-
Minors MADMEN's trade block has been updated!
-
Puigs on the Wuing's trade block has been updated!
Paul Dano on
March 13, 2016 12:44 AM
-
I Saw This Tree But It Was A Dragon's trade block has been updated!
-
We don't have to. I was trying to see what your thoughts were. I definitely see how it would be hard to keep up with. I was reading something that mentioned it, so I thought I would see.
Booger Weeds on
March 9, 2016 2:16 PM
-
I personally would rather not, as minor leaguers can be drafted within the current system and I don't want to keep track of it, but if you get someone to second this, I'll put it up for a vote.
Paul Dano on
March 9, 2016 2:00 PM
-
Do we want a expanded draft for minor league players not auctioned? Just throwing it out there for discussion. I had mentioned it awhile back.
Booger Weeds on
March 9, 2016 12:51 PM
-
Anything else we want to get resolved before the auction?
Paul Dano on
March 6, 2016 3:14 PM
-
And that's 6 yeses. With one vote of present, the motion carries. The bottom four this season will be eligible to be nominated for removal.
Paul Dano on
March 3, 2016 7:13 PM
-
Not an automatic vote, no. They have to be nominated by someone in the league.
Paul Dano on
March 3, 2016 7:12 PM
-
automatic*
Stöttley Crüe on
February 27, 2016 8:17 AM
-
I vote yes. But just to be clear...There is not an automotic vote on each of the bottom four players but instead they have to be individually nominated in order to start the process?
Stöttley Crüe on
February 27, 2016 8:16 AM
-
I vote yes. A possible suggestion: instead of the bottom 4 in the standings, being vulnerable to the chopping block vote could be based on how many points you score. So if you score 14,000 or 14,500 or 15,000 or something. That way it's based more on that players own ability and not standing flux. Just a thought. I'm down with bottom 4 too.
-
I vote yes.
-
I vote yes.
-
All league members, including the person on the block get a vote. A tie results in no change.
Paul Dano on
February 26, 2016 2:11 PM
-
I vote present. To be clear, CMP, do the other 11 vote whether to keep the challenged team or only the top 8?
-
My vote is yes.
Booger Weeds on
February 26, 2016 12:59 PM
-
I vote yes even though it will inevitably backfire on me. I support anything to increase activity.
-
I vote yes. I believe this will help create an incentive for someone to at least demonstrate to the league that they are trying to make their team better.
Paul Dano on
February 26, 2016 12:22 PM
-
Voting will be permitted on this for one week, closing on Thurs. Mar. 3 at 11:59 pm.
Paul Dano on
February 26, 2016 12:21 PM
-
There will be no buy-in this year. Next item of for vote is a process for removing members from the league. I propose this: at the end of the season, the bottom four teams are vulnerable to a boot. Any member can call for a vote on any of those 4 people during the week immediately following the close of the season. That person may make his or her case. Then a majority-rules vote will occur on whether or not the person will be permitted to continue in the league.
Paul Dano on
February 26, 2016 12:20 PM
-
The draft has been scheduled for Mar. 12 at 8 pm EST. It will go as late as it needs to go. While you are free to leave the auction at any point, we will not be pausing or delaying the auction. We'll finish it that night. If everyone is prepared and makes quick and reasonable bids, it shouldn't take all that long.
Paul Dano on
February 26, 2016 12:01 PM
-
I don't have a problem with a buy in at whatever amount the consensus would come to, but I can go either way. Availability-wise for those dates, I'm good any time after 8 PM EST 3/10, 11, 14, 15, 19, 20, anytime on 3/12, 13, 16, 17, and after 10 EST on 3/18
-
I say no to $. Late Friday and late Saturday are best* for me (after 8 PM EST)
-
I say no to $. Late Friday and late Saturday are good best for me (after 8 PM EST)
-
I'll pay everyones buy in if they pay me an equal amount for being their friend.
-
Wouldn't really be a rebuild for every team or any team. I was being dramatic, but hopefully you understand where I was going. I vote no to the buy in.
Booger Weeds on
February 22, 2016 5:49 PM
-
I like the idea of a buy in but I also think it should have been something decided before arbitration, so everyone was on the same page from the beginning. I kinda agree with Ben. At this point, all you would be doing is possibly causing owners to drop out. Then you would have to replace those owners literally weeks before the auction. The replacement owners would not be able to take place in the offseason trades and cuts, but still would be required to pay $50 for a what could be rebuild year.
Booger Weeds on
February 22, 2016 5:47 PM
-
To be clear, I'm not opposed to a buy-in in principle. I just don't know if it's legal, don't want to find out, and think it's unrealistic in this league regardless. I think a buy-in would require something like 4 replacement players, effectively ending this league as it is. If you're going to do that, just kill this league and start a new one.
-
I can accept that decision as logical.
-
Lastly (I think) on this, technically Chrisitan would be the only one who potentially faces prosecution in Kentucky. We'd simply be players, he'd be the "bookmaker" if someone actually decided to prosecute us, but then I guess that gets into a thing with Utah/California/wherever he's at. Pretty sure I'm interpreting that right, that's what a lot of the PokerStars stuff revolved around...
-
Mr. Dragon: I choose not to be the test case.
-
So, if the point is to encourage participation, I think a $50 buy-in does nothing. If, instead, you're just interested in competing for $, a side pot of those interested in buying-in will suffice.
-
Cite a case in Kentucky where a judge has determined it to be illegal. As a matter of fact, show me an instance in which the Attorney General or legislature have either one stated an opinion on UIGEA and (non-daily) fantasy sports in the state. Been around for 10 years now and Kentucky has never directly stated whether fantasy sports were a game of chance or skill.
-
Additionally: (1) Some (3-5?), including committed players (i.e., not the ones you're trying to engage) will not pay even if the majority votes for a buy-in; and (2) even $50 (certainly $20) is a nominal amount and is unlikely to motivate anyone to change their behaviors in a significant way. (1/2)
-
I vote yes to doing it whether or not it is illegal. Doing illegal things is fun and dank.
Paul Dano on
February 22, 2016 5:23 PM
-
"Very defensible" is not my preferred standard for determining whether to engage in a potentially illegal activity.
-
"It also depends heavily on the specific type of contest offered. The “auction draft” formula that daily fantasy sports was built upon presents a game that is very defensible from a legal standpoint"
https://chaselaw.nku.edu/content/dam/chaselaw/docs/academics/lawreview/v42/v42no3/14-Pandorf.pdf
-
If you remove money from a transaction a whole lot of things become legal...
-
Thank you for the citation. Not persuasive to this Kentucky lawyer, though, for your assertion. I prefer this point: "Nevertheless, remove either the entry fee or prize from a fantasy football contest and the contest will almost certainly be legal, irrespective of the state of operation."
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2015/08/31/is-your-fantasy-football-league-legal-2/#231b64484983
Paul Dano on
February 22, 2016 5:03 PM
-
And that is my authority on the matter.
Booger Weeds on
February 22, 2016 4:39 PM
-
The Lady of the Lake,her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, The Great and Powerful, was to carry
Excalibur.
Booger Weeds on
February 22, 2016 4:39 PM
-
I don't think we'd ever have enough present to have a quorum
-
I think all the decisions need to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority vote.
Booger Weeds on
February 22, 2016 4:36 PM
-
Cite your authority, commissioner, even if Wikipedia.
-
Also Christian, good luck finding the draft date. Between two people you lost 8 of 10 days (and then Jodie and I killed another one)
-
(not that I really want to get into a debate about law with a lawyer, I was just curious what you would cite to question it is all)
-
Legal under federal law. Potentially illegal in the following states: Arizona; Arkansas; Louisiana; Montana; Iowa; Tennessee; and Washington.
Paul Dano on
February 22, 2016 3:51 PM
-
I would be interested to know why you question the buy-in. Legality of money exchanging hands in normal fantasy (not daily leagues) has been pretty well flushed out as a "game of skill" in the internet gambling act no? Now whether that's correct is probably questionable. And I think a whole lot of people would disagree on what Scalia actually favored...but it's not really the place for that one. :) Also, once again, congrats on the job. Hope all goes well.
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages