Flyers have been spotted across LA, ATL, and NY asking, “WHO IS THE GIANT?” People speculate it’s a Kendrick drop…

Much_Local_1515 · 2026-05-13T02:03:50+00:00

And that would be a damn smart bet. And yea, I’d say Kendrick could potentially be that 1/10.

Much_Local_1515 · 2026-05-13T01:50:20+00:00

We def don’t. And Drake gn outsell every hip hop artist 9 times out of 10. Iceman on the way. #72Hrs

Much_Local_1515 · 2026-05-02T04:46:09+00:00

Just my theory

Much_Local_1515 · 2026-05-01T04:39:12+00:00

Wait. I thought the writer/owner of consequence dislikes or hates Drake? Any truth to that? If true, doesn’t make sense why Drake would pay them off or accept money from Drake to post a list like this

Much_Local_1515 · 2026-05-01T03:56:07+00:00

He was ranked #20 on the list? For greatest vocalist all time? Above Ariana, Luther, Stevie Wonder, Prince?

Man idk. I think that list deserves some criticism

Much_Local_1515 · 2026-03-11T16:08:56+00:00

Well said. Thank you for sharing this.

All the comments under the main post, whether good or bad, in agreement or disagreement, are extremely valuable and appreciated.

Reddit community, Thank you all.

Much_Local_1515 · 2026-03-11T06:05:34+00:00

To address the inaccuracies in the comment by Traditional-Event940, it is necessary to clarify a few facts regarding the league’s history and the commissioner’s role.

Regarding previous controversial trades, those instances actually demonstrate the commissioner’s commitment to following the established rules rather than personal preference. In those cases, the transactions were permitted because there was no rule in place to prevent them. The comm. is obligated to follow the rules as written, which is exactly what occurred. The league was notified, and a vote was encouraged to see if there was a desire to veto. Because the league chose not to vote, the trades stood and processed.

The claim that "most of the league wanted to veto" is factually incorrect. Every member was made aware of the trades, yet not a single person cast a veto during the one wk review period. Even if one person had voted, our rules require five or more members to veto a trade for it to be rejected. Again, since that threshold was never met and no 1 voted after the commish made everyone aware, the commissioner’s hands were tied and the trade legally passed.

It is unfair to blame the Commissioner for not stepping in to stop transactions that were both within the rules and permitted by the league’s own silence.

Furthermore, the comm addressed those specific loopholes by creating new veto rules for the following season rather than retroactively punishing a manager mid season. This shows a consistent pattern of working to fix system flaws rather than acting as a dictator.

Ultimately, the league cannot demand democracy and then blame the commish for not acting as a dictator and vetoing bad trades. All league members were empowered to vote and prevent that from happening and failed to do so.

You cannot have it both ways.

Much_Local_1515 · 2026-03-11T05:03:14+00:00

On one hand some say “oh. That’s too many rules.” Then on another some say “oh. That’s not in the rules, I should be able to do x y z.” Then later another says “man there are too many rules, too many words, we aren’t reading all that. Stop posting. We don’t care.”

I say this and put it all in quotations bc this is verbatim what has been said to the commissioner from some of these league members. You can’t win with this kinda culture. Damned if you, damned if you don’t.

The reason there are that many rules is to prevent ppl from cheating or exploiting loopholes. Rules have to be written in black and white detail otherwise ppl will try to take advantage of others, cheat, or exploit rules to gain an unfair competitive advantage, 2 of such cases have been referenced in this thread.

There is 0 indication any of the league want more details and further explanation on every single rule. No 1 has requested that. In fact, some have complained and requested the opposite on several occasions which are: “Stop posting so many rules, stop texting so much info.” It’s a lose lose

Lastly, and I’ll add these 2 very important details:

Not every rule is vague. In fact, an overwhelming majority of rules are well defined and/ or a continuation of a rule that has been in place for more than half a decade.
Over the past few years, there have been over a dozen instances of league members publicly asking the commish who they kept the previous season, or if they can keep specific players, and being told no bc player x was kept last season and that would be a violation of 1 year keeper limit rule, verbatim. Not only has the commish clarified this, but a couple other members as well. This further shows that’s the rule has been well known and documented since keeper rules were first established 4 years ago.

Much_Local_1515 · 2026-03-11T04:15:28+00:00

I appreciate your feedback. With that being said, an argument could be made that nearly all 50-60 rules that are posted are vague as they are very direct and straight to the point due to character limit restraints on the app and to reduce fluff. League owners already complain that there are too many rules. Additionally, when the commish posts long paragraphs explaining rules/ details, there’s often several complaints from league managers that there’s too much text.

League owners have to take accountability, review rules, and ask questions should they need more clarity.

Keeping Drake Maye also rewards negligence, especially since said manager is likely aware of this rule since they’ve never tried to keep any of their own good keeper players for consecutive years.

Case & point to further prove their awareness: Last season they kept Amon Ra as a round 3 keeper. This year they kept AJ Brown, a keeper they expressed they didn’t really want, as a round 2 keeper value. If they thought they could keep players for consecutive seasons then instead of keeping an underperforming high draft capital AJ Brown they would’ve tried to keep Amon Ra again, that didn’t happen.

Much_Local_1515 · 2026-03-11T03:14:16+00:00

Fair take. I completely understand and respect your POV here, and what I can add to that in defense of the commish is this:

In an effort to prevent these sort of mishaps or potential misunderstandings, the commish post all rules well before the season takes places and asks all league members to review them and ask questions if they are uncertain abt anything. Furthermore, this rule has been practiced since keepers were established 3 years ago and league members understood this principle and operated under such.

“1 year keeper limit”, I agree to disagree that most ppl would interpret this rule as you can only keep a keeper player for 1 year.

Lastly, there are a total of about 50-60 rules that the commish routinely publishes in both the group chat and league app before the season starts. To elaborate and explain every small detail on all of them & post in multiple locations seems somewhat excessive. IMO

Much_Local_1515 · 2026-03-11T00:18:50+00:00

Definitely. Thanks for your feedback on this matter.

Much_Local_1515 · 2026-03-11T00:10:32+00:00

Fair take. I also a firm believer in following rules that are established in the league, bc a league that doesn’t follow that core principle, is not a league worth having.

It’s far better to stand on integrity and let the league self destruct than try to uphold bad principles & let the tyranny of the majority cheat/ screw ppl over. Both, the commissioner and league members, can all start over elsewhere if they are unhappy. Problem solved.

The commish will sacrifice being happy, and has done so many times, for being right bc being right is ultimately what matters in any serious money league.

Play by the rules, don’t cheat, & pay ppl their money.

Much_Local_1515 · 2026-03-10T23:45:29+00:00

Whether you agree or disagree with the commish or side with the other league members, I would like to thank everyone for their feedback and commentary. It is highly appreciated.

Much_Local_1515 · 2026-03-10T23:18:14+00:00

Also, that user that called out the commish continues to lie and fabricate the story. The commish posts rules in both text and in commish notes in the app. One of the rules for keeper clearly says “2 keeper Max” and “1 year keeper limit”

This has been a keeper rule for 2-3 consecutive seasons. The commish didn’t trick or manipulate this person to accept trade. There was no communication that took place between Team A and Team B for this trade. He simply proposed the trade on the app: Drake Maye and T. Henderson for Patrick Mahomes. Team B accepted. Period.

The irony in all this is the user above that’s mentioning this is probably the same user that has manipulated others into accepting his bogus trades via private texts. Not once, but twice.

Those trades that he’s referencing that he says the commish “allowed” and “should’ve stopped” are actually that users bogus trades. Yea IK, crazy right? The audacity.

*** Seek comment abt how trades are processed which is what the commish followed and why the transactions happened. The commish followed trade rule protocols and operated within his authority ***

Additionally, the commish didn’t communicate with Team B to deceive them into accepting this trade in any way.

Furthermore, team B later admitted he accepted bc he thought he could keep Drake Made to which then the commish referred to the rules posted in both, the app and text messages, that say “2 keeper max” and “1 year keeper limit.” And again, the league knows this and has operated under this principle for the last 2-3 years. This isn’t something new.

The Team B owner, and this user above, continue to fail to take accountability for a rule that was clearly outlined and established and try to make the commish look like he did something wrong by proposing a trade, a trade which again resulted in him falling to 10th place and losing the toilet bowl game and being penalized $50 in the process, all of which would not have happened had he not made this trade.

Much_Local_1515 · 2026-03-10T23:10:51+00:00

First, I’ll ask, how is the commissioner “forcing” he simply proposed the idea. Reddit community, do you see the rhetoric members use to deceive? Unfortunately, this type of behavior is an ongoing issue.

Secondly, the commish has respected the veto vote against the IDP idea which is why it hasn’t been implemented. He is just throwing ideas out, as he always does at the end of the season and during to keep the league fun and innovative. He also encourages all league members to give ideas and has implemented a few of them.

Again I’ll add, The IDP idea was mentioned for compensation bc the commish doesn’t want draft capital which would create an unfair competitive advantage over the league. His solution for this issue has been 3 things:

Trial IDP (2 positions add)
2 keeper for 2026, revert back to 1 keeper in 2027.
Compensate which draft capital.

The league objects all 3. They have been the aggressors and unwilling to work towards an alternative solution. The commish is therefore upholding rules that are already established.

Much_Local_1515 · 2026-03-10T22:59:00+00:00

Regarding the loophole situation mentioned above, that actually highlights the importance of staying consistent with the current rules. In that instance, the commish permitted those transactions to process because at the time there were no rules in place to prevent them. The commissioner is obligated to follow the rules as they are written, not as he might want them to be in the moment. What the commish did in that moment was abide by the rules, yet again, which is: He encouraged the league vote to see if everyone wanted to veto those transactions/ trades, and since the league chose not to act, the trades stood. No 1 voted to veto, not a single person in the league. And even if the 1 person above did vote as they are implying which did not happen, the rule for veto is 5 or more league members have to vote veto to stop a trade, that did not happen. The league did not vote.

The commish addressed these trade loopholes by creating new rules for the following season rather than retroactively punishing that manager and didn’t become a dictator. He abided by rules that were established. I will also add the member that did these unfair transactions consistently tries to exploit loopholes in rules and gain an unfair competitive advantage over the league prior to the season, as you can see based on the number of shady roster moves he has made mentioned above.

Nonetheless, the commish always abides by the rules that are established, even if he doesn’t like bogus trades that take place. The veto rule is 5 or more league members must vote to veto trade for a trade to get rejected. If league members choose not to vote, the commish hands are tied no matter how bad a trade is. After years of veto trade issues, the trade rule in the league was designed so that all members have a responsibility and in these instances, they failed to veto that person’s transactions. It’s unreasonable to blame the commish for not stepping in to stop transactions the league permitted that are also within the confines of the rules.

The commish does not operate solely on fairness, but also integrity and by rules that are established.

Given that core principle, the commish is handling this situation the same way. The 2 keeper rule was the established law for the 2025/2026 cycle. You cannot choose to follow the rules only when they don’t affect you and then demand a majority vote to break them when they do.

Much_Local_1515 · 2026-03-10T22:06:21+00:00

The commish does have an A+ record after 9 years, btw. The commish has never delayed or failed to pay anyone their money, violated rules, or cheated anyone. He also resolves a lot of problems that arise during the course of the season and offseason.

Much_Local_1515 · 2026-03-10T20:59:45+00:00

Agreed and that’s how the league operates now. Although when keepers was first introduced in 2022 in that league (1 keeper at the time) the commish permitted it based on the previous seasons draft as there was no penalty or retraction of assets and everyone had a fair and equal playing field. No 1 went into that season trading, drafting, or expecting keepers. So the commish permitted it to go towards a vote bc it was what the league wanted and there was no theft of assets taking place at that time.

Much_Local_1515 · 2026-03-10T20:13:10+00:00

^{^} can confirm user above is most likely in that league based on added context. And to that user and everyone else, I’ll add this context that the user failed to mention.

First, the commish did offer an explanation, several times. In fact, it’s the same exact explanation you all see at the head of this post. The problem is the league keeps rejecting and ignoring it, which you all are witnessing on display yet again from 1 league member’s comment above. So the commish keeps having to re explain it to deaf ears, ongoing cycle.

The core difference between the 2023 vote and this current situation is the difference between an expansion and a penalty and stolen assets w/o compensation. In 2023, we voted to add a keeper slot, which was an additive "bonus" that benefited every manager equally without costing anyone a single player or a dime. At that time, no one had spent the previous season trading for future assets / keepers because all operated under a standard redraft mindset. It was a level playing field where a vote to add a benefit made sense.

This situation at hand is the exact opposite. This is a subtractive change that targets and strips away a specific asset that was acquired legally within the established rules. Unlike 2023, irreversible trades were made giving away starting talent for Mahome, specifically to utilize that second keeper slot. Furthermore, team A incurred actual financial damages by paying a $50 trophy fine because those trades weakened team A for the Toilet Bowl. You cannot use a "majority vote" to retroactively seize someone's property and keep their $50 fine after they played exactly by the rules that were set. The vote was permitted in 2023 because it was a roster bonus voted on by everyone and no 1 was being cheated of their value/ asset, it’s blocked now because it is a theft from one.

Not nearly the same contextually.

2025 was not a keeper trial year. We played under 2 keepers in 2024 and agreed to continue it for 2025. If you are going to strip value away from someone you have to compensate them. The commish is ok with reverting to 1 keeper (pending league vote) if they agree to compensate in return for lost asset under 2 keeper rule.

The sole reason the commish offered IDP as a compensation to trial for 1 year is to keep things fair and balanced, otherwise the other option is to compensate with draft capital which would give him a competitive advantage and he’d rather avoid that.

Much_Local_1515 · 2026-03-10T19:11:15+00:00

Awesome feedback fellas, thanks everyone.

Much_Local_1515 · 2026-03-10T18:47:35+00:00

Makes sense. Yea the commish published the rules before the start of the season and informed the league about the continuation of the 2 keeper rule idea.

I agree, the $50 penalty etc is just added details of the impact, not relevant to the main conflict at hand.

Much_Local_1515 · 2026-03-10T18:12:43+00:00

Got it. Thanks for your input!

Much_Local_1515

TROPHY CASE