Trading - Require explanation with veto
Require managers to provide an explanation when vetoing a trade.
Product Support
shared this idea
-
Silvio Grasso
commented
We made this a rule for all rejected trades but managers still do not do it. A REASON for rejecting a trade or vetoing one should be standard.
I asked for this as well when Yahoo asked for year-end feedback. -
BlurryFace
commented
Great idea - usually the people involved in the trade are left wondering why their vote got vetoed, which invariably leads to arguments.
Frankly, vetoed trades can sour the entire league, and it's in Yahoo's best interests to provide a better vetoing system ... keeping us all sane and happy will keep us coming back :) Vetoed trades are by FAR the most frustrating, and biggest stress-point, of playing Fantasy.
I would suggest also having an option to make the results league-viewable only AFTER/IF the trade gets vetoed. I find people tend to jump on the bandwagon once they know somebody else has vetoed a trade, and this needs to be avoided. It snowballs into a mob mentality veto. Each person should be voting on a trade individually, without influence from others, while providing a reason for a veto.
Additionally, there should be an option for the commish(es) to have a final veto over the veto results. That way, everyone can still vote anonymously, but the commish(es) can still cancel the veto (allow the trade to proceed) in the event of unfounded or unfair vetoes.
Also, Yahoo should let us configure the exact number of vetoes required to cancel a trade. Setting a global 1/3 of votes may not work for all leagues. For my league, I would like to set the bar higher (especially to avoid the snowball instances as explained above).
-
K Smith
commented
I would recommend that the voting should be by Majority: “At least 50% of the votes plus one or a number greater than half of the total votes cast.”
-
K Smith
commented
Ruth,
I agree with your system for trade vetoes managed by the Commissioner. If Yahoo determines that there would be a network load balance problems for its web environment, then enabling a text box would not be feasible. If Yahoo is utilizing a CMS, then there should not be a problem in enabling the field setting for a textfield or textarea.
-
Ruth
commented
Kelly the way my leagues work it is the function of the commissioner to require owners vetoing a trade to provide their reasoning. It would be meaningless for yahoo to write code and eat bandwidth providing that space and having 99.9 percent of the leagues not use it.
In the leagues I manage I require an email, sent privately, giving the reason for the vote. "I do not accept "because I hate Jimmy" or "just because I can". If a trade appears fair and the persons disapproving do not provide some realistic logic for the veto I overturn the veto. And there are some folks that will veto every trade no matter how fair the trade is. They just like being aholes.
And just in case you are wondering, I don't dispute any serious reason for a veto. I simply make sure there is a reason that is relevant to hockey and not just some idiot that likes messing with people because they can.
And if you do fantasy sports enough you'll find that in active league most unbalanced or unfair trades are vetoed and nearly everyone votes against them so really bad trades are not an issue anyways.
-
K Smith
commented
I would recommend that the veto remain anonymous, but have a text field added, requiring an explanation for the veto. The team owner can remain masked, but their explanation would become public.
In other words, in order to submit a veto, the team owner will be required to provide an explanation. The explanation can be in the form of multiple choices, free form, or both.