Pred's Fantasy Football Forums - View Single Post

Nittany Dodgers · March 12th, 2008, 06:23 PM

I have a few arguments in favor of a "majority of teams in the league" stance. First, I believe that in most cases, all teams should be heard from on all issues. I'm sure there are certain circumstances in which teams feel they should abstain, and those are a vast minority of situations. Most of the time, we are talking about a personal preference for one choice or another. I think all teams should be active in making those types of decisions.

If we only require a majority of teams voting, to what extent are we going to allow teams not to vote? What about the off season, where most issues are decided, and some teams are reluctant to frequent the boards? Should the important off season decisions be decided only by the 6-10 teams that spend significant time on the boards? When teams stop showing up, stop paying attention, and stop voting, they become disillusioned from the league, and we get lazy owners.

Also, if we are only going with a majority of votes cast, what's the minimum number of votes we'll allow to pass something? As the rules state, anyone can bring an issue to vote. Let's take this to the logical extreme, if there are only five people paying attention at some point in the off season, are we going to allow a rule change pass on a 3-2 vote?

We can make carve outs for all these circumstances, but I think it is just most simple to answer all the questions requiring a majority of teams in the league. Close vote, and someone not voting? Swing them to your side.

Lastly, in a situation like Smitty abandoning the league, I think the bigger issue should be addressing that fact first. If his absense is preventing something from being done, then I think that is a drastic enough situation to compel us to get the absentee owner to the boards, or to replace him before going too far down the road.

March 12th, 2008, 06:23 PM	#2
Nittany Dodgers Feeding Frenzy Moderator Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Maplewood, MN Posts: 5,204	Re: What does majority rule mean? I have a few arguments in favor of a "majority of teams in the league" stance. First, I believe that in most cases, all teams should be heard from on all issues. I'm sure there are certain circumstances in which teams feel they should abstain, and those are a vast minority of situations. Most of the time, we are talking about a personal preference for one choice or another. I think all teams should be active in making those types of decisions. If we only require a majority of teams voting, to what extent are we going to allow teams not to vote? What about the off season, where most issues are decided, and some teams are reluctant to frequent the boards? Should the important off season decisions be decided only by the 6-10 teams that spend significant time on the boards? When teams stop showing up, stop paying attention, and stop voting, they become disillusioned from the league, and we get lazy owners. Also, if we are only going with a majority of votes cast, what's the minimum number of votes we'll allow to pass something? As the rules state, anyone can bring an issue to vote. Let's take this to the logical extreme, if there are only five people paying attention at some point in the off season, are we going to allow a rule change pass on a 3-2 vote? We can make carve outs for all these circumstances, but I think it is just most simple to answer all the questions requiring a majority of teams in the league. Close vote, and someone not voting? Swing them to your side. Lastly, in a situation like Smitty abandoning the league, I think the bigger issue should be addressing that fact first. If his absense is preventing something from being done, then I think that is a drastic enough situation to compel us to get the absentee owner to the boards, or to replace him before going too far down the road.