Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Please join me in eliminating this word from the Shark Pool/Board


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Andy Dufresne said:

To me, the phrase "owning the rights" has a much different connotation as it refers to the contract status, not the individual. 

Not one person thinks “owning” a fantasy football player has anything to do with slavery.....you gotta be ####### kidding me....

 

Edited by Stinkin Ref
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I paid for the team and drafted the rights to OWN Mostert's lack of stats for the year.  Obviously we don't "own" a player, but we do own the rights to his*** stats.  I guess you could say I manage the statistics since I'm not actually managing Mostert's practices or game usage.

***his - Technically we shouldn't use "his" since a female kicked for Vandy and is dynasty eligible. 

Honestly your time would be better spent actually doing something for others rather than starting a language crusade (can I say crusade or is that offensive?)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Andy Dufresne said:

Apparently there are a few. Is that opinion really that threatening to you? 

Stupidity over running society is threatening to me.  There are people of the opinion that masks are a conspiracy too.  Is that threatening to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting post, and I support it.

On a similar topic... In the back of my mind I’ve been pondering to need for the NFL to stop allowing the trade of players. I understand that the teams are only trading contracts, but it never comes across that way in the media. I would still support the NFL to continue allowing the trade of draft picks to allow teams to move up in the draft.

I know that most NFL fans don’t want to see the game changed (change is difficult), but I would support changing the game in this way. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gold Fox said:

Interesting post, and I support it.

On a similar topic... In the back of my mind I’ve been pondering to need for the NFL to stop allowing the trade of players. I understand that the teams are only trading contracts, but it never comes across that way in the media. I would still support the NFL to continue allowing the trade of draft picks to allow teams to move up in the draft.

I know that most NFL fans don’t want to see the game changed (change is difficult), but I would support changing the game in this way. 

:lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BassNBrew said:

Stupidity over running society is threatening to me.  There are people of the opinion that masks are a conspiracy too.  Is that threatening to you?

No. But non sequiturs are.

Anyway...I'm surprised by the very vehement reaction to a pretty well stated opinion is all. 

To me, it has less to do with slavery (although it can't be avoided completely when talking about a league of 70% black players) than it does my believing that NO employer should view ANY employee as something they "own".

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Andy Dufresne said:

No. But non sequiturs are.

Anyway...I'm surprised by the very vehement reaction to a pretty well stated opinion is all. 

To me, it has less to do with slavery (although it can't be avoided completely when talking about a league of 70% black players) than it does my believing that NO employer should view ANY employee as something they "own".

The real "owners" own the franchise, the logo, and the rights to get a city to buy them a stadium.  If I "own" shares of Tesla is that offensive or do we need to check the employees demographics first to see if anyone should be offended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's okay to say "Yeah, I'm not going to do that" without saying "You're stupid for thinking that".

On the scale of "Things that cause outrage" this ranks pretty low. But if the guy wants to throw it out there for discussion there are better ways to go about it.

Bob McNair used a pretty well known idiom of "inmates running the prison" and lots of people lost their ####. "Everyone" should have known that he didn't really think he was a warden and the players were inmates - but they didn't.

Some people thought it was offensive. I thought they should have known what he meant and given him some grace but at the same time I saw their point.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BassNBrew said:

The real "owners" own the franchise, the logo, and the rights to get a city to buy them a stadium.  If I "own" shares of Tesla is that offensive or do we need to check the employees demographics first to see if anyone should be offended.

You don't see a difference between saying someone owns the non-person assets of a business (or more simply. the business itself) and saying one owns the people employed by the business?

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Andy Dufresne said:

You don't see a difference between saying someone owns the non-person assets of a business (or more simply. the business itself) and saying one owns the people employed by the business?

You convinced me...I will now say I own the pretend rights to the count the statistical output (or lack thereof) of Mostert.  Now can we focus on something important.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, QuizGuy66 said:

As for the topic at hand using the phrase "have" instead seems a reasonable thing to do as a semantic choice and better frame.

Though I refuse to drop the term rooster under any circumstances.

-QG

Better edit your posts in the subscriber contest thread discussing ownership percentage to have percentage.

  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally agree MOP. Subtle things like this that hide in plain sight feed the belief (justified in my opinion) that there is an unwillingness to recognize the larger societal problem and take steps as individual citizens to engender change. I get that it's 'FANTASY' football, but it seems disingenuous to expect people to respect context when the words and the circumstances involved can so easily be misconstrued as being analogous to such sensitive history and issues.

I appreciate that MOP approached this as a dialogue and 'food for thought' as opposed to trying to polarize the community with a right vs wrong argument. In that spirit I'd just add that the owner/own terms seem innocuous and this thread could seem like exaggerated PC-ness... but if you're not in the demographic that these terms might offend, maybe take a second and try to imagine if it would if you were. 

It's such a small thing... even if it barely moves the needle... isn't it worth doing so?

Some great alt language ideas on here.

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably should lose the phrases "buy low" and "sell high"... both connote ownership.

"Stud" is another problem word... I know its meant as a compliment.  However, on some levels, this can be considered a comparison to an animal.

3 minutes ago, Adso said:

Totally agree MOP. Subtle things like this that hide in plain sight feed the belief (justified in my opinion) that there is an unwillingness to recognize the larger societal problem and take steps as individual citizens to engender change. I get that it's 'FANTASY' football, but it seems disingenuous to expect people to respect context when the words and the circumstances involved can so easily be misconstrued as being analogous to such sensitive history and issues.

I appreciate that MOP approached this as a dialogue and 'food for thought' as opposed to trying to polarize the community with a right vs wrong argument. In that spirit I'd just add that the owner/own terms seem innocuous and this thread could seem like exaggerated PC-ness... but if you're not in the demographic that these terms might offend, maybe take a second and try to imagine if it would if you were. 

It's such a small thing... even if it barely moves the needle... isn't it worth doing so?

Some great alt language ideas on here.

Poppycock!

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Adso said:

Totally agree MOP. Subtle things like this that hide in plain sight feed the belief (justified in my opinion) that there is an unwillingness to recognize the larger societal problem and take steps as individual citizens to engender change. I get that it's 'FANTASY' football, but it seems disingenuous to expect people to respect context when the words and the circumstances involved can so easily be misconstrued as being analogous to such sensitive history and issues.

I appreciate that MOP approached this as a dialogue and 'food for thought' as opposed to trying to polarize the community with a right vs wrong argument. In that spirit I'd just add that the owner/own terms seem innocuous and this thread could seem like exaggerated PC-ness... but if you're not in the demographic that these terms might offend, maybe take a second and try to imagine if it would if you were. 

It's such a small thing... even if it barely moves the needle... isn't it worth doing so?

Some great alt language ideas on here.

Are you calling for the elimination of stock ownership too?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Adso said:

Totally agree MOP. Subtle things like this that hide in plain sight feed the belief (justified in my opinion) that there is an unwillingness to recognize the larger societal problem and take steps as individual citizens to engender change. I get that it's 'FANTASY' football, but it seems disingenuous to expect people to respect context when the words and the circumstances involved can so easily be misconstrued as being analogous to such sensitive history and issues.

I appreciate that MOP approached this as a dialogue and 'food for thought' as opposed to trying to polarize the community with a right vs wrong argument. In that spirit I'd just add that the owner/own terms seem innocuous and this thread could seem like exaggerated PC-ness... but if you're not in the demographic that these terms might offend, maybe take a second and try to imagine if it would if you were. 

It's such a small thing... even if it barely moves the needle... isn't it worth doing so?

Some great alt language ideas on here.

Good point...I'll ask that demographic if they are more concerned about housing, education, and job opportunities or use of the term owner in fantasy football.  I suspect I'll get laughed at, but I could be wrong and the people might want this pressing issue included in Biden's 100 day to do list.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BassNBrew said:

Good point...I'll ask that demographic if they are more concerned about housing, education, and job opportunities or use of the term owner in fantasy football.  I suspect I'll get laughed at, but I could be wrong and the people might want this pressing issue included in Biden's 100 day to do list.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that it topped a rank ordered list... but, I'm sure you knew that.

Appreciate your opinions on fantasy football topics though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, BassNBrew said:

Good point...I'll ask that demographic if they are more concerned about housing, education, and job opportunities or use of the term owner in fantasy football.  I suspect I'll get laughed at, but I could be wrong and the people might want this pressing issue included in Biden's 100 day to do list.

Perhaps people can be concerned about lots of things and modify their behavior in minor ways in an attempt to be better?  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BassNBrew said:

Any suggestions how I submit a waiver claim when the tab says "For Owners"

MFL should change that tab to 'For GM's'.  MOP has this one correct.  Bump this thread in five years and a whole lot of people will be on board with this thought process.

The word "stud" to describe a player is also one I've phased out over the last few years.  It's outdated and can be replaced easily with many other words.  Ditto with 'Trade Block'.  Your mileage may vary.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stompin' Tom Connors said:

Schtick or not, I like the awareness and appreciate the effort.

"Roster" might be another word to consider - "I am sick of rostering RoJo because of Bruce Arians' ridiculous backfield decisions;" or "I rostered Koo, and there is no need for me to roster another kicker, ever."

'The rojo owner in my league...' is more succinct than 'The guy in my league who rosters rojo.. '. The plural is worse. 'rojo owners are worried...' vs. 'people who roster rojo are worried...'

I'm inclined to side with better literary phrasing. But I do like the idea to mix things up a bit; so I will be using it. Replacement tho, maybe not.

Edited by cloppbeast
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol. The people screaming “snowflake” are always the ones actually threatened and being snowflakes, it’s incredible. But I’m sure a large percentage of it is shtick that I’d rather not indulge. 
 

As for the topic, it’s a worthy one and I remember it created lots of conversation when Joe brought it up a couple years back. The reactions have not changed, from reading the thread.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Adso said:

Totally agree MOP. Subtle things like this that hide in plain sight feed the belief (justified in my opinion) that there is an unwillingness to recognize the larger societal problem and take steps as individual citizens to engender change. I get that it's 'FANTASY' football, but it seems disingenuous to expect people to respect context when the words and the circumstances involved can so easily be misconstrued as being analogous to such sensitive history and issues.

I appreciate that MOP approached this as a dialogue and 'food for thought' as opposed to trying to polarize the community with a right vs wrong argument. In that spirit I'd just add that the owner/own terms seem innocuous and this thread could seem like exaggerated PC-ness... but if you're not in the demographic that these terms might offend, maybe take a second and try to imagine if it would if you were. 

It's such a small thing... even if it barely moves the needle... isn't it worth doing so?

Some great alt language ideas on here.

Others might not want to take part in the Tom Foolery of deeming offensive something insignificant and misconstrued. One might ask, 'when will it end?'

Language is what separates us from apes, quite literally. The most intelligent animals have in common the ability to communicate: Crows, Dolphins, whales, humans. The more complicated the language, the more advanced the species.

You say it's such a small thing here, and I agree. Every single year there's more and more small things added to the list. A threshold exists where preserving language supersedes appeasement, because it's starting to get silly. I think we are getting damn close.

Edited by cloppbeast
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are seemingly an infinite amount of things that offend people these days. I couldn't imagine how on edge I would be in life if I was offended by a fantasy football term. It seems like that would be pretty low on a long long list. But I also know how being a victim can be a comfortable place sometimes. I've been there.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cloppbeast said:

I'm inclined to side with better literary phrasing. 

If literary locution is your partial predilection, then ferret no further than the alliterative astonishment of: "The Rojo rosterer." 

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Different angle but I'm trying to think of a scenario where it's absolutely necessary (for reading comprehension purposes) to state that I own a player regardless of what word I use. Most of the time it's irrelevant or redundant.

If I post in a thread about Volkswagen Golfs, I probably either have one or am considering getting one. Does it matter which it is?

I personally find the phrase "going forward" far more annoying because you know, we're often concerned about going backwards.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DropKick said:

It's tacky because its an awkward phrase.  However, we "buy", "sell" and "trade" and collectively treat these guys like commodities.  The lexicon of fantasy football is full of such jargon.  Operative word is "fantasy".  We know we don't literally own these players any more than a hotel on Boardwalk.

Excellent point, I definitely like to think of it in terms of stocks, buy-sell-trade, the difference in Monopoly though is pretty obvious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Andy Dufresne said:

Actually, I agree with this.

I won't judge people in the slightest if they use the term.

But using it doesn't feel right to me and I have consciously attempted to not use the term for a couple years now.

This is close to where I stand on it as well. I know folks are going to use it. 

People say things in public all the time, you hear things you prefer not to hear sometimes. Do I chastise everyone that says a filthy cuss word?...of course not. I'm just saying that I'm going to make a conscious effort not to do it any more. It doesn't feel right to me either. 

And I'm with you that I won't judge anyone and won't draw attention to it outside of this thread. I didn't know there was a movement about this very topic several years back. I might have been on one of my Crusades and was away for a bit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Stinkin Ref said:

Not one person thinks “owning” a fantasy football player has anything to do with slavery.....you gotta be ####### kidding me....

 

 

4 hours ago, BassNBrew said:

I paid for the team and drafted the rights to OWN Mostert's lack of stats for the year.  Obviously we don't "own" a player, but we do own the rights to his*** stats.  I guess you could say I manage the statistics since I'm not actually managing Mostert's practices or game usage.

***his - Technically we shouldn't use "his" since a female kicked for Vandy and is dynasty eligible. 

Honestly your time would be better spent actually doing something for others rather than starting a language crusade (can I say crusade or is that offensive?)

I have a lot of respect for both of you, will understand and it's a personal choice if you want to use the word or not. I'm trying to bring awareness to it, please don't be upset with me, I welcome open discussion and other's POV. No one should have issues with you speaking out either. You make good points. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same thing has occurred to me before as well regarding the usage of the term "own" in the context of fantasy football; however, it is merely a reference to owning shares of that player in your individual league, and I do not believe anyone is intending any reference akin to slave ownership or owning another human being in any negative sense, so I have reconciled the use of that term for myself.  We "buy" and "sell" and "trade" players in fantasy football.  Those references seem acceptable to me within the context of fantasy football.  Nevertheless, we each must use the terms we are most comfortable with. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...