VOTING FOR 2009-10 RULE PROPOSALS
Here are all the proposals. Your vote is required by midnight MST on Wednesday, September 16. Please email your vote to Brian (bladerunners@shaw.ca) however if your vote is on the blog it will be accepted (but the DC STRONGLY suggests you email your vote to Brian so it isn’t missed on the blog).
*** NOTE – 9 votes are required to pass a proposal. You can abstain instead of voting ‘no’ but essentially abstaining counts as a no vote. No vote received will count as abstaining. Any rule change(s) voted in will become effective immediately.
RULE PROPOSAL #1
Reduce the number of waiver drafts to one a year.
Regardless of how you voted for the the above, if it is implemented then which of the two systems below would you prefer? (majority wins for a or b below)
a) the single WD will be held at the 1/3 mark of the season as per the setting of WD1 in past years (i.e. early December; around week 9 based on 27 week NHL schedule).
b) the single WD will be held at the 1/2 mark of the season which would be approximately week 13 (i.e. early January).
RULE PROPOSAL #2
Do you accept the concept of a continuous waive wire?
Regardless of how you voted for the above, if it is implemented then which of the two systems below would you prefer? [majority wins for a or b below]
a) waived players remain on waiver wire for the remainder of the season.
b) waived players lose RFA or prospect status if not claimed in first week on wire. The waiver wire is dissolved at end of week prior to the WD(s) so that waived players are available for the WD(s). The waiver wire then starts with a clean slate after the WD(s). The waiver wire is dissolved permanently at the trade deadline.
RULE PROPOSAL #3
Reduce the number of prospects to 6 effective for the 2010-11 season.
RULE PROPOSAL #4
Prospects must be 18 years of age or older when drafted.
RULE PROPOSAL #5
There will be a moritorium on rule changes for 5 years unless all GMs un-animously agree to a rule change AND/OR some change within the NHL seriously affects the FUNHL which would trigger a FUNHL vote
RULE PROPOSAL # 6
Members of the dispute committee sit for three years with one member changing each year. If there is more than one candidate to take over the vacating member’s place, then there will be a vote.
10 comments:
1. No, B.
2. No, B.
3. No. (Indeed I would like to register my hostile opposition)
4. No. With the same caveat as in #3.
5. Yes.
6. Yes.
#1) Yes, prefer a.
#2) Yes, prefer b.
#3) Yes.
#4) Abstention. (And will take this opportunity to critique our strange interpretation of abstentions.)
#5) Strongly no.
#6) Yes, and I nominate myself to be on the disputes committee, provided #5 doesn't pass.
Thanks to all for compiling this, especially Brian. I will e-mail this to you as well.
1 - yes, a.
2 - yes, b.
3 - no.
4 - no.
5 - yes.
6 - no.
I'll hope to email this to you, Brian...
Well composed and organized though...
Votes:
1. Yes, a
2. Yes, b
3. No
4. No
5. Yes
6. No, But I would support Richard's nomination to the DC regardless...though I would also note that that the DC is a Dispute's Committee, not a rules committee.
Thanks,
Moriarty, Dark Emissary to the Shadow.
1. No, A
2. Yes, B
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. No
Moriarty applauds Blog votes, especially refreshing from Darwin' Surprise...And if you don't who's vote that represented your deductive reasoning skills are faulty...but ask if you must...For the Shadow always knows...
1. No, B
2. Yes, B
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. No
1 yes b
2 yes b
3 no
4 abstain
5 no
6 no
1. yes, B
2.yes, A
3. no
4. no
5. yes
6. yes, though do not really care as I will never have the time to be on the committee
I believe that makes 12GMs voted...looking forward to the results...[4 votes to brian/me/rob, 8 on the blog]
Post a Comment