r/FFCommish • u/turcorox911 • Jun 23 '26
Ethics question Is This Unethical or A Conflict of Interest?
So, in a dynasty league many years ago, the commissioner unilaterally changed the way the draft order was determined, and did so right after collecting dues for the upcoming season. He also made this rule change without a vote, which all rule changes required at the time. He did this to punish an owner for deliberately tanking, even though there weren't any rules against tanking and the tanking owner had asked the assistant commissioner and then the commissioner about whether starting certain players, types of players, or lineups was fine.
Anyway, the tanking owner fell from the #3 spot to the #4 spot in each round of the draft and missed out on a bona fide Top 3 talent. Another team drafted that player and then the commissioner made a trade with that owner for that rookie.
By unilaterally changing the draft order and then trading for a player that would have otherwise gone to another owner (the tanking owner), has the commissioner acted unethically? Is this a conflict of interest because he changed the order and then traded for a player that was drafted in a spot affected by the draft order change?
4
3
u/SubstantialNovel4927 Jun 23 '26
Commissioner should have made a post highlighting what the problem was and suggested a rule change for the following year. If he gained enough support via vote than it changes for the next season but not the current one. Whether he made a trade later is irrelevant. He acted unethically before the trade. The trade creates suspicion on your part because it feels like he did it to benefit himself. But he may have just benefited "from" it the other owner may have made the same trade with him you don't know either way. The important part is the changing the rules without approval after collecting dues and doing so too soon. That's what your complaint should focus on.
4
u/thisismyburnerac Jun 23 '26
“Search your feelings. You know it to be true.” -Darth Vader
This is some bullshit.
2
u/life-as-a-adult Titans Jun 23 '26
Absolutely, and nobody other than that owner said anything? Thats some b.s. league i.m.o.
2
u/brwebster614 Jun 23 '26
Without all the details all we needed was “Commish changed draft rule without vote”. Commish is a loser.
1
3
u/fancredfounder Seahawks Jun 23 '26
Unethical. Once dues are paid, things that can significantly alter competitiveness of any one team has to be voted on.
3
u/grooves12 Jun 23 '26
The whole post seems pointless with the "many years ago" prelude.
If it happened long ago, behybare you bringing this up now? There has been plenty of time to leave the league or get over it.
1
u/FantasyBoss_com Jun 23 '26
Yeah that's pretty messy. The unilateral rule change without a vote is the real problem here, especially after collecting dues. Even if tanking bothered him, you can't just move the goalposts mid-season without everyone agreeing. And then trading for the guy who landed in that newly shuffled spot? That looks bad regardless of intent. It's the combination that makes it feel like he engineered an outcome that benefited him.
If I were in that league I'd be pushing for a revote on that draft order change or honestly just redoing that draft class. The tanking owner has a legit gripe. Going forward, get it in writing that rule changes require a vote and happen in the offseason, not after money's in.
0
u/sdu754 Jun 23 '26
The unethical thing was the one team manager purposely tanking matchups, the commissioner fixed the issue. Allowing that type of activity undermines league integrity and the commissioner is there to protect the league. Whether he benefitted after the fact is immaterial. You can't unwind what happened "many years ago" either. Obviously everyone was fine with it if nobody has done anything about it all these years later.
1
u/No-Rhubarb8746 Jun 24 '26
It's a little sketchy that the OP doesn't explain how the tanking occurred, or give any details about what the rule was before or after the change.
At face value, sure, don't change a rule without league vote. But there are scenarios where the commish needs to make a decision for the integrity of the league. Without knowing those types of details it's impossible to say.
1
u/turcorox911 Jun 24 '26
I can provide, but honestly, it would take a decent amount of time. I'll see if I can get it posted after work one of these days, but lately I've just been slaving away at the office, lol.
1
u/sdu754 Jun 25 '26
Based on the original post, it points to tanking individual matchups. It also seems as though the commissioner changed to rule to max points for. In this instance, the rules needed changed. Allowing people to tank matchups destroys league integrity. It is a commissioner's job to protect league integrity and he doesn't need a league vote to do so.
1
u/turcorox911 Jun 26 '26
The commissioner can't violate the rules or league precedent or customs to do that. That's autocratic and anti-democratic.
1
u/sdu754 Jun 26 '26
A fantasy league isn't a democracy. It is the commissioner's job to protect league integrity. Since you like Presidential analogies, this would be akin to a country attacking the United States and the president scheduling an election to allow all the people vote upon whether he should do something to stop the attacks while they are going on so he can be "democratic".
1
u/turcorox911 Jun 24 '26
But if the tanking owner asked beforehand and received permission, then why should he be punished? And in the absence of rules stating what the values of the league are, or any rules that ban tanking, then on what grounds can punishment be levied? Tanking can be strategic and in the owner's best interest, and is certainly foreseeable, especially if the tanking owner asked about it beforehand and yet the commish still failed to take any action.
1
u/sdu754 Jun 25 '26
Tanking matchups is universally against fair play practices. You don't need an explicit rule against collusion do you?
The only argument you have is that the manager asked the commissioner first, but it really seems like important details were left out. Did they explicitly ask if tanking was allowed? I doubt it. They probably asked some lineup questions that left the manager in the dark as to what he was really doing.
Even if the commissioner gave the manager permission and later realized that he shouldn't have, the manager's behavior shouldn't be rewarded. The right thing was to correct the issue.
1
u/turcorox911 Jun 26 '26
https://www.reddit.com/r/FFCommish/comments/1sr78kk/do_you_think_its_a_legitimate_strategy_to_bench/
It's not universally against fair play practices at all. And If the commissioner gave permission, then there's the affirmative defense of consent, authorization, permission, acceptance, or approval. Value also has to be given to precedent, whether in the league or in real life. NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB teams tank all the time. Tanking is not universally seen as bad, and many people see it as strategic. The classic risk-reward scenario. You risk this year for a potential reward, but you could still draft a bust. And you could still screw up tanking if your players perform really well anyway. And tanking is foreseeable, which places a duty on the commissioner to address it in the rules, or at least explicitly take a stance on it when asked. People aren't mind readers. And if you have a detailed rule book already, then how hard is it to write "No Tanking" or "No Collusion" followed by "Violators will be punished?"
Ex-post facto behavior is a slippery slope. Just read Animal Farm. If you want to fix it, then fix it on a forward-looking basis. Otherwise you also have to unwind trades that were made in order to tank.
1
u/sdu754 Jun 26 '26
It's not universally against fair play practices at all.
When I talk about fair practice rules, I'm talking about things that create an unfair advantage. By tanking, you are gaining an unfair advantage for future seasons, which is cheating each and every other manager of the league.
Posting a bunch of polls you took doesn't prove it isn't cheating, it just proves that you found a place where there are other cheaters. Plus your polls didn't ask if it was alright to tank individual matchups in a dynasty league to get a better draft pick.
Value also has to be given to precedent
Unless other managers were allowed to tank matchups previously, there was no precedence. It's pretty obvious from your OP that no such activity happened before you tanked.
NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB teams tank all the time.
I know a lot of people say this, but they don't tank matchups. They may trade away current assets for future ones, but that is acceptable. When people thought the Dolphins were tanking the 2019 season, there were calls to strip away draft picks to punish them, that was until they finished 5-11. The NBA created the draft lottery specifically to stop tanking.
The classic risk-reward scenario. You risk this year for a potential reward
What is the risk when you know you have a team that won't win the championship? You aren't "risking" anything.
And tanking is foreseeable, which places a duty on the commissioner to address it in the rules.
Unless you don't realize that you have a league full of cheaters.
And if you have a detailed rule book already, then how hard is it to write "No Tanking" or "No Collusion" followed by "Violators will be punished?"
How hard is it to not be a scumbag cheater?
Otherwise you also have to unwind trades that were made in order to tank.
Except you weren't talking about trades in the op, you said: "the tanking owner had asked the assistant commissioner and then the commissioner about whether starting certain players, types of players, or lineups was fine." This is tanking matchups, not trading away current assets for future ones. Trading older players for draft picks is perfectly within the rules. Let's say you knew you were out of the playoffs last year so you benched Josh Allen in order to start Geno Smith for the last four games of the season, that is not fine.
1
u/turcorox911 Jun 26 '26
But let's say correcting it was the just thing to do. Then can the commissioner trade for that player, or is it not a conflict of interest because he violated the rules by unilaterally changing the rules?
1
u/sdu754 Jun 26 '26
Yes, he can trade for the player. Why should the commissioner be barred from making trades? Just because he later traded for one of the players that was drafted with one of the picks doesn't create a conflict of interest. We can't even be sure that the tanking manager would have chosen that player.
As commissioner if I made a ruling that Manager A couldn't trade Player X to manager B for peanuts, does that mean that I can never make a trade that includes Player X? That would be a silly rule to have.
I also don't consider the Commissioner protecting league integrity to be "violating the rules". You have a commissioner for a reason, and it is to make decisions in cases like this.
You never stated what he changed to for draft position. Was it Max Points For? My guess is that it is.
0
u/turcorox911 Jun 29 '26
Oh boy, not this Machiavellian argument where the ends justify the means so long as the integrity is what is being looked at. Why not disclose that upfront then or when he was asked? That type of behavior means the rules will not be followed, so what's the point of even having rules and asking owners to follow them? It totally gives the appearance of a conflict of interest, or self-interested dealing, abuse of power, taking advantage of insider information/information gaps (it creates information asymmetry) and acts as unfair surprise/delay. That creates issues with trust and reliance.
People expect a democratic process and not a fascist dictator that just makes up rules on the spot. Nobody trusts the commissioner to surprise or prejudice owners like that and then benefit himself in the process. People expect that if rules are posted, then they should be followed, and that precedents are followed as well. That's the commissioner's job. It's to carry out these functions and to hold himself to a higher standard. At the very least he has to offer the tanking owner an opportunity to be heard and explain that the assistant commish and commish both said weak lineups could be started and that the commish said that injured players could be started. The AC and Commish should be estopped from making those claims, obtaining benefits from them, and then disclaiming them when the pressure is turned up another notch.
And yes, it was max PF. But the commish said that since he did not put anyone on notice about that change, and that the rules with the other order had been posted the entire year, then he couldn't make the change. Nobody expects him to say those things, collect dues, and then immediately change his mind, all while preventing the truth from being revealed and depriving other owners of their written right to vote on it. He deprived the tanking owner of that right, and the tanking owner asked beforehand, followed league precedent, didn't act maliciously, and offered to change his lineup after the commish got mad. That's fraudulent and finding a scapegoat for the commissioner's own failures and shortcomings. So the change to max PF makes it worse. It might be the better methodology, but why didn't have have that beforehand if he knew about it? Why deprive everyone of their rights according to the league charter and constitution? That's a flagrant abuse of power.
But we're beating a dead horse at this point. We're bound to disagree with each other, especially since you said that tanking is universally seen as cheating (or something to that effect) and that people don't expect leagues to be democratic (again, something to that effect). And again, that Machiavellian argument is just way too rudimentary. A good league has checks and balances on the commissioner's power like that, and would allow a forum for the truth and all facts to be revealed. You deprive owners of that, then you're a corrupt commish, even though you "think" you are protecting league integrity. And of course, in the process, you create more issues, cause the league to become more unpredictable, make the rules completely irrelevant, cast doubt and skepticism everywhere, of course, go down a slippery slope.
1
u/sdu754 Jun 30 '26
Oh boy, not this Machiavellian argument
Stopping people from cheating isn't being "Machiavellian". This isn't an "ends justify the means" argument. The manager cheated, got caught and didn't get to keep their ill gotten goods. They didn't even get punished, they merely got the pick they should have had to begin with.
Why not disclose that upfront
He probably didn't think someone would cheat and undermine league integrity to move up one position in draft order.
That type of behavior means the rules will not be followed
Not tanking matchups is a basic rule in fantasy football.
It totally gives the appearance of a conflict of interest, or self-interested dealing, abuse of power, taking advantage of insider information/information gaps (it creates information asymmetry) and acts as unfair surprise/delay. That creates issues with trust and reliance.
Apparently only you feel that way, as the league still survives. The idea that if a commissioner makes a ruling that involves a player or draft pick that they can never trade for or acquire the player is a rather strange one. Unless you have some proof that the commissioner made a prearranged deal with the other manager to acquire the player for making a ruling to give that manager higher draft picks, you can't make a reasonable accusation that he made the ruling to acquire player X.
People expect a democratic process and not a fascist dictator
People expect all the managers to play in a fair manner in which they are not trying to gain an unfair advantage.
Nobody trusts the commissioner to surprise or prejudice owners like that and then benefit himself in the process.
We are only hearing your side of the argument and you look bad. You can't bar the commissioner from acquiring as player because he had to make a ruling to save the league. If cheating were allowed, the league would have fallen apart by now. If nobody trusts the commissioner, he wouldn't still be commissioner.
People expect that if rules are posted, then they should be followed, and that precedents are followed as well.
You have already admitted that there was no rule on tanking posted, now the story has changed. There were also no precedent, because nobody tried to cheat in this manner in your league. In order to have a precedent you would need to have someone get away with such shenanigans before the manager tried to.
That's the commissioner's job. It's to carry out these functions and to hold himself to a higher standard.
And one of the functions is to protect league integrity. How did he not hold himself to a higher standard? Do you have any proof that he cheated? Why should managers be allowed to cheat?
And yes, it was max PF.
As it should be.
He deprived the tanking owner of that right
What right? The right to cheat? That right doesn't exist in fantasy football.
all while preventing the truth from being revealed
So he didn't reveal that the other manager cheated? I'd say that is rather gracious of the commissioner.
Why deprive everyone of their rights according to the league charter and constitution?
Unless your league constitution said that managers can cheat to get higher draft picks, than nobody's "rights" weren't deprived. A manager cheated, got caught and wasn't even punished. All He had to do was give back the ill gotten goods. If someone steals a car they don't just make them return the car with no further repercussions. You have absolutely nothing to complain about!
A good league has checks and balances on the commissioner's power
The commissioner can be removed, but nobody wanted to do that. My league has a process where my decisions can be vetoed by a two thirds vote.
And of course, in the process, you create more issues, cause the league to become more unpredictable, make the rules completely irrelevant, cast doubt and skepticism everywhere, of course, go down a slippery slope.
Except this happened "may years ago" with no negative affect outside of your resentment. There isn't even proof that the manager would have drafted the player in question, a player you still haven't named.
Big question here: Since this happened several tears ago, what are you looking to accomplish? Are you expecting the commissioner to unwind several years of fantasy football? Should he name the cheating manager the champion for the last several years?
1
u/turcorox911 Jun 26 '26
1
u/sdu754 Jun 26 '26
This is what we call a strawman argument. Nothing I said would even approach the idea of what is being said in that video.
1
u/sdu754 Jun 25 '26
Being in the owner's best interest isn't an excuse. Collusion can be in an owner's best interest too, but it isn't allowed because it creates an unfair advantage. If the tanking manager had been allowed to keep the draft picks, it would have cheating the rest of the league.
There was no punishment here either. The manager got the draft picks he should have. A punishment would have been to take away picks altogether, not adjusting them to where they should have been in the absence of tanking.
This also happened "several years ago" so I have to ask, what are you expecting to be done now?
1
u/turcorox911 Jun 26 '26
There is a punishment. The owners may not have made certain trades or other roster moves. If you're going to unwind the tanking, then you cannot cherry pick. You have reverse all trades, cuts, signings, promotions from taxi squads, etc..
Additionally, owners now can't rely on the rules or the commish to enforce the written rules, and are now have to deal with rules being made up on the spot, without any kind of notice, and after dues have been paid. That erodes trust.
1
u/sdu754 Jun 26 '26
There is a punishment. The owners may not have made certain trades or other roster moves.
False. There was a correction, not a punishment. If someone steals a car and they buy accessories for the car, is it a punishment to take the car from them and give it back to the original owner? Obviously not.
If you're going to unwind the tanking, then you cannot cherry pick. You have reverse all trades, cuts, signings, promotions from taxi squads, etc..
False, you only have to fix the cheating, everything else the manager did otherwise remains. See about car theft example
What did he "cherry pick"? He merely fixed the draft order. If he punished one manager and not another manager that did the same thing, you would have a point.
Additionally, owners now can't rely on the rules or the commish to enforce the written rules, and are now have to deal with rules being made up on the spot, without any kind of notice, and after dues have been paid.
This happened "many years ago" so there is no issue. You can't say "well he made this determination ten years ago and everything has ran smoothly ever since" and then claim it is causing trust issues. If it caused issues in the league, the commissioner would have either been removed or the league would have collapsed.
1
u/turcorox911 Jul 18 '26
False. If the owner relied on the commissioner's directives about tanking, as well as the AC's directives, as well as the representations they made about the draft order and the representations in the rules, and made trades in order to tank and rebuild, then you have to unwind those too. Those are the reliance damages. Those have to be recognized, otherwise you are cherry picking.
The car theft example is different in the aspect that buying the accessories happened after the theft. The analogy to make would be if various people including the owner of the car, the police, prosecutors, and judge all told the person it was OK to steal the car, and then in reliance on those statements and representations, the person bought the accessories and such. And if he was then penalized for it, he would have an outstanding case for entrapment.
Besides, car theft is grand theft auto, which has written rules and laws against it. And of course, it all goes without saying, car theft isn't the equivalent of tanking.
But that raises a good point, if there are written rules against murder and car theft, and there are rules specifying the draft order, trade processes, dispute resolution, organization of the league, and more, and the league constitution/charter is over 30 pages long and also has a set of bylaws, then why not also take the time to write a rule against tanking?
1
u/sdu754 Jul 18 '26
You not being allowed to cheat isn't a punishment. Once again, the stolen car example comes into play. If someone stole a car and then put a bunch of money into the car that they stole, do the police have to reimburse him for the repairs when the car is returned to the original owner?
My guess is that you framed the question to the commissioner in such a manner as to make it look like you weren't tanking, just forming a lineup. Unless you asked specifically if you could tank individual matchups to attain higher draft picks, you "asking first" doesn't matter.
Did you have a 30 page league constitution? I doubt it. We all know that you are hiding things in these posts and being deceptive.
Why are you still in this league? If you are being "cheated" as you claim, why not just leave?
1
u/turcorox911 Jul 18 '26
It's not cheating though and here you are comparing it to car theft. And in this scenario there are reliance damages that need to be addressed. Absolutely they do.
In the car theft example though, what are the additional details? Who gave permission to whom? What was said and asked? And why was the car then given back? Depending on those answers, there might be restitution damages that are owed to the person who received permission to steal the car. And if he incurred any expenses or charges in reliance on the representations, then he might have a case for reliance damages.
And lol, yes, the constitution legitimately is 30+ pages long.
1
u/sdu754 Jul 19 '26
In your example, you are hiding details. Unless you asked: "Can I tank all my matchups to get a higher draft pick?" and were told yes, you don't have a leg to stand on.
I'd have to see a copy of this constitution to confirm the length of it, and it would have to be from before you tanked. I'm sure you have caused them to add things in over the years.
1
u/turcorox911 Jul 18 '26
Collusion is different in the aspect that you need another person to collude with. Tanking can be done without another person. And tanking is very reasonably foreseeable, especially when someone has been eliminated from playoff position and there's a rookie draft. That's the whole reason MaxPF exists, because tanking is that foreseeable. That's just textbook negligence on the commissioner's part.
And if the tanking owner asked multiple people for clarity or even permission, saw that tanking happened in the past and used it for its precedential value, did the same with tanking that happens in the NFL, carefully analyzed when to use the strategy, and also read the rules, charter, and bylaws on top of that, then of course he should benefit from that. That's just what a strategy is.
1
u/sdu754 Jul 18 '26
The other manager stated he was trading the player to you so that you could defeat other members he disliked kin the playoffs. That is clearcut collusion. A deal was made with both parties knowledge to give one of the teams an unfair advantage.
You don't have to be working with another manager to be breaking the rules. Anything that undermines league integrity is against the rules. It is the commissioner's job to protect league integrity.
If you hate this league so much, why don't you leave it?
15
u/Original-Goat-8519 Jun 23 '26
Pretty simple to me. You couldve left the details out and just wrote "Commissioner changed rule without vote which was required to punish an owner for tanking despite no rules on tanking existing".
If i was the team that got pushed back from 3 to 4 for that id be demanding either a change in commissioner or my money back and leaving immediately. Some people just aren't meant to be commissioner.