Governing Council *ALL MEMBERS READ*

First off.....

I thought this was a group....first and foremost...a group...we should all (maybe not complete newbs) have a say in what goes on in this group and what rules are created...etc.

Now, I understand Greener started the GC off Commish's etc...and then you guys voted from there on new members. Well, the problem with that...is that the "people" are having no say in what is processed in all of the leagues. The "people" which is what MG prides itself on...have no "say" in what/who is in the governing council...and who's creating these rules/regulations.

If this was "my" governing council and my "lead members" - I'd want the opportunity to vote for them to be placed upon leadership. I've worked in a union setting before and always had the right to vote for my union leaders/positions.

If a certain "few" members are going to speak for everyone...in my opinion....the majority of us...need to be able to vote on them. That should be "our" right as a group...because we pride ourselves on being a great group. Not just a great...governing council. I understand how it started...and etc...but now I feel as though you guys are letting it get out of control.

A Few members are starting to even make your decisions look un-warranted...etc...

A Governing Councl that speaks for the "people" should be voted on...by the PEOPLE. Not voted on...by the Governing Council....

So, basically 5-6 members are creating the basis for the group to follow? instead of the group...creating a council for us to get behind?

Is anyone following me? or agree?

I'm not saying we all should be put up for the council...frankly I know I dont want in it...I'm A- too emotional B- I go way too crazy and C- Nobody agrees with me most of the time...

But, if you started it off...having the GROUP nominate 4-5 guys as a basis...you could go from their...and then add 2-3 guys immediately...etc

But, now you guys have all of a sudden added more guys...and in my opinion...the real basis of this group is being forgotten....

The real Members...and the real contributors of the group....their opinions are being left out. A good member...doesn't just mean he posts on the board...or he's 100% always "mental" as opposed to being unstable...sometimes...like I am. A good member, plays their games...and does lots of other things....that are MG related. But, this group...is a great group...because we all have opinions.

I 100% agree with the fact that the majority of the GC members will make a great decision for most of us....bu

But, I'd rather know...that it was the people that put those individuals their...instead of "greener and his gang" - I'd rather know...that the majority of the group...had a say...in putting those individuals in that "power" position. I'd rather know...that the GROUP...came together...to get those individuals...to speak for them.

PS: this isn't a slang at you Greener, frankly it doesn't even involve you...or is it pointed at you...in any way.

It should have went something...like....a big open discussion with each member having an opportunity to name 4-5 guys they want in charge. From their, u can name 2-3 more members immediately...after the main 4-5 stays are acknowledged.

Something like,

Delmas nominates (Greener, FalconFan, CP, J-Moj, Cheddah)
Coward1984 nominates (Himself, Blammers, fr8train, J-Moj, FF)
Cheddah nominates (Himself, Greener, CP, J-Moj, FF)
FalconFan nominates (blah blah)

and from there you move on...

We have 60+ good members in this group....But, we are only hearing from 5-10 owners on every rule/topic. I can understand that basis...if 60 members voted on that "council" but...we didnt. It was established by a select few members...not by the GROUP.



it allows every member to have a say...in this group...and who's speaking for them...

Not just....4-5 guys...and adding from their wishes/wants....

You know what, I completely agree with this. I think it's a great point. Primarily, I'm interested in the success of the group. But I never thought about whether or not I was good for the group. I'd like to think so, it seems as though people like what I'm doing...but you never know. I think the fact that I was added to the GC simply because I was a commish is a bit of a mistake. I think anyone added for simply being a commish is kind of a mistake. I think the only 2 guys who deserve to be on the GC without being voted in are Greener and DW. Greener because he fathered this group and DW because from the beginning he's run the best franchise and obviously has the best intentions for the group in mind. Other than those 2, I think everyone else should have to be nominated by the memebers of MG, and then voted on by the memebrs of the MG. Or at least have 5 guys besides Greener and DW be voted in, and then from there on the MG members can nominate another group of guys for the GC to vote on. Great idea D.

Me personally i always think of the "people" in every decision i make and i would want to think everyone else does as well

Child_Please4285 wrote:Me personally i always think of the "people" in every decision i make and i would want to think everyone else does as well

That may be....Im sure you would be voted in...by the "people"

But, I'd like to think/believe that everyone should want...the members in the "lead positions" voted in...by the people...and not placed in...by the MG pre-designed leaders.

+1 here. We should definitely let the people decide. Although, I still stand fast by DW and Greener being staples.

Child_Please4285 wrote:Me personally i always think of the "people" in every decision i make and i would want to think everyone else does as well

As well do I. There is open discussion on the main part of the board. That is where alot of the rule proposals come from.

Great point. I agree D.

To Cheddahs point. How do we do it? There are a few ways to do it I think:

1) The people nominate prospective members and the predetermined base GC members then vote on the nominees as Cheddah suggests.
2) The people vote in a general election for a number of base GC members (2,4,6 members? I don't know). And these base members then vote on the remaining members.
3) Or have a general election from scratch. Set up a poll and have people vote for 12 members. Top 12 vote getters make up the council.

So do we vote on that? Or just make a decision. I like number 2 myself. Vote for 6 or 4 and let them vote on the rest. The top 4 or 6 guys should have the most insight into who should best round out the twelve - that's my opinion.

this makes a lot of sense, but i would like to say i think all the guys in the gc as of right now are good for their respective positions but hearing more from the people couldn't hurt.

sam22smith wrote:Great point. I agree D.

To Cheddahs point. How do we do it? There are a few ways to do it I think:

1) The people nominate prospective members and the predetermined base GC members then vote on the nominees as Cheddah suggests.
2) The people vote in a general election for a number of base GC members (2,4,6 members? I don't know). And these base members then vote on the remaining members.
3) Or have a general election from scratch. Set up a poll and have people vote for 12 members. Top 12 vote getters make up the council.

So do we vote on that? Or just make a decision. I like number 2 myself. Vote for 6 or 4 and let them vote on the rest. The top 4 or 6 guys should have the most insight into who should best round out the twelve - that's my opinion.

I like that same. I say we should have Greener and DW and then have the rest of MG nominate 4 guys and then vote on the nominees. I'd say people can nominate themselves and 2 other members if they wish. Then from that pool of nominees, we have everyone vote on them. After that core 6 is voted in, we can have the rest of MG bring a group of nominees to be voted in by the core 6, until 12 members are set.

Also, to EZ's point. I don't think Delmas is saying the current GC is doing a bad job. I think he's saying the fair way and way to best represent the group is to have the group vote on it. Which I agree with. The fact that I was added to the GC for being a commissioner makes no sense in retrospect. Anyone technically could have elected to run a franchise. Hell, sickxstick almost got a franchise, he would have been on the GC in that logic. I don't think the MG memebrs would want someone like him representing them. More importantly than how we as GC memebers feel is how the entire group feels. If they feel we are doing a good job, they'll nominate and vote us in. If they don't want us representing them, they won't. I have no problem with that. If I'm not voted on being a leader it's not a big deal to me.

yeah i see that. and i would be perfectly fine with it if it were to happen. i just wanted to give a little 2 cents with that as well. cuz i appreciate all the guys in the GC currently

ezweightloss wrote:yeah i see that. and i would be perfectly fine with it if it were to happen. i just wanted to give a little 2 cents with that as well. cuz i appreciate all the guys in the GC currently

Yeah, I think we are doing a bang up job, especially as of late. But whatever the people wants they gets!

we're probably tripled in size since last year, and i agree with everything delmas is saying. its makes sense democratically, and i would be open to a nomination system over the course of a couple weeks to make sure we get as many nominees/votes as possible. i got some ideas on how it could be set up, but lets see what some other people think of the whole idea first. whether they would like to see a fresh council voted in, or keep things the way they are with who we already have.

Delmas for president... Lol
A thunderous appaulds for that speech...lol

jmojsoski wrote:Delmas for president... Lol
A thunderous appaulds for that speech...lol

haha his soapbox was straining under that intensity! but i agree, well said and its a great point.

yeah i definitely agree and like everything delmas said..

We talked about this in the Blast Chat, and I offered up a suggestion.

How about for each new version of Madden, we hold elections to the GC?

Fr8trainShane wrote:We talked about this in the Blast Chat, and I offered up a suggestion.

How about for each new version of Madden, we hold elections to the GC?

that's a great idea. only one downside though, trash campaigns and bribery hahah

we can have election for some members - but commishes put so much time into the MG - on that principal alone they get a GC vote - you cant ask a comish (who puts in countless hours to make this work) that he cant vote on the direction of the MG just because he wasnt a "popular" guy...

GREENERRRR wrote:we can have election for some members - but commishes put so much time into the MG - on that principal alone they get a GC vote - you cant ask a comish (who puts in countless hours to make this work) that he cant vote on the direction of the MG just because he wasnt a "popular" guy...

I don't think it's a popularity thing at all. I think it's more that the Commishes are here to do what's best for the group, and the group consists of the players. If the players feel certain guys are the ones who are best for making decisions then they should have the right to elect those guys to make decisions. As far as commissioners being on the GC...I don't think being a commish gives you the right to be a GC. After all, we weren't planning on making every commish next season a memeber of the GC right? We'd end up with maybe 20 GC memebers if that were the case, especially with the Minor league system we are looking at.

Moreover, every member of the GC should (and I believe IS) concerned primarily with the betterment of the group, and it appears this is what the players want. Other than you and DW as staples, I doubt any commish would mind if the GC members besides you and DW were chosen by the group. I know I don't. I don't think surf minds. I haven't talked to Kight...and no other GC member is a commish. I'd say anyone on the GC who doesn't think the entire group should vote it needs to reconsider why they want to be on the GC in the first place: is it for the title and prestige (which I don't really think there is any lol) or for the actual betterment of the group?

I think this is a great idea, and I'd have no problem giving up my spot if that's what people want. It's about what's best for the group as a whole, and I think it makes perfect sense that all the members of the group would get to decide who is on it.

well - thats big of both surf and chedah to say that - but i am a firm believer in TAKING CARE OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TAKEN CARE OF YOU... and our commishes are the glue that holds the MG together and members should remember that.... and if a commish INSISTED on being part of the GC - i would have a hard time saying they didnt deserve a say in the community they are tryn to build.. and that they would have to be elected...

but than agan - if each of them had the selfless attitude that the 2 of you had - they wouldnt need to be appointed - they would certainly be voted in anyways...

Cheddah_Cheez wrote:

GREENERRRR wrote:we can have election for some members - but commishes put so much time into the MG - on that principal alone they get a GC vote - you cant ask a comish (who puts in countless hours to make this work) that he cant vote on the direction of the MG just because he wasnt a "popular" guy...

I don't think it's a popularity thing at all. I think it's more that the Commishes are here to do what's best for the group, and the group consists of the players. If the players feel certain guys are the ones who are best for making decisions then they should have the right to elect those guys to make decisions. As far as commissioners being on the GC...I don't think being a commish gives you the right to be a GC. After all, we weren't planning on making every commish next season a memeber of the GC right? We'd end up with maybe 20 GC memebers if that were the case, especially with the Minor league system we are looking at.

Moreover, every member of the GC should (and I believe IS) concerned primarily with the betterment of the group, and it appears this is what the players want. Other than you and DW as staples, I doubt any commish would mind if the GC members besides you and DW were chosen by the group. I know I don't. I don't think surf minds. I haven't talked to Kight...and no other GC member is a commish. I'd say anyone on the GC who doesn't think the entire group should vote it needs to reconsider why they want to be on the GC in the first place: is it for the title and prestige (which I don't really think there is any lol) or for the actual betterment of the group?

+1

I created the GC this year because i didnt want to make all the decisions (which was kind of thrust on me originally out of necesssity)

there wasnt guys lining up to be part of the GC and i actually had to RECRUIT guys for the job!!!!! lol...

but clearly we are growing as a group - and perhaps a level of democracy is warranted - but having said that, commishes do a ton of work and out of fairness alone - they DESERVE the right to have a voice in the decision making process however; if they have an attitude similar to cheddah and surf's i respect that bigtime and if they waived their "right" to be automatically in the GC - much KUDOS is sent their way... I am sure thiose 2 quality guys would be voted in anyhow and seeing that the only other LG right now is mjkight (and he is an absolute LOCK for the GC - easily the most level headed - and fair guy around btw - fyi on mjkight - did u know that he was in a playoff game in his LG and his opponent went unexpectedly AWALL - he was gone for 3 days and of course the membership was on mjkight to get the game in because we wanted to get on with the next round and a future season... In every measurable/reasonable way he 100% deserved a CPU game - his opponent hadnt logged on in over 90 hours! BUT he didnt want guys to "look down" on him for being the commish and giving himself a CPU gm in a playoff situation so HE SIMed the game!!!! AND HE LOST!!!! His season was thrown out the door completely!!!!! the guy is full of integrity and has all my respect in the world...) anyhow back to my point - i think the current commishes we have would be easily voted in by the CG - so maybe some sort of voting system should be set uop for next years council...

I also think that Delmas is 100% right on this one. I would happily be willing to give up my seat if the group wants to have a "re-do" on the procedure for adding GC members.