I think what most of us do, and this is the natural tendency, is we veto trades that we perceive as unfair. Or, we veto trades that would not benefit our own teams.
I have to admit that I, too, have been found guilty of this in the past.
In fact, sometimes I have been known to veto a trade just because I don't have time to investigate it. The idea here is I trust the judgement of the other GMs to decide the matter.
However, according to the experts at cbssports.com, this was not the intended purpose of the veto or accept trade option.
The truth is, there is no such thing as a fair trade. Every trade comes with the risk of making your team worse.
So, that said, the purpose of the vote is to prevent one team from selling out to the other.
We actually had this happen a few years ago in a fantasy baseball league I participate in. One GM wanted to quit, so he offered all his good players to another team. This trade was rejected.
So, my policy for accepting trades is this: so long as it appears to me both teams are honestly trying to make their teams better, I accept the trade.
The only other time I might reject a trade if , in my opinion, it is severely lopsided. Still, it's difficult to define "lopsided" when we all have a unique perspective on each player. So, I usually resist rejecting trades for this reason.
So, this is what I think? What is your trade voting policy?