# Opinions on friendly dispute that is getting nasty [merged]



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 4, 2010)

I won't tell you what side I'm on because I'm eager for opinions.

Fantasy Football amongst friends

Because one player forgot to click a button scores were not calculated properly. There is no dispute of the players intent, but because he failed to click one button many of his points weren't counted. Clearly just a technicality. He would have won $450(not big money so its a principle thing).

Now throughout the year this would happen and the "Commish" would correct but at mid season he became annoyed and declared even though its a 2 minute thing for him he would not do anymore and if you fail to cick the right button, even though your intent is obvious yu would lose the points.

Not an issue until last week when everything is on he line, when this guy forgot. So he lost $450, and the commish as a result won $131 as did 2 others that would not have received if not for the technicality.

Opinions? Should he lose out, and others profit because of a minor mistake? Again these are friends doing this for many years


----------



## DaveNV (Jan 4, 2010)

Sounds like he knew what he was supposed to do, and knew the consequences.  So yeah, in this case, he loses.  A $450 loss is an expensive object lesson.  I'll bet next season he'll remember to do it right.

Dave


----------



## ace2000 (Jan 4, 2010)

MOXJO7282 said:


> He would have won $450(not big money so its a principle thing).


 
LOL - not big money???  What do you normally gamble?

:hysterical:


----------



## tlwmkw (Jan 4, 2010)

I don't do fantasy football so my opinion may not count for much but if the offender had had his error pointed out in the past and didn't correct the mistake then he should lose out.  To many of us $450 is a sizable chunk of change and this guy should realize that he needs to follow proper procedure if he expects to get his $$$.  Is there proof that he really did make the picks that he said he made?  There may be some trust issues here too.

When you've received some more opinions please let us know which player you were in this.

tlwmkw


----------



## gmarine (Jan 4, 2010)

I've been a commissioner in a FF league for the last 11 years so I think I know exactly what your talking about. In our league if someone forgets to update their lineup and/or insert a position player it is on them and no scores are edited after the games have started.

Its a tough situation but rules are rules and mistakes are made and players have to be accountable.


----------



## Nancy (Jan 4, 2010)

I think he should lose lose the $450.  He was warned.  It's not fair to others that do things correctly.  

By the way, which one are you?

nancy


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 4, 2010)

OK I'm add my position now. 

First off it wasn't me who lost. In fact I was one that took 4th instead of 5th and profited an extra $131.

I'm not accepting the extra money, but the commish who placed 5th as a result is keeing his. He would have received $0 otherwise and I would have received an $131, instead of $262.

To me it goes back to the spirit of fairness, what is right and wrong, and the intent of the person. 

I personally don't feel right taking the extra money under the circumtances so I'm definitely giving him my share.


----------



## Mosca (Jan 4, 2010)

These are friends who have been doing this for years, but not much longer. No matter what happens, the friendship is going to get blown up over chump change. 

And maybe it was getting to be on shaky ground anyhow, if everyone was willing to let it blow up over said chump change. 

If I was the guy who lost $450, I would decide whether I wanted to continue such a friendship. If I was the commissioner and the other two guys, I would decide whether or not the friendship was worth the $130. If it wasn't, then nothing lost, keep the money... and if I was the other guy, I would know how to read THOSE cards.

Edit: I posted after you, Joe, and it seems that you value the friendship and the commish doesn't. At least everyone knows where things lie now. All in all, if I were the guy who lost the $450 I would consider it a cheap lesson in who my friends are; many times that lesson comes much more dearly and is harder to figure out, this time it is made crystal clear.


----------



## tlwmkw (Jan 4, 2010)

I think you could take the money and feel fine, but if it destroys a friendship then it's not worth it.  The loser needs to follow the rules and maybe this will make him do so in future.  It's an awkward situation all around but as someone else said "rules are rules" and if he didn't follow them then that's his loss.  I don't think coaches playing in the Super Bowl would forgive some minor error committed by the other team just to be fair.

JMHO

tlwmkw


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 4, 2010)

The system automatically updates unless you make changes and then you manually update your roster. He made clear changes that are well documented. After which he was supposed to do the manual update. I'm not sure why the system can't do that as it does if no changes are made, but it doesn't.

The kid then got distracted by his family and forget the last step, but again the changes were made for all to see so there is no disputing that. Believe me if there were, I'd be saying "tough luck".

So he calls 1/2 hr in saying he forgot and commish says sorry they don't count.  

That's just wrong. This was not a rule going into the season, and was utilaterally imposed by commish even though several said no. I'm not sure why he thinks he has the right impose law without vote, so now its working it way through the group to see what is the right solution.

So far 2 have sided with giving back and 2 are against, not surprisingly the two benefactors of the error.


----------



## ace2000 (Jan 4, 2010)

You're still leaving this up to interpretation... you'd have to explain it a little further to make a valid judgement. 

Let's say a person changed their lineup and forgot to click on the 'Set Lineup' button... without the button being clicked, how does anyone know whether that person actually tried to change their lineup or was just lazy?

Actually the biggest offender was the commisioner who made the changes and then stopped mid-season. He or she shouldn't have tampered at all, in my opinion...


----------



## Stricky (Jan 4, 2010)

The commish drew the line at mid season. Everyone was playing by the same rules. 

Now if I was the winner I would give the guy a case of beer or something out of good faith.


----------



## Talent312 (Jan 4, 2010)

I'd invite the guy to join me in a locker-room and bring guns.  <kidding>

Actually, I'd tell him this... Life isn't fair.
How do we know this? Well, think about it...
If life was fair, then this is what fairness was considered to be.
So, yeah, life isn't fair.

Then he'll invite you to a locker-room.


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 4, 2010)

ace2000 said:


> You're still leaving this up to interpretation... you'd have to explain it a little further to make a valid judgement.
> 
> Let's say a person changed their lineup and forgot to click on the 'Set Lineup' button... without the button being clicked, how does anyone know whether that person actually tried to change their lineup or was just lazy?
> 
> Actually the biggest offender was the commisioner who made the changes and then stopped mid-season. He or she shouldn't have tampered at all, in my opinion...



In this league you have to drop a player to add, so you can't have any duplication. The changes were well documented right on the home page with all to see when they occurred.  I'm confirming the guy made a simple honest mistake and it going to cost him a little money and some friendships.

And to be honest I don't feel the same way about the whole thing now because of how petty I think this has become.

Even if were strangers, I know personally I wouldn't want, nor would I accept winning under these circumstances.


----------



## Elan (Jan 4, 2010)

What about carrying forward the payouts into next year's league?  Or instituting a tie breaker based on next week's games?  Or doing a random draw of some kind?  At least then, provided everyone agrees to the solution, there's some element of randomness or luck involved in the outcome, and perhaps the friendships will remain intact.


----------



## Stefa (Jan 4, 2010)

I would have let the guy have the $450, but I'm not a very competitive person.  If everyone knew what his intent was that would be enough for me.  

You could also argue that the commish shouldn't be able to unilaterally change the rules.  My DH used to run a fantasy league and he would always let the players have a say before changing the rules.  (He used to do it manually before they were all online, so he put in a lot of work on others' behalf and didn't complain about it.)

I think if you want to remain friends you just have to accept it as a difference of opinion and try to get past it.  Although I agree with you, I can see an argument for the other side.


----------



## pjrose (Jan 4, 2010)

Forget once, no penalty.  Forget twice, maybe no penalty.  Forget more than twice?  Too bad.  That's if it's a serious game where the money is important.

However, I don't think I'd be playing for real money with friends.  So since these (or some of them) were friends, I'd also have turned back my winning.

Next time I would play only with friends and only with fake money or pennies.


----------



## l2trade (Jan 4, 2010)

it is not fun to play games with someone who says 'wait, wait, i forgot to...' after the fact, especially when they have been previously warned many times before.  nobody likes sore losers.  all games involve elements of skill, luck and risk.  when one player screws up, that is just part of the lucky breaks for the remaining players.  there is no woulda, coulda, shoulda...  i say this guy should lose the $450 if he didn't play by the clear rules.  intent only counts before it is too late to fix the mistake.  any player could say 'oops, but you knew i really meant to ____'.

that said, i once lost a friend over what i thought was a friendly poker game.  i was invited over to play with another closer knit group of his work friends i did not know too well.  this was part of their regular monthly house tournaments.  since it was at his house, he decided to invite me.  of course, as my luck would have it, i won big that night (~$250), landed in top place my first time out.  some of these guys took themselves really seriously and boasted confidently like they were some kind of texas hold'em pros.  i'm just a lucky amateur and everyone knew it.  everyone seemed cool about my win that night and we all seemed to have fun, no big deal.  however, i guess i jeopardized my friend's standing in his group of friends.  they blamed him for inviting a newbie who walked away with 'their' top prize.  

lesson learned:  i don't gamble against friends.  for me, i don't think it is worth jeopardizing a friendship.  then again, there's nothing like getting paid $250 to learn a friend you have isn't really a good friend after all.


----------



## caribbeansun (Jan 5, 2010)

Does this not spell it out?  

The Commish set the rule when he personally didn't benefit from it other than he didn't have to do someone else's work for them.  It's a coincidence that he benefits now so I don't think holding it against him is reasonable given the mid-season declaration.  

It's obvious that you objected to this new rule but didn't act at the time.

If people objected to the rule they should have spoken up at mid-season and/or elected a new Commish (if possible) and/or had someone volunteer to spend their own time doing what the person who would benefit from the actions didn't do.

Do you appreciate that by not accepting the extra money it will likely to you losing some friends as well as you are essentially making a public judgment about the other 4 winners?



MOXJO7282 said:


> Now throughout the year this would happen and the "Commish" would correct but at mid season he became annoyed and declared even though its a 2 minute thing for him he would not do anymore and if you fail to cick the right button, even though your intent is obvious yu would lose the points.


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 5, 2010)

Well this small sampling appears to say he should be SOL, which does surprise me.

So most apparently would not have a problem taking money they didn't earn with their effort, but through someone else's trivial mistake. 

To me this is "ill gotten gains" that I would not want to be associated with.

I thought at least a few more would say "I wouldn't take the money".

I already told him he's getting my extra $131. The biggest thing with this guy is he feels he was sold out for a few $$ by some of his closest friends. To be honest I would feel the same way.


----------



## Talent312 (Jan 5, 2010)

MOXJO7282 said:


> The biggest thing with this guy is he feels he was sold out for a few $$ by some of his closest friends. To be honest I would feel the same way.



How about this POV:
I am the one who created this mess.
I blew it, and have no one else to blame but myself.
I might ask, but I won't expect the $$ nor risk friendships over my own stupid mistake.


"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-- Soren Kierkegaard


----------



## mwwich (Jan 5, 2010)

Why not just have everyone donate it to charity and start fresh next year with everyone knowing the rules??  Consider it a lesson learned...


----------



## l2trade (Jan 5, 2010)

MOXJO7282 said:


> Well this small sampling appears to say he should be SOL, which does surprise me.
> 
> So most apparently would not have a problem taking money they didn't earn with their effort, but through someone else's trivial mistake.
> 
> ...



I don't see where folks are saying to take money not earned with their effort.  This is gambling - nobody 'earns' anything from effort, they simply win or lose.  

As for handing over $131 of your winnings, I see no problem with that if it makes you feel good.  However, I would personally view such a gesture as a gift to save a friendship and not returning an 'ill gotten gain'.  I would not share that POV with my friend to avoid further disagreement.  I also would ask my friend not to make me pick sides.  I'd say, 'Here dude, here's your $131 from me.  Please keep me out of it.'  Otherwise you risk getting caught worse in the middle.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Jan 5, 2010)

Yee, as I read this thread, I wondered where this do-over attitude and "lost" friendship position in life start.

Maybe where everyone gets a trophy or ribbon for being at a sporting team.
Life is a competition. Rules are rules. You all were playing for a winning a "pool" of money. I won a "free drink or ice cream" at the resort yesterday playing on my $1 Bingo card. No one else at my table won. No, I did not share my free drink. Today and tomorrow I might not win. It is life.

JMHO,


----------



## Tom52 (Jan 5, 2010)

*here is what I would suggest*

If not already mentioned in an earlier post, (I did not ready everything), this is what I would suggest.

to save friendships I would try to get an agreement from all in the group that either won money or would have won money under both scenarios, that the money this year be split evenly amongst all.  The $450 loser would get something, and the guy on the fence that would have gotten nothing, but profited from the mistake still gets something.

I would then agree that for next year, it is understood and agreed by all parties that there will be no exceptions to the rules, and anyone who does not like it can still be friends but not participate.

If the original $450 loser didn't like that, he is not much of a friend IMHO


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 5, 2010)

I guess I'm in the minority on this.  My sports mentality brings up the analogy of the famous pine tar game between the Yanks and Royals in the 80s.

For those that don't know about it or recall, George Brett star of the Royals hit a late inning home run to put Royals on top. The Yankees manager had noticed Brett was using more pine tar than rules allowed, so after the home run was hit he complained the umps, and by the letter of the rule they called Brett out and negated the home run. What ensured was one of the funniest clips in baseball history when Brett went ballistic and charged the field.

Later in the week the commish ruled in the spirit of the game, that because the pine tar had no bearing on the home runit would be re-instated and the Royals wound up winning the game.

Did he break a rule, yes. Did it impact the game, no. therefoe to maintain the intgrity of the game the on the field ruling was reversed. That's how i see this.

Who those that said a rules a rule, would you have ruled Brett out?


----------



## Talent312 (Jan 5, 2010)

MOXJO7282 said:


> ... Later in the week the commish ruled in the spirit of the game, that because the pine tar had no bearing on the home run, it would be reinstated and the Royals wound up winning the game. Who those that said a rule's a rule, would you have ruled Brett out?



I would've said... Since its baseball, we need to do something to make the game seem interesting, so we'll put trees, sand traps and water hazards in the outfield, and Brett can use all the pine tar he wants.


----------



## TUGBrian (Jan 5, 2010)

for these instances, it depends on when the commish (or some other owners) were notified by the individual that he made the mistake.

ie if he realized it as the first games were starting, send an email or posted on the board or called someone and said "hey i forgot to click this...can you do it for me"...then i see no reason not to do it.

If he however came to everyone after the games were completed and said "oh i forgot to start john doe who happened to get 50 points that game"..well im sorry..but thats his own fault.

If the comish doesnt want to perform his duties as comish...then you should pick another one.

making changes and running the league is why you are the commish in the first place, if its "annoying" to you...give the role to someone else.


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 5, 2010)

TUGBrian said:


> for these instances, it depends on when the commish (or some other owners) were notified by the individual that he made the mistake.
> 
> ie if he realized it as the first games were starting, send an email or posted on the board or called someone and said "hey i forgot to click this...can you do it for me"...then i see no reason not to do it.
> 
> ...



He realized 1/2 hr after the 1pm deadline.  To recap, his moves are well documented for all to see, and are undisputed. He just didn't go to another screen to upload changes into the scoring system, so it was a technicality that made his total incorrect. So bascially they are saying you are SOL becaus of the technicality. I strongly disagree with that.

Now there talking about binding arbitration as silly as it sounds. I guess they know a teacher that does it for like $40

It think that actually sounds good but really think the guy that lost out would win in court. Contracts are usually intepreted on intent and outcome. If his intent was undisputed and the outcome would have been accurate if it not for the technicality. I believe an arbitrator would see the intent and the outcome and rule in favor of the guy that messed up. I can't see how they would allow someone to benefit who would not otherwise benefit if it not for technicality.

Any attorneys want to chime in on that?


----------



## gmarine (Jan 5, 2010)

The guy made a mistake. He should man up and accept it. Mistakes have happened in my league and nobody ever complains about them. Nobody in my league would even accept an offer to give them money for a win they didnt earn. And if they made a mistake that cost them the points, they didnt earn the win.
The pine tar issue isnt a good example because the pine tar didnt affect the outcome of the at bat. Now if the bat was corked, you can be sure the home run wouldnt have counted. 

Technicalities affect sports outcomes all the time. From calling a timeout that a basketball team doesnt have to a golfer incorrectly marking his score card to a football player not getting off the field fast enough during a substitution. There are examples in every sport. They didnt intend to make the mistake. But they did and have to accept the outcome.


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 5, 2010)

*Small Claims question for TUG Legal Eagles*

I'm hopefully for some legal advice about a friendly dispute that may be headed for Small Claims Court or binding arbitration for about $450.

Fantasy Football dispute.

One owner made a mistake and didn't click the right set of buttons to submit his lineup on time. There is no dispute about the players he selected and if it weren't for the technical error he made he would have won 1st place. Everyone acknowledges that.

Before halftime of the first games about 1/2 late he realized his mistake and called the commish to rectify and commish said no way your SOL. 

To note there was a rule that the commish mandated at about mid-season that said you would lose points if made technical errors even if your intent is clear because he didn't want to waste his time rectifiying after the fact although that is easily done with no chance of fraud the way the system works. At the time this person who lost out argued vehemently about the ruling but ultimately let it die.

So the guy that made the mistake ultimately does very well with His new players and would have won it he wasn't a 1/2 hr late requesting the update.

As a result of his error he lost $450 and 3 individuals including myself won $131 than we shouldn't have,which one person winning money when he would have gotten $0

My thoughts are I would expect the courts to rule on intent and outcome, and who was damaged and who benefited as a result of the ruling.  I cannot imagine they would review the info and say sorry a "rule is a rule" and not side with the guy whose intent was there but made a trivial mistake that had no bearing on the outcome.

I'd love to hear from anyone, especially those with an educated or even better, a professional opinion on the matter.


----------



## TUGBrian (Jan 5, 2010)

Eh, if this is truly a league of friends....and there is obvious proof that the individual made the changes PRIOR to the games starting...then its a no brainer as far as im concerned.


----------



## jme (Jan 5, 2010)

*Illegal advice*

I have some ILLEGAL advice for you, since I'm neither a lawyer nor a player of fantasy football.

first, answer these two questions:

(1)What is your perceived purpose of fantasy football in the first place?

(2) Exactly what does it mean to each of you to be a member of a family, or a family of friends?

Now, the answer you seek should begin to emerge.  Call off the week's activities in question, and chalk it up to a good-natured practice session. 

Why? Two reasons: First, it's the RIGHT thing to do (but what's that got to do with the legal profession?)
AND, Secondly, because what goes around comes around, and it may happen to each one of you at some point. You stated that you each "KNEW" the mistake wasn't an attempt to do something fishy, so in your hearts it will be an easy resolution to accept, or perhaps not. If not, do a month's mission work or volunteer work and get a life.  The survival of relationships is at stake.


----------



## gmarine (Jan 5, 2010)

It would be ruled against the person who made the mistake very quickly.  
Remember, court is the place where technicalities count the most. Rule broken, mistake made, you lose.

If this is causing a big problem among friends then maybe everyone should sit down and talk about it. Then maybe take the entire money pool and do something with it that benefits everyone. Maybe all the guys get together, go out for a nice steak and some drinks and enjoy the money together and move on. Its too small an amount to lose friends over.


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 5, 2010)

gmarine said:


> It would be ruled against the person who made the mistake very quickly.
> Remember, court is the place where technicalities count the most. Rule broken, mistake made, you lose.



That is not true at all, at least not in my experience. The law is often times not black and white and is often not intepreted that way.


----------



## Stefa (Jan 5, 2010)

Joe

Before taking legal action, both you and the young man who lost out on the winnings need to sit down and ask yourselves what you really want.   A court case will end the friendships for sure.  Is this about the money or is it about having some authority (the court) validate your side?   If you really want to go to court that is your right, but, if it is only about the money, I would say it isn't worth it.

It is obvious you are close to the young man who lost out and I hope you aren't pushing him into something he will regret later.  Although the outcome seems unfair, it is also clear that the rule was not made with the intent of penalizing any specific player.  No one intended this dispute to happen.  

I think the young man needs a cooling off period before any drastic measures are undertaken.


----------



## l2trade (Jan 5, 2010)

Do courts settle family & friend fantasy football gambling disputes in the State of NY.  Sorry, I'm not familiar with the gambling laws in this jurisdiction...  Judge Judy, anyone?

This is such a small amount of money to stress out friendships over.  You should all sit down, put away the beer and work it out one way or another.  The last thing your friendships need is to continue letting this get blown way out of proportion.  Everybody can have an opinion about who wins.  I shared mine already, but it doesn't really matter now does it.  I don't know all the details.  Why involve outsiders in your personal close circle of friends disputes.  All that matters is for the actual parties involved to calm down and work it out as friends.  Then, don't ever gamble with each other again or else you might end up on...  Jerry Springer, anyone?


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 5, 2010)

i2TRADE brings up great point that probably makes my original question moot. I don't believe a small claims court would even hear the case and in fact we might even get in some trouble for announcing our little gambling adventure.


I wonder if that holds true with an Arbitrator?


----------



## tlwmkw (Jan 5, 2010)

Joe,

If you go to court, or use an arbitrator, it could easily go either way.  There is always case law that can be used to support any angle on any case.  That is why lawyers need huge armies of assistants to find an angle that supports their view point.  Look at the supreme court, they always have dissenting opinions- you are seeing that here on TUG too- each judge or lawyer will view this differently.  There is no cut and dried answer.  This is why the legal system is always the last resort in these type of cases because no one will be happy even after a judgement is made.  I think if it is getting ugly the best answer is that everyone gets their cash back and that week is not counted- that way no one benefits and no one really loses.

tlwmkw


----------



## djs (Jan 5, 2010)

Hey, I fully intended to join this league of yours, and I assure you had I known you and about the league....and had you allowed me to join I would have kicked all your butts and won first place all by myself.  Should I get any money?
Of course not, no matter what one intends to do they need to actually do it.  It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, but people need to get their ducks in order if they want to win.


----------



## gmarine (Jan 5, 2010)

MOXJO7282 said:


> That is not true at all, at least not in my experience. The law is often times not black and white and is often not intepreted that way.



Well, having been in law enforcement for a long time I disagree. But lets not go down that road and stick to Fantasy Football.

Your league scores are tabulated automatically according to the league settings and league rules, correct ?  
If this is true then it really is very simple. Who does the league page show as the winner ?


----------



## Talent312 (Jan 6, 2010)

MOXJO7282 said:


> That is not true at all, at least not in my experience. The law is often times not black and white and is often not intepreted that way.



But Judge, he intended to name me in his will, the fact that it wasn't witnessed is only a technicality.
Judge: Your claim to be an heir is dismissed, technically.

Messing up and asking others to grant a waiver is reasonable. 
Being told no, we're not going to start making _ad hoc_ exceptions, is reasonable.
Whining and trashing friendss for not getting your way is juvenile behavior.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jan 6, 2010)

I personally feel you're sending this young man the wrong message by trying to make excuses for him.  It was the young mans fault for the "technicallity" that ocurred.  If it were my son I would ask him who's fault it was for not entering the information correctly.  If he started talking about the "commish" I would stop him in his tracks and tell him that is irrelevant.  He made the mistake and he needs to own up to it.  Stop making excuses for him.  Our society has completely lost any acceptance of personal responsibility and is always looking to shift the blame and build complicated cases to deflect where the blame really lies.  IMO you're not Relaying the right message to this young man.


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 6, 2010)

TUGBrian said:


> Eh, if this is truly a league of friends....and there is obvious proof that the individual made the changes PRIOR to the games starting...then its a no brainer as far as im concerned.



These are the facts, and this is my sentiments exactly. My feeling is we've lost alot of this in the country and this world. Compassion for a friend or even stranger. Many want to win at any cost.

I'm sorry my sense of fairness overrules in this case an I'm surprised more don't feel that way. I would never, could never take money that I didn't earn because someone didn't push a button that broke a mid-season rule that only served one person and didn't change the outcome.

He's another situation I read that is kinda of similar.

A wrestler won an exciting tourney recently, but after winning in OT in the finals he threw his head gear in celebration. An over zealous ref called him for unsportmanlike conduct and took away his title.

He broke a rule, yes. Did it effect outcome, no. Is this fair? I say certainly not. By the way the win was restored to him under appeal.


Thanks for all the comments they were not what I expected but interesting.


----------



## lvhmbh (Jan 6, 2010)

Just had to weigh in as Clemson Fan said exactly what I was thinking.  He should man-up (Judge Joe Brown) and take responsibility.   Linda


----------



## ace2000 (Jan 6, 2010)

MOXJO7282 said:


> These are the facts, and this is my sentiments exactly. My feeling is we've lost alot of this in the country and this world. Compassion for a friend or even stranger. Many want to win at any cost.
> 
> I'm sorry my sense of fairness overrules in this case an I'm surprised more don't feel that way. I would never, could never take money that I didn't earn because someone didn't push a button that broke a mid-season rule that only served one person and didn't change the outcome.


 
So how did things end up? I would guess it may come down to how much the winnings mean to the winners. If you gave yours back, the amount must not have been substantial in your eyes. So, I'm not sure it comes down to fair or not fair... would you have felt differently if you were playing for $10K??? LOL. However, the others may have seen it differently and decided to keep their winnings. 

The winners should sort it out, the commissioner should stay out of it, and the individual should be happy to get what was given (even if it was only your share), and let it end there.


----------



## djs (Jan 6, 2010)

MOXJO7282 said:


> He's another situation I read that is kinda of similar.
> 
> A wrestler won an exciting tourney recently, but after winning in OT in the finals he threw his head gear in celebration. An over zealous ref called him for unsportmanlike conduct and took away his title.
> 
> He broke a rule, yes. Did it effect outcome, no. Is this fair? I say certainly not. By the way the win was restored to him under appeal.



I'll use an extreme example here, but a golfer could hit 18 holes-in-one at the Masters, and in all the excitement forget to sign their scorecard in a timely manner.  End result is they'd be disqualified.  Fair?  No.  But those are the rules.


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 6, 2010)

ace2000 said:


> So how did things end up? I would guess it may come down to how much the winnings mean to the winners. If you gave yours back, the amount must not have been substantial in your eyes. So, I'm not sure it comes down to fair or not fair... would you have felt differently if you were playing for $10K??? LOL. However, the others may have seen it differently and decided to keep their winnings.
> 
> The winners should sort it out, the commissioner should stay out of it, and the individual should be happy to get what was given (even if it was only your share), and let it end there.



The tension has now died down, but both sides still feel strongly about their position. They are looking into an Arbitrator.

If it were alot of money, this would never have happened, because the 
rules of engagement in those are spelled out beforehand and a rule can't be just introduced midseason without full agreement or the ability to opt out.

That is the biggest problem the loser has, this was just unilaterally imposed without a vote, and he even voice a major concern as did I, when it was mentioned. 

Now the commish is calling himself a dictator (he actually said that) and says he can impose anything and in this case did. That was never agreed to either so in my mind this ruling that created this whole mess is invalid and unenforceable.



If it weren't a gambling activity and he could bring it to court, I'm convinced he would win, but of course that is hypothetical.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 6, 2010)

So all the players were happy with lackadaisical rules except the commish who got sick and tired of cleaning up every time a player forgot to follow the rules, so he warned you all that he wouldn't be doing any more cleaning up?  And then when a player needed him to clean up again, you all are surprised that the commish is standing his ground and other players are supporting him?

I agree with the majority - time for the losing player to man up and accept responsibility for his own error, especially since it was necessary for the commish to issue a reminder as if he was dealing with grade-schoolers.

Morals and should-haves and what-ifs and but-it-used-to-bes have no place in the game whether money is or isn't on the line.  Play by the rules or don't play at all, and for pete's sake, don't turn this into a part-time job for the commish!

As for George Brett, he behaved like an ass but the "integrity" of the game had nothing to do with that game ruling being overturned.  That happened because MLB determined upon review that the rules were incorrectly applied during the game.  The baseball rules provide that an over-loaded pine tar bat, not the player using it, be removed from the game at the time of the infraction.  MLB considered that the umps' incorrect call during the game (ie to negate the play as if the player would have not have been able to make it) could not be upheld because there was no way to judge whether or not Brett would have been successful at hitting a home run if the rule had been correctly interpreted and he had been forced to use a different bat during that at-bat.

The golf things mentioned here, not signing cards and similar things that are specifically mentioned as disqualifiers in the rules, are more related to your game situation than stupid George Brett and his overgrown spoiled brat antics.


----------



## Larry6417 (Jan 6, 2010)

*My 2 cents*

I'll comment as I have nothing better to do at the moment. 

First, I frequently see the argument "rules are rules" through this thread. Therefore, the person who lost out simply has to follow the "rules." Case closed. 

I respectfully disagree. The larger question is: are the rules fair? I'll give an example. At one times Blacks in America were denied basic rights by "rules" imposed on them by the majority. Should they have accepted lesser status simply because those were the rules? Martin Luther King Jr. famously mocked this stance in a speech which derided those who valued civil obedience over human rights. Please don't misunderstand me. I' m not comparing a fantasy football dispute to the civil rights movement. I'm just illustrating a point.

The larger question: are the rules fair? The rules and interpretation of them are clearly not fair. The commissioner had a financial interest in the outcome. Courts have to follow a process consistent with "procedural fairness." A judge who has a financial interest in the outcome of a decision clearly violates the principles of procedural fairness. Also, what powers does the commissioner have and did everyone agree to those? If you did not specifically grant the commissioner power to unilaterally impose rules, then he doesn't (IMHO) have that power. Also, in law, the punishment must be proportional to the offence. That's why we don't execute people for parking violations (at least not in North America). The punishment here was completely out of proportion to the offence.

Please note that I am not a lawyer. These are my opinions only (and you know the old saying about opinions). Since I'm giving opinions, I'll give a few more. I think the commissioner in being arbitrary and unimaginative. He turned a molehill into a mountain. He could have imposed a smaller penalty to make his point. If I had been commissioner, I would have allowed the man to win (his intent was clear, and there was no suggestion of cheating) but I would have imposed a "penalty" of a round of drinks for everyone. That way the point is made, the penalty is proportional to the offence, and the friendship is maintained.

Unfortunately, it sound like the friendship is already over.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 6, 2010)

Larry, challenging the rules in an informal fantasy football league is all well and good during the first week, maybe even into the second.  But beyond that point, the league isn't supposed to be a part-time job for anybody and it's sort of expected that adults will behave like adults so that this petty stuff doesn't interfere.  It sounds like in this league, anyway, they let what appear to be little things slide to the point where one player, the commish, realized that problems were going to happen and he recognized that the amount of money involved was enough to cause friction among the group.  So he did something about it - "I'm not going to clean up after you any more, you're big boys, start acting like it."

They didn't, and now here's the problem happening just like the commish correctly anticipated, maybe being blown out of proportion even more than he would have expected, and he's the one being blamed for it?  No way is it his fault, and good on him for trying to head this off at the pass.  Too bad the other players didn't listen to his warning.


----------



## Larry6417 (Jan 6, 2010)

SueDonJ said:


> Larry, challenging the rules in an informal fantasy football league is all well and good during the first week, maybe even into the second.  But beyond that point, the league isn't supposed to be a part-time job for anybody and it's sort of expected that adults will behave like adults so that this petty stuff doesn't interfere.  It sounds like in this league, anyway, they let what appear to be little things slide to the point where one player, the commish, realized that problems were going to happen and he recognized that the amount of money involved was enough to cause friction among the group.  So he did something about it - "I'm not going to clean up after you any more, you're big boys, start acting like it."
> 
> They didn't, and now here's the problem happening just like the commish correctly anticipated, maybe being blown out of proportion even more than he would have expected, and he's the one being blamed for it?  No way is it his fault, and good on him for trying to head this off at the pass.  Too bad the other players didn't listen to his warning.



Thank you for your response Sue, but I disagree with you. 

First, you say that the rules should be set after the first couple weeks. Actually it was the commissioner who arbitrarily made a new rule well after the start of the season, so your argument actually supports my position.

Second, who's being petty in this dispute? It sounds like the commissioner to me. The other player's intent was clear even if he didn't follow all the technicalities. It's fair to impose a minor penalty for a minor infraction, but a major penalty for a minor fraction seems awfully petty to me.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jan 6, 2010)

Larry6417 said:


> First, you say that the rules should be set after the first couple weeks. Actually it was the commissioner who arbitrarily made a new rule well after the start of the season, so your argument actually supports my position.



I think you're wrong here and the rule was in place before the start of the season.  It sounds like the commish was just trying to be a nice guy in the first half of the season in cleaning up after other peoples mistakes.  That was his big mistake.  There's a saying that "no good dead goes unpunished".  He had nothing to do with this player making this mistake and in fact warned them 8-10 weeks ago that he was going to stop cleaning for them.  He's the one I feel sorry for b/c instead of the person who made the mistake manning up and just taking it as a life lesson like it should be, he's blame shifting (unfortunately with the encouragement of the OP) over to the commish to the point of acusing him of stealing.

It would be hillarious to sew Judge Judy have this case.  I don't think the OP would like hearing what she had to say.

Post #50 was hillarious!  Talk about over the top.


----------



## Larry6417 (Jan 6, 2010)

MOXJO7282 said:


> I won't tell you what side I'm on because I'm eager for opinions.
> 
> Fantasy Football amongst friends
> 
> ...



Actually, if you read the OP the commissioner decided to disallow points after allowing them all season. It's the commissioner who was inconsistent.


----------



## Larry6417 (Jan 6, 2010)

Clemson Fan said:


> I think you're wrong here and the rule was in place before the start of the season.  It sounds like the commish was just trying to be a nice guy in the first half of the season in cleaning up after other peoples mistakes.  That was his big mistake.  There's a saying that "no good dead goes unpunished".  He had nothing to do with this player making this mistake and in fact warned them 8-10 weeks ago that he was going to stop cleaning for them.  He's the one I feel sorry for b/c instead of the person who made the mistake manning up and just taking it as a life lesson like it should be, he's blame shifting (unfortunately with the encouragement of the OP) over to the commish to the point of acusing him of stealing.
> 
> It would be hillarious to sew Judge Judy have this case.  I don't think the OP would like hearing what she had to say.
> 
> Post #50 was hillarious!  Talk about over the top.



That you watch and appreciate Judge Judy tells me all I need to know.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 6, 2010)

Larry6417 said:


> Actually, if you read the OP the commissioner decided to disallow points after allowing them all season. It's the commissioner who was inconsistent.



Inconsistency would be if the commish allowed and disallowed, and cleaned up the other players' mistakes, willy-nilly throughout the season.  But he didn't do that.  He began the season cleaning up every mistake and then announced at a certain point that he would no longer do that for any player.  At that point, the players should have understood that the responsibility for following the rules exactly was now on their shoulders unconditionally.

The OP says there was some disagreement with the commish making that declaration at the time it was made.  What was the outcome of that disagreement - was there a final resolution or did all of the players just let it slide and think that the commish was bluffing?  And this is a group that's played for several years - has this never happened before?

I listen to SportsTalk Radio all day long and cannot imagine any of the regular hosts or guest hosts sympathizing with the FF player who made the mistake and lost some money because of it.  They'd laugh at him, most likely, and tell him to go cry to his mama because real men don't whine about their mistakes - they learn from them so that they don't make them again.  One guest host in particular, Fred Smerlas (former NFL player,) would probably say that the guy needed to have some sense knocked into him.  All the others would laugh their heads off and then eighty-seventeen callers would add their agreement to the hosts and skewer the player as well as the one or two callers who might try to inject talk of lawsuits into the dispute.

Moxjo, I'm trying to figure out how to say this to you nicely and I really hope that you're not insulted by it - it's not meant as an insult.  But I think you're not helping the dispute by playing the martyr here.  None of you who won something more than what you would have if the other guy didn't make a mistake, is doing anything wrong by accepting your winnings.  If I was one of the guys who took my winnings and then heard you comment that you felt you didn't "earn" them, I'd be mad as all get-out at you because by your actions and comments you would be inferring that I'm morally lacking somehow.  In addition, you would be making the commish look bad for simply trying to impose the rules and stop making his role more difficult than it should be.


----------



## pjrose (Jan 6, 2010)

Clemson Fan said:


> Post #50 was hillarious!  Talk about over the top.



Huh?  I find it well written and well reasoned, not in the least hilarious or over the top.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jan 6, 2010)

Larry6417 said:


> I respectfully disagree. The larger question is: are the rules fair? I'll give an example. At one times Blacks in America were denied basic rights by "rules" imposed on them by the majority. Should they have accepted lesser status simply because those were the rules? Martin Luther King Jr. famously mocked this stance in a speech which derided those who valued civil obedience over human rights.


 
Come on now, you don't think bringing something like this as an example is a little over the top?

This thread IMO is a good example of where we are in America.  You have one person who made a mistake (nobody else made the error - he did), but instead of manning up and taking personal responsibility for his mistake, he's trying to shift the blame to somebody else to the point of possibly taking legal action.  Pretty pathetic if you ask me.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jan 6, 2010)

Larry6417 said:


> Actually, if you read the OP the commissioner decided to disallow points after allowing them all season. It's the commissioner who was inconsistent.


 
Again, you're wrong.  The OP clearly states that at mid season (not all season as you state) the commissioner decided he had enough of cleaning up after people.  Mid season was 8-10 weeks ago which IMO is plenty of time for folks to get their act together.

BTW, I do a little fantasy football myself and I've never seen it allowed for somebody to put in their picks 1/2 hour after the games start.  I clearly think there is a competetive advantage gained if one is allowed to submit their picks after the games start - especially during the last week when a lot of coaches who already have their playoff positions locked up decide to rest their players.  A lot of us don't know who they might rest and who they might play.  Fantasy football is very hard to predict during the last week of the regular season and to be able to put your picks in 1/2 hour after the gmaes start provides a huge competitive advantage.


----------



## TUGBrian (Jan 6, 2010)

Clemson Fan said:


> Again, you're wrong.  The OP clearly states that at mid season (not all season as you state) the commissioner decided he had enough of cleaning up after people.  Mid season was 8-10 weeks ago which IMO is plenty of time for folks to get their act together.
> 
> BTW, I do a little fantasy football myself and I've never seen it allowed for somebody to put in their picks 1/2 hour after the games start.  I clearly think there is a competetive advantage gained if one is allowed to submit their picks after the games start - especially during the last week when a lot of coaches who already have their playoff positions locked up decide to rest their players.  A lot of us don't know who they might rest and who they might play.  Fantasy football is very hard to predict during the last week of the regular season and to be able to put your picks in 1/2 hour after the gmaes start provides a huge competitive advantage.



but a point thats being missed, is that the owner DID submit his lineup prior to the game starting...and apparently their league has some EXTRA page you have to go to to manually lock them in or something.

seems retarded to me, but such is life.

as long as the person he wanted to swap in/out for had no points to that time...i would have had no problem swapping him out as requested if i were the commish.

but if he had scored or the player he was going to replace was benched/injured etc...then no.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jan 6, 2010)

TUGBrian said:


> but a point thats being missed, is that the owner DID submit his lineup prior to the game starting...and apparently their league has some EXTRA page you have to go to to manually lock them in or something.
> 
> seems retarded to me, but such is life.
> 
> ...


 
Good point.  The last week of the season though is such a crap shoot that this whole story makes me suspicious.

For example, Kurt Warner only played the first series of the game and then was pulled for the remainder of the game.  He may of had zero points at the time, but once you see Matt Leinert enter the game (within 1/2 hour of the start time) you know for sure Kurt Warner is not going to get you any points that day.  So, you can swap out Kut Warner with zero points for another player who has zero points at the time, but you know that player is actually playing and can actually earn you points for that day.

The only way for the commisioner to make absolutely sure that no cheating occurs is to firmly maintain the cutoff submission times.


----------



## Larry6417 (Jan 6, 2010)

Clemson Fan said:


> Come on now, you don't think bringing something like this as an example is a little over the top?
> 
> This thread IMO is a good example of where we are in America.  You have one person who made a mistake (nobody else made the error - he did), but instead of manning up and taking personal responsibility for his mistake, he's trying to shift the blame to somebody else to the point of possibly taking legal action.  Pretty pathetic if you ask me.



I can see things how things can spiral out of control so easily. Here we are having a dispute about a dispute. 

Clemson Fan, you are awfully selective in your quotes. I clearly state in my post that I'm not comparing the civil rights movement to this dispute. What I said was that the argument "rules are rules" is simply not good enough. 

First, the commissioner created a new standard when he accepted late picks. The commissioner created ambiguity when he violated the initial rules. What are the other players supposed to think?

Second, and more importantly, so what if the player violated the rules? The larger question is whether the punishment fits the crime. For the sake of argument, lets say that the player did violate the rules. The fantasy players themselves agree this was a technicality. Taking away ~ $500 seems excessive to me. As I suggested in my first post, the commissioner handled this in a ham-fisted way. He could have imposed a penalty proportionate to the offence - a round of drinks paid for by the offender.

Also, I think you read far too much into this incident. I don't think it's a reflection of modern society. People had petty arguments in the past too.


----------



## Egret1986 (Jan 6, 2010)

*I'm not into sports and don't know anything about fantasy football*



Clemson Fan said:


> This thread IMO is a good example of where we are in America.  You have one person who made a mistake (nobody else made the error - he did), but instead of manning up and taking personal responsibility for his mistake, he's trying to shift the blame to somebody else to the point of possibly taking legal action.  Pretty pathetic if you ask me.



But I agree totally with this statement.  

The "screw-up" needs to MAN UP AND TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY instead of causing long-standing friends to choose sides and be all upset, with some placing blame where none should exist.

If this person had simply accepted personal responsibility, friends wouldn't be choosing sides, considering arbitration and one member starting a thread about it that obviously has at least two very distinct and conflicting opinions.

The OP is surprised that more folks don't feel the same way that he does regarding the situation?  Hmmmm.  I guess he was looking for overwhelming support and apparently looks negatively upon those that believe in Personal Responsibility.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jan 6, 2010)

Larry6417 said:


> First, the commissioner created a new standard when he accepted late picks. The commissioner created ambiguity when he violated the initial rules. What are the other players supposed to think?


 
That is correct and that's where the commissioner made his mistake.  However, he probably saw how messed up things were getting by violating the initial rules that he decided 8-10 weeks ago to striclty following the rules.  The players appeared to be aware of this and they had 8-10 weeks to adapt to a strict following of the rules.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jan 6, 2010)

Larry6417 said:


> The larger question is whether the punishment fits the crime. For the sake of argument, lets say that the player did violate the rules. The fantasy players themselves agree this was a technicality.


 
It appears to me that the other fantasy players actually do not agree that this was a technicality.  It appears that the only people who are taking this point of view are the OP and the person who made the "mistake."


----------



## pjrose (Jan 6, 2010)

Egret1986 said:


> But I agree totally with this statement.
> 
> The "screw-up" needs to *MAN UP AND TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY* instead of causing long-standing friends to choose sides and be all upset, with some placing blame where none should exist.



I am NOT taking sides in this particular discussion or incident, but I do wonder *why is taking personal responsibility a male-thing?*  If I were the person who forgot to click whatever it was, would I be exempt?


----------



## Larry6417 (Jan 6, 2010)

Clemson Fan said:


> It appears to me that the other fantasy players actually do not agree that this was a technicality.  It appears that the only people who are taking this point of view are the OP and the person who made the "mistake."



We're going to have to agree to disagree here, as on other issues too. The "offender" had already made his picks, and there was no attempt to cheat. He simply failed to take the extra step.

All your posts ignore the larger issue: does the punishment fit the crime? For the reasons stated earlier, I believe the punishment is excessive.


----------



## Egret1986 (Jan 6, 2010)

*Is there such a saying as WOMAN UP?  I've heard of MAN UP for taking responsibility*



pjrose said:


> I am NOT taking sides in this particular discussion or incident, but I do wonder why is taking personal responsibility a male-thing?  If I were the person who forgot to click whatever it was, would I be exempt?



Okay.....PERSON UP....HUMAN UP....Never mind; this person messed up, take responsibility instead of shifting blame, make it a personal learning experience, laugh at yourself and move on for the good of the group.

Definitely didn't mean it as a male thing.  Sorry it was taken that way.  I was responding to Clemson Fan's statement (quoted).  Folks, whether male or female, need to take personal responsibility if they clearly make a mistake instead of passing it on to others.  It's easier to move on.


----------



## Larry6417 (Jan 6, 2010)

Egret1986 said:


> But I agree totally with this statement.
> 
> The "screw-up" needs to MAN UP AND TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY instead of causing long-standing friends to choose sides and be all upset, with some placing blame where none should exist.
> 
> ...



I'm with PJRose on this. I do believe in personal responsibility, for men and women, but I find it odd how people apply that principle here.

For example, shouldn't the commissioner take responsibility for his conduct? He created confusion by not enforcing the rules from the very start. Also, the punishment he imposed, from which he gained financially, was ham-fisted. Whether we agree with the punishment or not, I think it's obvious the commissioner did not do a stellar job.

To "man" up and accept a fair punishment is one thing, but to accept an unfair punishment is another. I'll give an example. The husband of an old friend's sister was a garbage inspector for a municipality. That city had strict rules on what could go into recycling bins. If you mixed the garbage and recycling, you received a $1,000 fine (this was about 20 years ago). This jerk, after a family was fined, would go check that family's garbage repeatedly to try to impose fines over and over. He found that hilarious. Now, do you think those families should've just "manned" up and accepted their fines of several thousand dollars for mixing up their recyclables? After all, there's no doubt that they broke the rules.


----------



## Egret1986 (Jan 6, 2010)

*Everyone has an opinion, some stronger than others*



Larry6417 said:


> We're going to have to agree to disagree here, as on other issues too. The "offender" had already made his picks, and there was no attempt to cheat. He simply failed to take the extra step.
> 
> All your posts ignore the larger issue: does the punishment fit the crime? For the reasons stated earlier, I believe the punishment is excessive.



"...failed to take the extra step."  It was this person's failure.  Punishment?  Crime?  "Friendly dispute getting nasty"  "Arbitration"  Personally, I would think that for the good of the group (long-term friends) that this person would have admitted to their failure and accepted it, and allowed the group to move on.  I bet this person would have learned to be more careful and follow-through.  I think that "no attempt to cheat" is a moot point.


----------



## Egret1986 (Jan 6, 2010)

*Everyone has an opinion, some stronger than others*



Larry6417 said:


> We're going to have to agree to disagree here, as on other issues too. The "offender" had already made his picks, and there was no attempt to cheat. He simply failed to take the extra step.
> 
> All your posts ignore the larger issue: does the punishment fit the crime? For the reasons stated earlier, I believe the punishment is excessive.



"...failed to take the extra step."  It was this person's failure.  Punishment?  Crime?  "Friendly dispute getting nasty"  "Arbitration"  Personally, I would think that for the good of the group (long-term friends) that this person would have admitted to their failure and accepted it, and allowed the group to move on.  I bet this person would have learned to be more careful and follow-through.  I think that "no attempt to cheat" is a moot point.

Just my personal opinion.  Not right.  Not wrong.  It is what it is.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 6, 2010)

What does the $450 loser that Joe (MOXJO7282) is referring to think about this? We know what Joe thinks, but does his friend that lost out due to the mistake feel the same way?


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 6, 2010)

pjrose said:


> I am NOT taking sides in this particular discussion or incident, but I do wonder why is taking personal responsibility a male-thing?  If I were the person who forgot to click whatever it was, would I be exempt?



Hmmmm.  Puzzling.  Do I use the male-thing ones because I hear them so often on SportsTalk Radio so they are familiar, or is it that most of the phrases that have come to mean "take responsibility" really ARE male things?  I don't know, but I about fell out of my chair laughing in the sewing room the day that the radio guys said Serena needed to "strap on a pair!" and quit whining about the line judges.  :hysterical:  



Larry6417 said:


> ... For example, shouldn't the commissioner take responsibility for his conduct? He created confusion by not enforcing the rules from the very start. Also, the punishment he imposed, from which he gained financially, was ham-fisted. Whether we agree with the punishment or not, I think it's obvious the commissioner did not do a stellar job...



Agreed, he didn't.  But I'd like to know the history of the group in past years before I say that he was any more of a tyrant as commish than others may have been.

I think we'll never agree on any of the rest of this, Larry.  You say the commish should take responsibility for enforcing the rules midway through the season - I say the players should never have put the commish into the awkward and unnecessary position of having to enforce rules that the players should have been following all along.  You say that he imposed an unfair punishment; I say that he didn't impose any punishment at all, but rather that the player suffered the natural consequences of the rules being followed to the letter.

It happens, deal with it like a big person and move on.  (That's for you, pj, even though it sounds more correct to say "big boy."  Although come to think of it, I have also heard "put on your big girl panties and deal..."  Is that from a movie maybe?)


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 6, 2010)

Egret1986 said:


> ... Just my personal opinion.  Not right.  Not wrong. * It is what it is.*



Are you Bill Belichek in disguise?


----------



## Egret1986 (Jan 6, 2010)

*You caught me!*



SueDonJ said:


> Are you Bill Belichek in disguise?



Can't get anything past you!


----------



## pjrose (Jan 6, 2010)

Egret1986 said:


> Definitely didn't mean it as a male thing.  *Sorry it was taken that way. *



No, I really didn't take it that way, I was just being ornery 

My anti-sexist radar has been sharpened by the "office wife" thread


----------



## Egret1986 (Jan 6, 2010)

*Good Grief, Charlie Brown*



Larry6417 said:


> I'm with PJRose on this. I do believe in personal responsibility, for men and women, but I find it odd how people apply that principle here.
> 
> For example, shouldn't the commissioner take responsibility for his conduct? He created confusion by not enforcing the rules from the very start. Also, the punishment he imposed, from which he gained financially, was ham-fisted. Whether we agree with the punishment or not, I think it's obvious the commissioner did not do a stellar job.
> 
> To "man" up and accept a fair punishment is one thing, but to accept an unfair punishment is another. I'll give an example. The husband of an old friend's sister was a garbage inspector for a municipality. That city had strict rules on what could go into recycling bins. If you mixed the garbage and recycling, you received a $1,000 fine (this was about 20 years ago). This jerk, after a family was fined, would go check that family's garbage repeatedly to try to impose fines over and over. He found that hilarious. Now, do you think those families should've just "manned" up and accepted their fines of several thousand dollars for mixing up their recyclables? After all, there's no doubt that they broke the rules.



This is not a legitimate comparison from what I have gathered, but maybe you are privy to more than I am regarding this friendly dispute that has turned nasty.  I bow to your opinion.  I'm sure your opinion is right.   Where do I come up with these crazy thoughts from which I form my personal opinions?  

I mis-interpreted everything....I thought these were long-term friends.  Not mean-spirited people (ie Inspector) trying to take advantage of strangers for their own personal enjoyment due to possible mental illness or no soul or a superiority complex.


----------



## Talent312 (Jan 6, 2010)

pjrose said:


> I am NOT taking sides in this particular discussion or incident, but I do wonder why is taking personal responsibility a male-thing?  If I were the person who forgot to click whatever it was, would I be exempt?



As a "woman" (or so it appears), we expect you to be a bit of an air-head, scatter-brained and more interested in shiny baubbles (or shoes), than with finishing what you started. Thus, you just bat those eye lashes, and you get an automatic waiver.  [ummm... this is satire, of course]


----------



## pjrose (Jan 6, 2010)

Talent312 said:


> As a "woman" (or so it appears), we expect you to be a bit of an air-head, scatter-brained and more interested in shiny baubbles (or shoes), than with finishing what you started. Thus, you just bat those eye lashes, and you get an automatic waiver.  [ummm... this is satire, of course]



Oh boy (!), you sure are baiting me now!  Fortunately I'm taking it all in good fun - I think.......


----------



## Egret1986 (Jan 6, 2010)

*Oh, you, little Devil, you!  I've been punked!*



pjrose said:


> No, I really didn't take it that way, I was just being ornery



You, go, Girl! 

Oops, is that out of line?  Please no one blast me!  I didn't mean anything by that! I'm not assigning gender as to who has the ability to be best at being ornery.


----------



## pjrose (Jan 6, 2010)

Egret1986 said:


> You, go, Girl!
> 
> Oops, is that out of line?  Please no one blast me!  I didn't mean anything by that! I'm not assigning gender as to who has the ability to be best at being ornery.



No harm, no foul  

I do sometimes pride myself on orneriness (is that even a word?) but I can think of some male TUGgers who may take the prize for it on this board!


----------



## Egret1986 (Jan 6, 2010)

*Yeah, there's a few ornery ones!*



pjrose said:


> No harm, no foul
> 
> I do sometimes pride myself on orneriness (is that even a word?) but I can think of some male TUGgers who may take the prize for it on this board!



But ornery ain't all bad.....it sure can liven things up! Gets the old blood pumping on occasion.


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 6, 2010)

SueDonJ said:


> Moxjo, I'm trying to figure out how to say this to you nicely and I really hope that you're not insulted by it - it's not meant as an insult.  But I think you're not helping the dispute by playing the martyr here.  None of you who won something more than what you would have if the other guy didn't make a mistake, is doing anything wrong by accepting your winnings.  If I was one of the guys who took my winnings and then heard you comment that you felt you didn't "earn" them, I'd be mad as all get-out at you because by your actions and comments you would be inferring that I'm morally lacking somehow.  In addition, you would be making the commish look bad for simply trying to impose the rules and stop making his role more difficult than it should be.



Not at all insulted, but sorry don't agree at all. This guy did nothing wrong but make a minor immaterial error that had no impact on the outcome but broke a rule that in my book is totally invalid. 

And I know I could never take money away from a friend under thse circumstances, and I don't know how anyone can justify that. Its 100% wrong and gratitious to strip him of rightful winnings. 

The commish especially. He created this fire storm. He finished out of the money in 6th place  and now as a result of his ruling that only served him, he now ended up winning $131.

And you're OK with that? I can't see how.

Of the 12 players, 3 including commish want to screw the guy, 3 are siding with the loser, inclduing me, and they rest haven't commented.

The fact is I do questions some morals in a case like this. Why would anyone want to win under those circumstances? This guy did better than everyone, so why would I think I earned anything if I'm awarded money because of a technicality. To me is was given to me under petty circumstances and I just wouldn't accept it. 

And the commish does look bad in my eyes because to begin with,  this is a 2 minute thing that he complained about doing (computer Fantasy football is child's play these days) and then imposed this riduclous rule that totally comprised the integrity of the game by allowing it to potentially beome an issue, and it did. Then he benefits from it.

You see nothing wrong with that?

You seem to totally exonerate him, whereas I put the blame squarely on him, so we disagree there too.


----------



## Larry6417 (Jan 6, 2010)

*Keep your shorts on Lucy!*



Egret1986 said:


> This is not a legitimate comparison from what I have gathered, but maybe you are privy to more than I am regarding this friendly dispute that has turned nasty.  I bow to your opinion.  I'm sure your opinion is right.   Where do I come up with these crazy thoughts from which I form my personal opinions?
> 
> I mis-interpreted everything....I thought these were long-term friends.  Not mean-spirited people (ie Inspector) trying to take advantage of strangers for their own personal enjoyment due to possible mental illness or no soul or a superiority complex.



Actually, I think the comparison is valid. We have one individual imposing disproportionate penalties for minor infractions in both cases. And not all of the fantasy players agree with the commissioner. At least some of them think he is being too harsh - I believe the OP has more insight into the character of the commissioner than anyone else here.


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 7, 2010)

Clemson Fan said:


> I think you're wrong here and the rule was in place before the start of the season.  It sounds like the commish was just trying to be a nice guy in the first half of the season in cleaning up after other peoples mistakes.  That was his big mistake.  There's a saying that "no good dead goes unpunished".  He had nothing to do with this player making this mistake and in fact warned them 8-10 weeks ago that he was going to stop cleaning for them.  He's the one I feel sorry for b/c instead of the person who made the mistake manning up and just taking it as a life lesson like it should be, he's blame shifting (unfortunately with the encouragement of the OP) over to the commish to the point of acusing him of stealing.
> 
> It would be hillarious to sew Judge Judy have this case.  I don't think the OP would like hearing what she had to say.
> 
> Post #50 was hillarious!  Talk about over the top.



I couldn't disagree more. Rule was not in place before season. He put the rule in place because he is lazy and petty. If the effort to "reconcile" took 3 minutes a week that would be alot. So he implied an extreme penalty to stop a minor annoyance to him. Another thing that is just blantantly wrong.

We're actually looking into Judge Judy because we feel we would win. I work with a number of attorneys and they have said we would win. The court would question the commish's right to impose unilateral rules, without consensus and also as Larry suggested, would allow a minor technicality to be a knock-out blow as one attorney put it. The fact that the rule was presented mid-season and the loser vehemently opposed would bode well in his favor.  

They also advised me the court would look at intent, which is clear here, and the outcome, and who was truly harmed and who would unfairly benefit form the mistake.


----------



## Egret1986 (Jan 7, 2010)

*You opened the thread with "OPINIONS..."*



MOXJO7282 said:


> And you're OK with that? I can't see how.
> 
> You see nothing wrong with that?
> 
> You seem to totally exonerate him, whereas I put the blame squarely on him, so we disagree there too.



You obviously didn't want opinions, but folks to agree with you, even though in the opening you said you weren't going to say where you stood on the issue.  Because you wanted opinions.

It is evident that you didn't want opinions, but support.  You should have been more clear on the rules by which opinions could be offered.  I think that someone changed the rules mid-thread.  Oh, my gosh!  I demand arbitration!

It wasn't enough to get the fantasy football group riled up....now it's TUGGERs! :ignore:


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 7, 2010)

Talent312 said:


> As a "woman" (or so it appears), we expect you to be a bit of an air-head, scatter-brained and more interested in shiny baubbles (or shoes), than with finishing what you started. Thus, you just bat those eye lashes, and you get an automatic waiver.  [ummm... this is satire, of course]



Oooooh, shoes ....


----------



## Egret1986 (Jan 7, 2010)

*It's already been discovered by another TUGGER that I'm Bill*



Larry6417 said:


> Actually, I think the comparison is valid. We have one individual imposing disproportionate penalties for minor infractions in both cases. And not all of the fantasy players agree with the commissioner. At least some of them think he is being too harsh - I believe the OP has more insight into the character of the commissioner than anyone else here.



This thread started out friendly, but is rapidly becoming nasty.  Eeeek!  Oh, no......Lucy's got her panty's in a bunch!  

Sorry, I'm Bill....remember?  I'm not Lucy, Larry.  Calm down, you're not thinking clearly.  You're confusing me with someone else.  

I'm the one that bowed to your superior opinion.  What more do you want?

I didn't have the proper credentials to form an opinion, and for that I apologize.


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 7, 2010)

dioxide45 said:


> What does the $450 loser that Joe (MOXJO7282) is referring to think about this? We know what Joe thinks, but does his friend that lost out due to the mistake feel the same way?



My friend could care less about the money, but feels the commish who was his best friend totally betrayed him with his pettiness.

He really thought he would say "hey I can't let this is be decided by a technicality" and do the right thing but he didn't, so the loser is pretty sadden by that.

That's my biggest thing with this.

Would those that side with the commish have no problem doing that to your best friend? Or even just a "friend".

You know your friend beat you fair and square and because of an undisputed technicality that didn't affect outcome you would take the money without any conscience?

Really?

That is 100% dead wrong in my book.


----------



## Larry6417 (Jan 7, 2010)

MOXJO7282 said:


> I couldn't disagree more. Rule was not in place before season. He put the rule in place because he is lazy and petty. If the effort to "reconcile" took 3 minutes a week that would be alot. So he implied an extreme penalty to stop a minor annoyance to him. Another thing that is just blantantly wrong.
> 
> We're actually looking into Judge Judy because we feel we would win. I work with a number of attorneys and they have said we would win. The court would question the commish's right to impose unilateral rules, without consensus and also as Larry suggested, would allow a minor technicality to be a knock-out blow as one attorney put it. The fact that the rule was presented mid-season and the loser vehemently opposed would bode well in his favor.
> 
> They also advised me the court would look at intent, which is clear here, and the outcome, and who was truly harmed and who would unfairly benefit form the mistake.



Let's summarize here.

So many of us assumed that "rules are rules" and that the loser should just "man" up. Well rules aren't rules. The rule in question did not exist at the start of the season and was unilaterally imposed by the commissioner against the wishes of at least some of the players. Does anyone out there think that's fair?

Also, what the "rules are rules" crowd, for the most part, never addressed was the fairness of the penalty for breaking a unilaterally imposed rule. The commissioner had a financial interest in the outcome - an obvious conflict of interest.

What I find fascinating here is how we take in this thread and interpret it through our own biases. The "personal responsibility" crowd interpreted the player's objections as a failure to "man" up. The "rules are rules" crowd felt that rules should be followed regardless of their legitimacy or fairness. Don't misunderstand me (I'm talking to you Clemson Fan!). I believe people should be responsible for their own actions, but we can and should question the legitimacy and need for the rules that govern us. If we don't, then we may as well be sheep.


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 7, 2010)

Egret1986 said:


> You obviously didn't want opinions, but folks to agree with you, even though in the opening you said you weren't going to say where you stood on the issue.  Because you wanted opinions.
> 
> It is evident that you didn't want opinions, but support.  You should have been more clear on the rules by which opinions could be offered.  I think that someone changed the rules mid-thread.  Oh, my gosh!  I demand arbitration!
> 
> It wasn't enough to get the fantasy football group riled up....now it's TUGGERs! :ignore:



I'm open to others opinions, but I'm offering mine as well, which I dn't see anything wrong with that. I think I'm "arguing" as politely as anyone esle.


----------



## Larry6417 (Jan 7, 2010)

Egret1986 said:


> This thread started out friendly, but is rapidly becoming nasty.  Eeeek!  Oh, no......Lucy's got her panty's in a bunch!
> 
> Sorry, I'm Bill....remember?  I'm not Lucy, Larry.  Calm down, you're not thinking clearly.  You're confusing me with someone else.
> 
> ...



Dear Bill (not Lucy):

I apologize if I sounded harsh. We were simply having a vigorous, but respectful difference of opinions. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but we should be able to articulate and defend the reasons for our opinions.

And I like Lucy.


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 7, 2010)

Egret1986 said:


> The OP is surprised that more folks don't feel the same way that he does regarding the situation?  Hmmmm.  I guess he was looking for overwhelming support and apparently looks negatively upon those that believe in Personal Responsibility.




I don't look negatively upon those that believe in Personal Responsibility, I just think you are misguided in applying that here.

Its my belief that the loser is standing up to his principles. He voiced his objection to the rule that created this mess when it was introduced mid season. I guess he could have quit then, but no one thought it would come to this so he played on.

And I am surprised more don't have a sense of fairness in this case.

Again I ask the question would you do this to a friend, without conscience? You battled all year fairly, I beat you fair and square, and you only succeeded because of a minor, immaterial mistake. You would be OK winning under those circumstances? If you would you're a different kind of person than me, I'll leave it at that.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 7, 2010)

I thought we were supposed to be commenting about whether or not we think it's okay for a FF player to lose out on what he may have won if he'd not made a technical mistake that cost him points.  My opinion is that yes, it's okay for that player to suffer the natural consequence of his technical error.

All the other stuff about the commish correcting those mistakes up to a certain point when he announced he no longer would, and the stuff about this group being friends, and the stuff about whether or not the law would offer protection to one side or the other, and the judgments about ill-gotten gains and questionable morals of the other players who benefited by the guy's mistake and calling the player's manhood into question and how America is raising generations who don't know how to lose gracefully ... well, all that stuff made the thread more interesting but IMO really doesn't have any bearing on the fact that the guy didn't follow the rules when he didn't click every button.  Rules is rules, simple as that.  And yes, I'm okay with that.

One solution, Joe.  Obviously your league tallies are done on a computer but none of you have forgotten how to do math on paper.  Is it possible for every week to be re-tallied with NONE of the same technical mistakes being allowed?  You did say that the commish put his foot down at some point mid-season and stopped allowing it, which I take to mean that he did allow it before that point.  Well, remove that impropriety completely from the season.  That would be the most fair, I would think, if the entire season could be re-tallied according to the same set of rules for every week.


----------



## JMAESD84 (Jan 7, 2010)

MOXJO7282 said:


> I'm sorry *my sense of fairness overrules* in this case an I'm surprised more don't feel that way.



YOU have an opinion.  YOU expect others to share your opinion and express disbelief when they don't. 

YOUR sense of fairness "overrules" ?  Overrules what?  Others opinions.


----------



## pjrose (Jan 7, 2010)

MOXJO7282 said:


> . . . *This guy did nothing wrong but make a minor immaterial error that had no impact on the outcome* but broke a rule that in my book is totally invalid.
> 
> . . . .




I'm confused.  If the error *had no impact on the outcome*, why does this discussion exist?  




SueDonJ said:


> . . . .
> One solution, Joe.  Obviously your league tallies are done on a computer but none of you have forgotten how to do math on paper.  Is it possible for every week to be re-tallied with NONE of the same technical mistakes being allowed?  You did say that the commish put his foot down at some point mid-season and stopped allowing it, which I take to mean that he did allow it before that point.  Well, remove that impropriety completely from the season.  That would be the most fair, I would think, if the entire season could be re-tallied according to the same set of rules for every week.



Or the other way around?  Re-tally it all WITH the same rule in place for the entire season?  Then split the difference between the two sets of calculations?


Back to my first post - I wouldn't play for real money with friends!


----------



## Tia (Jan 7, 2010)

MOXJO7282 said:


> ... I am surprised more don't have a sense of fairness in this case....
> 
> .



I know nothing about FF but think fairness has many variations and personal interpretations. 

I went on an out of town trip with a friend, we drove my car, visited her dtr in college who we had drive us all around Boulder CO, since she knew it and we didn't. Well the car was parked too long in a large parking lot and we came back to a boot on the car tire. My friend decided she would split the ticket with me, but she didn't think her 20yo dtr should share responsibility money wise. I paid up, but felt I wasn't responsible either as was not the driver but unfortunately it was my car.


----------



## tlwmkw (Jan 7, 2010)

moxojo,

Why don't you simply wipe the slate clean and return the original pot to everyone who contributed.  You can then sit down as a group and really hammer out what the "rules" will be for your fantasy football league and everyone can agree on them.  This would be the most fair because no one benefits- obviously no one wins but no one has lost anything either.  You state you have lawyer friends who feel this is a slam dunk in court- they must be very confident lawyers to believe that anything is a foregone conclusion because it NEVER is- any good lawyer will tell you that.  The day of the week, the temper and past experience of the judge, etc, etc all come in to play.  I know many judges would just throw you all out of court for wasting his time- and what have you achieved then?  The morals argument goes only so far because the commish made the rule before it would have been to his benefit and not after.  The rule should have been fought then and not now.

JMHO, tlwmkw


----------



## caribbeansun (Jan 7, 2010)

If I was your friend (the one that lost) I would have taken the loss and bloody well remembered to hit the &#^# button the next time.  It would have pissed me off for quite awhile but I would have been mad at myself not at anyone else.  I would not have allowed my own failure to impact on the greater group of "friends" over a couple hundred bucks.

I might have then volunteered to be the commish for next year 

I find it quite sad that a bunch of adults are prepared to blow up a group of friends over such a trivial thing.




MOXJO7282 said:


> My friend could care less about the money, but feels the commish who was his best friend totally betrayed him with his pettiness.
> 
> He really thought he would say "hey I can't let this is be decided by a technicality" and do the right thing but he didn't, so the loser is pretty sadden by that.
> 
> ...


----------



## ace2000 (Jan 7, 2010)

No matter how you slice it, twist and turn it, it's a done deal folks.  It's over... and next year the OP can choose to play or not to play in next years' league.  

On one side you have 'rules are rules' and on the other you have 'intent'.  Unfortunately we cannot always know what the 'intent' of someone is... that's why you have to sign something, click something, etc. etc. etc.

It's over and the money has been distributed.


----------



## laura1957 (Jan 7, 2010)

caribbeansun said:


> If I was your friend (the one that lost) I would have taken the loss and bloody well remembered to hit the &#^# button the next time.  It would have pissed me off for quite awhile but I would have been mad at myself not at anyone else.  I would not have allowed my own failure to impact on the greater group of "friends" over a couple hundred bucks.
> 
> I might have then volunteered to be the commish for next year
> 
> I find it quite sad that a bunch of adults are prepared to blow up a group of friends over such a trivial thing.




I agree - if I was the friend in question I would have blamed myself only. On the other hand -  if I was the original poster I would not be able to enjoy my winnings knowing that my friend "should" have won, so I would also refuse to accept the winnings.  Not worth losing friends over, but it doesnt sound like they were really friends in the first place.


----------



## Egret1986 (Jan 7, 2010)

*No need to apologize.  On this one we can agree!*



Larry6417 said:


> Dear Bill (not Lucy):
> 
> I apologize if I sounded harsh. We were simply having a vigorous, but respectful difference of opinions. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but we should be able to articulate and defend the reasons for our opinions.
> 
> And I like Lucy.



Like I said, I may not have all the credentials required to have a legitimate opinion.  I don't know much about football, nothing about fantasy football and have never played in games involving money with friends or otherwise.  Maybe I would feel differently if I did.  

I love TUG and the discussions!  The situation has no bearing on my life, but the request for opinions allowed me to participate and it was fun in a respectful way, of course.


----------



## Egret1986 (Jan 7, 2010)

*Misquided?  I think it's more about having no experience in this situation.*



MOXJO7282 said:


> I don't look negatively upon those that believe in Personal Responsibility, I just think you are misguided in applying that here.
> 
> Its my belief that the loser is standing up to his principles. He voiced his objection to the rule that created this mess when it was introduced mid season. I guess he could have quit then, but no one thought it would come to this so he played on.
> 
> ...



I don't gamble and have never played games involving money with friends or otherwise.  So, no need to judge me as a person on this one.  My opinion is based solely on those who make mistakes, don't own up to them and try to pass them onto others.

It just seems a real shame that it's gotten to the point it has since you say that everyone was friends.  Not really worth it.  Again, just my opinion.  Maybe that's why I don't play games involving money.  Money makes some people think and act in ways that might otherwise be out of character for them.

Best wishes to you and your group in settling this dispute.


----------



## lvhmbh (Jan 7, 2010)

As to fair.... short story, I'm in college and taking business law - teacher calls me in (group of us would have coffee with him so he knew us fairly well) and says that I have a problem because I think things should be "fair".  He reminded me that the law isn't always "fair" and life sure isn't and that I better remember that and NOT become a lawyer    Linda


----------



## tlwmkw (Jan 7, 2010)

lvhmbh,

You are right.  There is no simple and/or fair answer to this and certainly the legal system is not about fairness.  As we see here on the TUG bbs there are so many different points of view and interpretations of this type situation.  The OP seems to think that his point of view is the only correct one and thought everyone would agree with him.  He also says now that they are considering moderation or going on Judge Judy to resolve it because "it's so clear who will win".  If it's so clear then everyone here would agree and have the same opinion.  No one has made the argument that if you give the commish position to someone then you have assigned control of the league to him and you have to go by his rules.  If you didn't trust him in the first place then you shouldn't have put him in charge- many lawyers will see it that way and not go by any intent.   Any way I still think that the best thing now is to pay back everyones initial investment and just start over- no one wins but no one loses.

JMHO

tlwmkw


----------



## djs (Jan 7, 2010)

Now for a new twist on the saga; let's assume that the friend in question is a Timeshare Salesperson.

Now how would we all feel about him getting the money?


----------



## esk444 (Jan 7, 2010)

Did you check to see if one of the those fantasy sports arbitration services that evaluate whether trades are fair will take this case?  For $20, seems like a lot less hassle to let a third party make the decision and let everyone move on.


----------



## kelela92 (Jan 7, 2010)

How interesting. I've read most of the posts and this is just my opinion.

I think the Commish should've finished out the season "fixing" these errors. Why? Because if someone won money because they fixed his/her points, then it's only fair the guy get his $450. Copping out halfway through is what the Commish did wrong. And what is probably causing a lot of the ruckus (if there is any). 

Now, come next season, he should lay down the law. No more fixing errors. If you forget to click, too bad. Take responsibility for your own errors. That way, everyone is on an even playing field once again.

Change the rules at the beginning of a season. Not mid-way. That's when all heck breaks loose.  

Good luck. BTW, If $450 is chump change, I'll be more than happy to take it off their hands.


----------



## TUGBrian (Jan 7, 2010)

Whats the old saying? "if you lose a friend over a small amount of money, it was probably worth what you paid"


I wouldnt want to be associated with someone who went this route in a "friendly" league.

if it were a group of strangers or something, totally different.


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 7, 2010)

esk444 said:


> Did you check to see if one of the those fantasy sports arbitration services that evaluate whether trades are fair will take this case?  For $20, seems like a lot less hassle to let a third party make the decision and let everyone move on.



Genius suggestion, didn't know they existed. And in fact researching it there are quite a few to choose from.

I just looked at one of the prevous rulings on mid-season rule changes. It appears to say if there is no constitution of rules the commish is just like another owner and cannot make unilateral rulings. 

Let's see how this evolves. for $15 www.sportsjudge.com will make a ruling based on the facts within 48 hours. This is actually an attorney who is an expert on fantasy sports. This should be interesting. I'll report back to everyone the outcome.


----------



## TUGBrian (Jan 7, 2010)

MOXJO7282 said:


> Genius suggestion, didn't know they existed. And in fact researching it there are quite a few to choose from.
> 
> I just looked at one of the prevous rulings on mid-season rule changes. It appears to say if there is no constitution of rules the commish is just like another owner and cannot make unilateral rulings.
> 
> Let's see how this evolves. for $15 www.sportsjudge.com will make a ruling based on the facts within 48 hours. This is actually an attorney who is an expert on fantasy sports. This should be interesting. I'll report back to everyone the outcome.



Ill give you a ruling for $10!


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 7, 2010)

"Where a league constitution grants a commissioner broad authority either to adjudicate disputes or to call for a league vote on changing rules, the commissioner’s decision should be upheld as long as this decision is neither arbitrary nor capricious. (We stated this position previously in the published opinion, Balco Orange Juice v. Commissioner of the Jefferson League, Index No. 00173). However, in a league that lacks a formal constitution, as is the case here, a league commissioner is no more powerful than an ordinary owner."

This was a ruling from the Sportjudge.com related to a mid-season commish change to roster sizes.

Because our league has no constitution it seems to state the commish doesn't have authority to make changes without a vote. No vote no change.


----------



## djs (Jan 8, 2010)

MOXJO7282 said:


> "Where a league constitution grants a commissioner broad authority either to adjudicate disputes or to call for a league vote on changing rules, the commissioner’s decision should be upheld as long as this decision is neither arbitrary nor capricious. (We stated this position previously in the published opinion, Balco Orange Juice v. Commissioner of the Jefferson League, Index No. 00173). However, in a league that lacks a formal constitution, as is the case here, a league commissioner is no more powerful than an ordinary owner."
> 
> This was a ruling from the Sportjudge.com related to a mid-season commish change to roster sizes.
> 
> Because our league has no constitution it seems to state the commish doesn't have authority to make changes without a vote. No vote no change.



Does this apply to the initial change where the commish looked the other way at things, or the later reversion back to what the rules were to begin with?


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jan 8, 2010)

MOXJO7282 said:


> Because our league has no constitution it seems to state the commish doesn't have authority to make changes without a vote. No vote no change.



Using this logic then the commish shouldn't have the authority to go in and correct somebody else's "mistake."

Isn't that the basis of this whole petty argument?  The commisioner decided he didn't want to take the time anymore to correct others mistakes.  If anything, he acted improperly in the first half of the season when he corrected others mistakes and in the second half of the season he acted properly.

Talk about a thankless job.  Instead of getting thanks from your "friends" who I assume could've also volunteered to do this thankless job, he gets threatened with a lawsuit from his "friends" for not correcting their own mistakes.  I'm glad I don't have "friends" like that!


----------



## tlwmkw (Jan 8, 2010)

I agree with the above posts.  That ruling could also be challenged for the very reason that you say it stands- since there was no "constitution" or agreement at the beginning of the season that laid out any rules the "commish" could argue that there was also no agreement that he should fix the errors made by others.  No rule said he had to fix the mistakes.  Therefore if you follow the actual results (meaning the final tallys on the computer) then the uncorrected results stand and your friend still loses.  There are a million ways to interpret this.  You could then argue that he had been doing it up to that point and he had therefore tacitly agreed to this task since it was his common practice.

What did the rest of the group think of the ruling (I assume this was the $15 online arbitrator)?

tlwmkw


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 8, 2010)

I haven't gotten the offical ruling yet, so who knows. 

When the argument arose the person who objected volunteered to take over but the commish said no "I'm the Commish"

The rest of the group is split, but the commish thinks his say his final.


----------



## Larry6417 (Jan 8, 2010)

*Wrong Again Clemson Fan!*



Clemson Fan said:


> Using this logic then the commish shouldn't have the authority to go in and correct somebody else's "mistake."
> 
> Isn't that the basis of this whole petty argument?  The commisioner decided he didn't want to take the time anymore to correct others mistakes.  If anything, he acted improperly in the first half of the season when he corrected others mistakes and in the second half of the season he acted properly.
> 
> Talk about a thankless job.  Instead of getting thanks from your "friends" who I assume could've also volunteered to do this thankless job, he gets threatened with a lawsuit from his "friends" for not correcting their own mistakes.  I'm glad I don't have "friends" like that!



At the start of the season the commissioner accepted scores without the extra step. He unilaterally stopped accepting scores mid-season without the acceptance of this change from the whole group. Therefore, the commissioner is clearly in the wrong as he did not have the power to unilaterally impose rules in the absence of a constitution. Declining to accept scores without the extra step was the new rule - something the commissioner did not have the power to impose. 

Hey! You're the "rules are rules" guy. How do you feel about the commissioner breaking the rules?

I don't feel as sorry for the commissioner as you do. He directly profited from a silly rule that he had no right to impose on others.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jan 8, 2010)

Larry6417 said:


> At the start of the season the commissioner accepted scores without the extra step. He unilaterally stopped accepting scores mid-season without the acceptance of this change from the whole group. Therefore, the commissioner is clearly in the wrong as he did not have the power to unilaterally impose rules in the absence of a constitution.



Again, I think you got this backwards.  It's my understanding that the first half of the season the commissioner was taking the extra step by fixing peoples "mistakes".  At mid season he decided not to do this anymore.

So, we are in agreement that the commissioners mistake here was correcting peoples "mistakes" without the "constitutional" authority to do so?  In effect he was overstepping his authority in the first half of the season and for the second half of the season he actually acted within his authority by not correcting peoples "mistakes" which he didn't have the "constitutional" authority to do in the first place.  I've always maintained that is where the commissioner made his mistake.

The fact that he financially benefitted from not correcting the "mistake" during the last week of the season is frankly irrelevant b/c even according to Joe he had been doing it that way (again acting within his authority or lack therof) for the whole second half of the season.  If he had made that decision during only the last week of the season, then that argument would hold a lot of weight, but to say that he knew 2 months prior to the end of the season that to stop correcting peoples "mistakes" in the end would benefit him financially is kind of ridiculous.

There are 2 sayings in the military that apply here IMO.

No good deed goes unpunished.

Volunteer for nothing.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jan 9, 2010)

*Is Larry interpeting the facts correctly?*

Larry and I seem to be constantly intepreting the "facts" of this situation completely opposite of one another.  Just out of curiosity, how do other people feel I'm intepreting the "facts" of how they were presented to us by Joe?  Forget our opinions of how we think this situation should go which I think is clear for Larry, Joe and I, but how do other people think I'm interpreting the "facts" of the situation?


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 9, 2010)

Clemson Fan said:


> ... but how do other people think I'm interpreting the "facts" of the situation?



Well, if you're wrong, I'm wrong.  But these are the details from Joe's first post:



> ... Because one player forgot to click a button scores were not calculated properly. There is no dispute of the players intent, but because he failed to click one button many of his points weren't counted. Clearly just a technicality. He would have won $450(not big money so its a principle thing).
> 
> Now throughout the year this would happen and the "Commish" would correct but at mid season he became annoyed and declared even though its a 2 minute thing for him he would not do anymore and if you fail to cick the right button, even though your intent is obvious yu would lose the points.
> 
> Not an issue until last week when everything is on he line, when this guy forgot. So he lost $450, and the commish as a result won $131 as did 2 others that would not have received if not for the technicality. ...



I'm seeing it all the same way you are - the commish can't be said to have changed things for his own financial gain because it was unknown at the time of his announcement mid-season who might gain or lose; and, if the arbitrator's ruling that Joe found is the one he wants to apply here to his situation, the possibility exists that an arbitrator will rule that it can be used to also negate the corrections made by the commish in the first half of the season.


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 9, 2010)

Where I feel you both are wrong is this commish wants to be take on that role and these are minor bookkeeping things he should be fine with doing in that role. And nobody gave him absolute rule but himself, so the rule in my mind would not be valid, unless it was voted on, which it wasn't. 


As far as a conflict of interest, there is potential for one in my mind because he was neck and neck with the loser when he realized the problem. He knew at that point if he disallowed the loser was one less competitor to worry about. Was he being imparial at the time when he made the decision?  IMHO he should have requested a vote from the owners to avoid that possibility, but he didn't and that is again what bothers the loser about this more than anything.

I know if there was a vote at mid-season and then at the end when the problem occurred, then he would have bee fine with the outcome.  But without the vote it just does't pass the sniff test for me personally.


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 9, 2010)

Think about it this way. No matter what the error, and no matter the activity, in the absense of  specific rule that addressess, and or a person who was granted absolute rule, wouldn't a vote be needed to decide every issue, especially something done mid-season.

Numerous other issues were voted, why wasn't this? I'm sorry that creates the possiblity of a conflict of interest


----------



## tlwmkw (Jan 9, 2010)

Moxjo,

I think what others are saying (correctly I believe) is that the argument you are using can also be used against you.  The reason is because there was no rule saying that the "commish" had to correct the mistakes in the first half of the season (because there was no constitution) therefore he was not really making a new rule when he stopped doing it- he was simply following what he felt was his job.  This is an ommission not really an application of a "new rule" since nothing said he had to do the corrections in the first half of the season.  An arbitrator may say "The commish shouldn't have done any corrections in the first half of the season since there was no rule that he should, therefore all the results for the season should be re-calculated without his corrections and new scores generated".  Do you see that the lack of a constitution can be interpreted both ways?  Did you ever have a discussion saying "The job of the commish is to correct these errors" and if so was that voted on?  If not it's still open to interpretation.

These things can always go both ways.

JMHO

tlwmkw


----------



## Larry6417 (Jan 9, 2010)

I'm surprised there's still so much debate. Let's review the facts. At the start of the fantasy football season, scores without the extra step were accepted. Therefore, the status quo was that the commissioner DID "correct other players' mistakes." Annoying yes, but that's what the commissioner agreed to do. Mid-season the commissioner unilaterally decided to disallow scores without the extra step i.e. change the status quo. The commissioner did not have the right to change the status quo without a constitution granting him the power to do so. 

Even if there were a constitution granting the commissioner broad powers (there was not), the new rule would still be wrong because it's arbitrary: the commissioner accepted some scores but disallowed others.

If doing the commissioner's job bothered him so much, the commissioner should have resigned rather than trying to unilaterally impose his own rule.





MOXJO7282 said:


> I couldn't disagree more. Rule was not in place before season. He put the rule in place because he is lazy and petty. If the effort to "reconcile" took 3 minutes a week that would be alot. The court would question the commish's right to impose unilateral rules, without consensus and also as Larry suggested, would allow a minor technicality to be a knock-out blow as one attorney put it. The fact that the rule was presented mid-season and the loser vehemently opposed


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 9, 2010)

Every fantasy game that I've ever heard of requires strict adherence to the technical aspects of picks and scores, not sure why some players in this league think that those things can be dismissed.  It's amazing to me that it hasn't been a problem other years for this group.

But now that it is ... on the one hand, you want to use the defense that the commissioner did not have any right to announce midseason that he would no longer correct technical errors because there was no constitution or rule giving him that right.  But on the other hand, you want to ignore that the commish had no authority to correct any of the technical errors made by any players throughout the entire season, for the same reason of there not being a rule or constitution.  

Granted, a midseason change wasn't the smartest thing to do.  But if the players allowed the game to continue knowing that the commish intended to disallow technical errors from that point on, they gave tacit approval to his future actions.  Thus, the only fair solution I see is to re-tally all the scores disallowing any technical corrections that the commish made for any player throughout the entire season.

It seems that you're looking for the solution that will give you the result you want - i.e. that the players' intents for picks be accepted in whatever way is possible - rather than the solution that is most fair to all of the players and also abides by the limited technical and tactical rules that were established before the season.


----------



## tlwmkw (Jan 9, 2010)

Suedonj,

Good summary- you and I have this all figured out and are correct.  No  one else needs to chime in because this is now resolved.   

tlwmkw


----------



## Larry6417 (Jan 9, 2010)

SueDonJ said:


> But now that it is ... on the one hand, you want to use the defense that the commissioner did not have any right to announce midseason that he would no longer correct technical errors because there was no constitution or rule giving him that right.  But on the other hand, you want to ignore that the commish had no authority to correct any of the technical errors made by any players throughout the entire season, for the same reason of there not being a rule or constitution.



Your argument is illogical. Lacking constitutional authority prevents the commissioner from making NEW laws without the group's approval. This begs the obvious question: what was the old standard? The OP clearly stated that the group allowed scores to stand without the extra step from the start of the season. That's not the way you or other fantasy groups you've seen would do it, but that's the way this group did it. Therefore, the commissioner's disallowing scores without the extra step was a new rule - something he didn't have the authority to enact.


----------



## Egret1986 (Jan 9, 2010)

*Don't you bet on this one.*



tlwmkw said:


> Suedonj,
> 
> Good summary- you and I have this all figured out and are correct.  No  one else needs to chime in because this is now resolved.
> 
> tlwmkw



Someone will need to get their last word in on this because, like you, they've resolved the issue in their mind also; however, they've figured it out quite differently.


----------



## Larry6417 (Jan 9, 2010)

tlwmkw said:


> Suedonj,
> 
> Good summary- you and I have this all figured out and are *incorrect*.  No  one else needs to chime in because this is now resolved.
> 
> tlwmkw



I couldn't agree more!


----------



## Larry6417 (Jan 9, 2010)

Egret1986 said:


> Someone will need to get their last word in on this because, like you, they've resolved the issue in their mind also; however, they've figured it out quite differently.



Gee, I wonder who you're talking about...


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 11, 2010)

*The ruling is in.*

Hopefully I attached properly so everyone can read the ruling themselves.

For those that can't open or don't care to read the whole thing, I'll cut to the chase. He ruled in favor of the loser.  He basically said the commish mid-season declaration didn't undo his previous actions and since it was week 17 and the last week of the season the trades intent was obvious.

The loser already sent an e-mail to everyone that its water under he bridge and he doesn't want any money. He just encouraged them to use them next year to avoid blow ups like this year.

However, this won't repair things between the two, I don't think.The loser is really hurt that it came at the hands of his best friend. They still aren't speaking. He feels a true friend would never have done this. And the commish doesn't see he did anything wrong, so he won't take any resonsilbility whatsoever, even with this ruling, so they still are at opposite ends.

Maybe in the future they will resolve thre differences.


----------



## tlwmkw (Jan 11, 2010)

Glad this had been resolved.  Sad thing is it doesn't seem like there is really any resolution for the people involved.  You say that they were best friends?  I guess he's learned that this guy wasn't really a friend at all.  I guess in future your FF league should really lay out the rules ahead of time so as to avoid this type of situation.  Tough lesson to learn.

tlwmkw


----------



## Mel (Jan 11, 2010)

Clemson Fan said:


> Using this logic then the commish shouldn't have the authority to go in and correct somebody else's "mistake."
> 
> Isn't that the basis of this whole petty argument?  The commisioner decided he didn't want to take the time anymore to correct others mistakes.  If anything, he acted improperly in the first half of the season when he corrected others mistakes and in the second half of the season he acted properly.
> 
> Talk about a thankless job.  Instead of getting thanks from your "friends" who I assume could've also volunteered to do this thankless job, he gets threatened with a lawsuit from his "friends" for not correcting their own mistakes.  I'm glad I don't have "friends" like that!



It sounds like the original way of handlig things - making the intended changes - was agreed upon by the other players.  The change was not.  Without a constitutioon, you could either go back and recalculate ALL weeks where corrections were made, or allowALL corrections to stand.

But there may be another issue.  There was a trade between two players as I understand it.  Unless BOTH players finalize the trade, shouldn't the OTHER player's roster remain as it was before the change too?  Otherwise, do you end up with one or more players on more than one team?

If you don't process the trade, what is to keep one player from "pretending" to make a trade, and another player from basing other decisions on that trade, only to find the trade rescinded at the last minute, because the other player didn't complete the process?

I don't play fantasy league, so maybe I just don't understand how it works.


----------



## Talent312 (Jan 11, 2010)

Good point about whether the other player involved in the trade had "finalized" his roster, thus providing "evidence" of respective rosters, each with their traded-for players... IMHO, a significant factor.

The fellow who won this ruling has perhaps scored a pyrrhic victory.
Win the battle, but lose the firends. I wonder if it was worth it?


----------

