Remade Poll

[LowBlowPodcast]

I know I have something going on right now with Stampede, so I'm hoping that that deal will go through the end of the month as it was only for a month. I have a terrible feeling that trade votes are only going to cause more animosity although I'm hopeful we can get something figured out and people can see value in different ways.

[kevinmcfl]

agreed upon deals are fine, 7 out of 12 votes is fine with me

[Boon]

I know I have something going on right now with Stampede, so I'm hoping that that deal will go through the end of the month as it was only for a month. I have a terrible feeling that trade votes are only going to cause more animosity although I'm hopeful we can get something figured out and people can see value in different ways.

 

It just has to be anonymous the vote.

[LowBlowPodcast]

If we are good with that, I am on my way home from work and I will write up a trade proposal and have it go to vote. I want these to be based off of evidence as to why the trade is fair on both ends to hopefully sway some people who already have negative feelings about the way that I run my promotion... which really stinks because I only have the best intentions and I'm trying to create a fun product for people to follow.

[goc]

7 out of 12 seems fine. I would advise that people not try and plan something in a rush that you need right away though because it may take a week to get everyone's votes in.

[El Boricua]

I have a proposal for trades with inactive promotions. Would it be possible to designate a third party that is not a current owner to act as a commissioner for trades. Sort of an inactive promotion steward. I worry that we might get into the habit (myself included) of rubber stamping trades just to avoid getting one of our proposed trades nixed. It also allows for more than one person to submit a proposal for the same wrestler and have a unaffiliated third party determine which is the best one.

[goc]

I have to agree with El Boricua here but I'm not sure who would actually take on that role. I doubt very much that KrisZ is going to want to do it although he is the best qualified. Some of the proposed trades are just way unbalanced. Two really marginal pieces for a top star is not something you would propose in a PM so why make a poll about it?

[dawho5]

Votes are confidential as a rule. Vote how you like because the idea is that we keep things even on the trades with our votes. If you think the value being added and subtracted works, vote yes. If not, say no.

[Grimmas]

I can approve/veto trades if need be.

[dawho5]

That works fine by me as well. You seem like you would have a pretty good handle on who had value in the Canadian promotions.

[goc]

I'd rather have Grimmas as an overseer of those trades than to get inundated with poll threads. Especially since getting all the necessary votes could take quite a while if things end up split to the point you need 11 or 12 votes.

[goc]

The one thing about that is Grimmas can't be looking at the trades with his former IWF owner hat on. Meaning if someone wants to make a trade for Chicky Starr he has to just evaluate the trade from a neutral place and on paper value only and not start thinking about all the things he would have/could have done with Chicky.

[kevinmcfl]

I agree. Great way to do it!

[Super Stan]

3 people voted for no roster cap? HAHAHAHAHA!

[goc]

3 people voted for no roster cap? HAHAHAHAHA!

Where is YOUR vote on the matter??

[Super Stan]

It's up there. 32 and 2.

[El Boricua]

We should finalize exactly what the rules/details are with regards to how dormant promotions will work and about how trades with them will be. I think there should be a limit to how many trades one can do with a dormant territory during a certain time frame. We also need to figure out how to handle the possibility of wanting to bring in a wrestler from a dormant territory for a few shots.

 

Also, a few of us seem in favor of upping the manager limit to 3. Anyone else in agreement or in disagreement for doing that?

 

And we should definitely allow a reasonable grace period for people over the cap.

[goc]

I voted 34 & 2 but I'm fine with 34 & 3.

 

34 was the cap that won the vote so are we going to set a date when people need to get under it? November 1st seems fair to me, not sure how anyone else feels.

[goc]

We also need to figure out how to handle the possibility of wanting to bring in a wrestler from a dormant territory for a few shots.

I feel like things are going to get way too convoluted with this. Maybe we just need to accept that we're not going to have access to every wrestler in the game that we would like to use.

 

I think the project would benefit from people worrying more about what they DO have rather than what they don't.

[Grimmas]

Let me know if I should accept/reject the proposed trades.

[Boon]

I happy either way in terms of trades with dormant promotions. I felt my trade offer was fair, I didnt think some others were and thats the way i voted. I think Grimmas having power over trades for inactive promotions could work, if hes happy with ridiculous trade offers every week...

 

I voted 34 and 2 but only have 1 manager so im happy. 34 and 3 seems fine..

[Grimmas]

I am happy rejecting a million stupid trades, if you guys want to offer stupid trades.

[dawho5]

I think Grimmas would make a perfectly fine master of trades.

 

Mid November should be fairly easy to get down to 34 and 3 for everyone in my opinion. We could also go with November 1st. Not that big a deal either way.

 

I think loan-outs off of the dormant rosters is getting a bit much. It's going to be hard to ask people tocome in and honor all of these dates that nobody running the promotion made.

[goc]

That's 4 people in favor of that idea so I guess if anyone has any objections they should speak up. I don't know that we really need to have another poll over it.

[dawho5]

I'm not looking to start another one unless it is necessary.