I agree with much of what has been said here, though I would add that no set of written regulations, however carefully designed, can by itself preserve the character of a league. Rules may restrain obvious abuses, but they cannot compel good judgement, courtesy, or fair dealing. Those qualities must come from the members themselves. A community may possess an excellent rulebook and still become unpleasant if every disagreement becomes a contest of personalities.
One of the greater dangers, it seems to me, is not open disagreement but the gradual acceptance of poor conduct as too tiresome to address. A sharp dispute may at least be brought into the open and settled; habitual silence is more insidious. When reasonable questions receive no answer, or dubious conduct is met merely with a shrug, people lose confidence in the process. Others observe this and conclude that raising a concern is scarcely worth the trouble.
There is also an important distinction between being competitive and being adversarial. We ought to wish to defeat one another in the game; that is why we are here. Yet it is quite another matter to carry that rivalry into every conversation, suspect ill motives whenever another man disagrees, or receive criticism as a personal affront. A strong league ought surely to withstand vigorous argument without making permanent enemies of every difference of opinion. To disagree plainly and afterwards continue in good humour is a mark of maturity.
Nor ought civility to mean that every difficult matter must be spoken of delicately. Misconduct should sometimes be challenged plainly. Yet criticism serves us best when directed towards the deed rather than the character of the man. Once discourse descends into mockery, insinuation, factions, or old scores, even a just complaint may be lost amidst its prosecution. Surely we may say, “This was wrongly done,” without forthwith declaring, “This man is therefore my enemy.”
I should likewise place no small value upon consistency. Men will endure an unfavourable judgement more readily than an arbitrary one; but when like cases receive unlike treatment according to who is involved or who makes the greater clamour, confidence is quickly spent. Not every affair requires formal intervention, yet a brief acknowledgement may do much good. To say that a complaint hath been heard and considered is preferable to leaving all parties to conjecture.
And herein lies a matter which concerneth not administrators alone. Those entrusted with governance ought assuredly to furnish an example worthy of imitation; yet the temper of the league is fashioned daily by its members—in replies, private dealings, disputes, and treatment of those newly come amongst them. If many men sow discord and thereafter expect one officer to gather up the harvest, the fault cannot with justice be laid wholly at the officer's door.
For mine own part, I would far sooner dwell amongst competitors who contend without mercy upon the field yet comport themselves honourably beyond it, than amongst men whose statutes are perfect whilst every conversation is poisoned by suspicion. Disagreement we shall never abolish, nor ought we seek so foolish an end; for where men possess judgement, there shall judgement differ. It remaineth within our power whether such differences yield understanding or each quarrel be treasured up as tinder for the next.
Thus, in the final accounting, the better league shall not be that wherein no contention ariseth, but that wherein contention doth not corrupt fellowship. Rules govern the game, but character governeth the company; and where mutual regard is suffered to decay, no multitude of statutes shall restore what men themselves have cast aside. If we would have a league worth preserving, then must we conduct ourselves as though our fellows were indeed fellows, and not foes beyond the bounds of play.