[Again, I posted this idea on rec.sport.soccer.]
TL;DR: I think we can move from the veto system to majority. What do you think about it?
The current rule about changing rules (yo dawg…) is:
c. Modifying the rules
[1] Only rules for the next picking cycle can be modified.
[2] Rules can be modified just sending a proposal to fantasyscout@yahoogroups.com .
[3] If none of the scouts that are playing since at least 6 months disagrees in a week, the proposal is accepted, and becomes rule.
( http://fantasyscout.altervista.org/rules.htm )
The part I’d like to change is #3 (I’ll call it “the veto system”, since one vote against = proposal rejected). I’d like to have something like this instead:
“[3] If more than 50% [or 67%?] of the scouts who votes in a week agree, the proposal is accepted, and becomes rule.” (Also: “Only scouts who are playing since at least 6 months can vote.”)
I.e. I’d like to switch to a majority system. Here is my reasoning.
There was a reason for the veto system at the start of the game. Do you remember? There were no cycles! So any change to the ruleset applied to a game you had already spent time (energy, passion) on. It was like starting a game of chess and changing the rules during the middle game! In such a situation, the only fair way was having everybody agreeing about any change: otherwise, you would have someone having spent time on a game they suddenly didn’t like anymore (or didn’t have the chance to win anymore!).
But now we have cycles, so the original reason for veto doesn’t stand anymore. It’s reasonable that someone likes the rules of cycle #4 and plays it, doesn’t like the rules of cycle #5 and doesn’t play it, etc. Of course it would still be nice to have every current scout like next cycle rules and be willing to keep playing, but maybe now the negative sides of the veto system weigh more than this benefit…
Negative sides of the veto system:
- Imagine a reform that makes the game way better for five very active scouts and barely worse for one not-so-active scout. With the veto system, this reform would be rejected. I argue that the “right thing” is for this reform to be accepted.
- Psychology: who wants to be the guy who shoots a fellow scout’s (or even a friend’s) proposal down?
- Psychology: who wants to spend time and energy designing and discussing a reform, when just one vote against means that it’s rejected?
- Sometimes you don’t like a reform, but you would be OK with it if everybody else agreed with it (see the thread about the player trading proposal). Of course this can be solved through discussion, but it wouldn’t be bad to have a way to express this slight dislike of the proposal in an official way.
(I can’t be sure about #1, but all the other reasons are absolutely real – at least for me)
Having the proposals accepted or rejected by majority would solve all these issues. What do you think about it?
End note: why don’t I consider something like a “king” (i.e. ruler for life) or a “president” (i.e. ruler for a cycle)? The former option has been proposed in the past. But I wouldn’t like to decide for everybody else, and I wouldn’t like to have someone else to decide for me. Also (minor reason), the “nature” of Fantasy Scout includes democracy – it’s one of the four basic attributes of the game:
Fantasy Scout is a [1] simple [2] free game where [3] you win by picking good football (soccer) players before they become famous. [4] Anybody can contribute to make the game better by proposing changes to the ruleset.
( http://fantasyscout.altervista.org/ )
Fantasy Scout Blog 