2/2/2013 12:51 PM
Posted by killbatman on 2/1/2013 5:18:00 PM (view original):
Don't think it's really collusion, but I'd be *more* likely to battle him after receiving a cease and desist letter like that.
lol-I'd spend every last dime trying to sign the guy
2/2/2013 1:23 PM
Posted by blackdog3377 on 2/2/2013 3:11:00 AM (view original):
Its not collusion because collusion requires at least two people to be involved. It is completely inappropriate and if it isnt a violation of the fair play guidelines then it should be. Thats just straight up trying to bully you off a recruit so they dont have to battle for them.
Bingo!
2/2/2013 3:25 PM
I recruit a certain way to begin with, so whatever some schmuck has to say to me has no effect on how I target/chase players.
2/2/2013 3:32 PM
Posted by jjohn45 on 2/2/2013 12:33:00 PM (view original):

When I started a few seasons back a coach sitemailed me telling me he had more prestige, money etc. I threw in all my budget and signed the recruit. I also sitemailed the coach back and asked him if he always sent other coaches intimidating sitemails after he had watched hours of gay porno. He never responded so I just assumed it was true and this may be the same guy that sitemailed you taltos.

LMFAO    
2/2/2013 4:26 PM
I'm still fairly new, but i've been tempted to do that a few times and have decided against it because I figured it was inappropriate. But it drives me crazy when somebody forces me to spend so much of my recruiting budget on one guy despite the fact that they fairly obviously have no chance to win the battle. I wish there were an appropriate way to let people know you have money and aren't backing down. 

Don't think it's collusion though, just ineffective and possibly douchey. 
2/2/2013 4:45 PM
The thing is, the do have the chance to win the battle if you don't spend your money on that guy.  What you are saying is you want to sign him because you have the money but you don't want to have to use it on him in case there's another player you also want to sign.  We would all like to recruit like that.

2/2/2013 5:11 PM
I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Certainly a dick move, but I think it's fine from a morality/ethics standpoint. What some idiot says shouldn't affect your recruiting strategy.
2/2/2013 6:15 PM
I received a sitemail telling me that the other coach would back off one recruit if i backed off another one that we were both going after.  I ignored the email and intently went after both of them.  Lost the 1 recruit that he wanted, and signed the other.  The guy I signed ended up being a 2 time national player of the year in D1 at a low level school.  I laugh at the fact that he went after the other guy.
2/2/2013 6:23 PM
Now that would have been collusion, had you agreed, of course.
2/2/2013 10:21 PM
Posted by isack24 on 2/2/2013 6:23:00 PM (view original):
Now that would have been collusion, had you agreed, of course.
its cheating to send that sitemail in the first place, too. the whole "collusion requires 2 people" thing is true, from an english/gramatical standpoint. but CS is really lose with what they call collusion, they effectively use collusion to mean cheating, through collusion, attempted collusion, psuedo collusion, or anything else. if you reported the guy who said, ill back off on player X, you back off on player Y, he gets in trouble for collusion regardless of the fact that the recipient didnt agree.

now, im not saying it should have been reported, ive gotten a ton and not reported them, i just feel bad... for some reason. really dont know why. i almost always respond explaining that i cant get involved, that its not allowed, sort of operating under the assumption that the other coach doesnt know better, hoping my response puts them on the straight and narrow. but im sure ive been burned by coaches who collude, having extra money to fight me, so it always leaves me conflicted...
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
2/2/2013 10:49 PM
Posted by Lizak on 2/2/2013 4:45:00 PM (view original):
The thing is, the do have the chance to win the battle if you don't spend your money on that guy.  What you are saying is you want to sign him because you have the money but you don't want to have to use it on him in case there's another player you also want to sign.  We would all like to recruit like that.

Well yeah. By getting into a battle with someone with more money, they're obviously banking on me not making that player a priority. When somebody does that and I have enough money to run them into the ground, I usually send a bunch of effort at once to send the message that I'll battle to the wire for the player, in hopes that they back off. If they don't back off, I keep on spending and get the guy but have to settle for cheaper options elsewhere. But I'd obviously like to not have to battle and save that money. And the person who loses would surely like to have not spent all that money. Which is why I've considered sending a message telling them I have more money and am prepared to use it. It would save both of us a lot. But I haven't done it because, as evidenced by this thread, it's more likely to **** them off (or look like a bluff) than actually help either of us. 

But it still sucks when you're forced to blow half your recruiting budget because somebody continues fighting a losing battle to the bitter end. 
2/2/2013 10:50 PM
Posted by coach_billyg on 2/2/2013 10:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by isack24 on 2/2/2013 6:23:00 PM (view original):
Now that would have been collusion, had you agreed, of course.
its cheating to send that sitemail in the first place, too. the whole "collusion requires 2 people" thing is true, from an english/gramatical standpoint. but CS is really lose with what they call collusion, they effectively use collusion to mean cheating, through collusion, attempted collusion, psuedo collusion, or anything else. if you reported the guy who said, ill back off on player X, you back off on player Y, he gets in trouble for collusion regardless of the fact that the recipient didnt agree.

now, im not saying it should have been reported, ive gotten a ton and not reported them, i just feel bad... for some reason. really dont know why. i almost always respond explaining that i cant get involved, that its not allowed, sort of operating under the assumption that the other coach doesnt know better, hoping my response puts them on the straight and narrow. but im sure ive been burned by coaches who collude, having extra money to fight me, so it always leaves me conflicted...
I'm absolutely, 100% certain that I've had coaches pair up to collude against me.  Called both of them out on our Coaches Corner after recruiting was over for the season.  Total silence on their ends.  Within three seasons, both of them had not only left the conference, but had left the world entirely.  Coincidence?  Maybe, but I don't think so.

It absolutely happens and the sad thing is, there's really not a whole helluva lot you can do about it.  Even if you went the "ticket to CS" route (which I'll never do, I don't like to tell on people), good luck getting them to answer any time sensitive ticket in the first place and even better luck getting them to actually DO something about the issue before recruiting ends.  Truth is, you're basically hit.
2/3/2013 12:16 AM
I think it is pretty clear to almost all what WIS would consider collusion and what they wouldn't consider collusion. I think there is an ethics also involved outside the rules. It's a game I am playing with friends and I get no enjoyment out of being a dick or playing games just to try to win. Sorry, this game means more to me than just winning titles. That is where personal ethics come into play and we all have different personal ethics we live by and play this game by.
 
 For instance, in all my D3 years I have never jumped a recruit already considering another team. D2 and D3, yea, but never at D3. Now, if I happen to be recruiting a guy during the same cycle as another coach and we get into a battle, that's another story. There are too many good recruits if you are willing to do the work, and right now too many SIMs teams, so less competition. There is also too little recruiting money in D3. In my opinion there is no reason to start battles. With that being said, every once in a while a coach will jump a recruit considering me. I don't like it and think it is totally unnecessary. And in the future, if they have done it to me I won't hesitate to return the favor if the recruit considering them is high on my list. But I don't "target" that other coach or his recruits. But not all coaches feel the same way as I do, and that is fine. It is within the rules. That is just part of my personal ethics for the game
 
So I always try to remember that some coaches play by different rules than I do, some are dicks, some will do anything to try to win, but most are great guys and good friends. After 7+ years of playing this game I have seen many great coaches win a ton of titles. None of them have to be dicks or play outside the rules. If someone is a dick, it is their problem, not mine.
2/3/2013 12:58 AM
Posted by coach_billyg on 2/2/2013 10:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by isack24 on 2/2/2013 6:23:00 PM (view original):
Now that would have been collusion, had you agreed, of course.
its cheating to send that sitemail in the first place, too. the whole "collusion requires 2 people" thing is true, from an english/gramatical standpoint. but CS is really lose with what they call collusion, they effectively use collusion to mean cheating, through collusion, attempted collusion, psuedo collusion, or anything else. if you reported the guy who said, ill back off on player X, you back off on player Y, he gets in trouble for collusion regardless of the fact that the recipient didnt agree.

now, im not saying it should have been reported, ive gotten a ton and not reported them, i just feel bad... for some reason. really dont know why. i almost always respond explaining that i cant get involved, that its not allowed, sort of operating under the assumption that the other coach doesnt know better, hoping my response puts them on the straight and narrow. but im sure ive been burned by coaches who collude, having extra money to fight me, so it always leaves me conflicted...
I don't think it is. I agree that CS's definition is loose, but it's still not collusion. I know, I know, WIS says talking about recruits during recruiting is a violation. But that's just BS. We should be allowed to talk so long as we aren't sharing non-available-to-all info.

It's attempted intimidation. Even if the guy backed off, it doesn't constitute an agreement to back off. It just means that the person evaluated the situation and determined they wouldn't win. 

Even WIS's definition of collusion requires some sort of an agreement. That would never happen here. Your example in the last sentence of the first paragraph is distinguishable because it's seeking an agreement. Telling someone to quit recruiting because they can't win isn't.

Like I said, dick move, but I don't see anything ethically wrong with it for the game's perspective. I don't know, maybe it's "cheating" by WIS's standards, but it shouldn't be, in my opinion.
of 4

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.