|
Post by Commish_Ron on Nov 24, 2017 15:13:35 GMT -5
I would like to propose the following structure around league changes. If there are no objections we will document it in the league governance and implement immediately for this off season.
Each off season the league will be petitioned for any proposed changes.
Reasonable change requests will be put to the league for a vote.
New rules will require over 50% positive votes to implement. (Tie votes mean not implemented).
Existing rule changes will require 75% positive votes to implement. (75% means implement change).
All non votes will be given by proxy to the commissioner. In other words, if we have 32 GMS and only 28 vote on the poll, the commissioners vote will be worth 4.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by NickP_Marlins GM on Nov 24, 2017 15:47:41 GMT -5
👍
|
|
|
Post by earlweaver on Nov 24, 2017 16:24:33 GMT -5
sounds good
|
|
|
Post by Chicago(N)GMMike on Nov 24, 2017 18:59:09 GMT -5
Good idea!<style></style>
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Nov 24, 2017 19:28:55 GMT -5
Love the structure.
|
|
|
Post by Luc_AZdbacks on Nov 24, 2017 21:53:47 GMT -5
Good with me
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Nov 25, 2017 4:11:10 GMT -5
All absent voters going with the commish by proxy has the potential for some pretty wild 10-vote swings in policy. I don't expect that you, or any commish, would take advantage of such a mechanic but any policy vote that only half the league votes on would pretty much mean that the actual voters only exist in an advisory capacity, because the commissioner's vote will decide the entire issue. This isn't necessarily a bad thing in theory (control in the end has to be somewhere) but I don't know if this was a considered effect of the proposal.
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Nov 25, 2017 8:52:27 GMT -5
All absent voters going with the commish by proxy has the potential for some pretty wild 10-vote swings in policy. I don't expect that you, or any commish, would take advantage of such a mechanic but any policy vote that only half the league votes on would pretty much mean that the actual voters only exist in an advisory capacity, because the commissioner's vote will decide the entire issue. This isn't necessarily a bad thing in theory (control in the end has to be somewhere) but I don't know if this was a considered effect of the proposal. I'd feel a little more comfortable if the Commish vote had an upper limit to how many votes it could represent. Like, maybe five?
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Nov 25, 2017 9:54:28 GMT -5
I would side with the Commissioner having final say, period. So number of proxy votes, in my opinion, is irrelevant. The governance already contains this line: The Commissioner will act in the best interest of the league at all times, will be the deciding voice in any disputes and also will have the power to assess fines and remove members as required. The underlined passage captures much of what is outlined. I might suggest the initial post be reduced to just the Commissioner deciding on a vote, if needed, and then evaluating from there. If he feels it's good for the league, pass it. If he feels it's bad for the league, don't. If he feels the vote is too close to call, status quo. If the vote on a certain issue is that divisive, there will be noses out of joint either way. LESS rules the better!
|
|
|
Post by Mac_Yankees GM on Nov 25, 2017 10:37:49 GMT -5
I support there being a limit on how many proxy votes the commissioner can cast (5?). Just so the league majority isn't over-shadowed by something like a 10 count vote.
Of course if we all just participate in any voting there will no uncasted proxy votes to worry about.
|
|
|
Post by Sean..Mariners GM on Nov 25, 2017 10:50:56 GMT -5
Sounds good!!
|
|
|
Post by Tim_GiantsGM on Nov 25, 2017 11:28:31 GMT -5
I like the original proposal.
Regarding proxy votes, the Commish would have many options including splitting the proxy votes. In the end, I believe the Commish will do what is best for the league.
And, as Mac wrote, if we all vote there is no need for the Commish to cast proxy votes.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Nov 25, 2017 11:50:44 GMT -5
All absent voters going with the commish by proxy has the potential for some pretty wild 10-vote swings in policy. I don't expect that you, or any commish, would take advantage of such a mechanic but any policy vote that only half the league votes on would pretty much mean that the actual voters only exist in an advisory capacity, because the commissioner's vote will decide the entire issue. This isn't necessarily a bad thing in theory (control in the end has to be somewhere) but I don't know if this was a considered effect of the proposal. I am really glad you brought this up. I want to be very transparent that, Yes, that is exactly the power I am asking for. Here are my thoughts. First, I am hoping for very active GM participation. If there is enough proxy available that the commissioner decides every vote then there is a problem. Second, if we do indeed have an active GM community then can we interpret a light voter turnout to mean that there is just not much passion for that particular issue? In those cases are GMs basically deferring to the commissioner to use his best judgement? Is that ok? I am open to the idea of capping the number of proxy, but that changes the percentages and the essence of what they were supposed to be. I proposed 75% to change an existing rule. That means we need 24 votes to change. If we cap proxy it could be impossible to reach 24 votes. So we would have to make it 75% of the vote. We just changed it from 75% of the league to 75% of the voters required to change an existing rule. Is that a bad thing? Not sure. Not ideal. Maybe our first vote needs to be to decide if we need to cap the proxy? It is a new rule so it would only need the 50% majority.
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Nov 25, 2017 17:08:23 GMT -5
Truthfully, I find myself mostly aligned with David. The Commissioner gets the final say, period. Being a wise and well-reasoned human who desires the best for the league he will take the expressed will of the GMs into account when making decisions. If the goal is to limit that power, then my above point has some weight, but I don't know that we need cross that bridge.
My two cents.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Nov 25, 2017 18:04:44 GMT -5
And just be clear, I am not suggesting he act unilaterally. In fact I would appreciate it if he called for a vote of GMs on any number of items.
I am just saying that HE make a call depending on the where the vote goes. If he feels the vote carries and is good for the league, then I trust he will make a good call.
In other words, no need to cast percentages in stone.
|
|