wtf - is this really happening???

All 3 of my guys just got picked (Brad Miller, Josh Smith and now Big Zeee)

gg all

Kirilenko was the other guy I was thinking of taking obv.

it's 40 euros now if you're wondering

Victor,

I try my best man. Sometimes my decisions aren't the best. Most of the time, not everyone agrees. However, in nearly every case the majority has agreed with me and thinks I've done a pretty good job of making decisions, letting the majority rule when its necessary, and taking a hard stance and making the decision on my own when its necessary. If you feel as if I did a bad job here, then I'm sorry. However, so far(I havn't caught up on the thread yet) out of 7 or 8 people you seem to be the only one who thinks that I didn't make a good ruling. You claim that "anyone that was evaluating picks would surely assume that we miss z's 24 season" but out of the 7 or 8 people that were in this thread during the decision making process you are the only one to say this and nearly everyone else has thought it was fair. This makes me think that you're 100% wrong when you say that ANYONE would assume that. Let me restate that it only took FOUR PEOPLE OUT OF FOURTY to disagree with my ruling and I would've reconsidered(and I still will up until the next pick is made). Again, I apologize if you think I made a mistake. All I can do is my best.

Hugs and Kisses,
Assani

If you want to officially object then be my guest. I'm trying to be fair here. YOu'll be the second person to object, and as I said if 4 people do so then I'll talk things over with everyone, perhaps take a vote, and reconsider. I'm very willing to listen to everyone on this issue, but I"m not going to hold up the draft forever regarding it. So object and get two more to object before the next pick and we'll go from there. Let me know if you want to officially object.

really interesting choice for your team. I wonder if anyone would've taken Lewis before your next pick(I wouldn't have).

well kidcolin agreed with me i think. tolbiny did too but he didnt feel like posting.

just bc the others agreed with your decision doesnt make me 100% wrong. im completely right regarding the initial rules. they either dont understand the rules or feel they should be amended.

whatver, im still correct that you blatantly changed the rules. thats my point.

and really i dont want to reverse his pick or anything. just admit you changed the rules and it resulted in franchise gaining an advantage.

Franchise def did gain an advantage fwiw

I'm really not seeing how this is kidcolin agreeing with you:



He sees your point. But he doesn't think its a big deal and doesn't care. At least thats what I got from those posts.

i see my point and dont think its a big deal and dont really care either. but youre an antagonistic *** and wont let anything die ever and make posts calling me 100% wrong.

Of course I changed the rules. There was a very gray area and someone asked me about it. I added a clause to the rules that would make things more clear. Why do you want me to "admit" that? It seems completely obvious to me that I changed and amended the rules, as I(along with input from others) have done a few times already.

I don't think Franchise gained an advantage though, as anyone could've asked me about it and I would've done the same thing. I didn't do it just because it was Franchise or anything.

also, dudd gets it too. the rule was changed. he just agrees with the change.

If this isn't the pot calling the kettle black, then I don't know what is. Also how do I not let anything die? The only debate I can think of that I had with you is the Penny one, and as soon as you said that you didn't want to discuss it anymore, I made a few posts responding and immediately dropped the issue and havn't discussed it with you since.


Please explain what I did that was antagonistic in any way here? I made a decision on a controversial issue and let everyone know that if 1/10th of the people disagreed, then I'd reconsider and put it to a vote. How is that antagonistic?

You then came along and said "anyone that was evaluating picks would surely assume that we miss z's 24 season" and I pointed out that you were clearly wrong- I for one didn't interpret it that way, so right away that rules out "anyone." Franchise didn't also. Everyone else in the thread so far didn't seem to interpret it that way(or at least had no problem with my interpretation of the rules). So you were wrong there. I'm sorry if you got offended by me calling you wrong, but you were. You seem to get angry over what I consider friendly debates...weird man. Get some tougher skin.

heh, u even agree on the clarity of the rules.

I'm not sure what you're even arguing here. I agree that I've changed and amended rules both now and before, but I've always tried to use my best judgment and I've always considered the thoughts of the majority and the overall good of the draft. Funny that you call me antagonistic, and now it appears as if you're trying to start an argument when I don't even know what you're arguing with me over.

Yes and re-read the rest of that paragraph when I say that I've decided to amend(i.e. change) that rule. What are you arguing?

haha, see the post i quoted just above this. hahahahaahahah.

I did assume this when evaluating him.

I'm sure some people did. The only thing I said was wrong was that "anyone" would assume that. Do you not agree that his statement was wrong?

assani, you say this

"To be completely fair, the rules state you should get him at 24 and have to endure missing entire seasons"

then you go on to say this

"I pointed out that you were clearly wrong- I for one didn't interpret it that way, so right away that rules out "anyone.""

ok guys what are you arguing about?

victor, he changed the rules and admits to doing so. do you wish to raise a complaint? if not, both of you please let us move on with this thread.

Yes the rules stated that you should get a player at 24. My interpretation of those rules was that we should amend it because I didn't think of these types of cases when initially writing those rules.


I still fail to see what you're trying to argue here. You seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing. I've admitted that I changed/amended the rules, and I've done it before and others have voted on doing it before. Its impossible to completely list every rule perfectly before the draft starts, so theres going to always need to be some changes.

It seems to me that you're being antagonistic here. What do you disagree with me about and what do you think I should do?

I have absolutely no clue! He calls me antagonistic(when I've only had one argument with him ever- and one he started at that!) and then goes through all this!!!

i think you shouldnt call me 100% wrong when the opposite is true. and you know it. i think you called me wrong bc you wanted to start an internet fight. i think you like internet fights bc you are very good at twisting words. i think you get great satisfaction out of pissing ppl off with nittery.