I agree, llamanuts - and who's to say what's even?   I had a trade vetoed years ago, my second or third league.  It was two AAA players straight-up for each other, but one owner (Lemayripper, for those who remember him) rallied the troops and had the trade vetoed.  In his inimitable way, he 'explained' to me that I didn't know what i was doing, that the player I was trading was worth far more than the player I was getting, and if I wasn't going to take the time to identify my AAA players I shouldn't play the game.  I responded that I HAD identified the players; I knew I was giving up more than I was getting on paper; but I didn't need the player I was trading and I really needed the player I was getting.  In essence, I was trading nothing (a player that would never leave AAA) for something (a player who would get significant playing time).  Who's to say that's not a fair trade?

Posted by llamanunts on 8/21/2012 10:46:00 AM (view original):
Vetoes are dumb unless you believe collusion is going on.  If you beat me on a trade, you beat me on a trade.  They shouldn't have to be even.

Yep. I view the veto option as primarily a preventative to prevent obvious collusion. I have only vetoed a handful of trades in my 4 years here. Unless it is dramatically and obviously unfair, I don't mess with how others want to run their team, and I wouldn't expect them to veto my trades either.

Posted by italyprof on 8/19/2012 7:22:00 PM (view original):
I did not call you names, I called the behavior, which I did not attribute per se to you or anyone else, but in general to those who hold to that policy, names. Fair ones I think. I want to win too, but not by unsportsmanlike, cut-throat tactics. As for the "smart" this seems defensive - I wasn't saying my approach was smarter, though there are a few people who have acted badly in trade offers with whom I won't trade in the leagues we are in together, which in progressives is a big deal - so I think despite the obvious short-term advantages, in the long term as a "member" of the WIS "community" of player-owners, mine is the approach I prefer. 

You were the one who said you veto any trades by any owner in your division as if your own self-interest were a good enough reason. I would suggest all owners that find themselves in a division with you petition the commissioners and the administration for a realignment. Of course, if everyone did that, because they know you will automatically veto all their trades, then you will find it difficult to be in leagues, since eventually no one wanting to be in the same division with you will be a problem. 

Golden rule. Competition can take place within its borders. The British make a big deal of this sportsmanlike conduct stuff "It's not cricket" is a severe put-down there. 

Yes,  we Americans gloat and do touchdown dances, and actually use our own self-interest as a justification for what we do as if it were a good reason (to others !) but back when we had a sense of anything, Mickey Mantle put his head down as he rounded the bases to not offend the pitcher he hit it off of. I guess the Barry Bonds/Mark McGwire  America is preferred by some. Not by me. 

I like you, but I wish you'd be more obnoxious.  I bet you'd be good at it.