What Percentage Of Vetos Would You Need To Nix A Deal? (1 Viewer)

[the lone star]

What Percentage Of Vetos (from the entire league) Would You Need To Nix A Deal? Assume you are in a league where trades are put up to a vote.

Scenario 1: 12 Team League
Scenario 2: 14 Team League
Scenario 3: 16 Team League

Please keep in mind that you HAVE to pick a number. Saying that you wouldn't play in a league with this kind of set-up isn't an option here.

 

[Interseptopus]

guess who's back...

back again....

 

[Hooper31]

I wouldn't be in a league where owners got to vote on trades. This is why a commissioner position exists, to deal with out of the ordinary situations. Bad trades are fine. Tanking and obviously stacking another team are not. You're allowing other owners to throw in their two cents on trades that rational people can disagree on. That's just lame. 

 

[the lone star]

I wouldn't be in a league where owners got to vote on trades. This is why a commissioner position exists, to deal with out of the ordinary situations. Bad trades are fine. Tanking and obviously stacking another team are not. You're allowing other owners to throw in their two cents on trades that rational people can disagree on. That's just lame. 

Well, I do agree with you, but here, I am asking if you HAD to pick a number, then what would the number be?

 

[matuski]

.10223%

 

[Arodin]

I wouldn't be in a league where owners got to vote on trades. This is why a commissioner position exists, to deal with out of the ordinary situations. Bad trades are fine. Tanking and obviously stacking another team are not. You're allowing other owners to throw in their two cents on trades that rational people can disagree on. That's just lame. 

Well, I do agree with you, but here, I am asking if you HAD to pick a number, then what would the number be?

101% clearly.  I agree with everything Hooper said.  Your poll is missing an important option,

 

[Birdie048]

Also, would not participate in such a league, but if there was a collusion charge brought up, I would require 67% of those not involved in the trade in order to revoke it.  So in a 12 team league, 7 of the remaining 10 would have to vote that it was collusion to revoke the deal. 

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I didn't pick a number.  I wouldn't play in a league with this kind of set-up.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Yeah.  Leaguemates shouldn't be able to veto trades.

 

[daveR]

100% of the teams NOT involved.

 

[Deamon]

What Percentage Of Vetos (from the entire league) Would You Need To Nix A Deal? Assume you are in a league where trades are put up to a vote.

Scenario 1: 12 Team League
Scenario 2: 14 Team League
Scenario 3: 16 Team League 

Please keep in mind that you HAVE to pick a number. Saying that you wouldn't play in a league with this kind of set-up isn't an option here.

What is the purpose of these "scenarios"????

 

 

[garlicduck]

I was in a league where trades were voted and some owners voted against all trades that didn't involve them - it had nothing to do with collusion or fairness of the trade, they just didn't want other teams to improve.  Anyway, it's stupid and it slows down the process.  I will never be in a league that vetoes trades again.  Also, how many times have the majority of people thought a trade was unfair or one-side for one team only to look back a year later and to see that was not the case.

 

[wakelawyer]

Look who's back. Did you end up getting banned over at DLF?

 

[Jello_Biafra]

Look who's back. Did you end up getting banned over at DLF?

He did. Took long enough.

 

[voiceofunreason]

101% clearly.  I agree with everything Hooper said.  Your poll is missing an important option,

Yeah, an opt out.

 

[the lone star]

100% of the teams NOT involved.

I like that.

 

[the lone star]

What is the purpose of these "scenarios"????

 

Different numbers/minimums.

 

[the lone star]

Yeah, an opt out.

But that would defeat the purpose of the poll...

 

[Hooper31]

Remember, there are no stupid questions. Only the stupid people that ask them. 

 

[Deamon]

Different numbers/minimums.

But the poll question is a percentage... it wouldn't matter how many people were in the league.  And you also have the same poll for all 3 'scenarios' so not sure what putting those even means. 

These threads need to stop.  You were doing so well for a while.

 

[DropKick]

I wouldn't play in a league with this kind of set-up.

 

[ShamrockPride]

Half + 1. Majority rules.

 

[the lone star]

But the poll question is a percentage... it wouldn't matter how many people were in the league.  And you also have the same poll for all 3 'scenarios' so not sure what putting those even means. 

These threads need to stop.  You were doing so well for a while.

75% of 12 teams =/= 75% of 16 teams. Looking at it in terms of how big the league is will give you insight as to what the minimum number of required votes is. That's important. Usually, the bigger the population, the lower you'd go with the percentage.

You can always ignore man. If you haven't tried that out already, then please do. I'd greatly appreciate it.

 

[the lone star]

Remember, there are no stupid questions. Only the stupid people that ask them. 

Thanks for the constructive input. Again, this is just me asking what the preference would be if you did play with such settings. I get the point that people want to say that they would never play under such a setting, but that's not answering the question. That's worse than sitting on the fence, tbh.

 

[the lone star]

Also, would not participate in such a league, but if there was a collusion charge brought up, I would require 67% of those not involved in the trade in order to revoke it.  So in a 12 team league, 7 of the remaining 10 would have to vote that it was collusion to revoke the deal. 

Thanks, I appreciate the insight.