Trade Veto Rule Change?

[AR_Six]

Lox proposed in the last thread (which was deleted for some reason) that in light of a couple of recent trades this might be something we could do next season. Essentially, if there is unanimous or near-unanimous view that a trade is totally unfair and should be vetoed, then it will be. In other words, generally user to user trades are fine but if something's way out of line then the league can say no dice.

Yay? Nay?

[trapper]

Commissioners discretion to put to vote or not.

Too many trades to all be discussed here. Takes way to much time (believe me i know!)Around the deadline I was reviewing like 10 per day. If its questionable then the comish posts to get input for a 24 hour window.

[Aaron_11]

I dunno, I think we should trust people to make their own trades. But I am pretty biased and am still pretty chapped about my trade that was veto'd so that is my opinion.

[AR_Six]

I don't think your trade was vetoed so much as reneged on and we gave the new user a break. From what I gather that was one time only.

Main problem I can see with this is that certain users may use this to carry out some vendetta against some other user, i.e. certain people are probably going to vote to veto any trade that benefits Justin.

But given the Crosby deal and the NSH one I think there has to be some mechanism which is why it sounds like a good idea to me. Lox said he has seen this happen before in other leagues where teams get looted and the league gets unbalanced from users coming and going and I believe him, worth doing if this is going to last a few seasons.

[trapper]

Maybe just be a better GM and then there's no issue. You said yourself you were trying to get Weiss from him and he wouldn't do it

Yet I pulled Weiss, cammy and iggy from him. Tag also made two good trades with him. Sounds like its a management issue then.

So really based on that argument those no issue your just upset cuz i got a player you were unable to acquire.

WIN - trapper

[slybomb]

The real NHL is unbalanced and there is a salary cap. Usually there is some logic behind trades on both sides. I think all user to user trades should be approved and all user to cpu trades should be vetoed.

[AR_Six]

So really based on that argument those no issue your just upset cuz i got a player you were unable to acquire.

Actually I'm just proposing a rule change and asking what people think. Well, actually, Lox proposed it, so I'm just putting it up for discussion.

But by all means keep crapping up the thread with that stuff because it really makes you look super mature.

[Gary83]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

I don't think your trade was vetoed so much as reneged on and we gave the new user a break. From what I gather that was one time only.

Main problem I can see with this is that certain users may use this to carry out some vendetta against some other user, i.e. certain people are probably going to vote to veto any trade that benefits Justin.

But given the Crosby deal and the NSH one I think there has to be some mechanism which is why it sounds like a good idea to me. Lox said he has seen this happen before in other leagues where teams get looted and the league gets unbalanced from users coming and going and I believe him, worth doing if this is going to last a few seasons.

So then we just don't implement this rule, lol.

[trapper]

Lol Gary's got a point

[Aaron_11]

One issue I have is you guys are saying maybe he should be a better GM but he was brand new... Kinda like Columbus, which I was attacked by you two on the trade. Not super fair in my opinion. But i do agree that GM's don't need the league to hold their hand, I just don't like that the one i made was aided but the one you guys did weren't.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by Gary83

So then we just don't implement this rule, lol.

I'm just pointing out the downside. The upside is that crazy deals don't go through. I think the upside outweighs the down, because even if one or two users say they're vetoing a trade out of spite they won't be enough to get clear unanimous vote on it.

[trapper]

Ya Aaron got screwed a little bit on that one. I'm not gonna argue there at all. I accept that it wasn't the right move and I apologize to you for that.

Compensatory pick for being a bad comish? Lol jks

[slybomb]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

I'm just pointing out the downside. The upside is that crazy deals don't go through. I think the upside outweighs the down, because even if one or two users say they're vetoing a trade out of spite they won't be enough to get clear unanimous vote on it.

What is there, like 6 of us that post on here? Who is voting? Just leave it how it is or let the commish veto any trade he/she deems unfair. It is just a video game. Not that big of deal if there is a bit of a lopsided trade.

[trapper]

Amen sister....Lol or brother!

[dill93]

Ya apparently i got robbed before i joined the league sucks because my best player is james Neal and he's 84 lol

[CategoricSteam0]

I say all trades made from user to user should be user to user topics. If one trade seems to be too lopsided it should be reviewed and discussed. Anything else should be allowed. I also think user to CPU trades should be allowed cuz the computer only allows trades that are even or in their favor a little bit in the first place.

[3 Justin 3]

Originally Posted by dill93

Ya apparently i got robbed before i joined the league sucks because my best player is james Neal and he's 84 lol

You're team was very good. Good goaltending, solid defense, 3 extremely solid lines on offense.

Then the new GM took over, basically gave away the entire team for garbage and then left because of "too much drama".

I have my own theories, but I'd prefer Gary and Trapper not to write essay long posts on why I am an idiot, so my theories shall stay hidden.

[trapper]

Haha okay captain quits a lot

Essay done!

[trapper]

Your theories correct I assumed comish to stack my team.

Muahahahahah I win!

[Gary83]

I never called you an idiot.

I'll be nice and leave it at that!