BDL Owners Meeting 2019

[RuskieTitan]

Why was Prop 3 eliminated before Prop 5?

[Ragnarok]

1 minute ago, RuskieTitan said:

Why was Prop 3 eliminated before Prop 5?

No clue.

[BringinDaPain]

6 minutes ago, RuskieTitan said:

Why was Prop 3 eliminated before Prop 5?

Still scratching my head about this one.

[VigilantZombie]

34 minutes ago, RuskieTitan said:

Why was Prop 3 eliminated before Prop 5?

This is the question I have been asking and I still haven't got a very clear answer to it. I keep hearing the comment minority but that option only got two votes. I assume it is because in fiery had the two people that voted for no change voted for option 3 instead it would have been in 8 to 8. I and we would have needed to bring in a tiebreaker. 

[VigilantZombie]

9 minutes ago, Ragnarok said:

No clue.

You know what I'm not encouraging other people to do this but I'm going to withdraw my velour together until we get a more clear answer on this because I feel like if there was going to be an option eliminated that had minority vote it should be the option with no change because I think everybody has made it clear that a change needs to be made but in that regard it should have been which option for change we would like to better and no change does not seem like it should be one of the available options

[Ragnarok]

I would have preferred a vote between Prop 2 and Prop 3. 

That said, this has taken a long time and we can always try to go back to a 14 game season in 2020.  

I am certainly not going to accuse anyone of any nefarious activity.

[RuskieTitan]

4 minutes ago, Ragnarok said:

I would have preferred a vote between Prop 2 and Prop 3. 

That said, this has taken a long time and we can always try to go back to a 14 game season in 2020.  

I am certainly not going to accuse anyone of any nefarious activity.

I've been busy so I haven't kept up with every single post, but for myself, I agreed to Prop 3 once it was explained. My main sticking point was the 14 game schedule. It just seems strange to me that the majority who initially voted for a 14 game schedule would wind up on the 12 game schedule as opposed to no change. 

Then again maybe the holidays is their main sticking point. I dunno.

FWIW, by that process my vote should have gone to No Change rather than disappearing. 

[VigilantZombie]

7 minutes ago, Ragnarok said:

I would have preferred a vote between Prop 2 and Prop 3. 

That said, this has taken a long time and we can always try to go back to a 14 game season in 2020.  

I am certainly not going to accuse anyone of any nefarious activity.

Even with your vote option 2 still wins

[VigilantZombie]

1 minute ago, RuskieTitan said:

I've been busy so I haven't kept up with every single post, but for myself, I agreed to Prop 3 once it was explained. My main sticking point was the 14 game schedule. It just seems strange to me that the majority who initially voted for a 14 game schedule would wind up on the 12 game schedule as opposed to no change. 

Then again maybe the holidays is their main sticking point. I dunno.

FWIW, by that process my vote should have gone to No Change rather than disappearing. 

I am with you there.

[VigilantZombie]

I actually am changing my vote to no change.

[Ragnarok]

1 minute ago, RuskieTitan said:

I've been busy so I haven't kept up with every single post, but for myself, I agreed to Prop 3 once it was explained. My main sticking point was the 14 game schedule. It just seems strange to me that the majority who initially voted for a 14 game schedule would wind up on the 12 game schedule as opposed to no change. 

Then again maybe the holidays is their main sticking point. I dunno.

FWIW, by that process my vote should have gone to No Change rather than disappearing. 

For me personally, we needed to get rid of a game during Thanksgiving and we needed to address week 17.  

Both 2 and 3 did that, just in different ways.  Personally, I would prefer prop 2 to no change which is why I moved my vote there.

The status quo wasnt acceptable.

[TedLavie]

I'm saying it for one freakin last time. After that I'm done.

An owner's meeting is CHANGE vs NO CHANGE. It's always been like that. I don't blame new guys for not knowing this. But Rags, common, you've been around since the beginning, you know how it is

You can't have CHANGE 1 vs CHANGE 2 vs NO CHANGE because votes for change can dilute between CHANGE 1 and CHANGE 2, it's harder to have a majority and, therefore, gives a better chance of a NO CHANGE even if the majority is for a change. (Like here. Prop 2 vs Prop 3 vs No change, you don't have a majority, while at least Rags and 8 others prefer a change than nothing) 

But if it makes you feel any better

@Jlash @MD4L

Prop 2 or Prop 3?

 

Also I'll say nothing about the accusations and I'll finish this meeting. But don't expect me to take any future responsibilities after this.

[VigilantZombie]

3 minutes ago, TedLavie said:

I'm saying it for one freakin last time. After that I'm done.

An owner's meeting is CHANGE vs NO CHANGE. It's always been like that. I don't blame new guys for not knowing this. But Rags, common, you've been around since the beginning, you know how it is

You can't have CHANGE 1 vs CHANGE 2 vs NO CHANGE because votes for change can dilute between CHANGE 1 and CHANGE 2, it's harder to have a majority and, therefore, gives a better chance of a NO CHANGE even if the majority is for a change. (Like here. Prop 2 vs Prop 3 vs No change, you don't have a majority, while at least Rags and 8 others prefer a change than nothing) 

But if it makes you feel any better

@Jlash @MD4L

Prop 2 or Prop 3?

 

Also I'll say nothing about the accusations and I'll finish this meeting. But don't expect me to take any future responsibilities after this.

It wasnt an accusation, i assure you. You mentioned a couple people, in guessing i misunderstand what you were saying, you said something about (the way i read it) making sure a couple people didnt have to vote. 

Seemed like it was a 'convenience change'

Also, that explanation made WAY more sense to me

[TedLavie]

7 minutes ago, RuskieTitan said:

I've been busy so I haven't kept up with every single post, but for myself, I agreed to Prop 3 once it was explained. My main sticking point was the 14 game schedule. It just seems strange to me that the majority who initially voted for a 14 game schedule would wind up on the 12 game schedule as opposed to no change. 

Then again maybe the holidays is their main sticking point. I dunno.

FWIW, by that process my vote should have gone to No Change rather than disappearing. 

You have every right to have keeping a 14 week schedule as you #1 priority on this item

You also have to accept that people like me, PR or SirA don't really care about that, our #1 priority is to get rid of W17. Rags and Whicker priority was to get rid of Thanksgiving week. Jlash and I wanted no preseason games.

In the end, more people are willing to get to a 12 week schedule (which to me is really something that I don't care about. Actually, i'd rather play 14 games than 12, but again, don't care really) so that we can get rid of W17 and Thanksgiving whilst not adding preseason games

[Jlash]

10 minutes ago, TedLavie said:

I'm saying it for one freakin last time. After that I'm done.

An owner's meeting is CHANGE vs NO CHANGE. It's always been like that. I don't blame new guys for not knowing this. But Rags, common, you've been around since the beginning, you know how it is

You can't have CHANGE 1 vs CHANGE 2 vs NO CHANGE because votes for change can dilute between CHANGE 1 and CHANGE 2, it's harder to have a majority and, therefore, gives a better chance of a NO CHANGE even if the majority is for a change. (Like here. Prop 2 vs Prop 3 vs No change, you don't have a majority, while at least Rags and 8 others prefer a change than nothing) 

But if it makes you feel any better

@Jlash @MD4L

Prop 2 or Prop 3?

 

Also I'll say nothing about the accusations and I'll finish this meeting. But don't expect me to take any future responsibilities after this.

If I absolutely can't keep it at no change like I said, then it would be 2. I'm very opposed to starting in preseason.