Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling
This is what NJ Red Machine said after GOnaDs whined about the trade:
"That is a strange deal. I with you."
I took that to mean he was vetoing also.
This is a league where all the players are from Redszone. So you can't get away with anonymously doing things detrimental to the league. This is what sets the league apart from random Yahoo leagues with total strangers. When we started the league we hoped to avoid the types of shenanigans that occur in the random leagues by having a commissioner and a group of adult players that would feel some social responsibility to their "friends" from Redszone.
When two owners come to an agreement to make a trade you do not have the right to nullify the trade unless it can be shown those owners were colluding or conspiring to cheat.
Non-participants in a trade don't know the reasons the trade was made. Everybody has different strategies and ideas of a player's value, especially in a dynasty league.
This league seemed great when we first began. But then some owners quit paying attention early last season and half the owners dropped out after last year. A dynasty league must have continuity from season-to-season or it will quickly fail. The league has some major flaws and a lack of leadership and has devolved into something a few of us have already expressed an interest in leaving. A group of core owners might spin off into a new edition of the league next year and populate the league with other owners that share our vision of what a competitive, friendly, long-term dynasty league should be.
Just curious, but why is your definition the only standard that a member may apply when exercising his veto power?