Commissioner dilemma -- what would you have done? (1 Viewer)

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

I'm completely in favor of a commissioner being fair. I just don't see how being purposely unfair to your own team somehow makes you look fair.

I was a commish for 15 years. In cases where there was no precedent, I wouldn't set one that benefited my team even if I would have for any other team. You cannot give even the appearance of impropriety.

Disagree. I think all fantasy commish decisions should be made through a Rawlsian 'veil of ignorance' in which all decisions are made without respect as to who the owners/parties are. It sucks but I think our should have reseeded as it was discover before it was not correctable. It sucks for one other team, but its what the rules say and you all agreed on. However you have to apply this standard to all decisions all year (even ones hat harm you) to build the credibility that you would have done this even if you were the team hr loses in this scenario.I agree with NBZ. If you would have done it for another team, I should also be done for your team. People will always ##### either way, you just have one job as commish, to correctly and fairly interpret your league based on your rules. I disagree that a commish should have to handicap himself because people will whine/#####, especially since that will happen either way.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

I don't understand why it would be wrong for a CEO to sleep with his or her employees? Everyone else would be allowed to, why should the CEO not be allowed to operate on the same playing field if he or she wants to?

Because he's not operating on the same playing field. He's the CEO. That's exactly the point.

Right... But I really wanted NBZ to say those words.

Are you serious? It's because they could get sued. This is exactly why your example is a poor one. In a fantasy football league, "the appearance of impropriety" is a catch-all for people who expect a commish to hurt their team for no proven reason. In a company, "the appearance of impropriety" could cost the company hundreds of thousands of dollars. If employees were not allowed to file sexual harassment lawsuits, you wouldn't see rules against it. Not because a CEO would use his "CEO powers" to do wrong. It's because just the threat can cost six figures, whether it's true or not. On the other hand, you can't sue a league because you think something looks bad. You can cry and take your ball and run home, but that's about it. So as long as the commish is being fair, there's no reason to purposely hurt your team to prove you're not guilty of something. There's no reason why you have to hurt your team if you're being fair and honest.Now, let's use a better analogy: Suppose a company manager is also part of the sales staff. They make the exact same commission, have the same rights to prospect, and can even work a territory. They don't have to relinquish their commissions because someone else wonders if it "looks bad" that they made a big sale. They don't have to give someone else their referral because "butbutbut they're the manager!"Some companies don't want the manager to sell because they think they can make more $ having him or her motivate the staff. But if they can sell they don't have to hurt their prospects for sales. They're allowed to sell, and "win" by making money from their sales. Part of the staff might grumble because they're less successful, but that's on them. As long as the manager isn't taking leads or shorting the staff of their opportunities, there's nothing wrong with "playing the game." If they're fair, they're allowed to compete and they don't have to tank sales or give out their referrals to prove how fair they are.Same with a commish.

This is an awful analogy.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I don't understand why it would be wrong for a CEO to sleep with his or her employees? Everyone else would be allowed to, why should the CEO not be allowed to operate on the same playing field if he or she wants to?

Because he's not operating on the same playing field. He's the CEO. That's exactly the point.

Right... But I really wanted NBZ to say those words.

Are you serious? It's because they could get sued. This is exactly why your example is a poor one. In a fantasy football league, "the appearance of impropriety" is a catch-all for people who expect a commish to hurt their team for no proven reason. In a company, "the appearance of impropriety" could cost the company hundreds of thousands of dollars. If employees were not allowed to file sexual harassment lawsuits, you wouldn't see rules against it. Not because a CEO would use his "CEO powers" to do wrong. It's because just the threat can cost six figures, whether it's true or not. On the other hand, you can't sue a league because you think something looks bad. You can cry and take your ball and run home, but that's about it. So as long as the commish is being fair, there's no reason to purposely hurt your team to prove you're not guilty of something. There's no reason why you have to hurt your team if you're being fair and honest.Now, let's use a better analogy: Suppose a company manager is also part of the sales staff. They make the exact same commission, have the same rights to prospect, and can even work a territory. They don't have to relinquish their commissions because someone else wonders if it "looks bad" that they made a big sale. They don't have to give someone else their referral because "butbutbut they're the manager!"Some companies don't want the manager to sell because they think they can make more $ having him or her motivate the staff. But if they can sell they don't have to hurt their prospects for sales. They're allowed to sell, and "win" by making money from their sales. Part of the staff might grumble because they're less successful, but that's on them. As long as the manager isn't taking leads or shorting the staff of their opportunities, there's nothing wrong with "playing the game." If they're fair, they're allowed to compete and they don't have to tank sales or give out their referrals to prove how fair they are.Same with a commish.

This is an awful analogy.

Well, okay. Maybe I'm not explaining it right. I'm trying to say that the commish has the right to play just as aggressively as anyone else, and shouldn't have to rule against their own team because it "looks bad to someone." If they would rule in favor of a generic team, do so for their own. If they would rule against a generic team, so goes their team. The fact that they have "power" shouldn't matter if they're being fair about it. A person with power shouldn't have to make bad decisions in a feeble attempt to prove how fair they are. And I think it's wrong for owners to expect something like that.

 

[B-Deep]

I would have taken the hit.