I'm re-invoking a rule

[redsfan28]

We did this before we decided to restart again. If a trade gets 3 pass votes before its first fail vote, then the trade gets passed without a 4th vote. It was designed to reduce some logjamming.

[Providence A's]

so KoZ's fail on the Harden deal didn't count

I understand this, but to me it's all about timing and who's online. So a trade with 3 passes before anything is good to go, but a deal with 2 passes, a fail, and then another pass isn't for the simple fact that the person who failed it was online/voted before the 3rd yes. Something about that seems shady. And shouldn't this be just for deals that are involving TC members? A deal could get 3 passes and then 4 fails theoretically otherwise...that's not right to me

[Kingdom]

I'm still against it, and PA pretty much outlined the reason I'm against it.

[redsfan28]

Ok. If that's the concensus, then I support your decision. It really doesn't matter to me one way or another.

[Dam8610]

When has a deal ever gotten 3 consecutive pass votes and failed?

[Witlon]

Good point, Dam. Very good point.

[Providence A's]

When has a deal ever gotten 3 consecutive pass votes and failed?

notice I said "theoretically"

again, IMHO, if this is used, it should only be used when TC members are involved in the deal...