|
View Poll Results: $80k-$100k | |||
0-20% | 2 | 11.76% | |
20-40% | 4 | 23.53% | |
40-60% | 8 | 47.06% | |
60-80% | 2 | 11.76% | |
80-100% | 1 | 5.88% | |
Voters: 17. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
[ QUOTE ]
God damn you can't read at all, can you? Try rule 3 again. [/ QUOTE ] You do understand what a collusive action means right? That means the owners agree to try to benefit one team. Not that one owner agrees to a trade that everyone else thinks only benefit one team. Rule 3 does not encompass an unbalanced trade.. it encompasses a collusive one. Main Entry: colˇluˇsion Listen to the pronunciation of collusion Pronunciation: \kə-ˈlü-zhən\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin collusion-, collusio, from colludere Date: 14th century : secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose You are being a real jerk here. You come and ask advice.. everyone disagrees with you.. and you get personal about things. I'm sorry you don't like the trade but there is no grounds for veto at all. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
[ QUOTE ]
God damn you can't read at all, can you? Try rule 3 again. [/ QUOTE ] If you already knew, just [censored] veto it and stfu. If you want our opinion, it's quite clear: your rule is ridiculous because nobody can really KNOW a trade won't benefit a team, especially when it is in a case like this where it's pretty close. The guy seems to be trying to make a trade to improve his team, it seems fine to me (and what's to stop him from doing the trade and pikcing up Jeff Garcia anyway?) |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
OP,
Why did you bother asking this here? You're going to do what you want, anyway. It's pretty obvious that you just wanted a bunch of people to validate your opinon. It didn't happen and now you're being a dick. Just go tell your buddies "It's my way or the highway" and be the guy who can never find anyone to join another fantasy football league because he's a control freak. *edit* Also, as far as rule 3 goes, your reading comprehension sucks. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
[ QUOTE ]
God damn you can't read at all, can you? Try rule 3 again. [/ QUOTE ] I can't believe you've played fantasy football for any amount of time and get worked up over a trade like this. Is it perfect? No of course not, but to suggest that this should be vetoed as collusion is really stupid. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
This trade is fine get over it.
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
[ QUOTE ]
3. No owner will engage in any action that might be deemed to be collusive (two or more owners agreeing to make moves that benefit one team, but not the other). [/ QUOTE ] FYP. For the few people who've offered constructive opinions on both sides, sorry, but there are just too many opinionated retards who can't read to try to get a gauge of intelligent opinion here, which was the point of the thread. Sorry. Of course I consider the trade to be against the rules, and I already cast a veto vote. I wanted people *who could read the rules and apply them* to give their opinions, but of course 80% of the thread is just geniuses who can't read and "know how it should be done in fantasy football" based on divine inspiration or something. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
[ QUOTE ]
This trade is fine get over it. [/ QUOTE ] |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 3. No owner will engage in any action that might be deemed to be collusive (two or more owners agreeing to make moves that benefit one team, but not the other). [/ QUOTE ] FYP. For the few people who've offered constructive opinions on both sides, sorry, but there are just too many opinionated retards who can't read to try to get a gauge of intelligent opinion here, which was the point of the thread. Sorry. [/ QUOTE ] You really aren't wanting to veto it because it MIGHT be collusive are you? OP, 100% honest question -- Do you think this trade involves collusion (cheating, reread my definition if you have to)? |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
I believe this trade, in any identical league with different players, is against the rules because of its lopsidedness. I also believe that in this instance it is flat out collusion, but I certainly wouldn't be asking you guys for help determining *that*, since you don't know either person or the way the league has played out.
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
I LOL at threads like this where the OP asks a question, then everyone tells OP the answer and OP is like WTF you're all wrong.
Why ask the question when you already made up your mind? Get out of your convoluted fantasy world that your brain lives in. |
|
|