the best interest of the league in any topics that may come up that need a ruling.  He is supposed to judge situations that fall in the grey area and make sure the intent of the rules are followed when something falls into these grey areas.

 

As a commish I have clarified rules or interpretations by adding to the by-laws when I think something needed clarification to avoid any issues with grey areas.  They are additions to the rules that do not change the fundamental rules of the league.  I have done this many times without going to league vote and have never had any complaints or issues with other league members.  There may be a message board question with regards to why it was put in or what prompted the clarification but everyone understands that sometimes the commish needs to clarify things and if you have a quality commish the league trusts his judgements.  After all, that is why that person was put in as a commish in the first place.

 

My statement holds true.....you seem like the type of owner always looking to circumvent the intent of rules for your benefit and are always pushing the limits to find these loopholes....then complain when you are prevented from doing so.  I have had similar owners and most of the time they make life miserable for the commish. 

But yeah, honestly, to me it seems more like the commish is creating loopholes by abusing his power more than anything here. The written procedure should be the followed procedure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 5/29/2018 at 11:45 AM, Chaka said:

FTR I do think he should have told the league about including that language but it doesn't seem like a big deal as a rule.

Yeah, comes off as duplicitous for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 5/29/2018 at 11:44 AM, Chaka said:

Not sure how many leagues you are in but judging from how many threads you start with these type of questions I think you should consider finding different leagues.

You come off as a "league lawyer" type, which is not necessarily good or bad and maybe I'm wrong about that, so maybe you should consider starting a league with you as the commish.

Yeah, I would love that, just gotta find a good co-commish or two to help with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 5/29/2018 at 11:42 AM, daveR said:

IMO, he was simply making an implicit rule explicit.  The implementation process is moot.

That's fair. I just think that any official changes to the bylaws should be disclosed. Otherwise it comes off as the commish being sneaky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
47 minutes ago, the lone star said:

Yeah, comes off as duplicitous for sure.

See? I think this is what rubs people the wrong way with your posts about your specific leagues.

You jumped right to "duplicitous", which explicitly applies intent to deceive to the commish and comes off as if you are trying to jade your audience (i.e. Us) to react negatively to the commish (and support your position). If it's a good position most of us will support it based upon it's virtues. Some will throw shade (is that what kids are saying these days, or was that yesterday?) for no reason, but the vast majority of us prefer unbiased commentary.

The point you are missing, besides from lacking any sort of perception of neutrality from some of your posts, is that it completely ignores the possibility that "absent minded" is a term that is equally likely to apply to the commish's actions, if not more likely, as "duplicitous".

:2cents:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
45 minutes ago, Chaka said:

See? I think this is what rubs people the wrong way with your posts about your specific leagues.

You jumped right to "duplicitous", which explicitly applies intent to deceive to the commish and comes off as if you are trying to jade your audience (i.e. Us) to react negatively to the commish (and support your position). If it's a good position most of us will support it based upon it's virtues. Some will throw shade (is that what kids are saying these days, or was that yesterday?) for no reason, but the vast majority of us prefer unbiased commentary.

The point you are missing, besides from lacking any sort of perception of neutrality from some of your posts, is that it completely ignores the possibility that "absent minded" is a term that is equally likely to apply to the commish's actions, if not more likely, as "duplicitous".

:2cents:

 

Good analysis. Absent-Minded is a possibility for sure, but it also comes off as duplicitous. There is such a world where the two overlap a little too, because just because something was absent-minded doesn't mean it was not duplicitous. Not that you said that though.

And I just post a set of facts as fair, objective, and accurate as possible. Then I ask a question based on such facts in order to an opinion. I value quantitative data a lot, and the results of the poll seem to indicate that it's not that bad, so that's fair. 

Nothing wrong with getting an opinion. People may not like it, but they aren't obligated to post or respond. They can simply ignore, and probably should if it truly upsets them. Otherwise it can come off as trolling and bullying. But like you pointed it out, there could be other things that it may come off as.

Edited by the lone star

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
33 minutes ago, the lone star said:

Good analysis. Absent-Minded is a possibility for sure, but it also comes off as duplicitous. There is such a world where the two overlap a little too, because just because something was absent-minded doesn't mean it was not duplicitous. Not that you said that though.

And I just post a set of facts as fair, objective, and accurate as possible. Then I ask a question based on such facts in order to an opinion. I value quantitative data a lot, and the results of the poll seem to indicate that it's not that bad, so that's fair. 

Nothing wrong with getting an opinion. People may not like it, but they aren't obligated to post or respond. They can simply ignore, and probably should if it truly upsets them. Otherwise it can come off as trolling and bullying. But like you pointed it out, there could be other things that it may come off as.

There is also a world where they don't overlap.  If you want honest and objective opinions you should not delve into any of those worlds when asking these type of questions.  You don't come off nearly as objective as you seem to think you do.

And let me be clear, I think you have been a very solid and objective poster (as much as any of can be) in Shark Pool threads about players and systems. But these AC posts do not reflect he same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
36 minutes ago, Chaka said:

There is also a world where they don't overlap.  If you want honest and objective opinions you should not delve into any of those worlds when asking these type of questions.  You don't come off nearly as objective as you seem to think you do.

And let me be clear, I think you have been a very solid and objective poster (as much as any of can be) in Shark Pool threads about players and systems. But these AC posts do not reflect he same.

That's fair. There will always be those worlds too, so good point there.

I just re-read the OP and found one thing wrong with how I presented the issue (used the word "sneak"), but otherwise, the events are as they happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, the lone star said:

That's fair. There will always be those worlds too, so good point there.

I just re-read the OP and found one thing wrong with how I presented the issue (used the word "sneak"), but otherwise, the events are as they happened.

And I gave you an honest answer...eventually.

Remember that you started a whole string of these threads around the same time, I think it's fair to say you jaded your audience towards you a bit (at least you did for me).

But I have realized that I was wrong in how I initially responded to your threads and am working to fix that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, Chaka said:

And I gave you an honest answer...eventually.

Remember that you started a whole string of these threads around the same time, I think it's fair to say you jaded your audience towards you a bit (at least you did for me).

But I have realized that I was wrong in how I initially responded to your threads and am working to fix that.

That's better than most man. Thanks for that. Good day to you! TGIF!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 6/1/2018 at 8:24 AM, the lone star said:

Yeah, comes off as duplicitous for sure.

I would completely disagree.  These are common words in any leagues I have been in.  It's the Commish's job to do what is in the best interest of the league.  Nothing duplicitous about it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.