fawkes_mulder

2017 Commissioner / League Rules / League Drama

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, 89Topps said:

 

Then you're telling the guy what positions he can punt.  What if it was catcher and he was dealing Posey and just planned to stream catchers?  I look at trades as straight player for player value.  Not my job to tell a team what position they need to fill.

 

This is all true. I'm not in that league so I don't know whats up. You should def be allowed to stream if you want to. Thats why I said if I was the commissioner, I'd talk to the guy first. Knowing he's in 6th place makes me think its more of a bad trade than someone actively trying to collude or hurt the league (and should not be vetoed)

 

If the 12th/12 place team is making this trade. I really don't think he has some miraculous plan of streaming SS to get out of the gutter, especially when SS has presumably been a strength. We don't even know if it's daily.

 

 

Edited by brockpapersizer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dmac88 said:

No collusion. I didn't want to influence any answers when I posted this, but now that a bunch of people have weighed in (appreciate all the viewpoints, for and against) I can say that I'm team B. Absolutely no collusion. I've been in first all year and this is the second trade of mine that's been vetoed. The first one I made, I appealed and it got put through. It's funny because since then I've actually come out on the losing end of that trade lol. Yet I'm still getting my trades ****** with. The commish is a stand up guy, so I think I'm gonna propose going to commish veto for next year since the other guys can't play like adults. One guy in the league changed his team name calling me a "cheater thief" lol. Children I'm playing with.

you made a low-ball trade offer and he accepted so now it goes to a vote ... in truth that owner is lacking something

 

lets see what the other owners think .... let us know how it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's a daily league. My best guess of what he's thinking (I honestly just saw he had a weak OF, and I have Marte coming back tomorrow, I thought there'd be more negotiation) is that he has one of the better IFs in the league and wants to improve his OF/really likes Conforto. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, shakestreet said:

you made a low-ball trade offer and he accepted so now it goes to a vote ... in truth that owner is lacking something

 

lets see what the other owners think .... let us know how it goes.

I wouldn't say it was low ball. It was my first offer and I didn't expect it to get accepted, I thought we'd tinker a bit. But 5 people vetoed so it was denied. Per league rules the other owner and I can "appeal" by putting it through again and seeing if it goes through, after opening up a discussion thread on it on the league page where people can make their case. I don't expect it to go through. As I said, I'm more looking at this as a jumping off point for proposing a commish veto for next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, dmac88 said:

I wouldn't say it was low ball. It was my first offer and I didn't expect it to get accepted, I thought we'd tinker a bit. But 5 people vetoed so it was denied. Per league rules the other owner and I can "appeal" by putting it through again and seeing if it goes through, after opening up a discussion thread on it on the league page where people can make their case. I don't expect it to go through. As I said, I'm more looking at this as a jumping off point for proposing a commish veto for next year.

 

Rework it.  Take Hanley out, or add another piece on your end.  I know most would cry that you shouldn't have to, but, as your rules define, you kind of have to make it palatable for the other owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 89Topps said:

 

Rework it.  Take Hanley out, or add another piece on your end.  I know most would cry that you shouldn't have to, but, as your rules define, you kind of have to make it palatable for the other owners.

Yeah, that's a good idea. Maybe I'll try that out. I'll insert a reliever or something and make it a 3 for 2. I have a strong bullpen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should add I won this league last year, came in 2nd the year before. I think that's biasing people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2017 at 6:11 PM, handyandy86 said:

Is it ethical to boot a paid member because you don't like how they're running their team? 

 

No, it's not, and if i saw a league manager do that, i would leave the league as well. However, if he's not active, as you stated he was, then that's a very good reason to remove him.

 

On 5/23/2017 at 11:48 AM, handyandy86 said:

I've got a new owner this year in our "keep 3" league that has been making questionable trades, and just hit a new low, agreeing to trade away his Corey Kluber and G. Polanco for Chris Tillman, Gio Gonzalez, and Chris Taylor.  Kluber was one of his 3 keepers (whom he traded Josh Donaldson for in the off-season), and I just don't see the reasoning for this trade no matter how I try to look at it.  

 

Due to other bad trades, he already has 6 bench bats to only 8 total pitchers on his roster, including three 1B, three 3B (now four with Taylor), and will have three 2B now too.  Yet he never sets his lineup (has played with Polanco in his lineup since he went on the DL, and this is a daily lineup league).  He's also made fewer FA adds than trades.  He was also a no-show at the draft and said he got stuck working late.

 

However at the same time he's made trades with 3 different teams, so it's hard for me to reason there's collusion when I have no evidence any of the other owners involved know each other.  I always said as a LM I would only veto for collusion/cheating, but now seeing how downright bad this trade is it makes me think even if it's not collusion this guy could be ruining competitive balance for a team he'll likely bail from at the end of the season, leaving me to find a new owner for a team with no legit keepers.

 

What's the right move in this situation?

 

Even though this is 2 months old, i have to respond to this because this is the exact same situation i found myself in last year and spent much of the offseason thinking about. The situation arises simply from owners not caring, not being active, and not understanding how to play. I did 2 things:

 

1. Installed a trade deadline on July 8th. That seems to be about as late as it can be before owners out of contention stop caring about their current season.

2. It's LM veto with an option to appeal to a league vote. Honestly, it probably should be strictly LM decision simply because of the number of owners out there who believe in passing every trade without even looking at it. My first step is asking the owners for their mindset. As long as they have a strategy and it makes sense, i have no problem passing it. If it doesn't, i explain to them why i don't believe it's a good trade and which side is short. I don't tell them how to re-structure it.

 

In that trade above, late May, i'd probably approve it begrudgingly. In late July, it's getting vetoed if he's in last place. If he has nothing to play for this year, any trade he's involved in should have a keeper quality player coming his way. Certainly not going the other way. When a guy who doesn't care to be active, and doesn't care to understand the way the game works, chooses to throw off the competitive balance simply because he doesn't care - that shouldn't be approved.

 

My mindset is that anything that's happened in the first half can happen in the second half. So the guy in last place and first place could have opposite second halves and be even at the last week of the season. So if the guy came back and said "I hate to give up Kluber, but i think these 3 guys give me a shot at a good second half" - OK, approved. late in the season, i'm not allowing the guy to screw over other league members who have worked hard all season to have a shot at the championship, and for no other reason other than you didn't bother to compete all year and now you're bored with your terrible team.

 

I completely understand where you're coming from. I put activity requirements in place for this year and done everything i can short of kicking guys out. I've also thought about having monthly emails highlighting certain strategies to help league mates understand how to effectively play the game. In your situation, no show for the draft and not being active - i'd warn him, let him know that actively managing your team will help it a lot more than making trades. If he still doesn't begin to manage his team, i'd look at removing him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Seager trade is fine. The people who veto that just need to stay out of the other guys' business and make their own moves.

 

One of the best parts of keeper leagues is watching the arms race develop as the trade deadline approaches. Typically, the teams vying for the playoffs end up trading long-term assets for short-term gain and the sellers get stronger in the future. It's no different than real baseball. If I'm in the play-off hunt I have to watch what my competitors are doing and if someone gets stronger I need to be ready to make a corresponding move instead of just relying on vetoes to maintain the status quo. Every MLB GM is doing the same thing.

 

I understand if you have careless or ignorant owners who become prey for the savvy owners that you want to try to protect against that and it sounds like your veto policy is there for that reason. That said, the Seager trade is nowhere close to that type of trade so I don't see what the big deal is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, dmac88 said:

Looking for some neutral opinions on a league matter. We have veto spelled out to apply for "lopsided trades" and requires 1/3 of the 14-team league to vote against. 

 

Team A trades: 

 

Corey Seager: ranked ~45 in our league

Hanley Ramirez: ranked ~400 in our league

 

Team B trades: 

 

Ryan Zimmerman: ~30

Michael Conforto: ~200 (was ~80-100 before injured, owner says)

 

One contingent says: this trade is lopsided and shouldn't go through. Team B is in first place and that owner thinks he's possibly being treated unfairly because of that.

 

Other contingent says: rules spell out vetoes should only be for obviously lopsided trades and otherwise owners should be allowed to run their teams as they please. Preseason rankings don't match up, but Aaron Judge's preseason ranking was ~300.

 

The main issue here is definition of " obvously lopsided trades". Who determines what EXACTLY is a lopsided trade in your league? That is the problem. What I feel is lopsided may not hold true for someone else in a league thinks is OBVIOUS lopsided. Bad rule imo - sorry.

 

Seager is the best player in the deal and that was the intent of trading FOR him by Team B. Team A accepted the deal for whatever reason. That owners feels thats what he wants in return.

 

Every trade ( most of the time ) there is a winner and loser. Each owner has a direction they want their team to go in. Not for any one person(s) to determine that route based on OPINION of what is OBVIOUS lopsided or not.

 

Trade needs to be allowed and this kind of rule needs to be extinguished in the league. It's a bad rule, bad precedent and wrecks leagues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, TedStriker said:

I think the Seager trade is fine. The people who veto that just need to stay out of the other guys' business and make their own moves.

 

One of the best parts of keeper leagues is watching the arms race develop as the trade deadline approaches. Typically, the teams vying for the playoffs end up trading long-term assets for short-term gain and the sellers get stronger in the future. It's no different than real baseball. If I'm in the play-off hunt I have to watch what my competitors are doing and if someone gets stronger I need to be ready to make a corresponding move instead of just relying on vetoes to maintain the status quo. Every MLB GM is doing the same thing.

 

I understand if you have careless or ignorant owners who become prey for the savvy owners that you want to try to protect against that and it sounds like your veto policy is there for that reason. That said, the Seager trade is nowhere close to that type of trade so I don't see what the big deal is.

there was nothing ever mention about this league in question was a keeper league

 

ted you hit it out of the ballpark ... you keep coming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assumed it was keeper because to me that's the only way I could see an issue with that deal. Otherwise I don't see the problem with trading Seager (~50 rank) and Han Ram (~400) for Zimmerman (~30) and Conforto (~90) in a re-draft. Obviously Seager is the best long-term piece although Conforto could become a monster if things go right.

 

I was also sort of making a general statement about trading in keeper leagues because that's usually where I see lopsided trades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dugout Legend said:

 

The main issue here is definition of " obvously lopsided trades". Who determines what EXACTLY is a lopsided trade in your league? That is the problem. What I feel is lopsided may not hold true for someone else in a league thinks is OBVIOUS lopsided. Bad rule imo - sorry.

 

Seager is the best player in the deal and that was the intent of trading FOR him by Team B. Team A accepted the deal for whatever reason. That owners feels thats what he wants in return.

 

Every trade ( most of the time ) there is a winner and loser. Each owner has a direction they want their team to go in. Not for any one person(s) to determine that route based on OPINION of what is OBVIOUS lopsided or not.

 

Trade needs to be allowed and this kind of rule needs to be extinguished in the league. It's a bad rule, bad precedent and wrecks leagues.

You're right, it's a dumb rule. But it's what everyone agreed to this season, and there's never been a problem before. When a previous trade got vetoed, I asked for clarification and the commish said "obviously lopsided" an example would be something like Pillar for Arenado. But people in this league apparently have trouble removing their biases and saying "yeah, the Seager side probably is a bit worse, but the trade isn't terrible. I wish I would have made it, but I didn't propose one. Gotta put it through." I think I'll propose a rule like @Bravesfan155 suggested - LM decision with appeal to league vote.

58 minutes ago, TedStriker said:

I assumed it was keeper because to me that's the only way I could see an issue with that deal. Otherwise I don't see the problem with trading Seager (~50 rank) and Han Ram (~400) for Zimmerman (~30) and Conforto (~90) in a re-draft. Obviously Seager is the best long-term piece although Conforto could become a monster if things go right.

 

I was also sort of making a general statement about trading in keeper leagues because that's usually where I see lopsided trades.

It actually isn't a keeper! Lol that's what makes it even more ridiculous that it got vetoed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, dmac88 said:

It actually isn't a keeper! Lol that's what makes it even more ridiculous that it got vetoed.

 

I agree a rule that says "obviously lopsided" is dumb. Guy clearly hasn't even tried to think things through - lazy rule that gives him all the power and can lead to messy situations.

 

If it's not a keeper though, then this is easy - there needs to be a trade deadline middle of the year. Otherwise, what's to stop teams at the bottom from sending everyone to a certain team just for the hell of it. At a certain point, you have to cut it off and let the best team win.

 

@TedStriker I don't see how you can claim that long-term assets are sent to the bottom teams and in the same sentence approve a trade that has the long-term asset going to the team in first place. In my experience, the long-term asset NEVER gets sent to the bottom team. It's the exact opposite. The team in first goes fishing for the idiot, dangling a handful of attractive name for a quality player. Then you get trades like Manny Machado to the first place team for Odorizzi, Pujols, and Mallex Smith. And no one veto's because "only veto when collusion". Then the guy in first goes to the waiver wire and replaces them with the pickup of the week. Now you've let the guy in last place determine who wins the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bravesfan155 said:

 

I agree a rule that says "obviously lopsided" is dumb. Guy clearly hasn't even tried to think things through - lazy rule that gives him all the power and can lead to messy situations.

 

If it's not a keeper though, then this is easy - there needs to be a trade deadline middle of the year. Otherwise, what's to stop teams at the bottom from sending everyone to a certain team just for the hell of it. At a certain point, you have to cut it off and let the best team win.

 

@TedStriker I don't see how you can claim that long-term assets are sent to the bottom teams and in the same sentence approve a trade that has the long-term asset going to the team in first place. In my experience, the long-term asset NEVER gets sent to the bottom team. It's the exact opposite. The team in first goes fishing for the idiot, dangling a handful of attractive name for a quality player. Then you get trades like Manny Machado to the first place team for Odorizzi, Pujols, and Mallex Smith. And no one veto's because "only veto when collusion". Then the guy in first goes to the waiver wire and replaces them with the pickup of the week. Now you've let the guy in last place determine who wins the season.

The trade deadline is the end of this month. And the guy I'm trading with is in contention, so it's not a case of a last-place team just sending top players for the hell of it. This trade is not at all comparable to a Manny for Odorizzi, Pujols, and Mallex Smith (I know you weren't making that direct comparison), and the idea was that the league would be able to recognize a trade like that one and veto it, but leave ones like this go that they may not like or wish they had made, but realize it's not awful. Obviously that's not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Low and Away said:

Interesting discussion that goes beyond the usual tripe of " he is garbage, beasting, and so forth. 

Fantasy baseball ethics are oddly nuanced haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dugout Legend said:

 

The main issue here is definition of " obvously lopsided trades". Who determines what EXACTLY is a lopsided trade in your league? That is the problem. What I feel is lopsided may not hold true for someone else in a league thinks is OBVIOUS lopsided. Bad rule imo - sorry.

 

Seager is the best player in the deal and that was the intent of trading FOR him by Team B. Team A accepted the deal for whatever reason. That owners feels thats what he wants in return.

 

Every trade ( most of the time ) there is a winner and loser. Each owner has a direction they want their team to go in. Not for any one person(s) to determine that route based on OPINION of what is OBVIOUS lopsided or not.

 

Trade needs to be allowed and this kind of rule needs to be extinguished in the league. It's a bad rule, bad precedent and wrecks leagues.

 

What language would you suggest to determine what trades are vetoable?

 

"Obviously lopsided" is up to each owner to determine.  Hence the league vote.  That's kind of the point.

 

I've got no problem with the rule.  Not sure what you think would be better.

Edited by 89Topps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bravesfan155I honestly missed the part about Seager going to the first place team. I thought it was the other way around. So, actually if that was a keeper league then I could see there being an issue with the better team getting Seager. However, with it being a re-draft it doesn't matter.

 

I typically see the play-off bound teams giving up future assets such as minor leaguers and/or draft picks or young talent for the established player. Not saying I haven't seen the dumb trades that you mentioned but not very often. I would veto the Machado trade example you gave if a keeper league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bravesfan155 said:

 

No, it's not, and if i saw a league manager do that, i would leave the league as well. However, if he's not active, as you stated he was, then that's a very good reason to remove him.

 

 

Even though this is 2 months old, i have to respond to this because this is the exact same situation i found myself in last year and spent much of the offseason thinking about. The situation arises simply from owners not caring, not being active, and not understanding how to play. I did 2 things:

 

1. Installed a trade deadline on July 8th. That seems to be about as late as it can be before owners out of contention stop caring about their current season.

2. It's LM veto with an option to appeal to a league vote. Honestly, it probably should be strictly LM decision simply because of the number of owners out there who believe in passing every trade without even looking at it. My first step is asking the owners for their mindset. As long as they have a strategy and it makes sense, i have no problem passing it. If it doesn't, i explain to them why i don't believe it's a good trade and which side is short. I don't tell them how to re-structure it.

 

In that trade above, late May, i'd probably approve it begrudgingly. In late July, it's getting vetoed if he's in last place. If he has nothing to play for this year, any trade he's involved in should have a keeper quality player coming his way. Certainly not going the other way. When a guy who doesn't care to be active, and doesn't care to understand the way the game works, chooses to throw off the competitive balance simply because he doesn't care - that shouldn't be approved.

 

My mindset is that anything that's happened in the first half can happen in the second half. So the guy in last place and first place could have opposite second halves and be even at the last week of the season. So if the guy came back and said "I hate to give up Kluber, but i think these 3 guys give me a shot at a good second half" - OK, approved. late in the season, i'm not allowing the guy to screw over other league members who have worked hard all season to have a shot at the championship, and for no other reason other than you didn't bother to compete all year and now you're bored with your terrible team.

 

I completely understand where you're coming from. I put activity requirements in place for this year and done everything i can short of kicking guys out. I've also thought about having monthly emails highlighting certain strategies to help league mates understand how to effectively play the game. In your situation, no show for the draft and not being active - i'd warn him, let him know that actively managing your team will help it a lot more than making trades. If he still doesn't begin to manage his team, i'd look at removing him.

 

Thanks for the input - I can't remember if I actually updated on here what ended up happening, but I handled it similarly to how you are suggesting.  I didn't like the deal and it felt fishy from the start (new manager I don't know, doesn't show for draft, inactive to the point of making almost no adds and not setting lineup but has time to make questionable trades), so I did end up asking both managers for their thoughts/reasoning on why they thought the deal was good for them.  Of course I got a quick answer back from the manager that was getting the "good end" but nothing back from the other one.  When I ended up vetoing it the inactive owner suddenly piped up and spouted some angry nonesense about it being "his team to do what he wanted with" and that he didn't need to answer to anyone why he wanted to make the trade.

 

In the end I stuck with the veto and I think everyone else in the league was good with the decision and respected it.  I did it all publicly and used the message board to post out my reasoning and what my expectations were so that my motives were as clear as possible, and also to try and set a precedent for how I'll run the league.  It's a relatively new league and while I made it clear from the start it was a LM Veto, I probably wasn't detailed enough on what situations I would use the veto in, so I also used this to show what situations I consider veto-worthy.

 

That owner is still in last place and still just as inactive, so I'll likely be looking to dump him in the off season for someone more reliable.  I'm happy with the decision I made to veto, as I think most in the league were, but this is a prime example of those trades that skirt the boundary between "collusion" and "fairness/league balance".  As others have pointed out it's almost impossible to prove collusion, but I feel like if there's enough probable cause to make you suspicious, plus a large imbalance in player value, you are well within your rights as a LM to veto.

 

I think the key, which is apparent in @dmac88 's situation, is that it really comes down to the rules everyone agreed to and how they have been conveyed to the league.  Who can veto and for what reasons need to be made clear from the start, and anyone joining a new league should look into this diligently before joining.  It's also a big cop-out from the LM perspective to instruct league members to only veto in specific situations, but then give them full power.  In the end I think the only way to really have the veto process neutral and controlled is to have LM Veto only, as most individual owners are too biased by their own situation to be able to fairly use the veto power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, 89Topps said:

 

What language would you suggest to determine what trades are vetoable?

 

"Obviously lopsided" is up to each owner to determine.  Hence the league vote.  That's kind of the point.

 

I've got no problem with the rule.  Not sure what you think would be better.

 

I think the problem is that you're leaving the vote up to a group of owners that are likely pretty biased (not wanting the top team to get even better) and jealous.  Personally I think league vote is a horrible system that is just asking for trouble, but I guess that's up to everyone to decide for themselves and join leagues accordingly.  

 

If anything the solution in that situation might be to up the required number of veto votes so that a large majority of the league has to have a problem with it to veto.  If you only need a few envious owners to veto then it's a lot easier for trades to be vetoed for the wrong reasons.

 

Another idea I had (might be hard to enforce though) is that anyone voting to veto a trade needs to publicly state their reasons why they think it should be vetoed.  I find league votes are too easy for people to be the "snake in the grass" since the votes are blind and nobody knows who vetoed and why.  If you actually have to explain your reasoning then it's a much more transparent process and might weed out some of the jealous knee-jerk votes.

 

There was one trade vetoed in a league I was in a couple years ago that was league vote (actually just involving draft picks), and when it was vetoed and one of the trading owners asked who voted it down and why, I was the only one that admitted to it and explained why.  It turned out the guy who everyone thought was getting shafted actually had some sound logic and made sense to me.  In this case instead of the whole league having a knee jerk reaction to the trade on the surface, the misunderstanding could have likely been cleared up after the first owner voted against it and explained why (and then the owners could have put out their reasoning then and there).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, handyandy86 said:

 

I think the problem is that you're leaving the vote up to a group of owners that are likely pretty biased (not wanting the top team to get even better) and jealous.  Personally I think league vote is a horrible system that is just asking for trouble, but I guess that's up to everyone to decide for themselves and join leagues accordingly.  

 

If anything the solution in that situation might be to up the required number of veto votes so that a large majority of the league has to have a problem with it to veto.  If you only need a few envious owners to veto then it's a lot easier for trades to be vetoed for the wrong reasons.

 

Another idea I had (might be hard to enforce though) is that anyone voting to veto a trade needs to publicly state their reasons why they think it should be vetoed.  I find league votes are too easy for people to be the "snake in the grass" since the votes are blind and nobody knows who vetoed and why.  If you actually have to explain your reasoning then it's a much more transparent process and might weed out some of the jealous knee-jerk votes.

 

There was one trade vetoed in a league I was in a couple years ago that was league vote (actually just involving draft picks), and when it was vetoed and one of the trading owners asked who voted it down and why, I was the only one that admitted to it and explained why.  It turned out the guy who everyone thought was getting shafted actually had some sound logic and made sense to me.  In this case instead of the whole league having a knee jerk reaction to the trade on the surface, the misunderstanding could have likely been cleared up after the first owner voted against it and explained why (and then the owners could have put out their reasoning then and there).

 

I don't know, I guess he could also not play with children.

 

But, I don't think league vote is inheritantly flawed.  No more so than any veto system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any case; I think this topic has gotten plenty of discussion.  It's essentially become a "should this have been vetoed" thread, which is really more of a bench coach topic, if I'm correct.

 

Fair trade, shouldn't have been vetoed, but it was.  Que sera sera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, 89Topps said:

 

What language would you suggest to determine what trades are vetoable?

 

"Obviously lopsided" is up to each owner to determine.  Hence the league vote.  That's kind of the point.

 

I've got no problem with the rule.  Not sure what you think would be better.

 

A no-veto trade rule is simply MUCH better. Give the owners the ability to THINK and create trades as they need / want. No reason to handcuff owners unless they are not seasoned veteran owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dugout Legend said:

 

A no-veto trade rule is simply MUCH better. Give the owners the ability to THINK and create trades as they need / want. No reason to handcuff owners unless they are not seasoned veteran owners.

 

I guess that works until you get a really bad trade.

 

Vetos exist for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...