Build a Franchise (Season 8) Discussion Thread- Announcement on page 87

[Context]

Yea prop #1 definitely had more than 16 “yes” votes which leads me to doubt that everyone saw Bish’s post that it had to be casted by pm only. Sucks it didn’t pass. I believe most of us wanted it.

Bish clarified that it wouldn’t qualify with the amended version GMs wanted. We were voting on Proposal 1 as it was written (without any amendments or revisions).

As constituted there was a clear loophole that could be exploited. As such, GMs who voted YES with the suggested amendment, likely changed their mind once realizing an amendment wasn’t possible this rule submission period.

From the outset I was pretty certain you can’t propose a rule and an amendment during the same period. The burden rests with the rule author to propose it in it’s complete form to be voted on.

there were 16 straight yes votes. Also in the very first message it was not clear that if you
"did not" pm your vote- then your vote would not count.

Many GMs dont check the thread everyday...and the first notice was 8 days ago. How many times have we jumped into a thread and not read all of the pages...

And just for the record I PM'd mine.

[SOUL]

I didnt see I had to PM it till yesterday

[2010]

Yea prop #1 definitely had more than 16 “yes” votes which leads me to doubt that everyone saw Bish’s post that it had to be casted by pm only. Sucks it didn’t pass. I believe most of us wanted it.

Bish clarified that it wouldn’t qualify with the amended version GMs wanted. We were voting on Proposal 1 as it was written (without any amendments or revisions).

As constituted there was a clear loophole that could be exploited. As such, GMs who voted YES with the suggested amendment, likely changed their mind once realizing an amendment wasn’t possible this rule submission period.

From the outset I was pretty certain you can’t propose a rule and an amendment during the same period. The burden rests with the rule author to propose it in it’s complete form to be voted on.

there were 16 straight yes votes. Also in the very first message it was not clear that if you
"did not" pm your vote- then your vote would not count.

Many GMs dont check the thread everyday...and the first notice was 8 days ago. How many times have we jumped into a thread and not read all of the pages...

And just for the record I PM'd mine.

Yeah, I can see that as a possibility (missing that we had to pm our vote). But to be fair, bish posted multiple reminders and it’s in GMs best interests to tap in at least a few times per week to go through the discussion thread (especially when announcements are made).

Me personally, I’m glad the proposals (as authored) didn’t pass. Especially, Prop 1 cuz the loophole would end up being exploited. A GM should just resubmit it next year during the rule submission period with the loophole closed.

I’d rather wait another year to have all concerns for a newly proposed rule addressed and made fool-proof, rather then letting something pass that can have a loophole exploited (even if it’s for the short-term).

[DaGawd]

Watch on YouTube

[bishnykfan]

Now that voting is over and results have been posted I will say my two cents.

First off, on prop 1, while there were parts of the proposal that I didn't love there was compromise on the proposers part and I think it was a fair and well written rule change proposal. Obviously, a few fellow GMs had issues with it, seeing a loophole that I and I'm guessing the proposers did not originally see. I don't always read everything in the discussion thread but I had a feeling that this rule change would pass regardless of the issue that was brought up after it was originally posted.

As for the actual voting goes, we had 14 people PM me with a yes vote. We had multiple people PM me with a no vote. We also had many GM's not PM me at all. One GM sent me a list of all the people who voted yes in the discussion thread. I didn't go through it all but I know that there were a few of those who did not cast an official vote. I have no idea whether that was because they were unsure of the rule, they changed their mind or they were inactive in the past 5 days.

Either way, all official acts are done through PM in this league. I don't ever look at the discussion thread as a place for GMs to submit trades, free agent offers, draft picks or anything else. I believe that it was pretty clear from the beginning that the first announcement was for discussion and that all votes needed to be officially PM'd to me. It is the same way we do everything here. GMs can say whatever they want in the discussion thread, but nothing is official in there. Not saying this happened here, but GMs often use the discussion thread to say things that they don't truly mean to spread misinformation. I put many reminders up to vote over the past few days. I also extended the voting period by two additional days from when I originally said it would end to try and give everyone an opportunity to get online and vote. Inactivity during the season is not a huge deal. GMs need to be active during the offseason during the draft, FA, etc. If people missed the vote because they aren't online then that is a bad look for the overall health of the league.

I do believe that this rule change could have passed. I tried to get it across the finish line but at some point we need to move on. I have no issue, in fact I'd encourage it to be tweaked a bit and resubmitted next offseason.

On prop 2, it was a culmination of many ideas sent to me and a LOT of back and forth. I did not believe that this rule change would pass as it was written as it was to ambiguous. I think that the final proposal ended up being incomplete and needs more discussion and collaboration to get something remotely passable. As always, I encourage the proposer to work with other GMs to try and get a workable proposal that the majority of the league can get behind.

[Context]

Bish clarified that it wouldn’t qualify with the amended version GMs wanted. We were voting on Proposal 1 as it was written (without any amendments or revisions).

As constituted there was a clear loophole that could be exploited. As such, GMs who voted YES with the suggested amendment, likely changed their mind once realizing an amendment wasn’t possible this rule submission period.

From the outset I was pretty certain you can’t propose a rule and an amendment during the same period. The burden rests with the rule author to propose it in it’s complete form to be voted on.

there were 16 straight yes votes. Also in the very first message it was not clear that if you
"did not" pm your vote- then your vote would not count.

Many GMs dont check the thread everyday...and the first notice was 8 days ago. How many times have we jumped into a thread and not read all of the pages...

And just for the record I PM'd mine.

Yeah, I can see that as a possibility (missing that we had to pm our vote). But to be fair, bish posted multiple reminders and it’s in GMs best interests to tap in at least a few times per week to go through the discussion thread (especially when announcements are made).

Me personally, I’m glad the proposals (as authored) didn’t pass. Especially, Prop 1 cuz the loophole would end up being exploited. A GM should just resubmit it next year during the rule submission period with the loophole closed.

I’d rather wait another year to have all concerns for a newly proposed rule addressed and made fool-proof, rather then letting something pass that can have a loophole exploited (even if it’s for the short-term).

Again...there are some GMs who havent checked in for months...I wasnt going to say a word about this but you pointed it out.
it's very common for a gm to miss a post- especially if they saw the first one(its only been 8 days-thats not a long time). Most gm's do not spend enough time in these threads all you have to do is look at the "thread-poster-post-count".

There were 16 clear yes votes. You voted no and no- ofcourse you were happy but 16 gm's was looking forward to adding spice to the 2nd round picks. And since we're on the topic. It's a small rule for a 2nd round pick.

I dont think its fair at all...

[2010]

there were 16 straight yes votes. Also in the very first message it was not clear that if you
"did not" pm your vote- then your vote would not count.

Many GMs dont check the thread everyday...and the first notice was 8 days ago. How many times have we jumped into a thread and not read all of the pages...

And just for the record I PM'd mine.

Yeah, I can see that as a possibility (missing that we had to pm our vote). But to be fair, bish posted multiple reminders and it’s in GMs best interests to tap in at least a few times per week to go through the discussion thread (especially when announcements are made).

Me personally, I’m glad the proposals (as authored) didn’t pass. Especially, Prop 1 cuz the loophole would end up being exploited. A GM should just resubmit it next year during the rule submission period with the loophole closed.

I’d rather wait another year to have all concerns for a newly proposed rule addressed and made fool-proof, rather then letting something pass that can have a loophole exploited (even if it’s for the short-term).

Again...there are some GMs who havent checked in for months...I wasnt going to say a word about this but you pointed it out.
it's very common for a gm to miss a post- especially if they saw the first one. Most gm's do not spend enough time in these threads all you have to do is look at the "thread-poster-post-count".

There were 16 clear yes votes. You voted no and no- ofcourse you were happy but 16 gm's was looking forward to adding spice to the 2nd round picks. And since we're on the topic. It's a small rule for a 2nd round pick.

I dont think its fair at all...

There are always gonna be an absentee GM or two that go M.I.A. and when bish holds his periodical roll calls, that’s the appropriate time to address/replace them for prolonged inactivity.

As for more active GMs potentially missing a post or an announcement, that’s on them. I don’t think it’s fair to allude to the PM voting process being unfair. Especially considering multiple announcements were made reiterating that the official vote count would need to be done via PM.

Me voting No/No has nothing to do with it. For the health and betterment of the league we should all prefer that rule proposals pass a complete risk/reward vetting process that closes loopholes or clear paths to exploitation.

I see no reason to rush the ushering of a rule in when a valid concern is raised by a few GMs. GMs can re-author and resubmit with tweaks and I’m sure it’ll pass next offseason.

[Context]

you guys love to debate anything...im done with all of that...
do what you want...

[2010]

you guys love to debate anything...im done with all of that...
do what you want...

Spoiler:

You talking about “you guys love to debate” yet you the one who quoted me with a rebuttal when I didn’t even quote you. I quoted NewEra. So you talking about yourself, Keefe D.

[Context]

you guys love to debate anything...im done with all of that...
do what you want...

Spoiler:

You talking about “you guys love to debate” yet you the one who quoted me with a rebuttal when I didn’t even quote you. I quoted NewEra. So you talking about yourself, Keefe D.

I quoted you because you were incorrect. If I wanted to debate with YOU -I would go back and forth until you went to sleep. You must have forgot! But I got better things to do. You and 3 people got your wish ***clap clap***...

[KnicksGadfly]

Just want to say that "wait til next offseason" doesn't really make things better, considering how this decision came about...inactivity and probably misunderstandings. It's not like there was a vigorous debate or something and people voted no...the "no" vote came about because of a dumb reason in my book. Like yes, the proposal wasn't perfect, but we could have passed it this time and then made an amendment next year. That would have been my preference.

I think one other problem is that an inactive vote = no. Based on my assessment, it feels like there were a few "no"s already guaranteed in this scenario.

So yea...I've only been here for a year and I feel like I've gotten a sense of who is active in this league and who really doesn't give a crap. If this is the consequence of people not being active, should we not spend some time this offseason and get rid of some of the GMs who aren't participating...or not participating to a certain level? Or is it just misunderstanding? I'm just kind of annoyed. As bish alluded to, maybe the league isn't healthy.

[Capn'O]

As always, any 2nd rounders I own are available

Edit: aaaaaand sold!

[Fat]

I didn’t send in any votes so automatic No’s from me. Why put more food on bish plate

[HerSports85]

Yeah I thought for sure prop 1 was going to pass.

[Manhattan Project]

While I never put any stock into summer league, it's nice to see Strawther go out there and produce numbers when he's supposed to. Da Silva I still have no idea how I was able to snatch him at 29, dudes just impressive out there, gonna be in the league a long time. Djurisic I'm still intrigued long term, but got hurt and might not play again in the summer league. Even Klintman showed he can contribute, though he won't see any real minutes this year.

[HerSports85]

Next offseason I’m adding a little razzle dazzle and proposing team options lol

[ribs]

Next offseason I’m adding a little razzle dazzle and proposing team options lol

Bish I would like to sign ****** ********* to a $5/3 year deal, 3rd year being only partially guaranteed which becomes fully guaranteed if he’s not waived by July 22nd 2027, using my non tax payer mid-level exemption.

[3toheadmelo]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Fat]

[Capn'O]

Am I imagining things or was FA supposed to start tomorrow? It looks like it's not doing that.