Given that the 115 over 2 seasons did not pass, I'm guessing most of your world will be expecting you to always vote for owners to stay. I foresee drama ahead. Is there a panel that votes, or does the entire world vote? If its a panel, is your criteria for voting for expulsion clearly stated?

Good luck getting someone to leave if you've voted to keep a similar owner in the past.   

Don't expect WifS to help if said owner is smart enough to say "You kept jimmyjoe in S21 when he won 47 games so why am I being asked to leave when I won 49?"

What you're promoting is a popularity contest.

Good points, so your suggestion is that of a hard line or no line. Meet the 50 win limit or go, correct?

The leagues that have a minimum win rule should also have a maximum win rule. For example in Killebrew season 20 their were 5 teams over the 100 win mark by 55 games those wins have to come from somewhere

Posted by jb01 on 4/13/2014 10:49:00 PM (view original):
As one of those 100 win teams, I disagree with you entirely SimSoxs.

You have to be getting your wins from somewhere. It is harder to win when you are playing a team that isn't tanking.

As far as your rule passing's, soft rules are no rules. Either a guy hits 50 and stays or he doesn't and leaves.

Since you are asking for opinions here is mine. A 50 win rule only asks for tanking, and again going back to the voting on it only will invite it to be blatant. If your world voted down a 115 two year rule I guess tanking is really what it wants and yes this does benefit the good teams at the top greatly.

An MWR of 55/115/180 at a minimum is really not that hard to meet. But at least it shows that an owner is making even a tiny bit of effort to put a playable team on the field and putting a little bit of risk in not getting the top draft pick. He's at least having to compete with the other 6-8 sixtyish winning teams instead of having three #1 draft picks plopped in his lap.

Posted by jb01 on 4/13/2014 5:44:00 PM (view original):
Good points, so your suggestion is that of a hard line or no line. Meet the 50 win limit or go, correct?

iMO, yes.   If you wanted a soft 50, you could allow someone who failed to make it to petition to be given a one-time exemption.   Maybe he was killed with injuries and underperformance.    But, if you do that, you need someone who'd be willing to pick his team apart.    Why was his payroll 52m and prospect 33m?   Why did he play that 72/74/81/80 thirdbaseman at SS for 124 games?    Why did the pitcher with 42/39 splits get 22 starts?   Why did he keep 4 obviously better options in AAA all season?    IOW, someone willing to say "Bullshit.  You were tanking."

I understand the idea to avoiding tanking set limits. I would think keeping track of a team's activity as pointed out is a more accurate way of proving tanking.

I have MWR in my worlds 55/125/195/280 not only to deter tanking but to also weed out those who just can't keep up.   It really doesn't matter to me if you tanked your way to 52 wins or just aren't good enough at HBD to avoid losing 110 games.

A trained monkey should be able to win 50 games

There's a primate sanctuary near my house.
The macaque got 48 wins in Foxx.

Does that disprove your statement, or is a macaque really a monkey?

Posted by SimSoxs on 4/14/2014 8:41:00 AM (view original):
I understand the idea to avoiding tanking set limits. I would think keeping track of a team's activity as pointed out is a more accurate way of proving tanking.

There's still some subjectivity in reviewing and evaluating a team's activity. 

A hard MWR limit is completely objective.  Either you make it or you don't.

Posted by deathinahole on 4/14/2014 2:32:00 PM (view original):
There's a primate sanctuary near my house.
The macaque got 48 wins in Foxx.

Does that disprove your statement, or is a macaque really a monkey?

The macaque was clearly tanking

Clearly they do not like being accused of tanking.