Need some advice as a commish.

[Old_Smokie]

Should all league rules be warrant to change based on a majority vote by league GMs? I am the commish of a league and have painstakingly planned a league with a constitution (12 page pdf) that governs our league. I planned it for a few months before setting it up and we have been going for 3 seasons now, soon to head into our fourth. We have always tweaked things in a yearly rules discussion but so far nothing "big" has come up. I do not want to rule my league with an iron fist but I also do not want it to grossly morph into something totally unoriginal from what I started in year one. What advice can you guys give me. I want to make sure I offer the league enough input etc but I also would like to maintain some of my "Creative vision" per se. Am I being selfish ?

[gainerama]

If you want to do tweaks to the league rules in the offseason, get a 75% league consensus vote for each rule change and it should be fine.

[Pengwin7]

On "generic" rule changes, that do not directly impact any specific team (I'll explain in a bit), I think you can go with "majority vote".
On "impact specific" rule changes, you need to be a bit more careful... and I'd suggest a 75% majority vote.

Example: Vote to change trade deadline from first wednesday in March to second wednesday in March.
Here - the rule change is fair to all teams.
I think a 50%+ vote is enough.

Now - if you are changing "categories", you can't just allow a majority vote (IMO).
This is because you may have 4 of 12 teams that built themselves to be absolute powerhouses in, say, "Hits" or "Blocks".

The other 8/12 teams would probably love to eliminate "Hits" and/or "Blocks"... if it went to a vote.
But weakening a team that has built itself for a certain set of rules, can be unfair (even if out-voted).

The parallel to the real world that I often use is this:
*If there was a vote to tax the rich 60%, the middle class 10%, and no tax on the lower class... well, that would probably pass with a 90% majority vote.
Fair... well...

[LawMan]

Should all league rules be warrant to change based on a majority vote by league GMs? I am the commish of a league and have painstakingly planned a league with a constitution (12 page pdf) that governs our league. I planned it for a few months before setting it up and we have been going for 3 seasons now, soon to head into our fourth. We have always tweaked things in a yearly rules discussion but so far nothing "big" has come up. I do not want to rule my league with an iron fist but I also do not want it to grossly morph into something totally unoriginal from what I started in year one. What advice can you guys give me. I want to make sure I offer the league enough input etc but I also would like to maintain some of my "Creative vision" per se. Am I being selfish ?

1. Team neutral rules-simple rules which do not directly or indirectly harm any 1-team should be simple majority.
2. Team effecting rules-fundamental rules that will hurt/help some teams a disproportionate amount should require at least 75% majority and be given a reasonable time before they come into force (changing any scoring for example).

I'm not sure if you have a specific issue you think will come up or if you're just trying to cover all your bases with your question. From reading your OP it's clear you put a lot of time and thought into designing your leagues structure. However, you also come off as having an attitude of "it's my baby and no one can touch it." If there is a rule in place that you carefully thought through and is up for alteration I would suggest explaining to the league why its drafted the way it is and how a change will (in your opinion) be detrimental to the league, including how other rules work with the rule being changed, unintended consequences and domino effects. However, if after hearing you out a majority of the league votes in favour of a rule change in accordance with my points above I think you'd be obligated to change the rule.

[Old_Smokie]

1. Team neutral rules-simple rules which do not directly or indirectly harm any 1-team should be simple majority.
2. Team effecting rules-fundamental rules that will hurt/help some teams a disproportionate amount should require at least 75% majority and be given a reasonable time before they come into force (changing any scoring for example).

I'm not sure if you have a specific issue you think will come up or if you're just trying to cover all your bases with your question. From reading your OP it's clear you put a lot of time and thought into designing your leagues structure. However, you also come off as having an attitude of "it's my baby and no one can touch it." If there is a rule in place that you carefully thought through and is up for alteration I would suggest explaining to the league why its drafted the way it is and how a change will (in your opinion) be detrimental to the league, including how other rules work with the rule being changed, unintended consequences and domino effects. However, if after hearing you out a majority of the league votes in favour of a rule change in accordance with my points above I think you'd be obligated to change the rule.

I totally understand your logic here and I do not want to come off meaning that I would not want something changed, however if it is a simple proposal for a change without any rational reason it doesn't make any sense in my mind especially if it has an impact on something else. I am just being proactive in case a situation ever arises.

[mounD]

On "generic" rule changes, that do not directly impact any specific team (I'll explain in a bit), I think you can go with "majority vote".
On "impact specific" rule changes, you need to be a bit more careful... and I'd suggest a 75% majority vote.

Example: Vote to change trade deadline from first wednesday in March to second wednesday in March.
Here - the rule change is fair to all teams.
I think a 50%+ vote is enough.

Now - if you are changing "categories", you can't just allow a majority vote (IMO).
This is because you may have 4 of 12 teams that built themselves to be absolute powerhouses in, say, "Hits" or "Blocks".

The other 8/12 teams would probably love to eliminate "Hits" and/or "Blocks"... if it went to a vote.
But weakening a team that has built itself for a certain set of rules, can be unfair (even if out-voted).

The parallel to the real world that I often use is this:
*If there was a vote to tax the rich 60%, the middle class 10%, and no tax on the lower class... well, that would probably pass with a 90% majority vote.
Fair... well...

P7 is also one of the best fantasy commissioners with whom I've been in a league. Some solid advice here.

[LawMan]

I totally understand your logic here and I do not want to come off meaning that I would not want something changed, however if it is a simple proposal for a change without any rational reason it doesn't make any sense in my mind especially if it has an impact on something else. I am just being proactive in case a situation ever arises.

In that case I would ask for a rationale as to why the rule should be changed and give your rationale for why the rule should not be changed and attempt to reason with the change proposer as to why your rule is superior. Further, if it's a fairly large change you'd be reasonable demanding a 75% majority to make said change. That being said, if after both sides have made all of their points you're on the losing end of a 11-1 or 10-2 vote I think you're likely best accepting the vote and implementing the rule change. Keep in mind that most changes will likely have pros and cons and whether or not a change is "good" for the league is going to be very subjective and depend on what the voter thinks the ideal league should be.