Gary Coal Man
Footballguy
That s actually how I pronounce it. Each Sunday morning of the fantasy season I gather my receivers together for a pep talk and declare, “Separation now, separation tomorrow, separation forever.”
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Using The Word "Owner" For Fantasy Sports Teams - What Do You Think? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
- Status
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
What's interesting is that the most racist "owner" I have ever run across always made a point of drafting almost all white players. Some might call it irony, but I just called it stupid.
DallasDMac
Footballguy
The number of folks calling this idea ridiculous has restored my faith in humanity. (I mean no offense to any non-humans that may be reading this thread...)
WampusCat43
Footballguy
One of the poorest decisions made about the game, in retrospect. The should have called them 'referees' and left the name of the game 'Chainmail'.
While we're at it, let's go after the D&D nerds for having a "Dungeon Master".
But to stay on point, I just "passionately" ignore any damn thing Stephen Smith says. The man's a waste of good oxygen.
flapgreen
Footballguy
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Two different things here:
ask tell your employees to take on any policy you see fit.
I personally do not see the need to do it in my FF league or my teams. I own a virtual team on websites and I pay a fee to do that, so technically I "own" the rights to exercise those rights as I see fit. I am an owner.
I've interacted with pro sports players before. It is odd to ask them a question about team management in the sense that the "owner" owns the team, and it sounds like "them". If players are feeling negatively towards that dynamic I say respect it, be excellent to each other. I'm sure some of your staff have to do that, so perhaps give them some support if they feel it is necessary as well.
I'm open to a wide variety of opinions on everything from tacos to goldfish, but SA Smith is awful, his tone is awful. I'm open to this whioe thing, but can we start with someone rational and not self-aggrandizing?
This is totally up to you. You are the owner of this site and the staff members work for you, why not. I personally have zero objection or weirdness about it. Technically they are capital too, as labor you canLast year I quietly asked our guys to use the word GM ( @General Malaise) or General Manager instead of Owner. I'm not militant about it. It's just something I casually asked our guys to do. It's not "official policy" whatever that is.
My thinking is it's very often it's a white guy that's running a fantasy team that's very often made up of a lot of black players. It just seemed like an unnecessarily bad look. When it's just as easy to write GM or General Manager.
But Stephen A.'s post made me think. We'll still continue to use GM or General Manager as it's so easy. But I was wondering what you guys thought about using the word "owner" for Fantasy General Managers.
I personally do not see the need to do it in my FF league or my teams. I own a virtual team on websites and I pay a fee to do that, so technically I "own" the rights to exercise those rights as I see fit. I am an owner.
I've interacted with pro sports players before. It is odd to ask them a question about team management in the sense that the "owner" owns the team, and it sounds like "them". If players are feeling negatively towards that dynamic I say respect it, be excellent to each other. I'm sure some of your staff have to do that, so perhaps give them some support if they feel it is necessary as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
Zegras11
Footballguy
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
If you really are a good compassionate person there’s no need to overcompensate in order to try to convince everyone you are a good compassionate person.
gianmarco
Footballguy
I'm offended by the word touchdown.
In today's climate, I always wonder if they are going to touch down there, if they have permission, who might get offended.
I'd recommend saying TDs, but then when you say it out loud, then that doesn't work.
So let's just say that so and so scores. Oh wait, we can't say that either.
Not really sure where we go from here.
In today's climate, I always wonder if they are going to touch down there, if they have permission, who might get offended.
I'd recommend saying TDs, but then when you say it out loud, then that doesn't work.
So let's just say that so and so scores. Oh wait, we can't say that either.
Not really sure where we go from here.
irish eyes
Footballguy
Mrs. Rannous
Footballguy
BassNBrew
Footballguy
Galileo
Footballguy
Joe Summer
Footballguy
If you conclude that the word "owner" is too offensive for fantasy football, then you must also conclude that fantasy football itself is offensive.
Because whether you call people "owner," "manager," "CEO" or whatever, the bottom line is that you are simulating the buying, selling, and trading of human beings who are primarily African American.
(Note: I'm not offended by either fantasy football OR the word "owner.")
Because whether you call people "owner," "manager," "CEO" or whatever, the bottom line is that you are simulating the buying, selling, and trading of human beings who are primarily African American.
(Note: I'm not offended by either fantasy football OR the word "owner.")
rockaction
Footballguy
Yes, "owning" a player seems to go against the basics of contract and employer/employee theories of labor.
Good Posting Judge
Footballguy
Shocker.Fat Drunk and Stupid said:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Nobody thinks that by drafting Aaron Rodgers in your magic football league, that you literally own Aaron Rodgers in the sense that you own a slave, own a dog, or own a car. What you own is his stat line. "I own Aaron Rodgers" is just a short-hand way of saying "In this one particular magic football league, Aaron Rodgers's stat line gets credited to me." There is literally nothing about theories of labor involved in this.
comfortably numb
Footballguy
Seriously Joe
Is it time for you to get out of the profiting off of football business? I'm gonna guess deep down this also has caused some internal conflict for you. You profit from a sport that is violent, leads to severe injuries and suicide of its players. The sport allows domestic abusers to play it's sport. Those same players are on your website being analyzed for their value on the field.
If just calling yourself owner of a fantasy football team causes any internal strife i would have to say being involved in supporting football in any way period is probably where one could start in terms drawing the line...let alone profiting from this sport.
Is it time for you to get out of the profiting off of football business? I'm gonna guess deep down this also has caused some internal conflict for you. You profit from a sport that is violent, leads to severe injuries and suicide of its players. The sport allows domestic abusers to play it's sport. Those same players are on your website being analyzed for their value on the field.
If just calling yourself owner of a fantasy football team causes any internal strife i would have to say being involved in supporting football in any way period is probably where one could start in terms drawing the line...let alone profiting from this sport.
rockaction
Footballguy
You say potato...
Nah, seriously, I get where you're coming from, get the logic, and yet cringe whenever I say to somebody, in a serious conversation "I own him in League X." Part of that is my outlook on the employer/manager/employee relationship and part is the short-hand you mention, only as far as short-hand goes, I consider "I own him" short-hand for "I play rotisserie leagues at my age..." which ought be kept on the DL when one really thinks about it.
rockaction
Footballguy
And plus, he's likely black, and proudly announcing you own blacks is just a freaking no-no in the States.
Last edited by a moderator:
Doug B
Footballguy
Depends on context and whether or not anyone listening cares. Maybe not yelling it out at Times Square, or shouting it down to a player running into the tunnel while at a pro game. But shooting the bull at Joe's Bar & Grill while sharing pitchers with a half-dozen FF buddies? How can anyone -- especially a distant stranger to the proceedings hundreds of miles from earshot -- even so much as feign offense?
rockaction
Footballguy
As I said this was a weird issue with me, so it goes. I would take no offense, nor would I dare to complain, but it sounds wrong to my ears given its historical context and meaning in our country. I'd try to avoid anything that brings up that stain.
Doug B
Footballguy
I will say that "I own so-and-so ..." is not a common turn of the phrase for my FF group. "I have ..." or "I got ..." are much more spoken out loud -- "I got Davante Adams and the Packer D going tonight."
Is it simply the words "own" and "owner" that offend (mildly or otherwise)? Nothing more of less than that?
Is it simply the words "own" and "owner" that offend (mildly or otherwise)? Nothing more of less than that?
rockaction
Footballguy
I can speak for my own knocking knees. I'm scared to death of any perception of me as sympathetic about human ownership, especially ownership done by in-group/out-group distinctions. And especially in the context of our nation's history and the demographic composition of your average fantasy or real team.
Doug B
Footballguy
This might be the root of any disagreement on this issue:
Flatly and IMHO: talking about owning a fantasy team does not convey that you are sympathetic to human ownership. The perception you mention essentially does not happen (statistically, that is -- there always that small group of outliers).
rockaction
Footballguy
This I think we can agree upon. I'm taking into account the proverbial eggshell plaintiff when it comes to sensitivity here. But I think deep down, I'm troubled yet not offended nor complaining about it. I think ownership just strikes me as an uncomfortable concept regardless of how low the stakes and how colloquial the language.
It's weird on my end.
pantherclub
Footballguy
7 people agree with FBG that we shouldnt use the term? Godalmighty. Who are the 7?
rockaction
Footballguy
Totally agreeing with avoidance of use is not the same, even remotely, as saying you shouldn't use the term.
I'm one of them. I think you're probably familiar -- if you follow that sort of thing -- with most of my social stances and PSF work. This is an outlier for me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
I imagine these are the same people who cry themselves to sleep at night because public bathrooms still have the words "men" and "women" on the doors.
pantherclub
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
No. I disagree with the transgender agenda, properly stated in modern terms.I imagine these are the same people who cry themselves to sleep at night because public bathrooms still have the words "men" and "women" on the doors.
rockaction
Footballguy
Dead serious. Saying you agree with FBG not using is not the same as saying that people should avoid it.
rockaction
Footballguy
I find it stupid that, given the day, one can willy-nilly declare one's self a woman and use the men's restroom. But certain things are thought about and decided upon at a level we don't necessarily get input on.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
It's 6. I voted that one but meant the last one in the list. I have reading comprehension issues.
pantherclub
Footballguy
No dude, we most certainly get to give our input on this one. This is monumentally stupid and I think Joe just does this type of stuff to drum up posts on a thread. This is a new thing for him and this site.
pantherclub
Footballguy
I always knew you were an uber elite lib.It's 6. I voted that one but meant the last one in the list. I have reading comprehension issues.
- Status
Similar threads
