2/3/2013 1:03 AM
Posted by colonels19 on 2/1/2013 10:29:00 PM (view original):
Guy's a total dickbag...what a bullying *****.

takes one to know one, dickbag that is.

2/3/2013 9:45 AM
I think what some of you miss it the point that ANY communication between coaches during recruiting can easily lead to inappropriate discussions.  It's just too tempting to make a small comment once the messages have been started.  What prevents most of us from falling into the trap is that we don't put ourselves into the situation where we can be tempted.  I think that's true of most people in most situations.
2/3/2013 9:50 AM
I never send sitemails to a coach I am recruiting against during the recruiting process ... not sure why one would need to do that. As Lizak said, it is too easy to say something that could, under the right circumstances, be considered as providing an advntage that others do not know about.
2/3/2013 10:24 AM
Yea I never send site mail to others during recruiting (heck rarely send any sitemail other than a congrats when eliminated from the NT). If I got a site mail like OP did, I would check to see what advantages he may have in the recruiting of the player (# schollies, distance, how many he is recruiting, prestige, his needs) and make my decision from there. Actually it would have no effect other than alert me that he was willing (allegedly) to battle for the player. Kinda be an advantage to me and based on the other considerations, I might assume or not, that he might send that to all people who are recruiting the same players he is.
2/4/2013 5:03 AM
Posted by commish118 on 2/3/2013 12:17:00 AM (view original):
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.
So if you get on a recruit's considering list after say, the first cycle of recruiting, and another coach gets on the same recruit's considering list after the third cycle, you're saying that the other coach is a "dick" for showing up on the kid's list after you were already there? 
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
2/4/2013 11:55 AM
commish - i happen to disagree. i think part of the game is protecting guys and not overextending yourself during recruiting. I've gone after recruits both in and out of conference late in recruiting if it was part of my strategy for the year. 

As for the OP - i don't think it's collusion unless he pointed out another guy for you to go after or something like that, but it is a mean thing to do.

as for sitemails, i really only sitemail a couple of coaches to talk strategy. but i try to never specifically mention recruits that i have not already signed. 
2/4/2013 2:22 PM
Posted by coachgunnar on 2/3/2013 1:03:00 AM (view original):
Posted by colonels19 on 2/1/2013 10:29:00 PM (view original):
Guy's a total dickbag...what a bullying *****.

takes one to know one, dickbag that is.

Awesome second grade insult.
2/4/2013 9:38 PM (edited)
No, you guys have me wrong.  I don't think a coach is a dick if he jumps on a recruit considering me.  I just persoanlly don't do it to another coach at D3.  D2 and D1, yes, but not D3.  Just my own personal ethics.  I figure if a recuit is high on my list I will jump on him early.  If he ends up considering someone else first, I move on.  There are way too many good recruits at D3 and not as many human coaches to compete with. To me it isn't worth wasting my money and another coach's money. 7 years ago when I started I would get mad if a coach jumped me.  I still don't like it because I don't think it is necessary, but it's part of the game and I accept that.  And I accept that everyone plays a little different.  I'm good with that. 

My point was: I'm much more laid back now and it takes a lot for another coach to get me mad.  But we are all different and the SM mentioned hits coaches different ways and upsets some more than others. That is because there are HD rules, general ethics that almost all of us play by, and personal ethics like me not jumping a recruit considering another team.  I am certainly not saying that others shouldn't do it.  I just don't. I only mentioned it as an example. The SM that was sent wasn't collusion, but it was in bad taste.  But it really wouldn't bother me in the least. But I understand how it would bother others.
2/4/2013 9:43 PM
Posted by coachgunnar on 2/3/2013 1:03:00 AM (view original):
Posted by colonels19 on 2/1/2013 10:29:00 PM (view original):
Guy's a total dickbag...what a bullying *****.

takes one to know one, dickbag that is.

Lol, and you are?...
2/4/2013 11:05 PM
Posted by commish118 on 2/4/2013 9:38:00 PM (view original):
No, you guys have me wrong.  I don't think a coach is a dick if he jumps on a recruit considering me.  I just persoanlly don't do it to another coach at D3.  D2 and D1, yes, but not D3.  Just my own personal ethics.  I figure if a recuit is high on my list I will jump on him early.  If he ends up considering someone else first, I move on.  There are way too many good recruits at D3 and not as many human coaches to compete with. To me it isn't worth wasting my money and another coach's money. 7 years ago when I started I would get mad if a coach jumped me.  I still don't like it because I don't think it is necessary, but it's part of the game and I accept that.  And I accept that everyone plays a little different.  I'm good with that. 

My point was: I'm much more laid back now and it takes a lot for another coach to get me mad.  But we are all different and the SM mentioned hits coaches different ways and upsets some more than others. That is because there are HD rules, general ethics that almost all of us play by, and personal ethics like me not jumping a recruit considering another team.  I am certainly not saying that others shouldn't do it.  I just don't. I only mentioned it as an example. The SM that was sent wasn't collusion, but it was in bad taste.  But it really wouldn't bother me in the least. But I understand how it would bother others.
You need to try out better D3 worlds. Not THAT much elite talent to go around.
2/5/2013 1:09 AM
WIS Altered the Fair Play Guidelines to prohibit and punish such sitemails (presumably what's below as I don't recall this being there before):

  • Attempting to persuade another user to participate in a collusive effort (only the initiator would be at fault unless agreed upon by other user)
2/5/2013 2:14 AM
Posted by colonels19 on 2/4/2013 9:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by coachgunnar on 2/3/2013 1:03:00 AM (view original):
Posted by colonels19 on 2/1/2013 10:29:00 PM (view original):
Guy's a total dickbag...what a bullying *****.

takes one to know one, dickbag that is.

Lol, and you are?...
Why Trev, you don't know?  Who you're dealing with is the infamous Fredpaull himself.  Coachgunnar is just one of his many alternate ID's.  Yep Trev, you've been pimp slapped by the biggest (fill in with your own choice of descriptive words, phrases, or pictures) that HD has to offer.
2/5/2013 10:01 AM
Posted by taltos on 2/5/2013 1:09:00 AM (view original):
WIS Altered the Fair Play Guidelines to prohibit and punish such sitemails (presumably what's below as I don't recall this being there before):

  • Attempting to persuade another user to participate in a collusive effort (only the initiator would be at fault unless agreed upon by other user)
But what's collusive about it?

He's not saying "let's make an agreement," he's saying "you're going to lose, so stop trying."

It's attempted intimidation, not attempted collusion.
2/5/2013 10:27 AM
WIS tends to use fair play and collusion together, with meanings that are not exactly what they would be as a matter of criminal law.

In this case, it is attempted collusion since if the recipient of the email did stop because of the communication they would be acting in concert as a result of that communication.  They each would - could - be saving $ as a result of the message and their "agreement" based on the message
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.