View Poll Results: Should 8 votes be required to pass a rule change?

Voters
9. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    7 77.78%
  • No

    2 22.22%
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Purgatory
    Posts
    16,014

    Vote on Rule Change: Tie Votes

    Should 8 votes be required to pass a rule change?

    Here is the current rule:

    Voting, Rule Changes, and Disputes

    Rule changes can be proposed by owners during the off-season. For a rule change to pass it must receive a majority of votes from the owners in the league, but rule changes that specifically remove one of the league’s basic foundations are not allowed. This league will always be a dynasty, contract, and salary cap league. Modifications may be made, but owners cannot vote to eliminate those basic characteristics from the league. In cases of a tie when voting the commissioner’s vote counts as two votes to break the tie.
    The league has always been run with the understanding that a tie means we don't have a majority so the rule doesn't change. The rule doesn't read that way. If there is a tie my vote is supposed to count as 2 and if I'm in favor of a change the rule passes. I don't like the way this is worded and it should be changed to reflect the way the league has been run.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    29,318
    A majority vote should be required, not eight votes. Situations may arise where a number less than eight is the majority. Why codify a vote count of eight? Instead of just a majority?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Purgatory
    Posts
    16,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Xulu Bak View Post
    A majority vote should be required, not eight votes. Situations may arise where a number less than eight is the majority. Why codify a vote count of eight? Instead of just a majority?
    8 is a league majority so that's why I used that. When would anything less than 8 a majority in our league?
    Last edited by MonkeyBones; 06-09-2014 at 05:02 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Down Under
    Posts
    6,844
    I'm in Fiji with no access to a computer but some net access on phone, I would vote majority

    Sent from my GT-I9506 using Tapatalk
    "It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man" - Jack Handy

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    29,318
    Quote Originally Posted by MonkeyBones View Post
    8 is a league majority so that's why I used that. When would anything less than 8 a majority in our league?
    Absentee owners. Voting out an owner. Abstaining owners.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Houston TX
    Posts
    429
    Yea, its probably safe to use the term majority as opposed to a defined number - that way if something unlikely about the league changes i.e. number of owned teams the rules don't have to be adjusted for it.
    - Hanbin

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Purgatory
    Posts
    16,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Xulu Bak View Post
    Absentee owners. Voting out an owner. Abstaining owners.
    Voting out an owner is a legit concern. The wording of the rule will say majority instead of 8 owners.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Purgatory
    Posts
    16,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Dre View Post
    I'm in Fiji with no access to a computer but some net access on phone, I would vote majority

    Sent from my GT-I9506 using Tapatalk
    I'm counting this as a yes vote. This one is done.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  






Fantasy Football Rankings


Part of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.