• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

The process of changing rules

trujaysfan

trujaysfan

Well-known member
Okay... it seams we may need to take a step back and come up with a better process for determining the options available:

Right now we have 1 poster/owner giving us 2 options that do not necessarily reflect the possibilities available for each rule. This is in no way disrespect to ME but his options do not reflect the entire scope of possible changes to each rule.

I am proposing we alter how we look at rules in general:

step 1: vote to determine if a rule needs to be reviewed.
Step 2: submit ideas for alterations to the rules and discuss them for a week
step 3: the 2 that have the most leverage are voted between with majority winning(not majority as in 11 yes but just majority of the votes cast)
Step 4(last step): the alternative that was voted in step 3 goes up against the original rule and at this point the 11 vote yes rule applies.

This way we can get every owners opinion about if a rule needs to be discussed, how we alter the rule, and if we follow through with the change.
 
I think we can almost skip step 1 as an official step. But if we're going to propose a rule change maybe someone can just start a thread with their concerns. Then we can discuss options... then start a poll with the best options and go from there. There should always be a "leave rule as is" option.
 
This format will require well over a month to change any rule. We can't even get all of our owners to vote on a single issue within a weeks time, and we're trying to make the format for changing a rule longer and more drawn out? This will basically ensure that nothing gets changed, ever, or if it does, it will be decided by far fewer votes than a simpler voting system would see it decided by.

The KISS principle has to apply to any format we use, or else we're ****ed.
 
We have plenty of time to make changes... we are not taking all the options into account right now as the only two options to vote on are the 2 put forth by the person that starts a thread.

Discussion about rules needs to take place before anything is put forward for a vote. This is not an overly cumbersome governance structure, its simply what is needed in a pay league that is as competitive as ours.
 
trujaysfan said:
We have plenty of time to make changes... we are not taking all the options into account right now as the only two options to vote on are the 2 put forth by the person that starts a thread.
Click to expand...

Aka, the only 2 that have ever been discussed about the issue over the last 2 years. I didn't just dream up the 2 options.

Discussion about rules needs to take place before anything is put forward for a vote. This is not an overly cumbersome governance structure, its simply what is needed in a pay league that is as competitive as ours.
Click to expand...

Your process will take a month or more (closer to 2 months, if we're expecting any sort of real majority coming out of the numerous votes per issue) and more often than not lead to people losing interest in the issue altogether, which will lead to a lot of 6-3 votes and the like.
 
i for one applaud mindzeye for getting the ball rolling on this. we have fallen into a habit of merely talking about issues and never making a decision one way or another leaving things unsettled. its time we make some decisions on these things and if we don't do it soon we will probably still be talking about them next season.
while on the topic of rule changes we really need to have a vote on the undrafted players being in the draft or free to sign. again something we discussed a lot the last couple season but have never made any vote or decision on.
 
Calm down skippy, we need a vote (which will take about 2 weeks) just to determine if we can have a 1 week discussion period on the matter. Then we pick the two most popular ideas from that discussion period (How? I don't know either) and vote on them (yep, another 2-3 weeks). Then we take the 3rd most popular choice from the discussion period (or **** it, why not another week long discussion period?) and run it up against the winner of the previous vote.

What an abortion.
 
Yes who needs governance in a league like this... lets just do something.

So far we have TJF saying to slow down and take our time making these decisions... it's only January and next season won't start until what october?
HP: agreeing that more discussion is needed
GH: against
ME: very very opposed to it

How about we get a few more opinions on this?
 
Last edited:
The flaw in your plan is that it's too complicated and will require too much time and effort for a single rule change. Few rule changes will require several different subproposals which need to be voted on, etc. Typically it will be a choice between A and B, to be resolved by a simple vote.

I think something like a major scoring change might require a more drawn out process, but those sorts of changes won't be the norm and so we shouldn't need UN subcommittees to do things 99% of the time.
 
I don't think its too complicated at all.

At a certain date every year we can have suggestions for rule changes from people who have them. Then it can be decided which of those to address. Then you can take a couple weeks to come up with potential solutions to the issues and vote on it. Everything can easily happen within the span of the offseason.

There really isn't any rush. May as well do it right.

It actually prevents the problem we have had which is discussing rules over and over again and nothing ever coming of it. That is the worse alternative IMO.
 
leafman101 said:
I don't think its too complicated at all.
Click to expand...

It's, at minimum, a 6 week process he's proposing.

There really isn't any rush. May as well do it right.
Click to expand...

It's far more likely to lead to more apathy with the process and less inclusion.

It actually prevents the problem we have had which is discussing rules over and over again and nothing ever coming of it.
Click to expand...

So does a much simpler process with a simpler voting structure. The issue we've had in the past is 1) no structure for changing a rule 2) not voting on anything, just endless discussion without resolution. Something closer to what I've put forward would also solve those same problems, and do it in significantly less time with much higher levels of participation by more owners due to the compressed, simple format.

That is the worse alternative IMO.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but the answer isn't a multi month, multi vote process.
 
Don't have to take this method as it is. Just something in general. For example, every year at the draft (or whenever) propose a rule change, and vote on if it should be discussed. And if it is discuss if for a week and vote. Doesn't have to be overly complicated or take two months to accomplish.

But there should be a mechanism other than a lot of complaining until someone decides to start a vote. Thats not really an ideal way to address rules.
 
But there should be a mechanism other than a lot of complaining until someone decides to start a vote. Thats not really an ideal way to address rules.
Click to expand...

I disagree at least slightly. Someone identifies a problem, it gets argued about and then the issue gets put to a vote once the multiple aspects of the arguments have been fleshed out.

Seems pretty simple with the likelihood of high inclusion and participation. The larger issue imo is determining how many votes should carry an issue, which is why that was my first poll I put forward.
 
Another option is to just poll the group to see the prevailing opinion, and if there is enough interest (i.e. half the GM's) leaning toward a change, a formal vote could be taken. Would also allow for discussion on said poll.

I'm in no hurry to make a bunch of changes that won't come into effect for a couple of months. Also don't want to vote on anything/everything.
 
I'm not saying that what i put down needs to be the way it is done... I just feel we need a much better structure (or a structure in general) for making rule changes.
 
I like TJF's suggestion. As HP said, we don't even really need to use step 1. We can simply start a thread regarding an issue to determine whether there's enough support for a vote. Discuss it and try to boil it down to the 2 or 3 best options. Then have the vote. It doesn't have to be overly complicated or take months.
 
To be clear I only agreed with part of this idea.

We need to have a short(ish) discussion on exactly what options we're going to vote on. Like in the trade deadline vote. ME only presented 2 options to vote on... once we started discussing it there seemed to be at least one more option that people seemed to be very interested in.

I don't think we need a week to discuss if we're even going to consider a change, then a week to discuss the options then 2 weeks of voting.... and so on.
 
axlsalinger said:
I like TJF's suggestion. As HP said, we don't even really need to use step 1. We can simply start a thread regarding an issue to determine whether there's enough support for a vote. Discuss it and try to boil it down to the 2 or 3 best options. Then have the vote. It doesn't have to be overly complicated or take months.
Click to expand...

Very much this.
 
the only problem i see with having multiple options is it because increasingly difficult to come to a consensus as the vote may be split by two simular options and we could up staying with the status quo even though the majority might be voting for a change
 
We would definitely have to careful about the choices provided. But there are times when there are 3 or even 4 viable options, it doesn't necessarily make sense to limit ourselves to 2 for every issue. Although in general I agree we should try to keep it to 2 options when possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top