Should I warn other owner? (1 Viewer)

[pantagrapher]

It shouldn't matter if it was the commish.

If only this were true. Unfortunately for you, it's not. If the OP was not the commish, he would not have even started this thread.

I love the fact you're still on this one. It's ok for a regular owner to do this but the moment someone with the commish title does it it's a national outrage? You're too paranoid about any perceived bias on the commish's part. SHOULD the commish do this? No. It's not their responsibility. CAN any owner do this? Yes. It's not a big deal in the least. If the commish went in and changed the lineup for the owner that would be a huge problem. He didn't. This is a non issue.And the poker analogy is one of the worst analogies I've seen on fbg's in a long while. It's laughably bad.

You said you're a young guy right?It shows.

This from the guy whose responses range from to "you must be fishing" to "you're better than this."

 

[BaBastage]

Because it's the commish, what is totally acceptable for anyone else becomes a high crime. I find that absurd. The commish is an owner, too. People forget that.

100% agreed.

 

[matuski]

Sorry, FF is a BIG BOY game.

About the 10th poster here who apparently bases some part of their self-worth or ego from fantasy football.Mind boggling. Certainly a little sad.

 

[Flash]

Let's say I'm a regular owner (not the commish) and you're the one playing against the Peterson owner. If I don't like you and want you to lose money and cry, I could tell that owner that Peterson is inactive, hoping he'll plug someone else in and beat you.Now, you can say I'm a jerk (I'll just laugh at you if you lose and never let you forget it) but is what I did illegal? Is it unethical? Should I be kicked out of the league? Was I expected to maintain a wall of silence? Again, just an owner who wasn't good enough to make the playoffs and has nothing better to do.Now, however you feel...would it be different if I was the commish acting like a regular owner and not using any commish powers?

Stop.You don't get it and never will.

 

[Flash]

okay, lets flip the script. lets say that ADP was not in the guys lineup and he had some RB3 in, and ADP all of sudden was active and the guy notified the owner who then switched ADP in. no zero involved but he helped the manager make a line up decision with the information.

Whoa. That's a COMPLETELY difference scenario and I would never make that kind of call. I can't believe you don't see the difference between my situation and what you just described. Apples and oranges.However, I'll also add, if the guy called ME up and said "hey, should I keep this RB3 in or start ADP", I'd have no problem answering his advice if I felt like it. I have friends in leagues you ask those kinds of questions all the time. Just because I'm the commish doesn't mean I now all of a sudden can't help someone out if THEY ask. But I would never offer up that kind of suggestion on my own.

You still have not answered WHY you won't tell the league what you did.

 

[Flash]

Sorry, FF is a BIG BOY game. If you need supervisor assistance, take your deserved lumps or find a new hobby. If you want to be a parent, look into child mentoring to use those ambitions in a way that doesn't impact others negatively. I'd be very ticked if my playoff opponent was asleep at the wheel and got aid from the commish.

I hope I'm not the only one who realizes how lame this sounds. If playing fantasy football is how you measure your manhood...welll, you're not much of a man.

This is being excellent? Did I say I measure "manhood" by my ability to take ownership of my own FF team? Then taking it a step further that I'm not much of a man? Wow. Merry Christmas.

Sure thing chief. This whole "big boy" shtick is incredibly lame. If the only way you can win is needing a miracle and fluke benching then you're not much of a BIG BOY. You may want to find an easier league next year instead of blaming the commish for the crappy squad you assembled.

Since you apparently can't win without being given such a handicap, I suggest you give this a go next year: http://www.girlsfantasyfootball.com/ It seems more your speed. Godspeed.

Like I said, you're immaturity is shining thru here.

When one side resorts to personal attacks, that side is usually wrong.

 

[Flash]

Come to think of it, the only counter argument would be to enact a rule saying that "No owner can give any advice to other owners - ever."Does anyone actually think that would be a good rule?

Ridiculous.He is the commissioner and he wasn't involved in the match-up, but the match-up did affect who he would play in the next round, and also would affect the money all of the owners could win.Not that difficult to understand why the commissioner should have kept his nose out of it,

 

[Flash]

Folks are really grasping at straws here. This is getting embarrassing.

Agree, your side should just stop as you are really running out of the same tired excuses.A commissioner should never affect the outcome of a game. End of discussion.

A commissioner affects the outcome of a game every time he sets his lineup.

You're better than this.He should never affect the outcome of a game he is not involved in.

But the other 11 teams are free to do it, right?

Actually no one really should being there is money involved. But, I'd have less of a problem if one of the other 11 owners did this, and ONLY if said owner wouldn't benefit by who won.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Let's say I'm a regular owner (not the commish) and you're the one playing against the Peterson owner. If I don't like you and want you to lose money and cry, I could tell that owner that Peterson is inactive, hoping he'll plug someone else in and beat you.Now, you can say I'm a jerk (I'll just laugh at you if you lose and never let you forget it) but is what I did illegal? Is it unethical? Should I be kicked out of the league? Was I expected to maintain a wall of silence? Again, just an owner who wasn't good enough to make the playoffs and has nothing better to do.Now, however you feel...would it be different if I was the commish acting like a regular owner and not using any commish powers?

Stop.You don't get it and never will. :IBTL:

Flash, we get it. You don't agree and, even if you can't explain why, you're not going to change your mind. That's fine. But it's hard to understand why you whine about personal attacks and then tell a younger poster that "it shows" that they're so young. The only thing that's showing is your frustration with the topic. Your use of smileys seems to be directly related with your growing frustration. I accept that you think the commish was wrong to say anything. I'm not sure you understand that many people feel that the commish is an owner just like everyone else and should be allowed to do what any other owner can do. Either way, it doesn't mean someone is too young or "doesn't get it" just because they disagree. I understand your position, and seeing you try and defend it makes me even more confident in mine.If you have a game this week, hope you win it.

 

[matuski]

being there is money involved.

If the money you are betting on fantasy football is justification for treating people differently... you shouldn't be betting that money on fantasy football.

 

[FootballGuy22]

It's likely been said before, but this wasn't the commish's friend, it was just a guy in the pool he doesn't really know. Why should he tell him, it's not his job nor does he have any obligation out of fair play. That said, he decided to do this and it's not underhanded or wrong. I don't think he should have because he did it as commissioner. From reading this thread I get the impression that if he (the commish) was just another guy in the pool and the AP owner was a guy he didn't really know he wouldn't have called him.

If that is the case why did he feel he should as commish, that's not right.

OP, is that assumption correct that you would not have called this guy if you weren't commish?

 

[Summer Wheat]

9..9..9..do I hear 10 pages???

 

[FootballGuy22]

9..9..9..do I hear 10 pages???

Only 38 posts to go...

 

[Flash]

Let's say I'm a regular owner (not the commish) and you're the one playing against the Peterson owner. If I don't like you and want you to lose money and cry, I could tell that owner that Peterson is inactive, hoping he'll plug someone else in and beat you.

Now, you can say I'm a jerk (I'll just laugh at you if you lose and never let you forget it) but is what I did illegal? Is it unethical? Should I be kicked out of the league? Was I expected to maintain a wall of silence? Again, just an owner who wasn't good enough to make the playoffs and has nothing better to do.

Now, however you feel...would it be different if I was the commish acting like a regular owner and not using any commish powers?

Stop.

You don't get it and never will.

Flash, we get it. You don't agree and, even if you can't explain why, you're not going to change your mind. That's fine. But it's hard to understand why you whine about personal attacks and then tell a younger poster that "it shows" that they're so young. The only thing that's showing is your frustration with the topic. Your use of smileys seems to be directly related with your growing frustration. I accept that you think the commish was wrong to say anything. I'm not sure you understand that many people feel that the commish is an owner just like everyone else and should be allowed to do what any other owner can do.

Either way, it doesn't mean someone is too young or "doesn't get it" just because they disagree. I understand your position, and seeing you try and defend it makes me even more confident in mine.

If you have a game this week, hope you win it.

I have explained and explained. You are just not reading what you want to see.

 

[Man In The Box]

It shouldn't matter if it was the commish.

If only this were true. Unfortunately for you, it's not. If the OP was not the commish, he would not have even started this thread.

I love the fact you're still on this one. It's ok for a regular owner to do this but the moment someone with the commish title does it it's a national outrage? You're too paranoid about any perceived bias on the commish's part. SHOULD the commish do this? No. It's not their responsibility. CAN any owner do this? Yes. It's not a big deal in the least. If the commish went in and changed the lineup for the owner that would be a huge problem. He didn't. This is a non issue.

And the poker analogy is one of the worst analogies I've seen on fbg's in a long while. It's laughably bad.

Calm down. I never said that it's a national outrage. It's fantasy football, or apparently, in some areas of the universe, magic football. Tone down the drama levels a tad. I also never made any poker analogies, so again, more words you're putting in my mouth.This is my last post on this subject. I will try to explain it slowly, and without any poker analogies.

As much as you naysayers want to deny it, a commissioner has a level of integrity to uphold. He is not a regular owner. Can he make trades like a regular owner? Sure. Can he make waiver wire moves like a regular owner? Yes. Can he talk to other owners about last week's games and player values? Of course. This type of thing goes beyond that though. What he did was he created a gray area. It makes him appear biased, since I'm sure he doesn't intend to look at everyone's lineup before each game kicks off to make sure that they don't have an inactive player in their lineup. He did let his league know that he did this, right? I don't remember if he did or not. Anyway, I'll use a very simple, realistic, non-poker hypothetical to show why this was a bad move on his part.

What happens when the guy who played against the Peterson/Knox owner is in a similar situation in the future, and he doesn't get a phone call from the commish and he loses? How does that make him look? I think we all can agree on the answer.

My suggestion to the OP would be to get a rule in place so that next year we don't see another thread from you titled something like:

CJ owner is pissed at me for not letting him know that he was out

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

What happens when the guy who played against the Peterson/Knox owner is in a similar situation in the future, and he doesn't get a phone call from the commish and he loses? How does that make him look? I think we all can agree on the answer.

I'm quite certain we can't.

 

[Fragis Frodum]

yea- but a smart owner doesnt need a call from the commish to learn that his questionable player is not playing.

Getting stuck at work, or any of the infinite number of other more important things in life, has no bearing on how "smart" of an owner you are. Sometimes you have a deadline to meet at the office, or your kid gets sick, or your water heater breaks - the last thing on your mind in times like those is whether or not one of the players on your pretend football team is inactive. That doesn't mean you're less of an owner, it just means you're a human.

It all depends on how much money is on the line. If I have 2,000 on the line, my fantasy team takes precedent over the water heater, deadline and possibly even a sick kid. It also may be the reason there is a disconnect on this isue. I'm guessing those of us who play in high dollar leagues tend to be the more upset crowd and those who play in low dollar or free leagues are the more understanding crowd.

My league payouts are in the thousands of dollars. That still doesn't take precedence over a broken water heater (which can cause thousands of dollars in damage), a deadline at work (which pays me many times more than I could ever win in a fantasy league each year), or a sick kid (which you can't possibly put a price tag on). Like I said, priorities. If a $2,000 magic football jackpot is really the most important thing going on in your life, then there's definitely going to be a disconnect. Even if it is the most important thing for you, it's shouldn't be too hard to understand that for most people, it isn't.

Ok, am I the only one here who's had enough of the "magic" and "pretend" references? We get it, already - you're one of those "I'm the funniest/wittiest person you know - just ask me and I'll tell you!" guys. Second, if #### happens in life, well, then you know what? People might lose fantasy matchups. If it's not important enough to them to pay attention while living their awesome and unpredictable lives, then they come out on the short end of the stick sometimes. Not a terribly hard concept to understand, is it, sport? It's called suffering consequences. Unfortunately, the culture nowadays is to keep people from experiencing those sort of things. No one should have to actually have to go though that anymore, apparently (see Obama, Barack). Other more cerebral beings most certainly should intervene and save these poor people from themselves, right? Because everyone deserves to have someone else decide, "Gee, this guy may not have the mental faculties to run his team, so I have anointed myself 'Mr. Helper' and will make the situation right!"And so goes the wussification of America.

 

[Fragis Frodum]

Why is this so hard to grasp?

I think it is a matter of opinion.I felt like you a few years ago. Checking 100 times a day for injury news and inactives etc.Now I have two kids. One is 3 and the other is 1. I can set 900 reminders to check but there is still the possibility that I will be too busy with them. To say someone is dicking around at work and that he needs to set a reminder is silly IMO

And what some in this thread are unwilling to concede is that if your dedication to the game has lessened due to other obligations, so should your expectations of success in it.Pretty simple to understand, no?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

yea- but a smart owner doesnt need a call from the commish to learn that his questionable player is not playing.

Getting stuck at work, or any of the infinite number of other more important things in life, has no bearing on how "smart" of an owner you are. Sometimes you have a deadline to meet at the office, or your kid gets sick, or your water heater breaks - the last thing on your mind in times like those is whether or not one of the players on your pretend football team is inactive. That doesn't mean you're less of an owner, it just means you're a human.

It all depends on how much money is on the line. If I have 2,000 on the line, my fantasy team takes precedent over the water heater, deadline and possibly even a sick kid. It also may be the reason there is a disconnect on this isue. I'm guessing those of us who play in high dollar leagues tend to be the more upset crowd and those who play in low dollar or free leagues are the more understanding crowd.

My league payouts are in the thousands of dollars. That still doesn't take precedence over a broken water heater (which can cause thousands of dollars in damage), a deadline at work (which pays me many times more than I could ever win in a fantasy league each year), or a sick kid (which you can't possibly put a price tag on). Like I said, priorities. If a $2,000 magic football jackpot is really the most important thing going on in your life, then there's definitely going to be a disconnect. Even if it is the most important thing for you, it's shouldn't be too hard to understand that for most people, it isn't.

Ok, am I the only one here who's had enough of the "magic" and "pretend" references? We get it, already - you're one of those "I'm the funniest/wittiest person you know - just ask me and I'll tell you!" guys. Second, if #### happens in life, well, then you know what? People might lose fantasy matchups. If it's not important enough to them to pay attention while living their awesome and unpredictable lives, then they come out on the short end of the stick sometimes. Not a terribly hard concept to understand, is it, sport? It's called suffering consequences. Unfortunately, the culture nowadays is to keep people from experiencing those sort of things. No one should have to actually have to go though that anymore, apparently (see Obama, Barack). Other more cerebral beings most certainly should intervene and save these poor people from themselves, right? Because everyone deserves to have someone else decide, "Gee, this guy may not have the mental faculties to run his team, so I have anointed myself 'Mr. Helper' and will make the situation right!"And so goes the wussification of America.

It appears someone more cerebral should step in and help you out a bit, yes.

 

[duaneok66]

Why is this so hard to grasp?

I think it is a matter of opinion.I felt like you a few years ago. Checking 100 times a day for injury news and inactives etc.Now I have two kids. One is 3 and the other is 1. I can set 900 reminders to check but there is still the possibility that I will be too busy with them. To say someone is dicking around at work and that he needs to set a reminder is silly IMO

And what some in this thread are unwilling to concede is that if your dedication to the game has lessened due to other obligations, so should your expectations of success in it.Pretty simple to understand, no?

best post of the thread . . .people want the same results regardless of the amount of effort . . .

 

[Fragis Frodum]

It appears someone more cerebral should step in and help you out a bit, yes.

If anyone can convey the point(s) Mr. Ignoratio is attempting to make in a more eloquent, succinct and simplistic manner, please IM me.TIA.

 

[Summer Wheat]

If you are paying to play and wagering that your skill can win then Fantasy is not the correct term. We are playing a game of skill, chance and luck just like poker. As in poker or any game of skill chance and luck the people in charge should not be involved in the outcome of that game.

 

[BigJim®]

Sorry, FF is a BIG BOY game.

About the 10th poster here who apparently bases some part of their self-worth or ego from fantasy football.Mind boggling. Certainly a little sad.

No, what's mind boggling is you are the second guy who contorted a statement about accountability beyond recognition, into something about self worth, ego, manhood. You just can't be serious, the concepts aren't even in the same galaxy. It's not life and death, it's a game. Each year, one guy is going to win the game through some combination of making the right moves, being on the ball, and getting a little lucky. If you don't or can't keep up with developments related to the game, you'll probably get the results you deserve. Maybe you'll learn a lesson if you just screwed up, or maybe you won't care because you had a priority. There's always next year. Either way it's not really my concern as a commissioner. Particularly in the playoffs, I'd let the opponents manage or mismanage their own teams independently, getting rewarded for being on the ball or punished by not. That has absolutely nothing to do with how I measure self-worth.

 

[matuski]

Sorry, FF is a BIG BOY game.

About the 10th poster here who apparently bases some part of their self-worth or ego from fantasy football.Mind boggling. Certainly a little sad.

No, what's mind boggling is you are the second guy who contorted a statement about accountability beyond recognition, into something about self worth, ego, manhood. You just can't be serious, the concepts aren't even in the same galaxy. It's not life and death, it's a game. Each year, one guy is going to win the game through some combination of making the right moves, being on the ball, and getting a little lucky. If you don't or can't keep up with developments related to the game, you'll probably get the results you deserve. Maybe you'll learn a lesson if you just screwed up, or maybe you won't care because you had a priority. There's always next year. Either way it's not really my concern as a commissioner. Particularly in the playoffs, I'd let the opponents manage or mismanage their own teams independently, getting rewarded for being on the ball or punished by not. That has absolutely nothing to do with how I measure self-worth.

It really isn't mind boggling at all really.The disconnect here is obviously between people that can keep fantasy football in perspective, and those for whom fantasy football is REALLY important.

You have made it clear which side you fall on... good luck with that.

 

[fsufan]

But you'd call an owner if you were just a regular owner?

I wouldn't, but if a regular owner called another owner in my league, I wouldn't have a problem with it. There's a difference.The only lineup I really look at besides mine is the team I'm playing against.

i have had owners(who are fighting me for division, pays $) call my opponent to make sure they do not forget to play a certain player, I have no problem with it

 

[BigJim®]

Sorry, FF is a BIG BOY game.

About the 10th poster here who apparently bases some part of their self-worth or ego from fantasy football.Mind boggling. Certainly a little sad.

No, what's mind boggling is you are the second guy who contorted a statement about accountability beyond recognition, into something about self worth, ego, manhood. You just can't be serious, the concepts aren't even in the same galaxy. It's not life and death, it's a game. Each year, one guy is going to win the game through some combination of making the right moves, being on the ball, and getting a little lucky. If you don't or can't keep up with developments related to the game, you'll probably get the results you deserve. Maybe you'll learn a lesson if you just screwed up, or maybe you won't care because you had a priority. There's always next year. Either way it's not really my concern as a commissioner. Particularly in the playoffs, I'd let the opponents manage or mismanage their own teams independently, getting rewarded for being on the ball or punished by not. That has absolutely nothing to do with how I measure self-worth.

It really isn't mind boggling at all really.The disconnect here is obviously between people that can keep fantasy football in perspective, and those for whom fantasy football is REALLY important.

You have made it clear which side you fall on... good luck with that.

Listen, you're projecting and reading what you want to read. I couldn't agree more that it isn't important. That's my entire point. It's a trivial game, and if you aren't paying attention to the game you probably won't and shouldn't win the game. No big deal, there's always next year. You're the one suggesting it's important enough that someone should be alerted with intervention about the game, giving it more importance than it really has. You put it into perspective. I'll mind my own team and let other owners do the same, or not, with winning or losing a game being the only consequence. But the fact is FF is a game of attentiveness and accountability, and people who don't pay attention to detail tend to hurt their chances of winning.

 

[Flash]

It appears someone more cerebral should step in and help you out a bit, yes.

If anyone can convey the point(s) Mr. Ignoratio is attempting to make in a more eloquent, succinct and simplistic manner, please IM me.TIA.

See what's happening here is that side of the argument really has no basis, and they are starting with personal attacks. Dr. Awesome started yesterday.Pretty much tells you what is the right side here.

 

[FootballGuy22]

As commish, what's the right thing to do?

I think you guys are off topic. Again, the original question was what is the right thing to do as commish. Since that it has evolved, but I still maintain that the OP would not have done this if he was just another owner and ONLY did this as commish which is wrong. It's not a commish responsibility but he made it one. I don't think it's wrong for someone to call the AP owner, big deal, but it's not the right thing for the commish in this case to do because he wouldn't have done it otherwise. If the commish was friends with the guy and talked with him regularly and discussed FF then go ahead and tell him. I think each case is unique and in this case the commish was wrong, you can't generalize these things. What if the commish and AP owner were brothers? spouses? It makes a difference.

 

[Summer Wheat]

It appears someone more cerebral should step in and help you out a bit, yes.

If anyone can convey the point(s) Mr. Ignoratio is attempting to make in a more eloquent, succinct and simplistic manner, please IM me.TIA.

See what's happening here is that side of the argument really has no basis, and they are starting with personal attacks. Dr. Awesome started yesterday.Pretty much tells you what is the right side here.

Time to start bringing politics to this thread. Is the OP a lefty or righty?

 

[BlackHole]

Sorry, FF is a BIG BOY game. If you need supervisor assistance, take your deserved lumps or find a new hobby. If you want to be a parent, look into child mentoring to use those ambitions in a way that doesn't impact others negatively. I'd be very ticked if my playoff opponent was asleep at the wheel and got aid from the commish.

I hope I'm not the only one who realizes how lame this sounds. If playing fantasy football is how you measure your manhood...welll, you're not much of a man.

This is being excellent? Did I say I measure "manhood" by my ability to take ownership of my own FF team? Then taking it a step further that I'm not much of a man? Wow. Merry Christmas.

Sure thing chief. This whole "big boy" shtick is incredibly lame. If the only way you can win is needing a miracle and fluke benching then you're not much of a BIG BOY. You may want to find an easier league next year instead of blaming the commish for the crappy squad you assembled.

Since you apparently can't win without being given such a handicap, I suggest you give this a go next year: http://www.girlsfantasyfootball.com/ It seems more your speed. Godspeed.

LOL at the rules from the girls fantasy football rules. Apparently they get the idea of competition and you would not fair very well in the girls league.

As for all the other crap about age and being busy, don't throw it my way. I'm pushing 40, have three children under 7, a 50-60 hr a week job with 7 supervisors, and 167 employees. In 2 home leagues, three of the MYFFP leagues and co-comish one league. What you did would not go over well with any of these leagues. However, I must say, we actually state that there is no helping of the other owners during the draft and season in the rules. So if your league doesn't have these rules and they don't care, then that's fine.

Basically, I've been reading the entire chain and I can see both sides. I wouldn't be in a league with you as the comish, but that's my preference. Again, LMAO at you putting down someone and telling them to join a girls league and the girls league is one you wouldn't be able to handle because of your choice to help another owner instead of allowing their line up to stay as they had it. Which is what would have happened in the girls league you mock others with.

Lineups

Each week, owners submit a starting lineup taking into consideration injuries, match-ups, and players on bye weeks. Lineup changes must be made prior to the start of each game in which the players in question are involved. If an owner fails to make adjustments in his starting lineup, it will remain the same as the previous week.

 

[BlackHole]

You can also click the fantasy 101 link in the girls league to find other basic rules to FF that do not support an owner helping another owner with their lineup (due to injury or any other reason). That is from ask.com though, so not as funny to me, but still comical. The OP posted links that do not support his stance at all.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

yea- but a smart owner doesnt need a call from the commish to learn that his questionable player is not playing.

Getting stuck at work, or any of the infinite number of other more important things in life, has no bearing on how "smart" of an owner you are. Sometimes you have a deadline to meet at the office, or your kid gets sick, or your water heater breaks - the last thing on your mind in times like those is whether or not one of the players on your pretend football team is inactive. That doesn't mean you're less of an owner, it just means you're a human.

It all depends on how much money is on the line. If I have 2,000 on the line, my fantasy team takes precedent over the water heater, deadline and possibly even a sick kid. It also may be the reason there is a disconnect on this isue. I'm guessing those of us who play in high dollar leagues tend to be the more upset crowd and those who play in low dollar or free leagues are the more understanding crowd.

My league payouts are in the thousands of dollars. That still doesn't take precedence over a broken water heater (which can cause thousands of dollars in damage), a deadline at work (which pays me many times more than I could ever win in a fantasy league each year), or a sick kid (which you can't possibly put a price tag on). Like I said, priorities. If a $2,000 magic football jackpot is really the most important thing going on in your life, then there's definitely going to be a disconnect. Even if it is the most important thing for you, it's shouldn't be too hard to understand that for most people, it isn't.

Ok, am I the only one here who's had enough of the "magic" and "pretend" references? We get it, already - you're one of those "I'm the funniest/wittiest person you know - just ask me and I'll tell you!" guys. Second, if #### happens in life, well, then you know what? People might lose fantasy matchups. If it's not important enough to them to pay attention while living their awesome and unpredictable lives, then they come out on the short end of the stick sometimes. Not a terribly hard concept to understand, is it, sport? It's called suffering consequences. Unfortunately, the culture nowadays is to keep people from experiencing those sort of things. No one should have to actually have to go though that anymore, apparently (see Obama, Barack). Other more cerebral beings most certainly should intervene and save these poor people from themselves, right? Because everyone deserves to have someone else decide, "Gee, this guy may not have the mental faculties to run his team, so I have anointed myself 'Mr. Helper' and will make the situation right!"And so goes the wussification of America.

Sounds like you don't like the references because you don't want the game put in perspective. You want to talk about consequences? Start better players and you won't have to worry about the opponent starting an entire team. Yes, sometimes things happen and you get the short end of the stick. But it's not your place to require they get the short end of the stick. There is no "wall of silence" anyone has to respect with regard to your game. If it's public knowledge and anyone knows the info...they can tell your opponent. Even the commish. If you don't like it, YOU (as the guy facing Peterson, not you specifically) have to accept the consequences of starting an inferior team. If I want to give someone a heads-up, I don't owe you a wall of silence. It's not special info. It's info ESPN had and if I want to share it, I will. No matter how many tears you shed, I am allowed to share public information with other owners as a fellow owner. And if I'm the commissioner...I'm still an owner. As long as I wasn't using commish powers and not using info I received as commish...I'm an owner.

Funny how the people crying about "I didn't get the advantage of my opponent starting an inactive player and now I have to face an whole team by myself!" are the ones complaining about consequences. You're in the Super Bowl, sport. You might have to face an entire lineup. Nobody owes you a wall of silence-- not the commish, not fellow owners, not owners who don't like you and want you to lose. If it's common knowledge, it might get to your opponent.

And if that really bothers you, you need to play a new pretend game. I agree about the wussification of American, but for completely different reasons than you said.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

It appears someone more cerebral should step in and help you out a bit, yes.

If anyone can convey the point(s) Mr. Ignoratio is attempting to make in a more eloquent, succinct and simplistic manner, please IM me.TIA.

See what's happening here is that side of the argument really has no basis, and they are starting with personal attacks. Dr. Awesome started yesterday.Pretty much tells you what is the right side here.

Remind me: Who was attacking someone for being so young? Hmmm...

 

[Summer Wheat]

It appears someone more cerebral should step in and help you out a bit, yes.

If anyone can convey the point(s) Mr. Ignoratio is attempting to make in a more eloquent, succinct and simplistic manner, please IM me.TIA.

See what's happening here is that side of the argument really has no basis, and they are starting with personal attacks. Dr. Awesome started yesterday.Pretty much tells you what is the right side here.

Remind me: Who was attacking someone for being so young? Hmmm...

After 3-4 pages mud-slinging is unavoidable.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

As commish, what's the right thing to do?

I think you guys are off topic. Again, the original question was what is the right thing to do as commish. Since that it has evolved, but I still maintain that the OP would not have done this if he was just another owner and ONLY did this as commish which is wrong. It's not a commish responsibility but he made it one. I don't think it's wrong for someone to call the AP owner, big deal, but it's not the right thing for the commish in this case to do because he wouldn't have done it otherwise. If the commish was friends with the guy and talked with him regularly and discussed FF then go ahead and tell him. I think each case is unique and in this case the commish was wrong, you can't generalize these things. What if the commish and AP owner were brothers? spouses? It makes a difference.

If it was a fellow owner, they wouldn't have done it if they weren't a buddy of the other owner. Why can a fellow owner share public info at their discretion, but an owner who happens to be the commish is forced to refrain? Not using commish powers, not using info gained as commish. Just because they're the commish they have to play by different rules?If the commish took the waiver wire player you wanted, you wouldn't shout "No fair. He's the commish, he has to be fair. Gimme my player!" He's an owner and can play just like you. I'm sure you agree with that. Well, if an owner can share ESPN info with the opponent, so can the commish-- and he's not obligated to do it ever again. It's not a commish role he's playing. He's just an owner.

I don't think the relationship matters because whether the AP owner is the commish's spouse, friend or mortal enemy, they can tell or not tell at their discretion. I'm sure the relationship affects what they choose to do...but someone else could also tell if they wanted. The commish is an owner just like anyone else.

I'm disappointed at how many people think the commish is a second-class owner who has to play by a different set of rules pertaining to areas where being the commish has NOTHING to do with the action in question. If a regular owner would know the info and it's okay for them to tell...same applies for the commish.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

It appears someone more cerebral should step in and help you out a bit, yes.

If anyone can convey the point(s) Mr. Ignoratio is attempting to make in a more eloquent, succinct and simplistic manner, please IM me.TIA.

See what's happening here is that side of the argument really has no basis, and they are starting with personal attacks. Dr. Awesome started yesterday.Pretty much tells you what is the right side here.

Remind me: Who was attacking someone for being so young? Hmmm...

After 3-4 pages mud-slinging is unavoidable.

That makes sense. But the person slinging the mud should avoid whining about personal attacks and pretending it validates their position when it indicts them as much as anyone. If you can't meet your own standard, don't set it.

 

[FootballGuy22]

As commish, what's the right thing to do?

I think you guys are off topic. Again, the original question was what is the right thing to do as commish. Since that it has evolved, but I still maintain that the OP would not have done this if he was just another owner and ONLY did this as commish which is wrong. It's not a commish responsibility but he made it one. I don't think it's wrong for someone to call the AP owner, big deal, but it's not the right thing for the commish in this case to do because he wouldn't have done it otherwise. If the commish was friends with the guy and talked with him regularly and discussed FF then go ahead and tell him. I think each case is unique and in this case the commish was wrong, you can't generalize these things. What if the commish and AP owner were brothers? spouses? It makes a difference.

If it was a fellow owner, they wouldn't have done it if they weren't a buddy of the other owner. Why can a fellow owner share public info at their discretion, but an owner who happens to be the commish is forced to refrain? Not using commish powers, not using info gained as commish. Just because they're the commish they have to play by different rules?If the commish took the waiver wire player you wanted, you wouldn't shout "No fair. He's the commish, he has to be fair. Gimme my player!" He's an owner and can play just like you. I'm sure you agree with that. Well, if an owner can share ESPN info with the opponent, so can the commish-- and he's not obligated to do it ever again. It's not a commish role he's playing. He's just an owner.

I don't think the relationship matters because whether the AP owner is the commish's spouse, friend or mortal enemy, they can tell or not tell at their discretion. I'm sure the relationship affects what they choose to do...but someone else could also tell if they wanted. The commish is an owner just like anyone else.

I'm disappointed at how many people think the commish is a second-class owner who has to play by a different set of rules pertaining to areas where being the commish has NOTHING to do with the action in question. If a regular owner would know the info and it's okay for them to tell...same applies for the commish.

I'm not disagreeing with you that the commish is not a regular owner and can whatever others can do. My point was for this specific case the OP notified the guy BECAUSE he was commish as per the original post. It is clear to make the assumption from his post that he wouldn't have done this if he wasn't commish. The original question was "As commish". The answer is "as commish" you don't do anything you wouldn't normally do. If he ONLY notified the AP owner because he was commish and wouldn't have otherwise (if he was just another owner) don't you agree that this was wrong?

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

As commish, what's the right thing to do?

I think you guys are off topic. Again, the original question was what is the right thing to do as commish. Since that it has evolved, but I still maintain that the OP would not have done this if he was just another owner and ONLY did this as commish which is wrong. It's not a commish responsibility but he made it one. I don't think it's wrong for someone to call the AP owner, big deal, but it's not the right thing for the commish in this case to do because he wouldn't have done it otherwise. If the commish was friends with the guy and talked with him regularly and discussed FF then go ahead and tell him. I think each case is unique and in this case the commish was wrong, you can't generalize these things. What if the commish and AP owner were brothers? spouses? It makes a difference.

If it was a fellow owner, they wouldn't have done it if they weren't a buddy of the other owner. Why can a fellow owner share public info at their discretion, but an owner who happens to be the commish is forced to refrain? Not using commish powers, not using info gained as commish. Just because they're the commish they have to play by different rules?If the commish took the waiver wire player you wanted, you wouldn't shout "No fair. He's the commish, he has to be fair. Gimme my player!" He's an owner and can play just like you. I'm sure you agree with that. Well, if an owner can share ESPN info with the opponent, so can the commish-- and he's not obligated to do it ever again. It's not a commish role he's playing. He's just an owner.

I don't think the relationship matters because whether the AP owner is the commish's spouse, friend or mortal enemy, they can tell or not tell at their discretion. I'm sure the relationship affects what they choose to do...but someone else could also tell if they wanted. The commish is an owner just like anyone else.

I'm disappointed at how many people think the commish is a second-class owner who has to play by a different set of rules pertaining to areas where being the commish has NOTHING to do with the action in question. If a regular owner would know the info and it's okay for them to tell...same applies for the commish.

I'm not disagreeing with you that the commish is not a regular owner and can whatever others can do. My point was for this specific case the OP notified the guy BECAUSE he was commish as per the original post. It is clear to make the assumption from his post that he wouldn't have done this if he wasn't commish. The original question was "As commish". The answer is "as commish" you don't do anything you wouldn't normally do. If he ONLY notified the AP owner because he was commish and wouldn't have otherwise (if he was just another owner) don't you agree that this was wrong?

I see what you're saying, and yes, that's different than what I said. But I'm not sure the "why" really matters all that much. If anyone can tell, they can tell. If they think, as commish, they should check playoff games and give out that info...as long as it's public info that anyone could obtain I don't care. I wouldn't feel obligated as commish but it's public info.

But let's say the rosters are locked and private until gametime, and the commish sees AP is in there and inactive. I'd be right there with everyone else attacking them. That's using commish powers to know AP was in the lineup and doing something about it. Totally different.

So while you're right and they guy rationalized it as commish, he didn't use commish powers to obtain the info and he's not doing anything another owner couldn't do. Now, if he went in and changed his lineup to Knox because "that's more fair," I'd be more upset than the people in this thread.

By the way, although I take this position I don't agree that you should "want" to face a full lineup. If I was the other guy I'd want the guy to leave Peterson in there as well. I just wouldn't complain if someone told them. But a win is a win is a win. This week I'm facing a superior team, and I hope he makes a mistake that gives me an advantage. People can say whatever they want, if I have the trophy and the check I hope he takes five zeros due to players being inactive.

But if someone tells him about it in time, I won't complain. Even if it's the commish. I'd just see my challenge as getting that much harder (he could take five zeroes and have a chance to beat me, anyway).

 

[FootballGuy22]

As commish, what's the right thing to do?

I think you guys are off topic. Again, the original question was what is the right thing to do as commish. Since that it has evolved, but I still maintain that the OP would not have done this if he was just another owner and ONLY did this as commish which is wrong. It's not a commish responsibility but he made it one. I don't think it's wrong for someone to call the AP owner, big deal, but it's not the right thing for the commish in this case to do because he wouldn't have done it otherwise. If the commish was friends with the guy and talked with him regularly and discussed FF then go ahead and tell him. I think each case is unique and in this case the commish was wrong, you can't generalize these things. What if the commish and AP owner were brothers? spouses? It makes a difference.

If it was a fellow owner, they wouldn't have done it if they weren't a buddy of the other owner. Why can a fellow owner share public info at their discretion, but an owner who happens to be the commish is forced to refrain? Not using commish powers, not using info gained as commish. Just because they're the commish they have to play by different rules?If the commish took the waiver wire player you wanted, you wouldn't shout "No fair. He's the commish, he has to be fair. Gimme my player!" He's an owner and can play just like you. I'm sure you agree with that. Well, if an owner can share ESPN info with the opponent, so can the commish-- and he's not obligated to do it ever again. It's not a commish role he's playing. He's just an owner.

I don't think the relationship matters because whether the AP owner is the commish's spouse, friend or mortal enemy, they can tell or not tell at their discretion. I'm sure the relationship affects what they choose to do...but someone else could also tell if they wanted. The commish is an owner just like anyone else.

I'm disappointed at how many people think the commish is a second-class owner who has to play by a different set of rules pertaining to areas where being the commish has NOTHING to do with the action in question. If a regular owner would know the info and it's okay for them to tell...same applies for the commish.

I'm not disagreeing with you that the commish is not a regular owner and can whatever others can do. My point was for this specific case the OP notified the guy BECAUSE he was commish as per the original post. It is clear to make the assumption from his post that he wouldn't have done this if he wasn't commish. The original question was "As commish". The answer is "as commish" you don't do anything you wouldn't normally do. If he ONLY notified the AP owner because he was commish and wouldn't have otherwise (if he was just another owner) don't you agree that this was wrong?

I see what you're saying, and yes, that's different than what I said. But I'm not sure the "why" really matters all that much. If anyone can tell, they can tell. If they think, as commish, they should check playoff games and give out that info...as long as it's public info that anyone could obtain I don't care. I wouldn't feel obligated as commish but it's public info.

But let's say the rosters are locked and private until gametime, and the commish sees AP is in there and inactive. I'd be right there with everyone else attacking them. That's using commish powers to know AP was in the lineup and doing something about it. Totally different.

So while you're right and they guy rationalized it as commish, he didn't use commish powers to obtain the info and he's not doing anything another owner couldn't do. Now, if he went in and changed his lineup to Knox because "that's more fair," I'd be more upset than the people in this thread.

By the way, although I take this position I don't agree that you should "want" to face a full lineup. If I was the other guy I'd want the guy to leave Peterson in there as well. I just wouldn't complain if someone told them. But a win is a win is a win. This week I'm facing a superior team, and I hope he makes a mistake that gives me an advantage. People can say whatever they want, if I have the trophy and the check I hope he takes five zeros due to players being inactive.

But if someone tells him about it in time, I won't complain. Even if it's the commish. I'd just see my challenge as getting that much harder (he could take five zeroes and have a chance to beat me, anyway).

I agree with this, finally some compromise. I agree they can tell, but don't think it his responsibility to tell which is how it appears to me in this situation.

 

[Jersey35]

I've given up reading the entire thread, so I apologize if I'm repeating, but:

If a person really doesn't have the time or inclination to play in a league that requires you to "start" players then why play in one? League membership is an "at will" kind of thing. And if you do, why would you be upset if you somehow forgot to check on a player's status because you were too busy with more important things? They were more important, it's up to you to decide what's more important and live with the consequences of your actions.

For my part, the hobby is important enough to me that I'd call the commish in advance to make arrangement for my lineup to be adjusted should my questionable guy be determined out when I didn't have access. If it wasn't important enough for me to do this, I couldn't very well act as though it were important enough for me to get upset if someone didn't go out of their way to assist me.

If you aren't playing a "best ball" type game, you are accepting that late scratches and zeros in lineups as part of the game, and as such, the knowledge of these things IS valuable and confers an advantage. It's always been my experience that the most successful teams ARE the ones that pay more attention. In that respect, any form of knowledge of a player's status imparted by the commissioner absolutely would be considered granting an advantage, or at least taking an advantage away from the other owner.

As an owner, I would have no problem dispensing the information as I see fit. As commissioner, I'm going to keep out of it if I want to remain commissioner.

 

[pantagrapher]

Maybe on the 10th page someone will finally post the rule they have in their league about sharing information before game time.

 

[pantagrapher]

I've given up reading the entire thread, so I apologize if I'm repeating, but:If a person really doesn't have the time or inclination to play in a league that requires you to "start" players then why play in one? League membership is an "at will" kind of thing. And if you do, why would you be upset if you somehow forgot to check on a player's status because you were too busy with more important things? They were more important, it's up to you to decide what's more important and live with the consequences of your actions.For my part, the hobby is important enough to me that I'd call the commish in advance to make arrangement for my lineup to be adjusted should my questionable guy be determined out when I didn't have access. If it wasn't important enough for me to do this, I couldn't very well act as though it were important enough for me to get upset if someone didn't go out of their way to assist me.If you aren't playing a "best ball" type game, you are accepting that late scratches and zeros in lineups as part of the game, and as such, the knowledge of these things IS valuable and confers an advantage. It's always been my experience that the most successful teams ARE the ones that pay more attention. In that respect, any form of knowledge of a player's status imparted by the commissioner absolutely would be considered granting an advantage, or at least taking an advantage away from the other owner.As an owner, I would have no problem dispensing the information as I see fit. As commissioner, I'm going to keep out of it if I want to remain commissioner.

The guy missed one late-breaking inactive because he was working leading up to the Monday night game. I don't think that one instance should be extrapolated out to conclude he didn't care about his team or shouldn't be playing fantasy football. And as long as your commissioner is an owner, I think he should be treated like any other owner when acting outside of his commissioner duties. But if you want him to play by different rules, I think those rules should be written out before the season.

 

[Jersey35]

I've given up reading the entire thread, so I apologize if I'm repeating, but:If a person really doesn't have the time or inclination to play in a league that requires you to "start" players then why play in one? League membership is an "at will" kind of thing. And if you do, why would you be upset if you somehow forgot to check on a player's status because you were too busy with more important things? They were more important, it's up to you to decide what's more important and live with the consequences of your actions.For my part, the hobby is important enough to me that I'd call the commish in advance to make arrangement for my lineup to be adjusted should my questionable guy be determined out when I didn't have access. If it wasn't important enough for me to do this, I couldn't very well act as though it were important enough for me to get upset if someone didn't go out of their way to assist me.If you aren't playing a "best ball" type game, you are accepting that late scratches and zeros in lineups as part of the game, and as such, the knowledge of these things IS valuable and confers an advantage. It's always been my experience that the most successful teams ARE the ones that pay more attention. In that respect, any form of knowledge of a player's status imparted by the commissioner absolutely would be considered granting an advantage, or at least taking an advantage away from the other owner.As an owner, I would have no problem dispensing the information as I see fit. As commissioner, I'm going to keep out of it if I want to remain commissioner.

The guy missed one late-breaking inactive because he was working leading up to the Monday night game. I don't think that one instance should be extrapolated out to conclude he didn't care about his team or shouldn't be playing fantasy football.

I'm sorry if my post wasn't clear: I didn't mean to suggest either of those things - only that late news and inactives ARE a common part of a league that "starts" a lineup - otherwise you'd be playing best ball - and as such, information pertaining to a player's starting status IS valuable and DOES impact game outcomes, therefore, as commish, I certainly would avoid going out of my way to share that information with others to avoid losing my reputation for being impartial.My initial comments were merely meant to illustrate that if I have more important things to do at any given time than manage my team, then I don't manage my team at those times, and I have no expectations for a call or any sort of unasked for assistance.

 

[pantagrapher]

I've given up reading the entire thread, so I apologize if I'm repeating, but:If a person really doesn't have the time or inclination to play in a league that requires you to "start" players then why play in one? League membership is an "at will" kind of thing. And if you do, why would you be upset if you somehow forgot to check on a player's status because you were too busy with more important things? They were more important, it's up to you to decide what's more important and live with the consequences of your actions.For my part, the hobby is important enough to me that I'd call the commish in advance to make arrangement for my lineup to be adjusted should my questionable guy be determined out when I didn't have access. If it wasn't important enough for me to do this, I couldn't very well act as though it were important enough for me to get upset if someone didn't go out of their way to assist me.If you aren't playing a "best ball" type game, you are accepting that late scratches and zeros in lineups as part of the game, and as such, the knowledge of these things IS valuable and confers an advantage. It's always been my experience that the most successful teams ARE the ones that pay more attention. In that respect, any form of knowledge of a player's status imparted by the commissioner absolutely would be considered granting an advantage, or at least taking an advantage away from the other owner.As an owner, I would have no problem dispensing the information as I see fit. As commissioner, I'm going to keep out of it if I want to remain commissioner.

The guy missed one late-breaking inactive because he was working leading up to the Monday night game. I don't think that one instance should be extrapolated out to conclude he didn't care about his team or shouldn't be playing fantasy football.

I'm sorry if my post wasn't clear: I didn't mean to suggest either of those things - only that late news and inactives ARE a common part of a league that "starts" a lineup - otherwise you'd be playing best ball - and as such, information pertaining to a player's starting status IS valuable and DOES impact game outcomes, therefore, as commish, I certainly would avoid going out of my way to share that information with others to avoid losing my reputation for being impartial.My initial comments were merely meant to illustrate that if I have more important things to do at any given time than manage my team, then I don't manage my team at those times, and I have no expectations for a call or any sort of unasked for assistance.

I think everyone agrees there should be no expectation of a call or assistance. But I don't think that providing assistance should be a problem either. As for commissioners, I think as long as they are fair and impartial in carrying out their commissioner duties, I have no problem with them acting like any other owner.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I agree with this, finally some compromise. I agree they can tell, but don't think it his responsibility to tell which is how it appears to me in this situation.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I've given up reading the entire thread, so I apologize if I'm repeating, but:If a person really doesn't have the time or inclination to play in a league that requires you to "start" players then why play in one? League membership is an "at will" kind of thing. And if you do, why would you be upset if you somehow forgot to check on a player's status because you were too busy with more important things? They were more important, it's up to you to decide what's more important and live with the consequences of your actions.For my part, the hobby is important enough to me that I'd call the commish in advance to make arrangement for my lineup to be adjusted should my questionable guy be determined out when I didn't have access. If it wasn't important enough for me to do this, I couldn't very well act as though it were important enough for me to get upset if someone didn't go out of their way to assist me.If you aren't playing a "best ball" type game, you are accepting that late scratches and zeros in lineups as part of the game, and as such, the knowledge of these things IS valuable and confers an advantage. It's always been my experience that the most successful teams ARE the ones that pay more attention. In that respect, any form of knowledge of a player's status imparted by the commissioner absolutely would be considered granting an advantage, or at least taking an advantage away from the other owner.As an owner, I would have no problem dispensing the information as I see fit. As commissioner, I'm going to keep out of it if I want to remain commissioner.

The guy missed one late-breaking inactive because he was working leading up to the Monday night game. I don't think that one instance should be extrapolated out to conclude he didn't care about his team or shouldn't be playing fantasy football.

I'm sorry if my post wasn't clear: I didn't mean to suggest either of those things - only that late news and inactives ARE a common part of a league that "starts" a lineup - otherwise you'd be playing best ball - and as such, information pertaining to a player's starting status IS valuable and DOES impact game outcomes, therefore, as commish, I certainly would avoid going out of my way to share that information with others to avoid losing my reputation for being impartial.My initial comments were merely meant to illustrate that if I have more important things to do at any given time than manage my team, then I don't manage my team at those times, and I have no expectations for a call or any sort of unasked for assistance.

The majority of your post makes a lot of sense to me. Obviously, nobody has the right to expect information be given to them and they could suffer the consequences if they didn't know Peterson was inactive. But I don't understand your last sentence. Why should an owner be allowed to tell but a commissioner not be allowed? If they're acting as an owner and not using their commish power to obtain the info, why can't they act like every other owner?You're worried about a "reputation for being impartial?" Either you're fair as a commish or you're not. You don't have to play by a separate set of rules just so you "look" a certain way to owners who want you to have a disadvantage. You get to be an owner just like everyone else.A commish cannot give any team an unfair advantage or use their commish power to help their team or any other team, or hurt any other team. They can't go in and change the waiver order. They can't tip you off as to how much someone else is blind-bidding. They can't change your opponent's lineup on their own because they have an inactive player in there. But they can do whatever a regular owner could do. If they see a story on ESPN, they can contact a fellow owner and share that info, just like any owner. You can say they "should" stay out of it, just like any owner, but they don't have to. There is no wall of silence that has to be maintained. Sharing ESPN info is not an unfair advantage. It's public. If any owner can make a call and share it, so can they. That's not using commish powers or the job of commish to help another team. They're sharing public info in the same manner as every other owner. The commish can do some things that other owners cannot do, and great care must be taken to ensure that those abilities are never used to help themselves or anyone else. But if it's public info and anyone can do it, the commish can as well. That's not using commish powers at all. That's doing what any owner can do, and there's nothing wrong with it.

 

[Chaka]

Turrible

 

[Fragis Frodum]

Sounds like you don't like the references because you don't want the game put in perspective. You want to talk about consequences? Start better players and you won't have to worry about the opponent starting an entire team. Yes, sometimes things happen and you get the short end of the stick. But it's not your place to require they get the short end of the stick. There is no "wall of silence" anyone has to respect with regard to your game. If it's public knowledge and anyone knows the info...they can tell your opponent. Even the commish.

If you don't like it, YOU (as the guy facing Peterson, not you specifically) have to accept the consequences of starting an inferior team. If I want to give someone a heads-up, I don't owe you a wall of silence. It's not special info. It's info ESPN had and if I want to share it, I will. No matter how many tears you shed, I am allowed to share public information with other owners as a fellow owner. And if I'm the commissioner...I'm still an owner. As long as I wasn't using commish powers and not using info I received as commish...I'm an owner.

Funny how the people crying about "I didn't get the advantage of my opponent starting an inactive player and now I have to face an whole team by myself!" are the ones complaining about consequences. You're in the Super Bowl, sport. You might have to face an entire lineup. Nobody owes you a wall of silence-- not the commish, not fellow owners, not owners who don't like you and want you to lose. If it's common knowledge, it might get to your opponent.

And if that really bothers you, you need to play a new pretend game. I agree about the wussification of American, but for completely different reasons than you said.

Nah, I just think that particular poster was trying to be overly cute about the discussion, to the point of sounding like a high-and-mighty doosh, is all. And for the record, I don't much care if another owner takes it upon himself to police other peoples' rosters and lineups. Would I waste my time doing that? Nope, and most certainly not if I were the commish. Which brings me back to my original point - sometimes people will forget to make roster changes. That's life. If someone screws up and forgets to swap a guy out, well, that's hopefully a lesson learned for them going forward. Or maybe not. Could be that that they repeat the same mistake over and over and over again. Not my problem, or anyone else's, for that matter. And if some other event took precedence for them, well, then they need to adjust their own expectations accordingly. I just fail to see the need for some other dude who is the pretend king of a make-believe game to anoint himself the savior to rescue them from their own incompetence, whether it be real or imagined.

 

[Summer Wheat]

Turrible

Just turrible

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Sounds like you don't like the references because you don't want the game put in perspective. You want to talk about consequences? Start better players and you won't have to worry about the opponent starting an entire team. Yes, sometimes things happen and you get the short end of the stick. But it's not your place to require they get the short end of the stick. There is no "wall of silence" anyone has to respect with regard to your game. If it's public knowledge and anyone knows the info...they can tell your opponent. Even the commish.

If you don't like it, YOU (as the guy facing Peterson, not you specifically) have to accept the consequences of starting an inferior team. If I want to give someone a heads-up, I don't owe you a wall of silence. It's not special info. It's info ESPN had and if I want to share it, I will. No matter how many tears you shed, I am allowed to share public information with other owners as a fellow owner. And if I'm the commissioner...I'm still an owner. As long as I wasn't using commish powers and not using info I received as commish...I'm an owner.

Funny how the people crying about "I didn't get the advantage of my opponent starting an inactive player and now I have to face an whole team by myself!" are the ones complaining about consequences. You're in the Super Bowl, sport. You might have to face an entire lineup. Nobody owes you a wall of silence-- not the commish, not fellow owners, not owners who don't like you and want you to lose. If it's common knowledge, it might get to your opponent.

And if that really bothers you, you need to play a new pretend game. I agree about the wussification of American, but for completely different reasons than you said.

Nah, I just think that particular poster was trying to be overly cute about the discussion, to the point of sounding like a high-and-mighty doosh, is all. And for the record, I don't much care if another owner takes it upon himself to police other peoples' rosters and lineups. Would I waste my time doing that? Nope, and most certainly not if I were the commish. Which brings me back to my original point - sometimes people will forget to make roster changes. That's life. If someone screws up and forgets to swap a guy out, well, that's hopefully a lesson learned for them going forward. Or maybe not. Could be that that they repeat the same mistake over and over and over again. Not my problem, or anyone else's, for that matter. And if some other event took precedence for them, well, then they need to adjust their own expectations accordingly. I just fail to see the need for some other dude who is the pretend king of a make-believe game to anoint himself the savior to rescue them from their own incompetence, whether it be real or imagined.

I agree with you. There is no need, no obligation and no expectation. But if they do it, no problem with that.