Opinions on friendly dispute that is getting nasty [merged]

Egret1986 said:

Definitely didn't mean it as a male thing. Sorry it was taken that way.

Click to expand...

No, I really didn't take it that way, I was just being ornery

My anti-sexist radar has been sharpened by the "office wife" thread

Good Grief, Charlie Brown

Larry6417 said:

I'm with PJRose on this. I do believe in personal responsibility, for men and women, but I find it odd how people apply that principle here.

For example, shouldn't the commissioner take responsibility for his conduct? He created confusion by not enforcing the rules from the very start. Also, the punishment he imposed, from which he gained financially, was ham-fisted. Whether we agree with the punishment or not, I think it's obvious the commissioner did not do a stellar job.

To "man" up and accept a fair punishment is one thing, but to accept an unfair punishment is another. I'll give an example. The husband of an old friend's sister was a garbage inspector for a municipality. That city had strict rules on what could go into recycling bins. If you mixed the garbage and recycling, you received a $1,000 fine (this was about 20 years ago). This jerk, after a family was fined, would go check that family's garbage repeatedly to try to impose fines over and over. He found that hilarious. Now, do you think those families should've just "manned" up and accepted their fines of several thousand dollars for mixing up their recyclables? After all, there's no doubt that they broke the rules.

Click to expand...

This is not a legitimate comparison from what I have gathered, but maybe you are privy to more than I am regarding this friendly dispute that has turned nasty. I bow to your opinion. I'm sure your opinion is right. Where do I come up with these crazy thoughts from which I form my personal opinions?

I mis-interpreted everything....I thought these were long-term friends. Not mean-spirited people (ie Inspector) trying to take advantage of strangers for their own personal enjoyment due to possible mental illness or no soul or a superiority complex.

pjrose said:

I am NOT taking sides in this particular discussion or incident, but I do wonder why is taking personal responsibility a male-thing? If I were the person who forgot to click whatever it was, would I be exempt?

Click to expand...

As a "woman" (or so it appears), we expect you to be a bit of an air-head, scatter-brained and more interested in shiny baubbles (or shoes), than with finishing what you started. Thus, you just bat those eye lashes, and you get an automatic waiver. [ummm... this is satire, of course]

Talent312 said:

As a "woman" (or so it appears), we expect you to be a bit of an air-head, scatter-brained and more interested in shiny baubbles (or shoes), than with finishing what you started. Thus, you just bat those eye lashes, and you get an automatic waiver. [ummm... this is satire, of course]

Click to expand...

Oh boy (!), you sure are baiting me now! Fortunately I'm taking it all in good fun - I think.......

Oh, you, little Devil, you! I've been punked!

pjrose said:

No, I really didn't take it that way, I was just being ornery

Click to expand...

You, go, Girl!

Oops, is that out of line? Please no one blast me! I didn't mean anything by that! I'm not assigning gender as to who has the ability to be best at being ornery.

Egret1986 said:

You, go, Girl!

Oops, is that out of line? Please no one blast me! I didn't mean anything by that! I'm not assigning gender as to who has the ability to be best at being ornery.

Click to expand...

No harm, no foul

I do sometimes pride myself on orneriness (is that even a word?) but I can think of some male TUGgers who may take the prize for it on this board!

Yeah, there's a few ornery ones!

pjrose said:

No harm, no foul

I do sometimes pride myself on orneriness (is that even a word?) but I can think of some male TUGgers who may take the prize for it on this board!

Click to expand...

But ornery ain't all bad.....it sure can liven things up! Gets the old blood pumping on occasion.

SueDonJ said:

Moxjo, I'm trying to figure out how to say this to you nicely and I really hope that you're not insulted by it - it's not meant as an insult. But I think you're not helping the dispute by playing the martyr here. None of you who won something more than what you would have if the other guy didn't make a mistake, is doing anything wrong by accepting your winnings. If I was one of the guys who took my winnings and then heard you comment that you felt you didn't "earn" them, I'd be mad as all get-out at you because by your actions and comments you would be inferring that I'm morally lacking somehow. In addition, you would be making the commish look bad for simply trying to impose the rules and stop making his role more difficult than it should be.

Click to expand...

Not at all insulted, but sorry don't agree at all. This guy did nothing wrong but make a minor immaterial error that had no impact on the outcome but broke a rule that in my book is totally invalid.

And I know I could never take money away from a friend under thse circumstances, and I don't know how anyone can justify that. Its 100% wrong and gratitious to strip him of rightful winnings.

The commish especially. He created this fire storm. He finished out of the money in 6th place and now as a result of his ruling that only served him, he now ended up winning $131.

And you're OK with that? I can't see how.

Of the 12 players, 3 including commish want to screw the guy, 3 are siding with the loser, inclduing me, and they rest haven't commented.

The fact is I do questions some morals in a case like this. Why would anyone want to win under those circumstances? This guy did better than everyone, so why would I think I earned anything if I'm awarded money because of a technicality. To me is was given to me under petty circumstances and I just wouldn't accept it.

And the commish does look bad in my eyes because to begin with, this is a 2 minute thing that he complained about doing (computer Fantasy football is child's play these days) and then imposed this riduclous rule that totally comprised the integrity of the game by allowing it to potentially beome an issue, and it did. Then he benefits from it.

You see nothing wrong with that?

You seem to totally exonerate him, whereas I put the blame squarely on him, so we disagree there too.

Keep your shorts on Lucy!

Egret1986 said:

This is not a legitimate comparison from what I have gathered, but maybe you are privy to more than I am regarding this friendly dispute that has turned nasty. I bow to your opinion. I'm sure your opinion is right. Where do I come up with these crazy thoughts from which I form my personal opinions?

I mis-interpreted everything....I thought these were long-term friends. Not mean-spirited people (ie Inspector) trying to take advantage of strangers for their own personal enjoyment due to possible mental illness or no soul or a superiority complex.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think the comparison is valid. We have one individual imposing disproportionate penalties for minor infractions in both cases. And not all of the fantasy players agree with the commissioner. At least some of them think he is being too harsh - I believe the OP has more insight into the character of the commissioner than anyone else here.

Clemson Fan said:

I think you're wrong here and the rule was in place before the start of the season. It sounds like the commish was just trying to be a nice guy in the first half of the season in cleaning up after other peoples mistakes. That was his big mistake. There's a saying that "no good dead goes unpunished". He had nothing to do with this player making this mistake and in fact warned them 8-10 weeks ago that he was going to stop cleaning for them. He's the one I feel sorry for b/c instead of the person who made the mistake manning up and just taking it as a life lesson like it should be, he's blame shifting (unfortunately with the encouragement of the OP) over to the commish to the point of acusing him of stealing.

It would be hillarious to sew Judge Judy have this case. I don't think the OP would like hearing what she had to say.

Post #50 was hillarious! Talk about over the top.

Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more. Rule was not in place before season. He put the rule in place because he is lazy and petty. If the effort to "reconcile" took 3 minutes a week that would be alot. So he implied an extreme penalty to stop a minor annoyance to him. Another thing that is just blantantly wrong.

We're actually looking into Judge Judy because we feel we would win. I work with a number of attorneys and they have said we would win. The court would question the commish's right to impose unilateral rules, without consensus and also as Larry suggested, would allow a minor technicality to be a knock-out blow as one attorney put it. The fact that the rule was presented mid-season and the loser vehemently opposed would bode well in his favor.

They also advised me the court would look at intent, which is clear here, and the outcome, and who was truly harmed and who would unfairly benefit form the mistake.

You opened the thread with "OPINIONS..."

MOXJO7282 said:

And you're OK with that? I can't see how.

You see nothing wrong with that?

You seem to totally exonerate him, whereas I put the blame squarely on him, so we disagree there too.

Click to expand...

You obviously didn't want opinions, but folks to agree with you, even though in the opening you said you weren't going to say where you stood on the issue. Because you wanted opinions.

It is evident that you didn't want opinions, but support. You should have been more clear on the rules by which opinions could be offered. I think that someone changed the rules mid-thread. Oh, my gosh! I demand arbitration!

It wasn't enough to get the fantasy football group riled up....now it's TUGGERs! :ignore:

Talent312 said:

As a "woman" (or so it appears), we expect you to be a bit of an air-head, scatter-brained and more interested in shiny baubbles (or shoes), than with finishing what you started. Thus, you just bat those eye lashes, and you get an automatic waiver. [ummm... this is satire, of course]

Click to expand...

Oooooh, shoes ....

It's already been discovered by another TUGGER that I'm Bill

Larry6417 said:

Actually, I think the comparison is valid. We have one individual imposing disproportionate penalties for minor infractions in both cases. And not all of the fantasy players agree with the commissioner. At least some of them think he is being too harsh - I believe the OP has more insight into the character of the commissioner than anyone else here.

Click to expand...

This thread started out friendly, but is rapidly becoming nasty. Eeeek! Oh, no......Lucy's got her panty's in a bunch!

Sorry, I'm Bill....remember? I'm not Lucy, Larry. Calm down, you're not thinking clearly. You're confusing me with someone else.

I'm the one that bowed to your superior opinion. What more do you want?

I didn't have the proper credentials to form an opinion, and for that I apologize.

dioxide45 said:

What does the $450 loser that Joe (MOXJO7282) is referring to think about this? We know what Joe thinks, but does his friend that lost out due to the mistake feel the same way?

Click to expand...

My friend could care less about the money, but feels the commish who was his best friend totally betrayed him with his pettiness.

He really thought he would say "hey I can't let this is be decided by a technicality" and do the right thing but he didn't, so the loser is pretty sadden by that.

That's my biggest thing with this.

Would those that side with the commish have no problem doing that to your best friend? Or even just a "friend".

You know your friend beat you fair and square and because of an undisputed technicality that didn't affect outcome you would take the money without any conscience?

Really?

That is 100% dead wrong in my book.

MOXJO7282 said:

I couldn't disagree more. Rule was not in place before season. He put the rule in place because he is lazy and petty. If the effort to "reconcile" took 3 minutes a week that would be alot. So he implied an extreme penalty to stop a minor annoyance to him. Another thing that is just blantantly wrong.

We're actually looking into Judge Judy because we feel we would win. I work with a number of attorneys and they have said we would win. The court would question the commish's right to impose unilateral rules, without consensus and also as Larry suggested, would allow a minor technicality to be a knock-out blow as one attorney put it. The fact that the rule was presented mid-season and the loser vehemently opposed would bode well in his favor.

They also advised me the court would look at intent, which is clear here, and the outcome, and who was truly harmed and who would unfairly benefit form the mistake.

Click to expand...

Let's summarize here.

So many of us assumed that "rules are rules" and that the loser should just "man" up. Well rules aren't rules. The rule in question did not exist at the start of the season and was unilaterally imposed by the commissioner against the wishes of at least some of the players. Does anyone out there think that's fair?

Also, what the "rules are rules" crowd, for the most part, never addressed was the fairness of the penalty for breaking a unilaterally imposed rule. The commissioner had a financial interest in the outcome - an obvious conflict of interest.

What I find fascinating here is how we take in this thread and interpret it through our own biases. The "personal responsibility" crowd interpreted the player's objections as a failure to "man" up. The "rules are rules" crowd felt that rules should be followed regardless of their legitimacy or fairness. Don't misunderstand me (I'm talking to you Clemson Fan!). I believe people should be responsible for their own actions, but we can and should question the legitimacy and need for the rules that govern us. If we don't, then we may as well be sheep.

Egret1986 said:

You obviously didn't want opinions, but folks to agree with you, even though in the opening you said you weren't going to say where you stood on the issue. Because you wanted opinions.

It is evident that you didn't want opinions, but support. You should have been more clear on the rules by which opinions could be offered. I think that someone changed the rules mid-thread. Oh, my gosh! I demand arbitration!

It wasn't enough to get the fantasy football group riled up....now it's TUGGERs! :ignore:

Click to expand...

I'm open to others opinions, but I'm offering mine as well, which I dn't see anything wrong with that. I think I'm "arguing" as politely as anyone esle.

Egret1986 said:

This thread started out friendly, but is rapidly becoming nasty. Eeeek! Oh, no......Lucy's got her panty's in a bunch!

Sorry, I'm Bill....remember? I'm not Lucy, Larry. Calm down, you're not thinking clearly. You're confusing me with someone else.

I'm the one that bowed to your superior opinion. What more do you want?

I didn't have the proper credentials to form an opinion, and for that I apologize.

Click to expand...

Dear Bill (not Lucy):

I apologize if I sounded harsh. We were simply having a vigorous, but respectful difference of opinions. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but we should be able to articulate and defend the reasons for our opinions.

And I like Lucy.

Egret1986 said:

The OP is surprised that more folks don't feel the same way that he does regarding the situation? Hmmmm. I guess he was looking for overwhelming support and apparently looks negatively upon those that believe in Personal Responsibility.

Click to expand...

I don't look negatively upon those that believe in Personal Responsibility, I just think you are misguided in applying that here.

Its my belief that the loser is standing up to his principles. He voiced his objection to the rule that created this mess when it was introduced mid season. I guess he could have quit then, but no one thought it would come to this so he played on.

And I am surprised more don't have a sense of fairness in this case.

Again I ask the question would you do this to a friend, without conscience? You battled all year fairly, I beat you fair and square, and you only succeeded because of a minor, immaterial mistake. You would be OK winning under those circumstances? If you would you're a different kind of person than me, I'll leave it at that.

I thought we were supposed to be commenting about whether or not we think it's okay for a FF player to lose out on what he may have won if he'd not made a technical mistake that cost him points. My opinion is that yes, it's okay for that player to suffer the natural consequence of his technical error.

All the other stuff about the commish correcting those mistakes up to a certain point when he announced he no longer would, and the stuff about this group being friends, and the stuff about whether or not the law would offer protection to one side or the other, and the judgments about ill-gotten gains and questionable morals of the other players who benefited by the guy's mistake and calling the player's manhood into question and how America is raising generations who don't know how to lose gracefully ... well, all that stuff made the thread more interesting but IMO really doesn't have any bearing on the fact that the guy didn't follow the rules when he didn't click every button. Rules is rules, simple as that. And yes, I'm okay with that.

One solution, Joe. Obviously your league tallies are done on a computer but none of you have forgotten how to do math on paper. Is it possible for every week to be re-tallied with NONE of the same technical mistakes being allowed? You did say that the commish put his foot down at some point mid-season and stopped allowing it, which I take to mean that he did allow it before that point. Well, remove that impropriety completely from the season. That would be the most fair, I would think, if the entire season could be re-tallied according to the same set of rules for every week.

MOXJO7282 said:

I'm sorry my sense of fairness overrules in this case an I'm surprised more don't feel that way.

Click to expand...

YOU have an opinion. YOU expect others to share your opinion and express disbelief when they don't.

YOUR sense of fairness "overrules" ? Overrules what? Others opinions.

MOXJO7282 said:

. . . This guy did nothing wrong but make a minor immaterial error that had no impact on the outcome but broke a rule that in my book is totally invalid.

. . . .

Click to expand...

I'm confused. If the error had no impact on the outcome, why does this discussion exist?

SueDonJ said:

. . . .
One solution, Joe. Obviously your league tallies are done on a computer but none of you have forgotten how to do math on paper. Is it possible for every week to be re-tallied with NONE of the same technical mistakes being allowed? You did say that the commish put his foot down at some point mid-season and stopped allowing it, which I take to mean that he did allow it before that point. Well, remove that impropriety completely from the season. That would be the most fair, I would think, if the entire season could be re-tallied according to the same set of rules for every week.

Click to expand...

Or the other way around? Re-tally it all WITH the same rule in place for the entire season? Then split the difference between the two sets of calculations?


Back to my first post - I wouldn't play for real money with friends!

MOXJO7282 said:

... I am surprised more don't have a sense of fairness in this case....

.

Click to expand...

I know nothing about FF but think fairness has many variations and personal interpretations.

I went on an out of town trip with a friend, we drove my car, visited her dtr in college who we had drive us all around Boulder CO, since she knew it and we didn't. Well the car was parked too long in a large parking lot and we came back to a boot on the car tire. My friend decided she would split the ticket with me, but she didn't think her 20yo dtr should share responsibility money wise. I paid up, but felt I wasn't responsible either as was not the driver but unfortunately it was my car.

moxojo,

Why don't you simply wipe the slate clean and return the original pot to everyone who contributed. You can then sit down as a group and really hammer out what the "rules" will be for your fantasy football league and everyone can agree on them. This would be the most fair because no one benefits- obviously no one wins but no one has lost anything either. You state you have lawyer friends who feel this is a slam dunk in court- they must be very confident lawyers to believe that anything is a foregone conclusion because it NEVER is- any good lawyer will tell you that. The day of the week, the temper and past experience of the judge, etc, etc all come in to play. I know many judges would just throw you all out of court for wasting his time- and what have you achieved then? The morals argument goes only so far because the commish made the rule before it would have been to his benefit and not after. The rule should have been fought then and not now.

JMHO, tlwmkw

If I was your friend (the one that lost) I would have taken the loss and bloody well remembered to hit the &#^# button the next time. It would have pissed me off for quite awhile but I would have been mad at myself not at anyone else. I would not have allowed my own failure to impact on the greater group of "friends" over a couple hundred bucks.

I might have then volunteered to be the commish for next year

I find it quite sad that a bunch of adults are prepared to blow up a group of friends over such a trivial thing.

MOXJO7282 said:

My friend could care less about the money, but feels the commish who was his best friend totally betrayed him with his pettiness.

He really thought he would say "hey I can't let this is be decided by a technicality" and do the right thing but he didn't, so the loser is pretty sadden by that.

That's my biggest thing with this.

Would those that side with the commish have no problem doing that to your best friend? Or even just a "friend".

You know your friend beat you fair and square and because of an undisputed technicality that didn't affect outcome you would take the money without any conscience?

Really?

That is 100% dead wrong in my book.

Click to expand...

No matter how you slice it, twist and turn it, it's a done deal folks. It's over... and next year the OP can choose to play or not to play in next years' league.

On one side you have 'rules are rules' and on the other you have 'intent'. Unfortunately we cannot always know what the 'intent' of someone is... that's why you have to sign something, click something, etc. etc. etc.

It's over and the money has been distributed.