*S24 Rule Summit Review

[gucci]

2. In Rules Summits, a threshold must be met to pass new rules. This threshold will be 70% of the total voting pool or one more than the Number of Teams voting, whichever is higher. (In this rule summit, both of these requirements are met in 21 to approve)
21-9

Why does this exist? Well to put it plainly, expansion. When the league expands to 14 teams, that means that there will be 20 votes in a normal ISFL summit, as opposed to the current 18. 14 votes would constitute exactly 70%, which under the old rules, would be enough to pass. However the intent was never for that to exist. Thus this rule exists to further ensure that GMs cannot force a rule through on their own. As I already mentioned earlier, some GMs were not happy the need to have at least one non-GM vote in favor of a proposal. Humorously one GM said they voted against it because HO was an internally selected group. A description that also applies to GMs. More humorously, the complaint is based upon a situation that has already existed. As far as I can recall, the voting structure has always required at least one non-GM to vote for something in order for it to pass. 

The whole league agreeing on something is "the GMs forcing a rule through"? Or is it HO shutting down a rule universally agreed on by a representative of each team?

We currently lack separation of powers as a league. HO serves as the judge, law enforcement, and get final say in legislating new rules. Goodell and his team don't get a vote on rules in the NFL, the owners do. This wouldn't have stripped HO of voting power, rather made it so they couldn't anonymously shut down rules UNANIMOUSLY agreed upon by the representatives of the teams. Bad rule as it was and the new rule is equally bad. Your amusement doesn't change that.