| Date | 2010-09-16 06:45 |
| Message | Brown.. i didn't see your disclaimer about voting.. count me the same as C-Dogg on #2: No (Yes to Phil's version) |
| Date | 2010-09-16 05:46 |
| Message | #1 - Yes #2 - No (Yes to Phil's version) #3 - Yes |
| Date | 2010-09-16 04:28 |
| Message | i vote for the amended #2 as well. I dont like it going to a dispute, it should be an automatic calculation. I fully support the proposal put forth by dan. |
| Date | 2010-09-16 01:06 |
| Message | i voted for the amended #2 (no dispute required).. i think a few others did too? |
| Date | 2010-09-15 07:01 |
| Message | So here's the voting tallies so far. C-Dogg - I'm not including your vote at this point - the "I'm fine with all three" but then later questioning the proposals = not clear on your vote. (these tallies include my vote in favor of all 3) 1. 6 yes - carried 2. 4 yes, 1 no and 1 unclear (ie Duke) 3. 4 yes, 2 no So # 1 is officially carried and we'll wait for Wiebe and C-dogg to caste their votes. |
| Date | 2010-09-15 06:48 |
| Message | I'll apologize again for derailing a vote, I do understand that this discussion brings frustration and confusion, but I wanted to make it clear why I was voting no to the 2 proposals, both of which I agree with, but need the conditions in my opinion. cheers |
| Date | 2010-09-15 06:45 |
| Message | C-dawgs - I believe that rule has already been created. To clarify - for everyone voting - we're voting on the proposal's the commissioner made - NOT amended proposals by other GMs. |
| Date | 2010-09-15 12:57 |
| Message | Ahhh.... I see. I had the same misconception as Epp. The calculation is only used to determine the draft order. So it eliminates any possibility of tanking. There are no complaints or disputes in this approach because they aren't needed, your draft order is determined by the maximum possible points you could have gotten. Are we going to have a rule about having a minimum amount of active players? i.e. have to always have at least 12 f, 6 d, 2 g |
| Date | 2010-09-15 10:06 |
| Message | 1) Yes 2) Yes, I guess. Am I to assume this formula will only be activiated if there is a formal complaint from a GM about another team? 3) Dustin. I don't mind him being drafted as a D (if he's listed that way at the start of the season) and then watching his FHL team benefit if he moves to forward (while still filling a D spot on the FHL roster) but I don't mind losing that vote. Not a big deal. |
| Date | 2010-09-15 09:36 |
| Message | yes cam.. the other side benefit is that prospects are included in the calculations, so all tanking talk about burying prospects goes away as well.. if a roster move dispute is required to kick in the rule, then not bringing up a producing prospect should be another part of the dispute.. it just gets messy... why force someone to be the bad guy and dispute the way another guy runs his team? as far as injuries in the beginning of the month etc, everyone's in the same boat... the set up will more fairly allocate draft picks in the future based on actual player performance instead of adding the variable of the GM's active lineup decisions. |